Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/2008Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission March 20, 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 18 file: //Y: \USers\PLN\5hared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn03202008.htm 07/15/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren - Il Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Ian Bums, Esquire of Harper & Bums LLP June Ailin, Esquire of Aleshire and Wynder Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Hawkins recognized members of an Environmental Law Practice class from Chapman University who were in attendance. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on March 14, 2008. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of February 21, 2008. ITEM NO. 1 Attorney Burns recommended this item be continued as there have been Continued to suggested changes to the transcripts 04/03/2008 Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Cole to continue this item to the next meeting of April 3, 2008. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None ITEM NO. 2 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of March 6 2008. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Peotter to approve this item as corrected. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None bstain: Cole • x x file: //Y: \USers\PLN\5hared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 2 of 18 3JECT: Fury Rok & Rol Sushi Lounge (PA2005 -087 ITEM NO. 3 4221 Dolphin Striker Way PA2005 -057 ate on the revocation of Use Permit No. 3162 and Use Permit No. 2005 -018. Hearing set for 05/08/2008 with an update to be given Lepo noted Ms. June Ailin who will be representing the City on this matter. 04/17/2008 irman Hawkins asked if the Planning Commission could withdraw thei rral of this matter to the Hearing Officer. Burns answered yes, they could re -start the process; however, he would )mmend it. June Ailin of Aleshire and Wynder noted she will be representing the City ,ecutor on the potential revocation of the use permits for Fury. Due to i ig and scheduling, this hearing has been re- scheduled to April 15, 2008 10 a.m. and if needed, it will be continued to April 18, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. S !d there have been consultations about the procedures to be used for 1 -ina. but no evidence has been taken to date. imissioner McDaniel noted his concern that this matter had not been now it is continued again. He asked when this will be heard by the PI imissioner for determination. Ailin answered that assuming the Hearing Officer concludes the hearing 1 18, 2008, he will need time to render his decision and make Jamieson, representing Fury, noted the hearing did start on March 5, 2008. opined as to why there were no additional meetings scheduled until April 11 if needed, April 18, 2008. Tom Allen, Hearing Officer for this matter, noted if the hearing could icluded by April 18, that would give him adequate time to write ommendation for consideration on May 8, 2008. Noting the confli( damental vested right to be revoked and constitutional protections that m given to both sides, he will do his best to meet that obligation. At Commiss uiry, he noted that no witnesses were heard on March 5, 2008 and seve )ediments that had to be dispensed. April 3, 2008 is the date for all the bri be presented and will be determined in advance of the scheduled April Ailin, at Commission inquiry, noted she does not have first -hand knowledge if e have been calls for service by the police at Fury since the new security ipany had taken over. :ion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner )aniel to receive and file. nmissioner Toerge asked if there was a way to create a back -stop with this d of delays and postponements. Or, if for whatever reason the hearing does commence on the 15th and doesn't take place on the 18th, can we hear it on 17th? Burns noted you could, but once you get into the hearings you would need the process conclude. If people do not cooperate you could bring it back file : //Y:1Users\PLNlShared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Commission for a determination. Hawkins noted we could fix May 8, 2008 as the return date for Burns noted the Commission did instruct that the hearings start by and conclude by a certain date. You could direct a return date. mmissioner Toerge asked about noticing requirements. He wanted the know the specific dates for completed materials to be submitted to staff. Burns noted you have already given all the appropriate notice. The only this process is who makes the determination. The hearing is in process erybody has been given notice about this hearing. ibstitute Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge that if the Head ficer's written report is to be completed by May 1, 2008 and in the hands iff to allow enough time to be placed in the agenda packet for delivery on M 2008 then the Commission will hear this May 8, 2008. Lepo noted staff would need time to give a ten -day notice in the local pal April 23 for the May 8, 2008 hearing. Burns noted the public hearing notice has already been given. All you ha do is to direct the date you want this heard. >. Ailin suggested noticing the hearing for May 8, 2008, just to be on the s: le so that noticing is not going to be an issue. 