Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/1991COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: December 5, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL Ill Jill I INDEX All Commissioners were present. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney x x x William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager • Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of November 21, 1991: Minutes of 11/21/9 Commissioner Pomeroy requested that page 6 of the November 21, 1991, Planning Commission minutes, be amended to state Commissioner Pomeroy suggested a finding that would not allow tourists to purchase beer and wine at service stations as they are leaving the City. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the amended November Ayes * * * * 21, 1991, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain x x x Public Comments: Public Coments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. COMMISSIONERS odAo `Pf� dd�•� December 5, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Posting of the Agenda: posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Wednesday, November 27, 1991, in front of City Hall. Planning Commission Review No. 13 _(Discussion) Item No.1 Request to review the installation of a roof mounted weather vane PcR No .13 which exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 3, Tract No. 2984, located at 2103 Bayside Drive, on the southwesterly side of Bayside Drive, below the Irvine Terrace residential • area. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Marvick - Lang Inc., Costa Mesa OWNER: Mr. Inoue, Newport Beach Mr. John Marvick, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". He requested that 4 inches be added to the height of the weather vane for installation purposes. William Laycock, stated that staff would not object to the requested 4 inch addition. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Planning Commission All Ayes Review No. 13 subject to the findings and condition in Exhibit "A ". The maker of the motion agreed with Commissioner Pomeroy's suggestion that the 28 inch high weather vane at the peak of the cupola be increased to 32 inches as previously requested by the applicant. MOTION CARRIED. Findinim. . 1. That the proposed weather vane is a minor architectural feature of an open nature which will not obstruct any views 2 COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX from Bayside Drive or from surrounding residential properties. 2. That the installation of the proposed weather vane is in keeping with the residential character and architectural style of the area. 3. The approval of the proposed weather vane will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Condition: 1. That the installation of the proposed weather vane (32 inches in height) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, elevation and specifications. Use Permit No 3432 (Continued Public Hearing) item No.2 Request to permit alterations to an existing nonconforming triplex UP3432 which provides only three parking spaces where five parking spaces Approved are required, on property located in the R -2 District. The primary alteration includes the enclosure of an existing three car carport which will result in a three car garage that is only 23 feet 2 inches in width (inside clear dimension) where the Zoning Code requires a minimum 27 feet width for a three car garage with no separating walls. The proposal also includes the construction of a second floor deck and the expansion of second floor bedrooms. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the construction of a second floor greenhouse window which encroaches 1 foot 4± inches into the required three side yard setbac . LOCATION: Lot 8, Block 113, Tract No. 234, located at 1328 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northerly side of West Balboa Boulevard, between 13th Street and 14th Street, on the Balboa • Peninsula. ZONE: R -2 -3- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX APPLICANT: James H. Hodges, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the original plans that the applicant submitted indicated that the subject lot was 30 feet wide, and the lot is actually 30.75 feet wide. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. James Hodges, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Hodges addressed Exhibit "B" in the staff report, and he expressed his concerns regarding staffs request to relocate the second floor support post and garage side wall by 10 inches inasmuch as it would not be aesthetically pleasing, and was concerned about the recommended 5 foot setback from the alley right -of -way. He explained that the conditions in Exhibit "B" (incorporates the Public Works Department recommendations, • limits the garden window encroachment and increased size of parking spaces) could be a financial hardship. Mr. Hodges and Commissioner Debay discussed the applicant's request to construct a three car garage that is 23 feet 2 inches in width. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that staff is concerned that posts are provided on each side of the garage spaces, creating very narrow openings. The proposed plan would require that the automobiles be lined up with the garage spaces before entering the garage inasmuch as only 6 inches would be provided on each side of the doorways. Staffs request to provide an additional 10 inch width and a 5 foot rear yard setback, would allow more maneuverability from the alley. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the combination of the 5 foot • rear yard setback and the 10 inch wider garage requirement that would alter the structure, would be an 'over -kill' for the applicant. -4- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL A I III I INDEX Motion Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3432 subject to the findings in Exhibit "C" on the basis that 7 foot wide doors are not adequate, and minimum standards were created by the City so garages would be used and not used for storage purposes. Commissioner Debay did not support the motion to deny the application on the basis that if the Planning Commission supported Exhibit "B ", and the applicant did not agree with the required conditions, Exhibit "C' would be automatic. Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3432 Motion subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'B inasmuch as it is a reasonable compromise. Substitute substitute motion was made to approve Exhibit 'B" with Substitute substitute the exception that Condition No. 10 be deleted. The motion would Motion maintain a 5 foot setback from the alley for maneuverability, but would not require the expensive alteration by moving the posts. • Commissioner Edwards suggested that Condition No. 10 be modified to state That the existing three parking spaces shall be maintained on -site. The maker of the motion concurred with the foregoing suggestion. Mr. Hodges reappeared before the Planning Commission, and he agreed to comply with the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'B", as amended. Commissioner Gross supported the substitute substitute motion based on the applicant's compliance of Exhibit "B" as modified. Ayes * * * Substitute substitute motion was voted on to approve Exhibit "B" Noes * as modified. MOTION CARRIED. 1. That the existing density is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Plan; but is legal nonconforming with the current underlying Zoning District; and the Municipal Code allows the application to be considered under Section 20.83.020 Intensification and Enlargement of -5- December 5, 1991 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 0 q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Nonconforming Uses, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the proposed construction will not increase the parking demand on the property. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the proposed application is not an intensification of the existing, nonconforming residential structure, and as such, approval of Use Permit No. 3432 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. The proposed modification to the Zoning Code to allow a second floor garden window is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code and will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed construction shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the three car garage shall be accessible to the parking of vehicles at all times. One garage space shall be maintained for each dwelling unit. -6- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991 MINUTES o 0 \�*e\N �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed addition 4. That the second floor garden window encroachment as proposed shall be limited to a maximum of 1 foot into the required 3 foot side yard setback. 5. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That the displaced sections of sidewalk be reconstructed along the West Balboa Boulevard frontage under an • encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 8. That the proposed garage shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the alley right -of -way in order to provide adequate maneuvering for vehicles entering and leaving the narrow garage. The second floor may maintain the permitted 2 foot 6 inch setback adjacent to the alley, provided that there is a minimum ground clearance of 8 feet. 9. That a site survey of the property shall be performed by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer to locate the property corners and that the final location of the new construction be accurately depicted on the plans issued for building permits to the satisfaction of the Building Department and the Planning Department. 10. That the existing three parking spaces shall be maintained on -site. • 11. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -7- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX Use Permit No. 3434 (Public Hearino item No.3 Request to permit the construction of a second dwelling unit UP3434 (Granny Unit) on property located in the R -1 District in Approved accordance with Chapter 20.78 of the Municipal Code, that permits a second dwelling unit if said residence is intended for one or two persons who are 60 years of age or over. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 30, First Addition to Newport Heights, located at 3130 Clay Street, on the northeasterly corner of Westminster Avenue and Clay Street, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 • APPLICANT: Anthony K Ellsworth, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Anthony Ellsworth, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of Condition No. 6, requesting that a sidewalk be constructed along the Westminster Avenue frontage. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that Westminster Avenue was designated by the City Council as a Significant Link Street, indicating that sidewalks shall be constructed when a permit is issued for a Westminster Avenue project. Mr. Ellsworth stated that the Granny Unit will be occupied by an elderly woman who has been a friend of the family for many years. He presented two neighbors' letters in support of the project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Ellsworth replied that he was aware that he would be required to provide annual information regarding the occupancy of the Granny Unit. In by Commissioner Glover, Mr. response to questions posed Ellsworth stated that he would reside on the subject property. He COMMISSIONERS 0 �0 �L December 5, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX explained that the intent of the second dwelling unit was always tended to be a Granny Unit. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the Planning Commission developed the Granny Unit Ordinance so as to be in full mpliance with the State Law. Two Granny Units that were ecently approved by the Planning Commission were denied by the ity Council. ere being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public Baring was closed at this time. Motion * otion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3434 subject to the dings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. Commissioner Debay xpressed her support of Granny Units. She addressed concerns hat have been previously expressed by residents that Granny Units mould not be used by persons who are 60 years of age or over, but s second units for rental income, and she referred to the • onstraints that have been placed on Granny Units. Commissioner ebay referred to a letter addressed to the Planning Commission igned by a concerned R -1 property owner wherein she explained hat the unidentified individual would not receive a copy of the ranny Unit Ordinance in response to the stated concerns because he letter was signed anonymously. airman Di Sano supported the motion based on the foregoing statements. Ayes * * otion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. No lnd s: That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project will not have a significant environmental impact.. That the design of the development or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. -9- COMMISSIONERS 0 1 0 \(�) v `` December 5, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3434 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That the on -site parking be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That a 15 foot radius comer cutoff at the comer of Clay Street and Westminster Avenue be dedicated to the public. 6. That a sidewalk be constructed along the Westminster Avenue frontage (a Significant Link highway) with a curb access ramp. constructed at the comer of Westminster Avenue and Clay Street. That a concrete approach be constructed connecting the new parking space with the alley. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. That the second dwelling unit shall be limited to the use of one or two persons over the age of 60 years. -10- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 8. That the applicant shall record a Covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and successors in interest in perpetuity so as to limit the occupancy of the second dwelling unit to one or two adults 60 years of age or over, and committing the permittee and successors to comply with current ordinances regarding Granny Units. Said covenant shall also contain all conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission or the City Council. 9. Commencing with the final inspection of the Granny Unit by a City Building Inspector and on an annual basis every year thereafter, the property owner shall submit to the Planning Director the names and birth dates of any and all occupants of the Granny Unit constructed pursuant to this approval to verify occupancy by a person or persons 60 years of age or older. Upon any change of tenants, the property owner shall notify the City immediately. This information shall be submitted in writing and contain a statement signed by the property owner certifying under penalty of perjury that all of the information is true and correct. 10. That the primary residence or the Granny Unit shall be continuously occupied by at least one person having an ownership interest in the property. 11. That one of the covered parldng spaces shall be for the exclusive use of the proposed Granny Unit. 12. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Amendment No. 747 Hearing) Item No .4 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code A747 so as to establish specific nonconforming provisions for residential (Res 1279) structures and uses within the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. Approved INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach -11- COMMISSIONERS December S, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the subject Amendment is a follow -up request received for a General Plan Amendment for the Towers Apartments on West Coast Highway in Mariner's Mile. The Amendment to Section 20.62.030(B)7 of the Municipal Code has subsequently been modified to require that modifications to the building would not impact any public view, and if individual property owners wanted to enclose balconies they could, but they could not create an additional dwelling unit within the existing dwelling units. Commissioner Glover supported the foregoing modification on the basis there would not be an impact on the existing Specific Area Plan for Mariner's Mile. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Hewicker explained that the Towers condominiums are the only residential units in Mariner's Mile, and on that basis the Amendment would only apply to the Towers condominiums. Commissioner Gross concurred with Commissioner Glover's foregoing comments. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and there being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public bearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1279, All Ayes recommending the approval of Amendment No. 747 to the .City Council. MOTION CARRIED. Traffic No 76 Hearing) Item No.5 Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction Ts No.76 of a 3,982± square foot retail commercial building; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND -12- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES \ `x,00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX B. Site Plan Review No. 61 (Public Hearing) srx No. 61 Request to permit the construction of a 3,982± square foot Approved commercial building on property located in the C -1 District in the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area, where a specific plan has not yet been adopted. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 52-40 (Resubdivision No. 387), located at 3636 East Coast Highway, on the northwesterly corner of Poinsettia Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: The Burgess Co., Newport Beach • OWNER: Dillon Cox, El Cajon The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bruce Arita, 858 Production Place, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" in the staff report with the exception of Condition No. 12, requiring the overhead utilities be undergrounded. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the requirement was inadvertently omitted from Site Plan Review No. 42 when the application was approved by the Planning Commission at the March 19, 1987, public hearing. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Traffic Study No. 76 and Site Plan All Ayes Review No. 61 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. • -13- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: Findings: 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. • 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. MMGATTON MEA E• 1. That prior to the issuance of arty building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. That the plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. -14- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991, MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX B. TRAFFIC STUDY: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major; 'primary- modified; or 'primary' street after the opening of Newport Coast Drive as listed in the traffic study. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated • traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on three of the four study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the fourth intersection, at the intersection of Poppy Avenue and East Coast Highway. indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90 can be obtained, with the opening of Newport Coast Drive. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 61: Findings: 1. That development of the subject property will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan or Specific Area Plan objectives and policies. 2. That the value of property is protected by preventing development in Specific Area Plan Areas characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and • failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. -15- COMMISSIONERS 0 \(V)- December 5, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement, acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of the proposed development. 4. That unique site characteristics are protected in order to ensure that the community may benefit from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean, to preserve and stabilize the natural terrain, and to protect the environmental resources of the City. 5. That the site does not contain any unique landforms such as coastal bluffs. 6. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and • harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. 7. That there are no unique site characteristics or environmentally sensitive areas on -site which should be protected. 8. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 9. The development is consistent with the land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 10. That there are no archeological or historical resources on- site. 11. That the proposed development has been designed so as to prevent any adverse effect on the adjoining residential property. • 12. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large -16- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 13. That public improvements may be required of the applicant per Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code. 14. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 15. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review and approval of the Traffic Engineer. That the parking at the rear of the property be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the alley right -of -way and that any walls and landscaping not exceed two feet in height within 10 feet of the sidewalk adjacent to Poinsettia Avenue to provide adequate sight distance. 4. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the Public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. • 5. That all vehicular access rights to East Coast Highway be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. _17- COMMISSIONERS Ile December S, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning, Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 7. That the tree damaged sidewalk be reconstructed along the East Coast Highway and Poinsettia Avenue frontages; that the unused drive aprons on East Coast Highway and Poinsettia Avenue be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk; and that the proposed drive approach on Poinsettia Avenue be constructed with the City's flared drive approach Standard 166 -L.. All work along the East Coast Highway frontage shall be completed under and encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department and the California . Department of Transportation. 8. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to • issuance of any building permits. 9. That the design of the proposed trash enclosure be approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That the site drainage be designed to flow into an on -site catch basin and into the street right -of -way through a private parkway drain. 11. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the state right -of -way. 12. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section • 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. -18- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX 13. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code unless an exception permit is approved by the City. Said signs shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress to the site. 14. That all .mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from East Coast Highway, the alley and adjoining properties. 15. That one parking space for each 250 square feet of floor area shall be provided on -site, including one handicap parking space. 16. That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 17. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces • shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 18. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 K of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. a s s -19- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES 0 TN7k\\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL is INDEX Amendment No 744 (Public Hearinel I item No.e Request to establish Planned Community District Regulations and A744 adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for Hoag Hospital. The proposal would establish regulations and development Ts N0.81 standards for the long term build -out of acute and non -acute health ' d to coast care facilities. . The proposal also includes an amendment to Cont Districting Maps No. 22 and 22 -A so as to rezone the hospital property from the A -P -H and U (Unclassified) Districts to the P-C (Planned Community) District an amendment to Chapter 20.02 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to amend the Height Limitation Zones Map and the legal description of the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District to place the Lower Campus wholly within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District; and the approval of a development agreement and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of Phase I of the Hoag Memorial Hospital master plan of development. LOCATION: Lower Campus: A portion of Lot 172, Block 1, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 4000 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue. Upper Campus: Parcel No. 1 of Record of Survey 15 -30, located at 301 Newport Boulevard, on the southwesterly corner of Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. ZONES: A -P -H and Unclassified 11111111 APPLICANT Hoag Memorial 0 Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant -20- Hospital Presbyterian, COMMISSIONERS i �0AV � December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Di Sano made opening statements with respect to the procedure that the Planning Commission would take during the Planned Community Development Plan for Hoag Hospital public hearings. James Hewicker, Planning Director, introduced the proposed master plan that was initiated by Hoag Memorial Hospital. Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, responded to questions that were posed by individuals prior to the public hearing. The staff report addresses item by item suggestions by staff relative to potential changes to the Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan proposed by Hoag Hospital. Staff does not make recommendations of approval or denial of projects; however, the suggested changes may assist the Planning Commission at the time recommendations are made to the City Council. One purpose of the master plan would be to minimize the number of projects that would come before the City inasmuch as Hoag Hospital frequently requested amendments to the original use permit. The City's two main considerations of the master plan would be that piecemeal development reduces the ability to conduct comprehensive and cumulative impact analysis. The EIR and master plan were able to assess the impacts of the project as a whole or the implications of the project once the facility is built out fully whereas if projects are considered on a case by case basis, only impacts are assessed that are related to that project. There is also an inability to consider comprehensive project alternatives. The Coastal Commission has not chosen to give certification to the City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for the lower campus site without first approving a master plan for the site, and the Coastal Commission indicated they would not approve any additional projects on the lower campus before the adoption of an LCP and a master plan for the lower campus. In terms of the lower campus, there is a compelling factor beyond the City's own planning desires to consider a project in this particular format. • The proposed project would rezone the entire Hospital property on the upper campus and the lower campus to the zoning classification of Planned Community, and adopt a Planned Community text, -21- ROLL • • COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT December 5, 1991MINUTES BEACH CALL INDEX Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan. The Planned Community classification is a common classification in the City inasmuch as it allows the establishment of development standards which addresses the specific characteristics of the site and the proposed development. Currently the City has 24 adopted Planned Communities governed by Planned Community Development Plans and District Regulations. Of the 24 Planned Communities, Civic Plaza, Corporate Plaza, and Sea Island in Newport Center, have some information related to building footprints. 21 Planned Communities contain development standards that are of the same regulatory character as the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, containing height limits, setbacks, parking requirements, landscape requirements, and sign provisions. Planned Community texts govern development in Koll Center Newport, Newport Place, Bayview, North Ford including Newport North, Belcourt and Loral Aeroneutronic, Big Canyon, 50 percent of Newport Center, Harbor View, Broadmoor Pacific View, Jasmine Creek, Jasmine Park, Point del Mar, the Terraces, and Versailles -Villa Balboa. The majority of undeveloped land in Newport Beach is currently zoned for Planned Community and Planned Community Development Plans will be required prior to development. Ms. Temple stated that the correspondence that has been received in response to the proposed master plan, will be distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the January 9, 1992, public hearing. Staff is currently preparing responses to the letters that refer to the EIR inasmuch as the letters generally have a tendency to be submitted by individuals who have some level of discomfort or are in disagreement with the project. Approximately 55 letters have been received in support of the project, 18 letters are opposed or are critical of the EIR, 20 form letters from the Balboa Coves area, and 10 agency letters that are informational comments and take no position on the project. Ms. Temple stated that the evaluation of Alternatives to the Hoag Hospital master plan is a mandatory part of the CEQA process. The preparation of an EIR by the lead agency is required to analyze a range of Alternatives to the proposed project; however, CEQA does not require the same level of environmental analysis for Alternatives that it requires of the proposed project. _22- COMMISSIONERS o� q� December 5,1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Alternative analysis is generally a comparative or relative analysis, with the Alternative described, and the relative impact to the impacts of the proposed project assessed. The analysis does not provide definitive or complete environmental information on the Alternatives. Information provided through public testimony on any Alternative should be seriously evaluated by the Planning Commission in order to determine the appropriateness and the acceptability of the proposed project. If the Planning Commission determines that an Alternative is preferred, it could provide the basis for denial of the proposed project. One component of the Villa Balboa presentation is a detailed project Alternative which is a refined and more detailed form of one of the EIR project Alternatives. If the Planning Commission desires to require that Hoag Hospital take this particular approach in the long term development plan, the only available decision at this time and at this scope of public hearings, would be to recommend to the City Council the denial of the proposed project and to direct Hoag . Hospital and staff to perform additional environmental analysis and to have City staff prepare a full scale EIR for the project Alternative. This is required because the Alternative is substantially different than the project analyzed in the EIR. When minor adjustments are made during the public hearing process they can be considered and approved so long as the detailed environmental analysis is sufficient to cover the anticipated impacts if any change; however, if the project is so significantly different that the impacts and the levels of significance can change or will change, then a new EIR would be required. The Planning Commission is currently not in a position to approve an Alternative to the Hoag Hospital master plan which differs substantially from the proposed project as described in the EIR. Ms. Temple addressed and distributed a copy of draft Site Plan Review procedures that would establish specific review standards for the lower campus and the westerly part of the mid -rise zone on the upper campus for any project or any addition to an existing building or a new building of 30,000 square feet or greater. Commissioner Pomeroy requested that staff provide a map to the Commission prior to the January 9, 1992, Planning Commission meeting indicating where the favorable and opposition letters have originated. Commissioner Pomeroy and W. Temple briefly -23- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MMUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX addressed the aforementioned statements regarding the Alternate plan. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that on the basis of residents' frustrated comments during previous public hearings to amend the original use permit, the Planning Commission applied a great deal of pressure to require Hoag Hospital to submit a build -out or master plan so the property owners would see at one time the build -out or the impacts of the facilities. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Ms. Temple explained that every property that is zoned Planned Community is required to submit a master plan during the development process. Ms. Temple further explained that it would be difficult to determine the time frame to provide an EIR for the Alternate plan, and Hoag Hospital would be required to finance the required documents. Ms. Temple stated that the Planning Commission cannot approve an Alternate plan of dramatically different character; however, said plan could provide information that the Planning Commission can use for findings of feasibility and give direction to the staff and to the applicant. Final action cannot be taken on an Alternate plan until appropriate documentation has been completed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Chairman Di Sano and Mr. Hewicker explained the procedure that the Planning Commission would take during the subject public hearings. Commissioner Gross objected to further discussion of the Alternate plan until after the Planning Commission has heard testimony from the presenters. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Ms. Temple explained that the lower campus property is within the Coastal Zone, it is currently shown on the City's LCP for Governmental Educational Institutional facilities, but the specific designation has not been accepted by the .California Coastal Commission pending submittal of a master plan for the lower campus site. Subsequent to the action of the City Council, the City would submit a LCP Amendment to the Coastal Commission and, in conjunction, the hospital would submit the master plan for approval as a concurrent public hearing process. The entire lower campus and a small triangle of the upper campus are within the -24- COMMISSIONERS 'lee N \ December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Coastal Zone. Ms. Temple indicated that the current draft of the Planned Community text as proposed by Hoag Hospital does not allow for any subsequent discretionary action unless a project is not in compliance with the development standards. She explained that discretionary actions that are on -going are the Traffic Studies wherein she referred to the subject Traffic Study for Phase One of the development, and only Traffic Studies for Phases II and III would require public hearings before the Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Michael Stephens, Chief Executive Officer of Hoag Hospital, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Stephens stated that the applicant would address specific conditions contained in Exhibit "A" inasmuch as the applicant considers said conditions are incomplete or lacking specific information. . The conditions of major concern are as follows: Amendment to Planned Community provisions, page 30 of the staff report, Item 2: The exclusion of the dedicated park land from the inclusion in the calculation in the floor area permitted. The land was dedicated and agreed to be dedicated by the hospital for a combination view park and linear park, is open space, and serves the same purpose as open space that would be contained within the project Item 6: Removal or exclusion of the third level of the Cancer Center addition. To define building configuration without consideration of the program in a building that was particularly designed and anticipated to be expanded to a full three levels. The rationale is that it would allow for views from the public bicycle trails if the third floor was not added. He pointed out that there is a reason with the view at that level because the bicycle path takes a significant drop in grade at that point, and secondly, the view that currently exists was created by the excavation for the Cancer Center. Prior to excavation of the Cancer Center, there was no view from that portion of the bicycle path because the grade went down below the level of the existing bluff. At the time of construction of the Cancer • Center it was excavated away and so there was a creation of the view. Dealing with the view considerations and the fact that there has been significant enhancement of views along the bicycle trail, there is a concern that in order to provide views that did not exist at one time, -25- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES o� 10 L 01 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX that the applicant would be required to reduce a level and a structure that was intended by design to extend the full three levels of the Cancer Center building. Item 8: Additional 10 foot setback on West Coast Highway. It is an illustration of the difficulty of agreeing to conditions with still the possibility of other conditions being considered and proposed. One reason of the rationale for agreeing to modify the view park and to reduce it in size and go to a linear park was that the width of the linear park was property that was given up in terms of the ability to build buildings up against it. Since the setback was 15 feet off of West Coast Highway, that was a reasonable trade -off. Accepting this would mean that the applicant would have lost setback by the inclusion of the linear park At the same time, there is now an additional 10 foot setback on West Coast Highway, that begins to narrow the site to the point that by the time traffic circulation, buildings, everything involved in the master plan is considered, it . would significantly restrict the flexibility of the plan in the siting of future buildings. Item 13: The recommendation that a pilot project be undertaken to limit the deliveries between the hours of 7:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. The issue was discussed during the emergency room addition public hearing. The request is for pilot studies for the hospital to go out and demonstrate its inability to comply with something that is beyond its control, Traffic is regiona4 air quality management is regional, other municipalities are beginning to consider Ordinances that would significantly restrict delivery trucks from major roadways at times during peak traffic hour, and the likelihood is the deliveries are going to be occurring at earlier hours. It is difficult to create an expectation that the applicant would be able to pilot it and comply with it, when in fact, much of the activity that is taking place is quite contrary to that. It is a reservation that the applicant hag they have expressed it, they continue to have it, they are willing to work and willing to define what kind of deliveries are received, willing to demonstrate why it is disadvantageous to the hospital to be restricted in that way. The pilot project takes on a dimension that is a concern. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to Item No. 13, and he questioned the applicant's objection to the statement: Such controls may include requesting that the majority of vendors deliver products (other -26- COMMISSIONERS .4 d, O 01- -� \ December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX than emergency products) during working hours (Le. 7.•00 am. to 8:00 p.m.). Mr. Stephens stated that the applicant would rather define what is happening first than to run a pilot project. He indicated that the majority of the deliveries probably occur during the aforementioned hours. He said that if there was a significant volume of early morning deliveries, the uproar would be greater by the residents. He said the request does not require a pilot program, but documentation during what is currently happening. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Stephens stated that the applicant would meet with staff regarding any concerns they may have with respect to the remaining conditions prior to the January 9, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Stephens stated it is important to recognize that increasingly, planning and flexibility and responsiveness are keys to survival. That the ability to respond and to do it quickly, and to turn around to make changes or competition expectation, has to be a hallmark of the free enterprise system. Public policy is necessary to exercise the vision and courage for the availability and growth of public services. Perspective: The applicant has consistently stated that the proposed project has to be reviewed differently because the facility is not a public enterprise, and one difficulty that takes place, is that the perspective of those who criticize the project is that the applicant has the latitude and freedom to simply change space and design, or move space around as if it were a condominium development or an exchange of single residence as opposed to apartments. A hospital is a public service that needs to be taken into consideration when projects are reviewed. Much of what confronts hospitals, is externally imposed: technology and changes in technology are dramatic, they increase exponentially and it is almost impossible to keep up with technology, no less respond to the changes technology is going to make in the delivery of health services. Payment Systems and Social Policies: Forty -five percent of health care is financed through Government programs through one kind • or another. When payment programs are changed or altered, incentives are changed, and the result is that there is a significant -27- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX impact on the way hospitals provide services and organize the services. Code Requirements: The immediate closure of an emergency room in a local hospital will require significant quick and flexible response on the part of Hoag Hospital, and he indicated the need for the expansion and completion of the recently requested and approved Hoag Hospital emergency room. Design and Space and Allocation of Function: Patients are moved frequently via wheelchairs and stretchers, and there is a need for adjacency and immediacy of diagnostic services. Mr. Stephens explained that hospitals are designed to separate the moving of supplies from the transportation of patients and visitors. Mr. Stephens described the hospital's expansion and major medical technology changes that have taken place since 1952. He stated that the proposed master plan addresses the demand for in- patient . surgery and critical care that has increased dramatically, and the build -out would allow an expansion of those two services. By 1990, the opening of the Cancer Center, the hospital began the major shift from the in- patient orientation to the out - patient orientation. In 1991, the Child Care Center was opened, and prior to that time, the applicant demonstrated during public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, why the hospital was unable to locate the 8,000 square foot child care center on the upper campus. Anyone who has visited, worked in, or been a patient in the Cancer Center understands the advantages that can be provided to the community and patients by direct accessibility for out - patients. To compare the ability to go into the Cancer Center for patients who are very ill and undergoing radiation