Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-29-2016_ZA_Minutes NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 09/29/2016 REVISED NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach Corona del Mar Conference Room (Bay E-1st Floor) Thursday, September 29, 2016 REGULAR HEARING 3:30 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER—The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. Staff Present: Patrick J.Alford, Zoning Administrator Jim Campbell, Principal Planner Melinda Whelan,Assistant Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner B. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES C. MINUTES of September 15, 2016 Action: Approved D. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 Our Lady Queen of Angels Comprehensive Sign Program No. CS2016-008 and Modification Permit No. MD2016-010 (PA2016-111) Site Location: 2046 and 2100 Mar Vista Drive Council District 4 Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the sign program would allow installation of three new monument signs, a wall sign, and retention of an existing wall sign. The Modification Permit is required to allow signs to exceed the maximum square footage and length allowed by the Code. The City Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposed signs and determined the signs did not prohibit sight distance at entrances. Staff could make required findings for the additional sign sizes and recommends approval. The Zoning Administrator inquired regarding illumination of the scoreboard and the ball field. Scott Barnard of Barnard Ventures and Father Kerry Beaulieu were present. Mr. Barnard advised that the scoreboard was illuminated only during games; the scoreboard did not provide video; and the ball field was not illuminated. The Zoning Administration proposed changing Condition 6 to read "all illuminated signs shall be illuminated in accordance with the vision of Section 20.42.060.1-1 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code"to reflect that there is one illuminated sign. Any other illuminated signs would also have to comply. Scott Barnard of Barnard Ventures, on behalf of the owner, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all the required conditions and the Zoning Administrator's revision. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke and stated that Exhibit B should read dedication plaques rather than dedication plagues. The size of the wall and the amount of text should not justify the size of the sign, especially when a Modification Permit was required. Ms. Whelan explained staffs rationale for finding hardships that justify the Modification Permit. The Zoning Administrator added that the findings refer to unique physical characteristics of the property and practical difficulties rather than hardship. Page 1 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 09/29/2016 Mr. Barnard commented that the school is a collection of buildings. Calculations based on only the hall and gymnasium would result in a 270-square-foot sign rather than the proposed 120-square-foot sign. Rather than placing signs on all buildings, the applicant proposed the one sign at the front entrance. The sign text on Domingo Drive probably is smaller; however, Domingo Drive was a much smaller and narrower street with slower-moving traffic. The purpose of the proposed sign is to distinguish the church from the other buildings and to provide times of services. The proposed size of the text is slightly less than the City's minimum size. There were no other public comments. Action: Approved ITEM NO.2 Newport Beach Country Club Annual Development Agreement Review No. DA2010-005(PA2016-094) Site Location: 2 Clubhouse Drive(formerly 1600 East Coast Highway) Council District 5 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the Development Agreement was approved in 2012 along with all land use entitlements for construction of a clubhouse up to 56,000 square feet in size. Construction began in 2014 and just recently completed. Development review covers the period from 2014 to date. The applicant submitted public benefit fees in accordance with the Development Agreement. Staff finds that the applicant complied with the terms of the Development Agreement. Remaining unbuilt entitlements permitted by the Development Agreement is approximately 278 square feet. The applicant wishes the remaining intensity to remain available for future development consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement, which would result in annual reviews of the Development Agreement. Applicant Shawna Schaffner of CAA Planning, on behalf of the owner, noted the staff report suggests the remaining square footage would not be vested and no additional reviews would be required. However, the applicant wished to retain the vested rights and to continue monitoring consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement. The Zoning Administrator commented on the remaining 278 square feet. Ms. Ung stated that it is part of the General Plan entitlement allowance and contained in the Development Agreement. Ms. Schaffner advised that the General Plan Amendment approved in 2012 requested 56,000 square feet. In addition, that was the amount recognized in the Development Agreement. The Zoning Administrator inquired regarding the term of the Development Agreement, to which Ms. Schaffner responded 10 years. The Zoning Administrator asked if this is the first review, to which Ms. Ung replied yes. The Zoning Administrator inquired about a scenario for use of the 278 square feet. Ms. Schaffner reported the applicant wished to retain the square footage should an addition be needed in the near future. The Zoning Administrator asked if the remaining square footage could be utilized for a minor building structure. Ms. Ung replied yes, for construction of any addition requiring a building permit and meets the definition of the General Plan allocation allowance. Ms. Schaffner could envision an additional office space being constructed