1. Jamieson noted once he is done with his aspect of the issues, he would de Mr. Allen for his determination and agrees to the suggested dates. Allen noted the dates in April and will endeavor to move the hearing along s best of his ability. He will get his recommendation to staff by May 1, 2008. Lepo noted he would get the materials out as soon as possible when they < jived by staff. He noted materials need to be received by April 30, 2008 latest. Allen agreed as long as the hearing is concluded by April 18, 2008. Toerge noted the Commission will hear this matter on May Ailin noted she is not available May 8, 2008. ian Hawkins noted if this item is not heard on May 8, 2008 then it will May 22, 2008. He noted his concern about getting this matter resolved Ailin agreed to May 22, 2008. nmissioner Toerge reiterated his substitute motion that was seconded b), nmissioner Eaton that the Hearing Officer is to get his report in to staff by Apri 2008. If it is not brought in, the Commission will hear this matter on May 8 Page 3 of 18 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 4 of 18 2008. If it does come in, it will be placed on the agenda in the normal course o business, the Commission will consider it with the recommendation. Mr. Lepo noted we will do a public notice for May 8, 2008 and will have all the documents by April 30, 2008 and will distribute that information for a decision. I he materials are not received by the end of business on April 30, 2008 the hearing will still proceed on May 8, 2008. Mr. Bums, at Commission inquiry, noted the City's prosecutor for this item does of need to be at the Planning Commission hearing. At that time the ecommendation of the Hearing Officer will be determined by the Commission. ommission Hillgren noted we still have not heard from the police as to their cceptance of the security and we need confirmation on this matter by the next meeting. Mr. Lepo will make a report on this item. Commissioner Toerge amended his substitute motion to include a status report on the security plan at the next Planning Commission hearing. The second accepted this change. Chairman Hawkins noted the hearings will commence and wants to hear it as soon as possible and cannot support the motion due to the timeline. Ayes: Eaton, McDaniel, Toerge Noes: Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, and Hillgren Motion was denied. Commissioner Peotter revised his original motion to receive and file to include an update at the hearing on April 17, 2008; the report needs to be in by April 0,2008 for action to be taken May 8, 2008. If there is no resolution, we will hear it on May 22,2008. The revised motion was seconded by Commissioner McDaniel. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None xzs SUBJECT: Pavilions Wine Tasting (PA2007 -243) ITEM NO. 4 21181 Newport Coast Dr PA2007 -243 Request for a use permit for an on -sale wine tasting bar and area with a Type 42 Item not heard due On -Sale Beer & Wine Public Premise alcoholic beverage license. to noticing error Mr. Lepo noted that due to the applicants not providing a complete mailing list that this item is not to be heard tonight and will have to be set for another hearing or proper noticing. Chairman Hawkins noted that with a noticing problem, it is impossible to open the public hearing. Mr. Lepo suggested this item be heard on April 17, 2008. Motion was made to receive and file. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None file:HY: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 5 of 18 JECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2007 -073) Pg2007-073 One Hoag Drive inued hearing rom March 6, 2008, for a request to reallocate u to 225,00 Recommended for g q p approval to City a square feet of permitted buildable area from the Lower Campus to the Council :r Campus through the approval of the proposed General Plan and Planned munity Development Plan Amendments. Applicant also requests approval of idments to development regulations contained within the existing Planned munity Development Plan, also known as the Hoag Master Plan or the P The changes principally relate to the allocation and limit of permitted ing area between the Upper and Lower Campus, noise regulations, - caping requirements and sign standards. Lastly, applicant requests an idment of the existing Development Agreement to reflect the changes to the er Plan as summarized above and to provide additional public benefit ipally in the form of providing funds for improvements and communityl cts to public facilities such as streets, parks, water quality and public safet . Campbell gave an overview of the staff report. He referenced the prepara responses to additional written comments received at the prior meetings; alysis of the proposed soundwall has been prepared by Bonterra Consult volutions have been included recommending certification of the SEIR )jest approval, including revised draft PC text language; and, he noted that 3eneration facility is not part of this application and will be addressed by y Council as part of their Development Agreement compliance revi Never, the city has had Fluor Enterprises review the cogeneration facility :pare a report that was transmitted to the Commission due to the pu Brest that surrounds the facility. The report discusses the three plur nerated by the facility and possible options for abatement and further study. nmissioner Eaton asked about: the mitigation monitoring and enforceme the lack of a reference to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program draft resolution; parking rate sources; parking requirements for support use e mitigation, balcony barriers and timing issues; cogeneration facility bei a part of the project but could be addressed through a recommendation r the Development Agreement. 