or chemotherapy with the travail of having to go on to the main campus, to park and to enter the hospital to the necessary out- patient facility, would not be the correct way to provide care to a community. Mr. Stephens presented a slide demonstration to the Planning Commission addressing the present and future goals of the hospital, and a general statement of some of the major objectives in providing local access to advanced technology so as to eliminate the need for area residents to travel long distances in responding to the health care environment. He explained that the objectives of the -28- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES 03 c1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX master plan would be to look at the future needs, maintain the ability to provide technology, to establish parameters for future growth, provide flexibility to meet unanticipated needs, and in showing that there is a plan to address the environment and aesthetics and to establish build -out limits and making them a part of the public record. Planning time included in the master plan is 20 years; however, general parameters and the assumptions for use of space will impact the hospital for decades to come. He stated that the development and approval of Planned Community text is provided under CEQA, it is prevalent throughout the City, and the master plan conforms with the City's General Plan and is supported by EIR studies. The master plan is segmented into upper and lower campuses, and he pointed out areas that have height limits and view. envelopes. The upper campus was described as follows: the tower zone is defined by the current height of the tower; the middle zone is defined by a limit of 75 feet above actual grade; the parking zone stipulates there will be no structures higher than the existing parking structure; 480,000 square feet existing, with a potential of 50 percent being redeveloped, 285,000+ square feet being added over a phase development of 20 years; and the FAR is 1.0 which is provided for in the General Plan. Expected uses are in- patient emergency, out - patient services that do not have significant volume to duplicate equipment and locate on the lower site, administrative offices, necessary support and ancillary uses. The lower campus was described as follows. The elevations are defined by the height of the bluff and the building envelopes. The bluff has been cut down and the building heights are defined by the envelopes and held at or below the bluff line so that the views can be maintained. The total build -out would be 577,000 square feet which would be a .65 FAR which includes the existing 65,000 square foot Cancer Center and 7,800 square foot Child Care Center. The anticipated build -out would be over a 20 year period. The out - patient services, administrative and support services, and the potential for residential care and medical offices would be integrated with diagnostic departments and other ancillary uses. Mr. Stephens addressed the views from the bicycle trails, and of the 19 view corridors that were taken, 16 were enhanced or -P9 COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX maintained, and 3 were diminished from what existed prior to the Cancer Center addition. By cutting down the existing bluff, and keeping the buildings no higher than the height of the new bluff, individuals have views at 4 feet, i.e. 12 views are enhanced, 4 views are maintained, and 3 views are diminished. He described the amenities that are involved, how the site begins to narrow, and the landscape treatment that would enhance the entrance to the City. Hoag Hospital has made an effort to meet with members of the community, and to be responsive to recommendations that were made in order to lessen the impact of the proposed project in the master plan. He explained that based on the requests of the community, the hospital lowered the building link between the main hospital and the Cancer Center so as not to impede views, controlled access to the service road, relocated and enclosed mechanical systems, enhanced landscaping, and cleaned off the roofs. The hospital expended over $150,000.00 in trying to undertake improvements to address noise and other sensitive issues regarding the west service road; the glare of lights were replaced with light fixtures that pointed the light downward at the time of the expansion of the parking structure; the emergency generator and air handling unit noise was baffled and attenuated; the service road was closed to evening nighttime traffic and concerns regarding parking has been addressed; and the hospital has proposed to undertake a fence requested by adjacent homeowners. The hospital has held over 50 meetings with community groups, and as a result, the applicant has agreed to provide the linear park, to reduce the height of the bluff, lower the building envelopes at or below the bluff level; agreed to mitigate the wetlands required by Law; agreed that the roofs of subsequent buildings will be clean; isolate and sound attenuate mechanical equipment; the landscape plan will be completed on West Coast Highway; the linear park will be established before any buildings will be undertaken; and the Development Agreement would place the master plan in the form of a legal agreement. Mr. Stephens addressed discussions regarding Alternatives. He said that one of the major considerations at looking at any Alternatives is: Does it meet the objectives of the plan, and not simply a way of moving space around. It is the strong belief of the applicant that -30- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL il Jill I INDEX any of the Alternatives moving significant portions of the development from the lower campus to the upper campus does not meet the project objectives of flexibility, accessibility, adaptability, and lower cost of construction that is anticipated at the lower campus. There is a section in the EIR that addresses wetlands, and generally, it is a wetlands that is not highly valued by the consultants evaluation. Secondly, mitigation is an acceptable element of the Federal Law that relates to wetlands, and mitigation off -site is when there is a compelling public purpose to require it. The discussion should be more the compelling need to provide for relocation of the wetlands rather than exhaust the discussion of whether this is a valid wetland or not. The important issue is that mitigation is a viable alternative and off -site mitigation removes the wetlands as an issue. There is a significant wetlands reclamation that is taking place in West Newport; therefore, it is not an area • that is totally devoid of wetlands. Preservation of Views: Mr. Stephens addressed the aforementioned views along the public bicycle trail. A consolidated view park remains at the highest promontory, although it was reduced from the size originally proposed to provide the linear element. It is difficult to understand why the opponents, having recommended to the applicants and the applicants accepting, the reduction of the consolidated view park at a promontory with 180 degree vista in preference to a linear park, have come back and requested a larger consolidated park. The opponents define the public view as the bluff edge on the private property. If consolidated parks are that important, the view element ought to be enhanced by a larger park. The applicant would be willing to accept going back to the eight - tenths of an acre consolidated view park so as to provide that request. The cost of not being able to use one -half of the site in order to allow the 4.5 acres to be available for view, is an unreasonable expectation because not being able to use that half of the site that is impeded by the bluff, then puts the applicant in a position to having to develop all of the services in a highly dense area on the upper campus and goes against the project objective • which is to separate and define services by in- patient and out- patient and accessibility in the interest of the community. -31- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL if fill INDEX The project is not specific enough and provides a blank check without any review. Reviews shall consist of the second and third phases for traffic, the annual compliance report which is a condition that the applicant would be required to file, the numerous conditions that would be adopted, and the Development Agreement. The master plan is not compatible with the surrounding communities because of the proposed density of .65 FAX Mr. Stephens described from a slide, the Hoag Hospital, Villa Balboa, the Cancer Center, and the existing wetlands site. He presented a comparison of the lower campus density of .65 FAR with .81 FAR for Villa Balboa, 1.18 FAR for Versailles, and 1.1 FAR for Balboa Coves. The hospital project as described in the master plan will provide more open space and more view corridors than any of the aforementioned developments. Complaints along the service road. The proximity of the adjacent • condominiums precludes the total solution of what additional steps the hospital can take to address the concerns. The loading dock. Two potentials the hospital has considered would be to screen in front and to cover over the top. The critical care addition. The architects will consider the feasibility of a more significant setback than what is proposed in the master plan. Geo- technical issues of methane gas, earthquakes, etc. The EIR addresses the subject, and he requested that the consultants comments be fully considered by the Planning Commission. The cost of dealing with the geology and topography of the lower campus site is totally insignificant when totally compared with the cost of the Alternative which would tear down and reconstruct the building off -site to allow for more demolition. The higher construction cost of taking out - patient and having to up -grade the facilities to in- patient codes because they are adjacent to in- patient facilities, that cost far exceeds the cost of dealing with the geo- • technical issues that are present on the site. Mr. Stephens concluded his presentation by stating that the key to the future provision of hospital services to the community and the -32- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX citizens depending upon the hospital for health services, is directly linked to the hospital's ability to fully utilize the lower campus. It does not mean that the hospital will be totally built out within 20 years, but as the buildings are needed. It is vitally important to know how to place buildings with the surety that there is an entire footprint of the lower campus with which to work. Mr. Stephens and Commissioner Gross addressed the meetings that the applicant had with the community. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Stephens replied that the property line Settlement Agreement between Villa Balboa residents and the hospital could be made available to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gross and Ms. Temple addressed concerns that Commissioner Gross had with respect to the public view from Hospital Road between the site of the service road and the intensive care unit and Versailles. Commissioner Edwards addressed the master plan and the hospital's feeling relative to putting restrictions on future development over the next 20 years. Mr. Stephens explained that the applicant has spent 3 years going through the process with the City, and significant limitations would be disconcerting. If there would be ideas that would provide assurance in a general way that would not require a repetition of public hearings in every instance, then the applicant would be open to evaluating and would respond to those ideas. Commissioner Edwards asked if the applicant could categorize the input of some of the concerns of the community, hat was their major concern. Mr. Stephens explained that it would be difficult to provide a generalization because the criticisms e specific to the group, i. e. Villa Balboa residents are concerned with noise, the reduction in the setback of the buildings, the additional traffic that would use the service road, the loading dock to mitigate the noise and appearance. The condominium owners e concerned with private views from the bicycle trail to the condominiums, and the concern of the proximity of the proposed evelopment as the bluff is cut back and buildings are constructed against the crib wall and the service road. The wetlands are a concern with some residents, the size of the view park, maintenance • of green space, the link between the bicycle path that runs along e top of the bluff to the other side of Superior Avenue, and development and increased traffic that are addressed in the EIR. -33- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Edwards addressed the residents' request to provide site poles, and Mr. Stephens explained that because the edge of the bluff is significantly higher now than when it is cut back, the height would obscure the site poles that would define the view envelope. The problem with seeing the project from West Coast Highway is that the site poles would depict view envelopes and not buildings, and the residents' request addressed the view poles so as to define the bulk and mass of the development. .65 FAR would provide more open space and view corridors generated than the adjacent property, but view envelopes would leave the impression that it is going to represent buildings and mass and bulk, and it would provide the possibility of misinterpretation. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he bad a concern regarding the cantilevered design of critical care unit over the service road that is suggested in the master plan. Mr. Stephens stated that the hospital is currently discussing the setback and design with the • architect. Commissioner Pomeroy requested a review of the architect's suggestions before the Planning Commission makes a final decision on the master plan. Commissioner Pomeroy indicated that he had a concern with the design of the linear park for the benefit of the public inasmuch as it would be more appropriate to have a larger space where the public could sit and enjoy the view than a very narrow linear park. If an adjustment could be made, it would allow the buildings to go back further towards the bluff and be lowered so as to maintain the same square footage so the same general area would remain but it would enhance the public views beyond where they currently exist. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the wetlands issue, and he asked if the applicant would consider an increase in the mitigation amount which presently is 1.0 to 1.5. Mr. Stephens replied that he would not oppose 1.0 to 1.5 inasmuch as the Federal agencies are going to be the determinate factor, and they will take into consideration the City's recommendation. Ms. Temple explained that the resource agencies would determine the ratio on the basis of the wetlands values that they see in the area. Commissioner Pomeroy asked if the applicant would object to an increase in the minimum set by the City from 1.0 to 1S times the mitigation. Mr. • Stephens replied that he would not object to the foregoing request. -34- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991 MINUTES 0 0,v \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX ommissioner Debay addressed the aforementioned linear park. Vs. Temple explained that the view park configuration shown in e master plan is consistent with the recommendation sent to the ty Council by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission in 1989, and should the Planning Commission desire to pursue a econfiguration, the appropriate manner would be for the City ouncil to refer the item back to the PB &R Commission for their onsideration. Commissioner Debay referred to the traffic and innual reviews of the project. She further indicated there are over 9 mitigation measures that the applicant must comply with that tate before the issuance of a Building Permit or Grading Permit. ommissioner Merrill addressed the increase in the size of the ark to 4.5 acres. He questioned if there would be any parking equirements. Mr. Webb explained that staff has not considered arking requirements; however, the emergency access drive that as created along Villa Balboa does have a drive approach to uperior Avenue. It was never anticipated that it would have ignificant vehicular use; however, parking could be provided. Mr. Webb stated that the problem with a 4 acre park, unless parking is rovided, it would be difficult for the public to have access unless I is by bicycle or walk. ommissioner Glover addressed the public access to the linear ark. Mr. Webb explained that the park would be restricted to ky and pedestrians; however, the residents of Villa Balboa ouclists Id benefit by the park inasmuch as they would be able to walk cross the street. Mr. Webb explained that the emergency access oad does not have room to provide parking, or a turn around area o return to Superior Avenue. The emergency access road, and the icycle trail would have to be widened to provide parking. ommissioner Glover asked what the applicant's intent is to rovide mitigation. Mr. Stephens explained that the applicant was dvised that the City Council, staff, and interested agencies would etermine mitigation. The hospital determined that it would make ense to provide the mitigation in West Newport. . hairman Di Sano stated that he has similar concerns that were xpressed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the cantilevered or everse pyramid building and the tucking of the buildings adjacent -35- COMMISSIONERS o:0 December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX to the bluff. He said that his primary concern would be the cantilevered building on the west side of the hospital. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened at 10:25 p.m. Mr. Chris Hansen, 22 Encore Court, and Mr. Bill Jennings, 280 Cagney Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission, and they presented a slide show. Mr. Hansen addressed the proposed building heights, FAR, building bulk and public view located on the lower campus. The General Plan Land Use Element, states that the City should consist of a mix of commercial and residential uses located and sued so that each is compatible with and serve the interest of the other. This requirement of harmony is at risk at this particular time. The master plan and draft EIR are not specific as to what will happen, what and where is Phase I, is it at the westerly end of the lower campus, and what are the starting and ending time • frames. How can the public arrive at any understanding and conclusion of how the project will affect the community. No tract maps, plot plans, building sites or footprints have been provided. Mr. Hansen questioned how the following findings could be measured so as to ensure that the proposed project would be reasonable and compatible with the surrounding properties: that the loss of public views be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood, that the buildings would create more visual open space and would result in a more desirable architectural and visual character, and not result in an undesirable scale. He described a slide indicating the cascading affect from Hospital Road, across Villa Balboa, across the lower campus, to West Coast Highway. The proposed envelope that is being considered for the lower campus would generate an abrupt scale change. The FAR for the site is SO and .65 FAR. The .50 FAR would generate 427,104 square feet, the .65 FAR would generate 577,889 square feet, and the difference in the variable is 150,000 square feet. The 150,000 square feet of floor space is discretionary by the Planning Commission and the City Council for the floor area and the • building bulk. In reference to a memorandum dated June 29, 1989, from Bob Burnham, City Attorney, to the City Council, regarding the proposed floor area and building bulk, it is stated development above the .50 FAR is discretionary. With the exception of mixed -36- COMMISSIONERS yo December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX residential uses no project is allowed to exceed the .50 FAR as a matter of right Structures in excess of the .50 FAR are permitted only when the Planning Commission approval of a variance and seven additional findings that are designed to insure traffic generated by the project without exceeding the base development allocation and building bulk is consistent with the surrounding area Building bulk has not been generated in the master plan or the draft EIR or the staff report. The increased FAR will result in a rough scale relationship with the surrounding area and impairment of public views. Mr. Jennings addressed public views, and statements in the General Plan Land Use Element and Recreational and Open Space Element. Public view potential is to be recognized, supported, and enhanced. The bluff top scenic bicycle way and pedestrian walkway, and linear park are addressed in the Recreational and Open Space Element, and are a long range plan for a continuous extension through West Newport. The site would provide the first link in the system. The Recreational and Open Space Element also addresses public views in terms of coastal areas, ocean, bay, and waterfront, and from street ends. This is an opportunity for the City to derive maximum public benefit from the view site, and if the opportunity is lost, it is lost forever. Mr. Jennings referred to a scale model that was provided by Mr. Hansen and Mr. Jennings to determine building height envelopes that would allow unobstructed views from the park and from the bicycle path. The height of the Cancer Center would satisfy an unobstructed view from the park, and raising the grade is not objectionable as long as the building heights are not extended accordingly. Using a 4 foot high view elevation on the bicycle path has no precedent in the City public view definitions. The FAR and building bulk make reference to regulations of visual scale and public view aspects and imposes conditions of development. The requested higher profile facing West Coast Highway would change the visual scale anticipated by the City planners when the shore tine height ordinance was adopted in 1972. The Ordinance established new height, bulk limitations, and a key element was the height limit