within the existing building footprint that would count as square footage. There could be some additional refinement to development opportunities, within the existing footprint. The Zoning Administrator Opened the public hearing. Page 2 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 09/29/2016 One member of the public, Jim Mosher, commented on the Development Agreement process for the golf clubhouse, prior staff approvals of minor project changes, changes made to building architectural and frontage road, and the Development Agreement review authority Ms. Ung advised that staff approvals for changes are allowed by the Planning Director in accordance with the site development review pertained to the golf club site. Change in architecture is not a condition of approval but within the applicant's or the operator's discretion. The Zoning Administrator clarified that the item is for informational purposes and not subject to good faith compliance with the Development Agreement. Substantial conformance findings through staff approval are sent to the Planning Commission and City Council, who have the ability to review the decision if there is a concern. Ms. Ung indicated the item was provided to the Planning Commission and the City Council within the 14-day appeal period. The Planning Commission desired the frontage road; however, it was not a requirement. Many detail elements were discussed but were not tied to the Development Agreement, the conditions of approval, or the terms of the Development Agreement. Jim Campbell, Principal Planner, added that the Planned Community text contains specific provisions that give discretion to the Director regarding changing the site plan, reconfiguring the parking lot, and changing the architectural style. The Zoning Administrator requested the reason for this being the first review. Ms. Ung stated for a period of time the applicant worked with Coastal Commission staff for project approval including minor changes made in 2014 such that staff could not prepare a meaningful report for the annual review. The Development Agreement contains a stipulation that receipt of Coastal Commission approval triggers the annual review. Ms. Ung agreed that the Development Agreement stated the reviewing body is the City Council. In 2013, reviews were delegated to the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator clarified that the adoption of the ordinance in 2013 granted authority to the Zoning Administrator to review previously approved Development Agreements. Ms. Schaffner advised that staff summarized the issues well. There were no other public comments. Zoning Administrator found that the annual review is exempt from CEQA and determined Newport Beach Country Club is in good faith compliance with terms of the Development Agreement. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 3 Annual Review of Development Agreement for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2009-064) Site Location: 1 Hoag Drive Council District 2 Jim Campbell, Principal Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the Development Agreement was signed in 1994 and allowed for expansion of the hospital. Several projects had been constructed in the past. In the last year, remodeling of the interior had occurred, but no demonstrable construction. In anticipation of an April hearing, the applicant submitted a report regarding compliance with the Development Agreement. The hearing was delayed in order to obtain a complete noise analysis. Noise from the cogeneration facility at the lower campus and from the central plant is causing issues for adjacent residential communities. A 2007 amendment to the Development Agreement requires annual noise compliance monitoring. Testing in the prior year at the cogeneration facility indicated a 2 decibel violation of the nighttime standard for interior noise. Hoag agreed to operate the facility at a level to comply with interior and exterior noise standards. Residents suggest the noise level at the third floor of one unit was not properly measured. Page 3 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 09/29/2016 Staff feels that the plant is being operated in compliance and wants a follow-up noise test at the third level of the building in closest proximity to cogeneration facility in the next review. Noise testing at the central plant shows a 6 decibel violation. Hoag identified a means to reduce noise by 1-2 decibels and hired a new industrial engineer to identify additional mitigation measures. In staffs opinion, Hoag is operating in good faith to address the issues. In prior years, Hoag had issues with landscaping not filling in. The biggest landscaping improvement occurred at the lower campus area behind the ATP building. Plantings along the bluff are improving. Hoag had determined the correct tree for planting at the parking lot. Hoag installed a planter box and additional plants at the cogeneration building. The green wall was improving. Residents suggest Hoag has not done enough with landscaping. The staff report notes an issue with the cogeneration weather plume. Hoag continues to operate the facility in concert with a weather station to reduce the plume as much as possible. Staff feels Hoag is operating in good faith compliance with the Development Agreement, but acknowledge noise and landscaping issues need to be resolved. Staff plans to continue to monitor issues and to work with Hoag over the next year. Staff recommends the Zoning Administrator find Hoag in good faith compliance. Applicant Sanford Smith, Senior Vice President of Hoag Memorial Hospital, on behalf of the owner, stated that he had reviewed the staff report and is available for questions. The Zoning Administrator noted Hoag's spotty success in meeting requirements. He requested the applicant comment. Mr. Smith advised Hoag had invested significant amounts of money in attempts to improve landscaping. Hoag was struggling to balance the community's expectations with its obligations under the Development