1. Campbell indicated that a section can be added to the resolutions erence compliance and implementation of the mitigation monitoring a )orting program. Additionally he gave a summary of the sources of the existi d proposed parking rates and indicated that the footnote source for several parking rates in Table 2 of the Planned Community text need to be correch e correct source was identified and discussed. In regards to the propos rking rate for support uses, he went on to note that in the parking analy: rking for support uses was included in the parking rates for other uses. Parki ;ilities will be maintained as currently situated as it would be unwise to suggi A the existing conference center (a support use) would not need the parki pply currently devoted to it and that the modified parking rates should apl m this day forward for future approvals and that should be noted as a footn( Table 2 as well. He noted that the balcony barriers are part of the proposal a e addresses noted in PDF 3.4 -1 are the correct units provided that 1 undwall is constructed and should the soundwall not be approved, additioi s would be added. �MIr. Harp noted that the negotiations of the Development Agreement amendment fare being handled by Mayor Selich and Councilmember Rosansky. The Planning file: / /Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn03202008.htrn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 could make recommendations to the City Council regarding facility that would be addressed through the Developr hairman Hawkins noted the resolution for the SEIR needs to include a refere the earlier EIR on which the supplemental document is based, )generation facility is a problem for the residences and is not part of location of square footage; and, noted his concern of an annual review witl performance standard for problems related to the cogeneration facility. Lepo noted the information for the costs of various options for the plumes available to the City Council for their deliberation. Hawkins added this issue has not been fully analyzed. airman Hawkins noted staffs recommendation to address the cogeners ility as part of the Council's annual compliance review of the Developn reement (DA) and Hoag's performance pursuant to the DA. Campbell answered that was correct ian Hawkins noted that some performance standard in connection abatement could be recommended through the Development Agreer lgested a change to the PC text regarding deliveries such that deliv not occur after 8PM as opposed to be not being scheduled. Aed adding a recital indicating Commission review and revise the s to recommendations. ary McKitterick, representing Hoag Hospital, gave an overview of past hearint - ognized the work done by all those affiliated with the project, the planni acess, landscaping, utility project, noise issues and mitigation measures su the soundwall design and location to the end of 260 Cagney Lane, 65 decibr a commercial level and requests that for their daytime levels, and 55 decib) night, staging areas in the lower campus with trailers and will continue aging areas in the future. He continued by noting the Development Agreeme part of the package and Hoag will be paying three million dollars to the city rich part of that is designated for specific items with the balance to be used iblic benefit as the city chooses. The project is important for the communit ie cogeneration facility provides electricity and cooling for the hospital. T 3thane from Balboa Cove comes into this facility. He noted that there is �alth risk associated with the cogeneration facility and that any modifications system have to be custom - built; referenced the costs and the Sys innessy memorandum as well as the Fluor Report. He asked that t iplication be recommended for adoption to the City Council. Commission inquiry, he answered that Hoag has agreed to extend posed sound wall further to the north by 105 feet in length and it will be 14 d Greve of Mestre Greve, noted the 14 ft high wall was to provide no uction from vehicle noise at the request of the neighbors. The length of I was proposed to be to the end of 260 Cagney Lane. r Privitt of Bonterra Consulting noted that the analysis of the soundwall in report that would become part of the Final EIR, indicates that the wall will t in a significant impact. The overall sound wall has been determined Page 6 of 18 file: / /Y: \Users \PLN \Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 ult in a less than significant impact and therefore the SEIR does not need re- circulated. The extended wall is not covered in the analysis, but she not t she has walked the site many times and the wall is a result of additior and attenuation along West Hoag Drive as requested by the nearby neighbc I it was her opinion that the extension would not create a significant impact. ommendation of approval to the City Council would include a modifi, dysis of the wall to include the extension. Hawkins asked about the vegetation along the proposed Privitt answered that the vegetation of the whole length is in most cases is 1 20 feet and in some cases higher. The vegetation exceeds the height of th foot extension. Campbell referencing an exhibit noted the wall extension and the dense vegetation. Raben of Raben Urban Landscape Architects, noted the tree vegetation in a is about 25 feet high and taller than the proposed soundwall. Campbell then explained the revisions to Mitigation Measure PDF 3.4 -1 tl Id include the balcony barriers, units with cedar siding potentially havi itional sound insulation. Copies were made available to the public. comment was opened. J. Gehlke - noted the concern that this is an on -going issue of expansion on ited amount of real estate. She suggested that it could be feasible for tl spital to expand at other real estate elsewhere in the community. dy Kaiser - noted her concern about the cogeneration facility and agreed should be performance standards included in the Development Agreen that an annual review should be mandatory. She then discussed the I wst and her concern with the vapor to be consistently analyzed for safety. and Banks - noted the noise has gotten worse over the years; suggested should be 18 feet high and continue that height to the end of the propc extension to half -way to the tennis courts due to the traffic noise. ette Warner - noted her concern with the cogeneration facility and plun ig Hospital does not follow- through with their promises; her view is destrc he plumes; Hoag should fix the problem with the plumes regardless of as this was promised to the neighbors some time ago. She then asked v happen on the lower campus and if there was going to be parking? rothy Holmes - presented a view from her condominium and that the wall ugly and hopes there are trees placed in front of it. Hacker - noise will come up and over