imposed on West Coast Highway and other commercial areas. The Cancer Center has taken a portion of the public view from the bicycle path, and more would be lost with the proposal to extend the Cancer Center's zone, thus the view from about 30 percent of the -37- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES `0 0 \0� No \\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX total bicycle link will be lost. The linear view park should be dedicated as a condition of project approval as indicated in the EIR, and the park should be graded as stated in the EIR. The applicant proposes a bicycle loop around the consolidated park at the western end. The PB&R Director informed W. Jennings that the park designs are the responsibility of his Department, and it was further stated that the bicycle path extended around the perimeter would not be desirable. The park will be public view area so there is no need for the proposed design, and there will be no public gain. The bluffs are an important part of the character of Newport Beach, and reference is made of this in the Land Use Element and Recreational and Open Space Element. Cutting away major portions of the bluff in the name of progress is a matter that should be carefully considered since it is not a reversible process. The potential and opportunity to provide unobstructed views of the bay and the ocean from the linear view park may be an acceptable tradeoff as a public amenity. A Development Agreement does not • have much to offer the public in exchange for a 40 year contract. Conforming to existing building height, zoning, and grade would retain the scale of the relationship between neighboring residential and commercial development. Mr. Jennings requested that the Planning Commission either deny the project as proposed or impose greater public benefits. Mr. Jennings and Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the issue of the hospital cutting the bluff when the Cancer Center was constructed. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Jennings replied that representatives of Hoag Hospital have reviewed the aforementioned model. Mr. Jennings further replied that if the Cancer Center elevation was extended it would block an additional amount of the bikeway and further extension of that elevation to the west would block an additional link. The existing view is what can be seen from the bikeway at 4 foot elevation with the existing bluff in place, and that a public amenity be provided by lowering building heights in the area, allowing a better view than is what is proposed, and it would not detract from the buildable area or the ability to fulfill the requirements. Commissioner Gross addressed Mr. Stephens' remarks regarding -38- COMMISSIONERS 0 - \0141 MINUTES December 5, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX view enhancement from the bikeway wherein Mr. Jennings replied that to cut away the bluff would be a view enhancement, and no views would be blocked that do not exist. Mr. Jennings described the areas around the linear park that would affect the views if the buildings are constructed at the proposed heights. Commissioner Gross addressed the proposed Floor Area Ratio and development intensity. Mr. Hansen responded that the proposed FAR does not reflect the building height in relation to the sloping affect the buildings have from Hospital Road, across Versailles and Villa Balboa to West Coast Highway. Mr. Jennings expressed opposition with the height only, and be stated that. the proposed .65 FAR would be acceptable as long as it does not block any views. Mr. Hansen stated that the proposed building envelope will generate a building that will be 50 feet high at West Coast Highway plus the 20 foot grade increase that the applicant is proposing, and the height would total 70 feet. Commissioner Gross addressed the hospital benefits that would be provided wherein Mr. Jennings • expressed support of the hospital; however, he stated that the Development Agreement is a 40 year contract and with few amenities included as justification for that type of a contract with no further public hearings and no further redress by future Councils. Commissioner Debay referred to Mr. Hansen's aforementioned statement that the height of the buildings proposed could total 70 feet wherein she explained that the drawings depict two measurements of height: one is from elevation grade and one is from mean sea level. Ms. Temple explained that the Height Zone Map contained in the Planned Community Text contains the height limits. The height limits shown are in dual - the number in parenthesis is generally 20 feet less and the upper number height limit is a height limit above mean sea level and the lower number is the estimate of the height limit above grade as it exists. There are no building heights of 70 feet. Mr. Jennings stated that the height variation on West Coast Highway will range from 35 feet to 55 feet. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards with is respect to Mr. Hansen's aforementioned statements regarding the harmony of the buildings starting on Hospital Road to West Coast Highway, Mr. Hansen explained that the use of the word harmony -39- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I IIIJ INDEX is contained in the Land Use Element. Mr. Hansen concurred with Commissioner Edwards that his testimony was a comparative analysis of the existing development with the proposed development, and that it is also an aesthetic disagreement. Commissioner Edwards and Mr. Jennings discussed aforementioned statements that the 4 foot level on the bikeway is arbitrary whereas a 2 foot level would be more acceptable. Mr. Hewicker stated that 4 feet was chosen by the Planning Commission in conditioning the approval of the Terrace Senior Citizens residential community in Corona del Mar, and staff suggested the 4 foot height limit to the applicant in the view analysis of the pedestrian and bicycle path. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that on the basis of the riding height of a bicycle, a 4 foot height limit is a reasonable number to have chosen. He further stated that the proposed buildings are not necessarily going to be developed at the maximum height, and the buildings are not necessarily going to be to the maximum height out to the limit approved. The architectural design is not defined, and it would be a very incompetent architect who would have a building square inasmuch as the majority of architects blend the buildings with the site. Dr. Don Kaiserman, 210 Leila Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. Kaiserman addressed the proposed hospital expansion and he quoted an article from the L. A. Times, August 4, 1991, regarding the occupancy rates in Orange County hospitals wherein he indicated that Hoag Hospital has the highest occupancy rate of 63.4 percent. The expansion of Hoag Hospital is primarily for out - patient services; however, the master plan of January 12, 1990, clearly states that Phase I of the master plan proposes 115,000 square foot designation for in- patient use in the upper campus, a 25 percent increase, and the same amount of square feet as the amount designated in Phase I for the lower campus out- patient services. It would appear that the amount of services that the hospital would provide for in- patient on the lower campus could be moved to the upper campus with some planning. The planned expansion could contribute to increased costs for medical • care by creating unnecessary additional duplication of expensive facilities which are already over -built in Orange County. He questioned the actual necessity for a blank check to be given to -40- COMMISSIONERS cnPo`�0 y� • December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Hoag Hospital at this time of empty hospital beds throughout Orange County, and the need to grant Hoag Hospital an actual building entitlement. Commissioner Pomeroy responded to Dr. Kaiserman's foregoing testimony by explaining that the City requested that Hoag Hospital provide a master plan so that everyone that. is impacted by the hospital be able to see the totality of the development. Dr. Kaiserman replied that the duration and scope of the plan is unrealistic inasmuch as every hospital master plan that he has been involved with has been out -dated within a few years. He suggested a shorter length of time for the master plan. Mr. Gil Martinez, 230 Leila Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Martinez stated that the residents have a solution that will meet the hospital's development objectives, is environmentally superior, and economically feasible. If the • Planning Commission would agree with the residents for an Alternative plan, the Planning Commission could instruct staff and the hospital to refine and revise the plan in the direction that the residents propose. Hoag Hospital's project description and master plan is very vague, and because it is vague, it leaves a lot of flexibility on whether they could be or would be more sensitive or more aggressive. Because the plan is vague, there is a possibility that the City could move in the direction of one of the Alternatives without having the project description rewritten or renoticed. A supplemental revision to the EIR and a revision to the Planned Community Development Plan would most likely need to be revised, and could take three months instead of two years. Ms. Temple responded to Mr. Martinez' foregoing statements. The Planning Commission could give direction back to staff if the Commission chose an Alternative for a redraft and recirculation of the EIR. A significant shift of development entitlement from the lower to the upper campus would result in a dramatic difference in the way traffic is distributed because primary access to the upper campus is achieved via the access on Hospital Road as opposed to the lower campus' access is on West Coast Highway; therefore, a new Traffic Study would be required. A supplemental subsequent EIR is subject to the precise same notice and circulation requirements as a regular EIR and there is no streamlining the -41- COMMISSIONERS ` \\0 \(�) *e December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX process; however, a 30 day review instead of a 45 day review could be requested Commissioner Debay asked Mr. Martinez how long the Alternative plan existed on paper. Mr. Martinez replied that one Alternative plan was prepared by an environmental group that transferred much of the intensity from the lower campus to the upper campus. The second Alternative plan took a more compromising position, and did not transfer as much, but it did preserve the bluff. The second plan received criticism from the hospital inasmuch as there were a lot of envelopes, and the hospital claimed that the plan did not have the hospital uses and flow and function incorporated. A third Alternative plan was prepared, and a hospital architect was retained to prepare that plan so that the goals of the hospital and comments they made would be reflected in the third plan. The second Alternative plan is contained in the EIR, the third Alternative is not in the EIR but has been submitted to staff for evaluation. Commissioner Debay questioned how an Alternative plan could be superior without proceeding through the EIR process. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Martinez explained that he has been in development and master planning and environmental analysis for over 22 years. Commissioner Gross objected to testimony regarding Alternative plans, and he requested that the proposed master plan be addressed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover with respect to the proposed master plan, and testimony regarding Alternative plans, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained an over -view on Alternatives. The EIR is a document intended to provide information to decision makers and the public on environmental impacts of a proposed project. As part of that process, the document is required to evaluate Alternatives to the project with the view point that there may be an Alternative that might be environmentally superior. A consideration that is made in that evaluation is the feasibility of the Alternatives. CEQA provisions define feasibility as whether an Alternative or mitigation • measure is feasible, whether it is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, with consideration made to economic, social, environmental, and -42- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX technological factors. Even though the Planning Commission is focusing on a planning point of view and from an environmental review on the proposed project, the Planning Commission is also required to look at reasonable Alternatives with the view of whether or not those Alternatives are feasible. Ms. Flory addressed the several Alternatives that are contained in the EIR and suggested that the Planning Commission review the feasibility of said Alternatives. Other Alternatives that are addressed in the public hearing process should also be considered by the Planning Commission, but it is not necessary to consider said Alternatives in minute detail. The Planning Commission is required to consider a reasonable, feasible, and an environmentally superior Alternative plan that is proposed. If there would be a determination that the residents would submit an idea that was not reasonable and was extremely infeasible, staff would provide that information to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed Mr. Martinez' aforementioned testimony and the statement that the Alternative plan is economically feasible, and he requested the definition in a percentage above 100 percent what is economically feasible. If there was no difference in the cost between the Alternative plan and the proposed master plan, that is economically feasible. Mr. Martinez stated that it would be difficult to immediately comply with the request. Commissioner Debay and Mr. Martinez discussed the availability of the foregoing Alternative plans. Ms. Temple addressed the Alternative plans to the project as required for environmental analysis purposes. In the initial NOP distribution, June 15, 1989, and mid -1991, there was a clear request for the community, in addition to identifying environmental issues, to also help define Alternatives. The aforementioned Alternative plan No. 3 was received by staff on the last day of the review period, and inasmuch as staff is preparing Response to Comments, the complete document that was provided by Villa Balboa on November 15, 1991, one week prior to when staff distributed in the • staff report to the Planning Commission, will be included in that document. -43- COMMISSIONERS • �� � \ December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL J I I I I I INDEX In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Martinez replied that the residents will address only Alternative Plan No. 3. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Ms. Temple replied that when staff received Alternative Plan No. 3, the document included square footages, locations, phasing, text, and letters from SPON and Villa Balboa were attached. Mr. Martinez stated his experiences with the private sector and government, and his preparation of over 200 EIR's for institutional, including hospitals. An architect prepared the information regarding the Alternative plans and is qualified to provide cost information for the report. Mr. Steve Osterman, 4425 West Coast Highway, appeared before the Planning Commission as a member of the Newport Beach Townhomes Board of Directors. The residential area is located • across West Coast Highway from Building Envelopes A & B of the proposed lower campus development. He supported the proposed master plan with a few exceptions. The EIR affectively addressed earthquake faults, corrosive soils, biological resources, archeological and historical resources, and the aesthetics of the area. The public amenities section is most impressive with the dedication of land for a public viewing park and the 20 foot park adjacent to the bicycle path. He requested that the Planning Commission not discount the value of the viewing park inasmuch as there are many homes in the vicinity that would use the park on a walking basis based on the park's accessibility. Mr. Osterman stated that view preservation is a source of concern, and after further review it would appear that most of the views are enhanced or maintained, and a small number of views are adversely impacted. He addressed the design of the proposed buildings, and the applicant's comments that the buildings would not exceed the building envelopes described in the EIR. In 1990 the City commissioned a geo- chemical firm to conduct a study of the area around the Newport Beach Townhomes with the • southerly border at 43rd and 44th Streets, and the northerly border on the hospital's property across from the residential community. Gas samplings on the hospital's property revealed methane gas, and -44- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MI NUT ES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX concentration in excess of 500,000 parts per million down to 300,000 parts per million whereas concentrations of just greater than 20,000 per million are considered dangerous. The study surmised that the methane contamination along West Coast Highway is a result of bacterial composition of organic matter in a marsh environment. The concentrations of methane were many times higher on the hospital's property than Newport Beach Townhomes, but that the soil gasses on both sides of West Coast Highway were similar with respect to certain compositions. The pressure from the bluff and mantle on the hospital's property pushes methane from the higher concentrations on the hospital's property under West Coast Highway which provides a natural cap in the direction of Newport Beach Townhomes. Mr. Osterman provided a diagram of the study. Two remediation measures were taken as the result of the study, a collective system on the north side of West Coast Highway and a trenching system on the grounds of Newport Beach Townhomes. Mr. Osterman requested that the City re- employ a geo- chemical firm to take periodic samples of gas from the collection ports during the course of development on the hospital's land, and to evaluate the status so that bench marks are established for future comparisons. The results will be crucial in determining whether the study indicating gas migration is correct. The suggested measure will further indicate the safety of the townhomes during the hospital's development timetable. The widening and beautification of West Coast Highway resulted in the construction of new sound walls adjacent to the community of Lido Sands and Balboa Coves. The dwellings units within Newport Beach Townhomes are closer to the new and improved highway than any of the neighbors and the noise levels are higher now than before. The traffic will increase with the development, and noise from traffic and development activities will subsequently increase. Mr. Osterman requested a condition that a new sound wall be constructed adjacent to Newport Beach Townhomes that is consistent with the beautification efforts in the area, and to relieve a noise burden from the community. Dr. Jan VanderSloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the • Planning Commission. The EIR does not address hazardous health affects from the hazardous gasses that are present on the lower campus. There is no discussion of the health affects from sulfide -45- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX gas. Methane gas has its own dangers creating exposure to fire, and is 75 percent on average, of what natural gas is that comes out of home heaters. Hydrogen sulfide has an odor of rotten eggs and is described in the methane gas study. Hydrogen sulfide is coming up throughout the property in many different locations, and has health affects depending upon the level of concentration. He requested a study of the concentration of hydrogen sulfide gas coming out of the property, and that study can be measured at the level of the gas burner that is on the property. There is no mention of concentration levels of hydrogen sulfide gas in the EIR, and he identified the health affects as a result of exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas. He showed the Planning Commission the list of adverse reactions to hydrogen sulfide gas that was provided to him by the Hoag Hospital library. Dr. VanderSloot stated that the lower campus could be a disastrous area for a health care facility, and he suggested that the Planning Commission consider the Alternatives which would avoid building on an adverse environment • so as to protect patients, doctors, and the general public from adverse health affects and other public safety affects, and to be certain that the mitigation measures are adequate. Dr. VanderSloot requested that staff do a simple PH test for sulfuric acid of the water in the wetland. Commissioner Merrill and Dr. VanderSloot discussed the issue of hydrogen sulfide that was addressed in Merrill Wright's report, dated June 14, 1989, for Hoag Hospital. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Ms. Temple explained that the City's consultant, LSA, prepared the EIR document in conjunction with the City. Most sub - contractors are sub - consultants to LSA, and the City allows technical reports prepared by registered engineers to be prepared under contract to the applicant. The consultants have personal and professional liabilities which are determined absent them from influence because the consultants bear personal responsibility for the contents of the documents and can be litigated on that basis. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that there would be a negative • impact from the foregoing gasses on the animal life in cattail cove if there was a problem. Dr. VanderSloot explained that wetlands act as a filtering system so that toxic materials are filtered before they reach a water supply. -46- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES � o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Ada ' i Business The Planning Commission adjourned to the Planning Commission meeting of January 9, 1992. ADJOURNMENT: 12:00 Midnight Adjourn- _ s s s NORMA GLOVER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT -47-