Agreement. Hoag Hospital received notification that it was exceeding its water usage. The amount of solar exposure and a high salt environment were problems for the green screen. He did not believe artificial plants, as previously discussed, were a solution. Over the past year, Hoag invested fairly significantly in the area behind the ATP building. That area seems to be thriving. With respect to the cogeneration plant, Hoag meets the sound requirements. Gaining access to adjacent properties for noise testing was challenging. Sound testing proves Hoag is in compliance with the Development Agreement at the cogeneration plant. There was a misperception that Hoag was trying to prove it could exceed sound levels. Under normal operating conditions, Hoag would not operate all equipment at all times; however, Hoag Hospital could not state it would never operate all equipment at all times. The Zoning Administrator requested an explanation of how controls would work. Mr. Campbell clarified that the potential to violate was not a daytime issue because the standard is considerably higher during the day. The issue is nighttime when ambient noise drops below plant noise, typically between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. The Zoning Administrator inquired about the cogeneration plant operations. Erik Lidecis Plant Manager for Hoag Hospital explained that the cogeneration facility contains three engines that generate electricity. In trying to cool the hospital, equipment generates a large heat load. Fan speed varies based on temperature. Digital controllers operate fans based on thresholds. During the day, the thresholds are raised slightly to reduce noise. During night hours, one fan ceases operation at 7:00 p.m. and the speeds of the remaining fans slow. During noise tests, all equipment is running. In order to run fans at full speed, an operator would have to override digital controls. Coralee Newman, Hoag Hospital consultant, advised that Hoag's letter, submitted September 1, 2016, commits to the operation explained by Mr. Lidecis between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Mr. Campbell added that the letter talks about the potential need to operate at a higher capacity for maintenance. He requested Mr. Lidecis describe the times that could occur and events that could trigger the need to run at a higher capacity. Mr. Lidecis reported the loss of chillers at the central plant would require operating the cogeneration facility at full capacity to offset the loss at the central plant. The same was true for an outage at the cogeneration facility. The need to run at full power could occur during scheduled Page 4 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 09/29/2016 maintenance, when one chiller was down for maintenance and another malfunctioned. Routine maintenance was scheduled during the winter months. It is not efficient to run chillers constantly. Mr. Campbell asked for a scenario where the cogeneration facility would need to run at full capacity during the night. Mr. Lidecis advised that an extreme heat wave, maintenance or a significant event could trigger the need to run at full capacity. Mr. Campbell requested notice of such events with expected duration. Mr. Lidecis agreed to provide maintenance schedules. Mr. Campbell requested notice if the central plant would be operated above the agreed 80 percent capacity. Mr. Lidecis explained that the central plant is operated differently from the cogeneration facility and is run hard for better efficiency. Hoag made improvements throughout the central plant to reduce noise. Hot and dry weather is better for the operation of the central plant. He would attempt to run the central plant at 80 percent capacity at night regardless of maintenance conditions. Mr. Smith noted Hoag had undertaken other mitigations for the central plant. Roxanna Bryant, Facilities Executive Director of Hoag Hospital, indicated Hoag had engaged an engineering firm to assess the types of equipment that may be generating noise. Hoag was completing installation of acoustical panels, which are expected to abate noise. Hoag is investing in other options for the cooling tower specifically. The Zoning Administrator requested a timeline for when improvements would be operational. Ms. Bryant stated it depends on receipt of the acoustical engineer's report. She anticipates improvements could begin within 90 days of receiving an initial report. Hoag was installing acoustical panels in the area where they believe most noise originates. Mr. Smith added that Hoag is working diligently to reach compliance. The Zoning Administrator inquired whether Hoag would need to comply with the City's noise ordinance regardless of the Development Agreement, to which Mr. Campbell responded absolutely. The Zoning Administrator understood the standards are not unique to Hoag or to the Development Agreement. Without the Development Agreement, Hoag is subject to notices of violation and citations if it does not comply with the ordinance. Mr. Campbell added that, unlike the ordinance, the Development Agreement requires an annual noise compliance monitoring report. The Zoning Administrator asked if monitoring would be based on complaints. Mr. Campbell replied yes. With or without a Development Agreement, these controls would be in place. The Development Agreement expires in 2019. Staffs goal is to get Hoag in compliance as soon as possible and to continue operating in compliance past the expiration of Development Agreement. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Dick Runyon of Villa Balboa, spoke and stated that his comments are not meant to denigrate Hoag Hospital's services. The range of issues is narrower than previously, but they should have been addressed by 2010. The Zoning Administrator in 2015 requested a solution for the green wall be determined prior to the April 2016 review. Regarding challenges with scheduling noise tests, residents were responsible for only two delays. Planters at the green wall are too small to cover 4,000 square feet of wall. He did not consider that a good faith effort. Increasing the size of one planter is not a creative solution. Representatives of the Villa Balboa Homeowners Association meet regularly with representatives of Hoag Hospital. In April 2016,the representatives viewed the green wall and did not believe the improvement would cover the wall. Hoag representatives suggested a mural be painted on the wall or plants be supplemented with artificial plants. Residents suggested more planters with more soil be placed at the wall. Plants at the southern portion and the very northern portion of the wall do not grow. One member of the public, Eric Thurnher Villa Balboa, spoke and stated that his comments address noise from the cogeneration plant. Noise is an issue throughout the day and night. Mitigation measures should have been made when the plant was built. Residents appreciated Hoag's efforts; however, their efforts were not sufficient and did not result in compliance with the Development Agreement. He suggested the normal Page 5 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 09/29/2016 operation of fans be defined to determine the maximum fan speed for compliance. Testing in 2016 was not complete in that the balcony level of Unit 314 was not tested. This location is closest to the plant. Before determining whether the protocol is effective, they need the test results for this location. Residents propose a continuous monitoring system. Hoag indicated there could be times when noise exceeds standards; however, the Code does not allow exceptions. A possible resolution is to combine a refined operational protocol with physical mitigation measures. Physical mitigation measures can be inexpensive and permanent. Until this type of system is in place, residents do not feel Hoag is in full compliance with the Development Agreement. One member of the public, Patricia Schuler of Versailles Condominiums, spoke and stated that she is impacted by noise from the central plant. Hoag is making efforts to mitigate noise. Residents appreciate Hoag employees and their efforts. Being outside or opening windows is not pleasant because of the noise from the facility. The Zoning Administrator inquired whether there is any type of noise consultant program for the cogeneration facility. Ms. Bryant advised the consultant would assess the central plant as well as the cogeneration plant. The Zoning Administrator requested a timeframe. Mr. Smith advised the assessment pertained to the hospital as a whole, both the upper and lower campus. The mechanical and acoustical engineering firm would provide a fresh perspective of operations with a view to acoustic mitigation. The Zoning Administrator asked if Hoag has an alternative plan for the green wall. Mr. Smith indicated a flower vine was planted rather than ivy. A significant portion of the area under the vine contains mechanical equipment, and no plants can be placed above the mechanical equipment. Therefore, a planter was placed around equipment. Ms. Bryant added that the soil was modified to retain moisture longer. Mr. Smith advised that Hoag is committed to working with neighbors and to working in good faith to mitigate issues. He appreciated neighbors' concerns. With respect to continuous monitoring, Hoag does not want to do that because of other ambient noise. The Zoning Administrator referred to the letter from Villa Balboa requesting a finding that Hoag was not in full good faith compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement or alternatively the Zoning Administrator continue the hearing for 90 days. Mr. Smith did not believe substantive changes could occur in 90 days. Ms. Schuler stated Hoag suggested noise would be analyzed in 90 days. Ms. Bryant clarified that they would receive the initial report in 90 days. Ms. Schuler suggested another meeting in 90 days to review the assessment. Mr. Runyon advised that residents would be open to using an ivy-type plant blended with a flowering plant and an additional planter. There were no other public comments. The Zoning Administrator stated the record contains ample evidence that Hoag is making a good faith effort to comply, but the results were mixed. He indicated the applicant should work with Villa Balboa to develop a strategy for the wall screen such that results are evident prior to April 2017. He also wanted to see progress on a comprehensive noise mitigation program for both facilities. In 90 days, the applicant should submit a report to staff on its efforts. Mr. Smith was unsure what demonstrable growth would occur on the green wall in 90 days. Hoag could plant ivy as a supplement. Mr. Campbell indicated the report should demonstrate actions taken and provide preliminary reports. Mr. Smith concurred. Mr. Campbell suggested use of a different flowering vine, one more suitable for site conditions. Zoning Administrator found that the annual review is exempt from CEQA and determined Hoag Hospital is in good faith compliance with terms of the Development Agreement. Action: Approved Page 6 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 09/29/2016 E. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke and stated that the Newport Center Development Agreement is overdue. The Newport Beach Country Club has a second Development Agreement which has not been reviewed. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, advised that the Newport Country Club has not received a Coastal Development Permit to date. Mr. Mosher noted the Planning Commission would deliberate on an extension for the Newport Coast Annexation Development Agreement. The last review occurred in February 2015. F. ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 5:06 p.m. The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on September 23, 2016, at 2:30 p.m. p.m. in the Chambers binder and on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on September 23, 2016, at 2:40 p.m. Patrick J. Alford, Zoning Administrator Page 7 of 7