the wall and it will be very hot with glas on the balconies; window awnings could be advantageous; sounch not help her at all; new construction during the proposed build -out will loud. nnie Justice - noted the wall will end in the middle of her living room and the units should be entitled to the window upgrades and the Plexiglas on Page 7 of 18 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn03202008.htrn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 (conies as they are on the same level as the 3rd level of 280 Cagney and major traffic on the road. Kaiser - noted the plumes is the main problem and Hoag should not red to move forward until this plume problem is addressed, now is ortunity to force Hoag Hospital to do something about it. Ribaudo - noted his concern with the emissions and that the AQMD based on three internal combustion engines. With the three prc onal engines will only increase the emissions. Will there be more e d at a future date? Webber - noted she had to move her home office to another place )rt Beach due to the noise and dust from the trucks going in and out Hospital. She stated that pollution is increasing and their quality of life compromised. It is time for Hoag to expand to other campuses and the I be a limit to the hospital expansion at this site. :y Smith - presented a picture to the Planning Commission that was from he my at night of the light on the plumes and lights from the children's center. e lights need to be reduced. The new foliage needs to be older trees so tha will be more effective in hiding the soundwall. ly Chen - noted that the Commission should require all the noise abatem es; noise levels will only increase with the additional tower as well as c; Hoag is now only working with the neighbors because it wants someth i the City, the neighbors have been asking for relief from years; the requ g asked of Hoag is that they meet the mandates of the Developm lament; she asked that Hoag not be allowed to build a parking structure lower campus; nor should it be allowed to seek to re- assign the assigr ire footage into the lower campus; existing mandates must be reviewed pliance and issues between the residents and Hoag need to be address to allowing any further development; and, recommends Hoag replace on the cogeneration facility. is Thumher - Co- Chairman of the Villa Balboa Hoag liaison committee thank ambers of the Commission and staff for the public forum that has been ve )ductive to get information out into the public. The cogeneration facility w ver disclosed nor were the plumes. There was no supplemental EIR reps Spared as was required by the Development Agreement. There was no visr pact analysis done for the plumes because the Planning Department a rastal Commission did not know there were going to be plumes. There ha an no public meetings or council oversight of the cogeneration facility ev )ugh it is required by the Development Agreement. There is a speci 3ndate about what would happen to views. Residents have been told ferent occasions that there would be no plumes, both verbally and in writin, rag should . be held to their word. There is legitimate reason for t generation facility and is recognized by the neighbors. We are asking th ery possible mitigation measure be taken to make the facility livable for t mmunity. He requested that the Planning Commission include in its vote :ommendation to the City Council that they address the issue of t generation facility as part of the Hoag application as it seems the only even get this problem fixed. teen Taber of Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus, Petersen and Peckenpa presenting the Villa Balboa Homeowners' Association, noted she had submi letter summarizing her remarks. She noted the cogen facility is included in Page 8 of 18 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 IR stating that there is going to be three additional internal combust lines to be added as a result of this overall project. Additionally, the Mitigai nitoring plan refers to the cogeneration facility in 3.4.9 that says upon tallation of the fourth cooling tower at the cogen facility. The analysis in dy report by Fluor has not been analyzed and not circulated with )endices. The noise mitigation has been qualified with unreasonable restrai :h as the narrow scope of units, an imposition of $100,000 as a limit with oessment as to what the real costs will be, residents are being given I eks to notify Hoag they want this mitigation. You have heard from idents that they are not opposed to the project, what they are asking for is t CEQA law be complied with and Hoag Hospital be a good neighbor. comment was closed. nmissioner Eaton noted the benefit and value of Hoag Hospital to the nmunity. There will be a third major tower on the upper campus due to transfe square footage. It is important that the regulations in the Developmen •eement be adhered. He concluded that we should recommend to the Cit1 mcil that some provision be made in the Development Agreement for some gation of the plumes from the cogeneration facility that were not mitigated. SEIR has been analyzed by members of the association and responses tc nments have been made and included in the record. The noise level of 55 dE mot be achieved without the soundwall. The original request to increase tha IB to 58dB at night is not warranted as the 55 dB already exceeds the City': se Ordinance. He supports the soundwall with the modifications and askec I Hoag consider working with the residents to look at the very restrictive asures such as the timing and the monetary limit. More work needs to be is on the tasks contained in the Fluor report as the recommendations were t they couldn't make recommendations particularly on the exhaust system. should also recommend to Council that they deal with both plumes in the velopment Agreement. McDaniel asked about the location and extension of Greve answered the higher the soundwall, the more noise mitigation The 181/2 foot height is