Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes 03/20/2008Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission DRAFT March 20, 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 18 http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /Mn03202008.htrn 03/31/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren - Il Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney ony Brine, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Ian Burns, Esquire of Harper & Burns LLP June Ailin, Esquire of Aleshire and Wynder Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Hawkins recognized members of an Environmental Law Practice Gas from Chapman University who were in attendance. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on March 14, 2008. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of February 21, 2008. ITEM NO. 1 Attorney Burns recommended this item be continued as there have been Continued to suggested changes to the transcripts 04/03/2008 Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Cole to continue this item to the next meeting of April 3, 2008. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None ITEM NO. 2 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of March 6 2008. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Peotter to approve this item as corrected. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None bstain: Cole UBJECT: Fury Rok & Rol Sushi Lounge (PA2005 -087 ITEM NO. 3 Page 1 of 18 http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /Mn03202008.htrn 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 4221 Dolphin Striker Way PA2005 -057 late on the revocation of Use Permit No. 3162 and Use Permit No. 2005 -018. Hearing set for 05/08/2008 with an update to be given Lepo noted Ms. June Ailin who will be representing the City on this matter. 04/17/2008 rman Hawkins asked if the Planning Commission could withdraw ral of this matter to the Hearing Officer. Bums answered yes, they could re -start the process; however, he would )mmend it. June Ailin of Aleshire and Wynder noted she will be representing the City ecutor on the potential revocation of the use permits for Fury. Due to I ig and scheduling, this hearing has been re- scheduled to April 15, 2008 10 a.m. and if needed, it will be continued to April 18, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. 8 id there have been consultations about the procedures to be used for i 1ng, but no evidence has been taken to date. imissioner McDaniel noted his concern that this matter had not been now it is continued again. He asked when this will be heard by the PI imissioner for determination. Ailin answered that assuming the Hearing Officer concludes the hearing 18, 2008, he will need time to render his decision and make Jamieson, representing Fury, noted the hearing did start on March 5, 2008. opined as to why there were no additional meetings scheduled until April 1! I if needed, April 18, 2008. Tom Allen, Hearing Officer for this matter, noted if the hearing could icluded by April 18, that would give him adequate time to write ommendation for consideration on May 8, 2008. Noting the conflic damental vested right to be revoked and constitutional protections that m given to both sides, he will do his best to meet that obligation. At Commiss uiry, he noted that no witnesses were heard on March 5, 2008 and seve sediments that had to be dispensed. April 3, 2008 is the date for all the bri oe presented and will be determined in advance of the scheduled April Ailin, at Commission inquiry, noted she does not have first -hand knowledge e have been calls for service by the police at Fury since the new securi pany had taken over. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner ;I to receive and file. nmissioner Toerge asked if there was a way to create a back -stop with i d of delays and postponements. Or, if for whatever reason the hearing d( commence on the 15th and doesn't take place on the 18th, can we hear it 17th? r. Burns noted you could, but once you get into the hearings you would need t the process conclude. If people do not cooperate you could bring it back e Commission for a determination. Page 2 of 18 http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /Mn03202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Hawkins noted we could fix May 8, 2008 as the return date for Burns noted the Commission did instruct that the hearings start by a and conclude by a certain date. You could direct a return date. )mmissioner Toerge asked about noticing requirements. He wanted the know the specific dates for completed materials to be submitted to staff. Burns noted you have already given all the appropriate notice. The only this process is who makes the determination. The hearing is in process erybody has been given notice about this hearing. ibstitute Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge that if the Hear fioer's written report is to be completed by May 1, 2008 and in the hands iff to allow enough time to be placed in the agenda packet for delivery on N 2008 then the Commission will hear this May 8, 2008. •. Lepo noted staff would need time to give a ten -day notice in the local par April 23 for the May 8, 2008 hearing. •. Burns noted the public hearing notice has already been given. All you ha do is to direct the date you want this heard. >. Ailin suggested noticing the hearing for May 8, 2008, just to be on the s2 le so that noticing is not going to bean issue. •. Jamieson noted once he is done with his aspect of the