needed to protect the first floor of the 260 Cac ing from loading dock noise. Where it was proposed to stop was all that ad to protect the 260 building from the loading dock. Continuing dwall further would reduce traffic noise on Hoag Road and at 14 feet w de protection from truck noise. He sees no reason from an acous )active to go to 18 112 feet high. The extension of the wall is valid as ants on the end of the 260 building would still be exposed to some n the roadway if it stopped at the end end of the building. However, to go I to the tennis courts may be a bit excessive. Referencing an exhibit in EIR, he noted the distance would be approximately 150 feet from the n of the building to the tennis courts. nmissioner McDaniel noted the issue of the balcony barriers is an individ iers prerogative. The issue of the foliage, what size tree will be used ace any foliage that is disturbed during the process? He also asked ab lighting. Rabin noted some trees will be affected by the new wall; however, there ar ting large trees beyond Hoag property adjacent to the 260 building that wi ain. We have not analyzed the specific condition of that area because thi aestion for extending the wall came up very recently. We intend to keep th Page 9 of 18 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn03202008.htrn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 II as close to West Hoag Road as possible; and, we will plan to keep as the existing trees as possible while mitigating the sound. We plan to u: d 60" boxed trees to provide a more natural appearance on what is rry Brooks with Hoag, answered that the lights in the lower campus are be 3nged to high pressure sodium, which is a lower light level and will prov )re of a quieter glow. We are adding awnings to mask the lights on the cl re center. These lights will be shut off around 8:45 p.m. by a timer and go 5:30 a.m. ff added that all the lights on the child care center are required to be shield, stated in the Planned Community text. There is a photometric study for tl king lot lighting. There will be a security key for the light on the service road cogeneration facility, so it will only be on when it is needed. The revis, sting plans to change the lights will be reviewed using this photometric study. asioner Toerge asked about the number of units that are to be improved noise. What about the dollar amount, can this be changed? Campbell answered it is twelve units. The initial estimate of $100,000 9d on a different scope of work without some added features and a la fiber of units and the number is probably not a good number. However, looking at other solutions that may provide better noise reductions where upgrades might not be necessary thereby reducing costs and as we e information we might make adjustments to the measure. imissioner Toerge added that there should be no dollar limitation. At is that the work has to be done regardless of the cost. The City has tutted the annual review and this has caused problems for the residents Id have gone a long way to deal with the lighting, cogeneration facility, isity issues. The current approval only allows Hoag to move alre •oved square footage to an upper campus. The City Council will deal with elopment Agreement. He supports the extension of the wall and n( ing concerns need to be addressed, concern about the cogeneration fac that he supports the reallocation of the square footage. aioner Hillgren noted this is a reallocation of square footage to the and his belief that it is appropriate. He is hopes for a resolution lighting and landscaping. ion was made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Iter to adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council certify the plemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH #1991071003) and adopt eral Plan Amendment No. 2007 -005, Planned Community Development Plar mdment No. 2007 -001, and Development Agreement Amendment No. 2007• with the following changes: the $100,000 limitation on the physical improvements in PDF 3.4 -1 removed, the work needs to be done regardless of the costs involved; . a relaxation on the timing of the residents to accept the proposed measures such as the balcony and window replacements; include a recommendation that the City Council consider whatever feasible on the cogeneration facility to deal with the plume issue; Page 10 of 18 file: / /Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 11 of 18 the soundwall to be extended to the end of the 260 Cagney building a that it be extended further north toward the tennis courts based upon determination that it would be of benefit. mmissioner Toerge noted that as part of the annual review of the Developm reement the cogeneration plan needs to be considered for plume mitigat !asures and the feasibility. On the timing issue of two weeks, that is to sl > weeks after the Council approves this project which could be a month re from tonight. The residents need to get on board now and create a list. McKitterick noted: . $100,000 was actually $8,000 a unit and based on prior scope of work. suggested that the amount be determined with a bid by the City and h to be reconciled as the cap. He accepted a timing of 30 days notice to be coordinated by association on acceptance of the mitigation measure on windows balconies. He would like to see a benefit to extending the wall further than the feet and is concerned with the adjacent property of Versailles. He ag to an extension but would like to see a benefit opinion. Hawkins suggested Mestre Greve give an opinion on the benefit of extension to be agreed to by Hoag. Greve added that he could look at a reasonable extension that would efit to the residences at the and without protecting the tennis courts. Hillgren agreed. nissioner Peoffer clarified the proposed amendment is to change the to 45 days and change the $100,000 amount to be determined by Hawkins added with the input of the applicant. Lepo asked for clarification on City estimate. Who is