issues, he would de Mr. Allen for his determination and agrees to the suggested dates. Allen noted the dates in April and will endeavor to move the hearing along best of his ability. He will get his recommendation to staff by May 1, 2008. Lepo noted he would get the materials out as soon as possible when they s jived by staff. He noted materials need to be received by April 30, 2008 latest. Allen agreed as long as the hearing is concluded by April 18, 2008. Toerge noted the Commission will hear this matter on May Ailin noted she is not available May 8, 2008. ian Hawkins noted if this item is not heard on May 8, 2008 then it will May 22, 2008. He noted his concern about getting this matter resolved Ailin agreed to May 22, 2008. imissioner Toerge reiterated his substitute motion that was seconded •imissioner Eaton that the Hearing Officer is to get his report in to staff by Al 2008. If it is not brought in, the Commission will hear this matter on May S. If it does come in, it will be placed on the agenda in the normal course mess, the Commission will consider it with the recommendation. Page 3 of 18 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn03202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Mr. Lepo noted we will do a public notice for May 8, 2008 and will have all the documents by April 30, 2008 and will distribute that information for a decision. I he materials are not received by the end of business on April 30, 2008 the hearing will still proceed on May 8, 2008. Mr. Burns, at Commission inquiry, noted the City's prosecutor for this item does not need to be at the Planning Commission hearing. At that time the recommendation of the Hearing Officer will be determined by the Commission. ommission Hillgren noted we still have not heard from the police as to their cceptance of the security and we need confirmation on this matter by the next meeting. Mr. Lepo will make a report on this item. ommissioner Toerge amended his substitute motion to include a status report on the security plan at the next Planning Commission hearing. The second accepted this change. Chairman Hawkins noted the hearings will commence and wants to hear it as oon as possible and cannot support the motion due to the timeline. yes: Eaton, McDaniel, Toerge oes: Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, and Hillgren Motion was denied. ommissioner Peotter revised his original motion to receive and file to include an update at the hearing on April 17, 2008; the report needs to be in by April 30,2008 for action to be taken May 8, 2008. If there is no resolution, we will hear it on May 22,2008. The revised motion was seconded by Commissioner McDaniel. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren oes: None x x x SUBJECT: Pavilions Wine Tasting (PA2007 -243) ITEM NO.4 21181 Newport Coast Dr PA2007 -243 Request for a use permit for an on -sale wine tasting bar and area with a Type 42 Item not heard due On-Sale Beer & Wine Public Premise alcoholic beverage license. to noticing error Mr. Lepo noted that due to the applicants not providing a complete mailing list hat this item is not to be heard tonight and will have to be set for another hearing or proper noticing. Chairman Hawkins noted that with a noticing problem, it is impossible to open the public hearing. Mr. Lepo suggested this item be heard on April 17, 2008. Motion was made to receive and file. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None x x x SUBJECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2007 -073) ITEM NO. 5 One Hoag Drive PA2007 -073 Page 4 of 18 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn03202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 ued hearing from March 6, 2008, for a request to reallocate up to 225,0 square feet of permitted buildable area from the Lower Campus to t Campus through the approval of the proposed General Plan and Plann iunity Development Plan Amendments. Applicant also requests approval iments to development regulations contained within the existing Plann iunity Development Plan, also known as the Hoag Master Plan or the F The changes principally relate to the allocation and limit of permitt g area between the Upper and Lower Campus, noise regulatior :aping requirements and sign standards. Lastly, applicant requests iment of the existing Development Agreement to reflect the changes to t r Plan as summarized above and to provide additional public benel vally in the form of providing funds for improvements and commun Is to public facilities such as streets, parks, water quality and public saf( . Campbell gave an overview of the staff report. He referenced the preparatior responses to additional written comments received at the prior meetings; ar alysis of the proposed soundwall has been prepared by Bonterra Consulting volutions have been included recommending certification of the SEIR anc )jest approval, including revised draft PC text language; and, he noted that the generation facility is not part of this application and will be addressed by the y Council as part of their Development Agreement compliance review wever, the city has had Fluor Enterprises review the cogeneration facility anc ;pare a report that was transmitted to the Commission due to the public Brest that surrounds the facility. The report discusses the three plume: nerated by the facility and possible options for abatement and further study. nmissioner Eaton asked about: the mitigation monitoring and enforcemc the lack of a reference to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program