going to do this? d his preference would be that Hoag obtain the estimates. ) mmissioner McDaniel suggested Hoag get the estimates and consult with be sure that everything will work. ssioner Peotter noted we will change this to an estimate by Hoag with f The wall is to be extended 105 feet with an additional extension to ined by Mestre Greve. > mmissioner Eaton clarified that it was the intent of the motion to include the ference to the mitigation monitoring program and the resolution certifying the R. ) mmissioner Hiligren agreed. straw vote was taken on the proposed amendments to the motion - unanimous file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 12 of 18 commissioner Peotter noted additional items to be included in the motion: . Hours of operation - deliveries shall not be allowed before 7:00 a.m. or 8:00 p.m. daily. . Discussed adding the term of life critical as there is another dock that is available. McKitterick noted that the loading dock is the central space for deliveries icine or certain needs. The current dock is not used very often at night and s a major accident or disaster. Adding the term life makes it ambiguous. Hawkins asked what is non - critical for Hoag. Ir. McKitterick answered scheduled deliveries not after 8 p.m. and not before 7 .m. Everything that is a standard delivery for the hospital. Critical would be a eliver of medicine or medical supplies. ra Legan of Hoag Hospital stated that within the last six months they have not ned the loading dock gate after 8:00 p.m. What Hoag would like to have is opportunity, if there is a need for supplies during an emergency, to bring e in through the loading dock if needed after 8 p.m. nmissioner McDaniel stated this should not be an issue. If the hospital has a cal need for these supplies for an emergency, they should be allowed to open loading dock gate at any time. ier Peotter stated he is satisfied with the spirit of the intent. He the definition of mechanical occupancies not being counted for as area. Campbell answered that this definition in this PC text is not a typical provision is tailored for Hoag Hospital. The definition was changes when the Women's Ilion was permitted as there is an entire floor that is not occupied. The >osed PC text change does not significantly alter definition from what was roved in 2002 by the City Council. irman Hawkins noted his disagreement as there is a numerical limitation in old language. This section could be used to build a whole new cogeneration ity and not go against the floor area ratio. ngston Trigg, Vice President of Hoag, noted this definition is directed towards > interstitial space in the tower such as the Woman's Pavilion. Typically, a lot those spaces are less than 8 feet tall, but ours are taller than 8 feet so we nted this language in so that we could exempt the interstitial space. continued on changing the language to '....area of a building which are not for general or routine occupancy and interstitial it occupancies. Trigg agreed. He added that they have space that is taller than 8 feet that is ling but equipment in existing buildings and there is likely to be additional ces in the future similar to them. Mr. Campbell noted this is a concern as it could be interpreted incorrectly. He l noted his concern about eliminating the 8 feet in that existing building areas that file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 presently counted toward entitlement could be exempted from the ition and would not be counted and this is not the intent of the change mmended that no change be made to the language. As an alternative, i include a provision that this new definition would only apply to truction so it would not be applicable to anything that is existing. Trigg noted the 8 foot height limit was set up when the equipment was ill in buildings; however, we now deal with 2,000 square feet of area to N much larger equipment. I. Campbell noted the definition with 8 feet was modified in 2002 and ated to the Woman's Pavilion. He suggested not to apply this newer lai existing buildings. Trigg agreed to language that would not allow retroactive application. imissioner Peotter noted he is trying to make this consistent with the e: B. An eight -foot interstitial space in the middle of a floor is like a large i . If not, that space is 20 feet tall and it is not a penthouse, typically you as floor area. Trigg added that the industry standard would include closets, mechan :es, interstitial spaces, penthouses and basement kinds of spaces that spied exclusively by equipment. They should not be counted as floor area. Legan suggested that the exception from floor area for interstitial d apply only to "medical buildings." Lepo noted that after 8 feet you are going to have to count it. If it is going more like 20 feet interstitial space. I understand the need to try )mmodate everyone, but this is not wise. He suggested to revert back to t nal language with no changes. missioner Hillgren noted this is just the concept of where they are mechanical equipment, it is not increasing the EIR load. Hawkins noted that as proposed, this could be used to establ generation facility on the lower campus to be entirely devoted I equipment with no size limitation. I don't see that is Hoag's intent. missioner Peotter noted this affects the mass of the building. an Hawkins asked if the height envelope included mechar nances or equipment. Mr. Campbell answered, yes; nothing could the established building height limitations as defined in the Plan mity regulations. vote taken regarding the interstitial space exception for floor area: Commissioner Hillgren suggested adding the concept of "medical" buildings to the definition. Commissioner Toerge suggested going with staffs recommendation to stay with the old language. Commissioner McDaniel answered it is a hospital and needs what it Page 13 of 18 file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \nm03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 14 of 18 needs. As long as the height level or floor area does not change he agrees with the proposed language. Commissioner Cole agrees with staff recommendation. Commissioner Peotter agrees with staff recommendation. Commissioner Eaton agreed with the "medical" limitation. Chairman Hawkins noted he would go with staffs recommendation but would make it 10 feet rather than 8 feet. the Commissioners agreed with staffs recommendation with a change from t to 10 feet. Trigg noted the reality is that they have equipment now that is in spaces up -20 feet tall. Hawkins noted City Council can look at Mr. Trigg's concern. Hawkins suggested that the PC regulations for permitted uses power generation as a support facility be limited to to existing buildings. In McKitterick asked not to add this as the hospital has been here for ma ears and will be for many more to come. Future development will have to be ie lower campus as it relates to support services that may include down the ro nother central plant of some type, There is no plan now, but it could be in 5 0 years. He stated that if we don't have the use we would have to come back mend the use permit simply to build it. rirman Hawkins asked what sort of environmental review would go forward have the square footage and the permitted use? It seems you could avc environmental review for another facility . McKitterick answered that Section 3.3 of the Development Agreer dresses subsequent CEQA analysis. We don't want to be penalized. luested that the Chairman's suggested modification not be placed in pport services. irman Hawkins noted there could be a paragraph in the planned as well for a cross - reference. Campbell suggested putting some language into Section 4 or Section 5 of tl text related to Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement would work and ild be applicable to any subsequent approval. Harp read Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement, "Hoag acknowledl at the EIR is a program EIR that includes Supplemental Environmental Imp -port #142. The EIR analyzes the impacts of construction based overtime, irsuant to CEQA the City is under a continuing obligation to analyze Hoa quest for project specific approvals to insure the environmental imps sociated with the request are fully addressed in the EIR. Subsequ vironmental documentation is required if this analysis reveals environmei pacts not fully addressed in the program EIR, identifies new impacts, ncludes the specific request is not consistent with the project described in R. Hoag acknowledges the right and obligation of the City and the Coa: file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\tnn03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 )mmission or its successor agency to impose additional conditions as a the subsequent environmental analysis required by CEQA." McKitterick noted his agreement to include this as a separate paragraph development regulations near the end of that section. man Hawkins clarified that there was no support to limiting pow ration to existing buildings. With the changes discussed earlier in t utions for typos and insertion of the earlier EIR reports into the recitals a insertion of Mitigation Monitoring Program in the resolution on the El J if there were any other items. )mmissioner Peotter re- stated the motion to adopt resolutions recomm, iy Council certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 9910710031 and adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2007 -005, PI )mmunity Development Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001, and Develc Ireement Amendment No. 2007 -001 with the following changes: • Staff recommendations including the hand out (PDF 3.4 -1 as amended); • the $100,000 limitation on the physical improvements is removed and be based on estimates secured by Hoag subject to City review; • a relaxation on the timing of the residents to accept the proposed mitigati measures such as the balcony and window replacement from 14 days 45 days; • hours of operation - deliveries shall not be allowed before 7:00 a.m. or 8:00 p.m. daily; . the soundwall to be extended at least 105 feet north to building 260 and additional amount as determined by Mestre Greve if necessary; • revert back to the original language regarding mechanical interstitial with the change of 8 feet to 10 feet; • insert paragraph 3.3 of the proposed Development Agreement as part Section V of the PC text; • fix typographical errors in resolutions; . insert the earlier 1992 EIR in the recitals of that resolution; . insert a reference to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan into the resolution; • insert the changes to the Table 2 changing the citation for the parking handwritten page 51. McKitterick noted the 10 -foot limit in the definition of floor area is a we can address this at the City Council hearing. Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and None None Page 15 of 18 file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nln03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 16 of 18 file :HY:1UserslPLNlSharedlPlanning Commission\PC Minutes\mn03202008.htrn 07/15/2008 Recommend City Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter to recommend to City Council in Council include heir annual review of the Development Agreement for Hoag that they consider plume abatement lume abatement and recommends Option Number 3A and the City Council be during their rovided with more accurate cost data before they make their decision. deliberation of amending the Mr. Harp clarified if this was part of the annual review or as part of their Development onsideration of the amendment to the Development Agreement? Agreement. Commissioner Peotter answered we had talked about it being part of their annual review but would change it to be part of the consideration of the recommendation to amend the Development Agreement. Commissioner Eaton seconded the Motion. Commissioner Toerge noted so long as it doesn't limit it to just Option 3, they hould be able to consider the whole report and do what they want to do. He is not prepared to judge which option is best. ommissioner Peotter clarified that option was a synopsis of a 50% review and is in the 2 -5 million dollar range as far as the estimate at this point. He commended this as specific adding the Council needs better cost data. Commissioner McDaniel noted he does not support the motion. This issue will come up at the Council anyway. Commissioner Hillgren noted he does not support this as there is no way to come up with any quantitative estimate based upon what we've heard. Chairman Hawkins suggested an amendment to the motion that the City Council include with their discussions and decisions to amend the Development Agreement some sort of effective plume abatement. Commissioner Peotter agreed to the amend the motion based upon the dialogue. Commissioner Peotter then modified the Motion such that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council consider implementing effective plume abatement for the Hoag cogeneration facility during the Council' consideration of the amendment of the Development Agreement. Commissioner McDaniel noted his belief that we are recommending that the City Council study this further. Chairman Hawkins indicated yes. Commissioner Eaton indicated his understanding of the motion goes beyond recommending further study in that we are recommending that effective mitigation be implemented. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, and Toerge Noes: McDaniel and Hillgren x x x ITEM NO. 6 PA2007 -100 SUBJECT: Seashore Village (PA2007 -100) 5515 River Ave file :HY:1UserslPLNlSharedlPlanning Commission\PC Minutes\mn03202008.htrn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 17 of 18 Use Permit for building height exemption; Modification Permit for setbacks and Continued to building separation; Tentative Tract Map established for condominium purposes; 04/03/2008 Coastal Residential Development Plan for compliance with CA Government Cod Section 65590 and Chapter 20.86 of the City's Municipal Code; and Mitigated Negative Declaration (WIND). r. Lepo noted that staff had just received a lengthy set of comments on ND for this project. We had agreed to accommodate the applicant to place �m on this agenda with the proviso that if comments were received and staff >t have time to respond to it, we would have to continue this item. Staff has rd the opportunity to review these comments and so requests this item mtinued to April 3, 2008. the request of the Chairman, Ms. Lennie DeCaro referenced her letter sent Planning Department regarding improper noticing. She noted she preferr it this item be continued. airman Hawkins noted that staff has made a recommendation to open lic hearing and continue this item to a date certain. The project applicant present. missioner Toerge noted that only one member of the public testified on and that was to request that this item be continued. iissioner McDaniel noted the absence of the project applicant and this item should be continued to. Lepo recommended this item be continued to April 3, 2008, as the not present, with the option to continue this to April 17, 2008. )n was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Com to continue this item to April 3, 2008. rman Hawkins noted he had an ex parte communication with the appli discussed the project. He noted his opposition to continuing this item =d to open the hearing and begin the hearing and, if needed, continue Hawkins UBJECT: Sejour (PA2002 -167) PA2002 -167 3400 Via Lido Continue to evocation of use permits for an off -site alcoholic beverage outlet with accesso 04/17/2008 rsite alcohol consumption, food service and live entertainment. Lepo noted that the property owner had requested that this item be contir April 3, 2008. Staff has no recommendation on this request. He noted %sence of outside attorneys representing the City for this item. City Attorney Harp recused himself from this portion of the meeting. �ftorney Alan Bums noted he is serving as counsel to the Planning Commission n this matter. He noted the email continuance request as they claim they did not get noticed on this matter. However, he stated that in the file packet tha file : / /Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\nm03202008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 18 of 18 includes the January materials where the determination to go forward at this hearing, there was a letter from them asking that this hearing be set in March. The staff packet has not changed for this hearing. He reported that the Commission gave them what they had asked for, which was to continue the matter to this month. ssioner Eaton noted that if the applicant is willing to keep the then we could continue this matter and discuss it. Hawkins asked if the permittee was present. Bums noted that it should be clarified both the permittee and and property owner, the Overstreets. n Hawkins then asked if anybody was present who had interest No one responded. m was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissi to continue this matter to April 17, 2008, as the facility is closed and no senting the permittee is present. tissioner Toerge noted the permittee had asked for a continuance ago and now we get a letter from an attorney today that was ret 'day. He is not prepared to continue this item. Hawkins, McDaniel and Toerge BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up. None. b. Planning Commission Reports. Chairman Hawkins reported on the Economic Development Committee. C. Announcements on matters that Commission members would like pi on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report. Commissioner Peotter asked to have discussion on the minutes, other Commission business on the agenda of April 3, 2008. ADJOURNMENT: 10:45 P.M. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: / /Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning COmmission\PC Minutes \mn03202008.htm 07/15/2008