draft resolution; parking rate sources; parking requirements for support us( a mitigation, balcony barriers and timing issues; cogeneration facility bei a part of the project but could be addressed through a recommendation r the Development Agreement. Campbell indicated that a section can be added to the resolutions t( `erence compliance and implementation of the mitigation monitoring an( porting program. Additionally he gave a summary of the sources of the existins d proposed parking rates and indicated that the footnote source for several c 3 parking rates in Table 2 of the Planned Community text need to be corrected e correct source was identified and discussed. In regards to the propose( rking rate for support uses, he went on to note that in the parking analysis rking for support uses was included in the parking rates for other uses. Parkins Aities will be maintained as currently situated as it would be unwise to sugges 3t the existing conference center (a support use) would not need the parkins pply currently devoted to it and that the modified parking rates should appl, m this day forward for future approvals and that should be noted as a footnot( Table 2 as well. He noted that the balcony barriers are part of the proposal an( addresses noted in PDF 3.4 -1 are the correct units provided that th( undwall is constructed and should the soundwall not be approved, additiona s would be added. Harp noted that the negotiations of the Development Agreement amendm being handled by Mayor Selich and Councilmember Rosansky. The Plann omission could make recommendations to the City Council regarding eneration facility that would be addressed through the Developm Hawkins noted the resolution for the SEIR needs to include a Recommended for approval to City Council Page 5 of 18 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .usIPInAgendas /ntnO3202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 the earlier EIR on which the supplemental document is based, rgeneration facility is a problem for the residences and is not part of location of square footage; and, noted his concern of an annual review wit . performance standard for problems related to the cogeneration facility. Lepo noted the information for the costs of various options for the plumes available to the City Council for their deliberation. Hawkins added this issue has not been fully analyzed. an Hawkins noted staffs recommendation to address the as part of the Council's annual compliance review of the lent (DA) and Hoag's performance pursuant to the DA . Campbell answered that was correct. irman Hawkins noted that some performance standard in connection ie abatement could be recommended through the Development Agreer >uggested a change to the PC text regarding deliveries such that deliv ild not occur after 8PM as opposed to be not being scheduled. jested adding a recital indicating Commission review and revise the ngs to recommendations. rry McKitterick, representing Hoag Hospital, gave an overview of past hearings ;ognized the work done by all those affiliated with the project, the planninc )cess, landscaping, utility project, noise issues and mitigation measures sucl the soundwall design and location to the end of 260 Cagney Lane, 65 decibel., a commercial level and requests that for their daytime levels, and 55 decibel: night, staging areas in the lower campus with trailers and will continue a: rging areas in the future. He continued by noting the Development Agreemen part of the package and Hoag will be paying three million dollars to the city o rich part of that is designated for specific items with the balance to be used fo blic benefit as the city chooses. The project is important for the community. e cogeneration facility provides electricity and cooling for the hospital. The -thane from Balboa Cove comes into this facility. He noted that there is nc alth risk associated with the cogeneration facility and that any modifications tc system have to be custom - built; referenced the costs and the Syska mnessy memorandum as well as the Fluor Report. He asked that the plication be recommended for adoption to the City Council. Commission inquiry, he answered that Hoag has agreed to extend posed sound wall further to the north by 105 feet in length and it will be 14 I Greve of Mestre Greve, noted the 14 ft high wall was to provide rn ction from vehicle noise at the request of the neighbors. The length of was proposed to be to the end of 260 Cagney Lane. na Privitt of Bonterra Consulting noted that the analysis of the soundwall in t ff report that would become part of the Final EIR, indicates that the wall will r ult in a significant impact. The overall sound wall has been determined ult in a less than significant impact and therefore the SEIR does not need re- circulated. The extended wall is not covered in the analysis, but she not t she has walked the site many times and the wall is a result of additior and attenuation along West Hoag Drive as requested by the nearby neighbc i it was her opinion that the extension would not create a significant impact. ommendation of approval to the City Council would include a modifi Page 6 of 18 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn03202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 of the wall to include the extension. Hawkins asked about the vegetation along the proposed 7s. Privitt answered that the vegetation of the whole length is in most cases is 1 20 feet and in some cases higher. The vegetation exceeds the height of th 4 foot extension. r. Campbell referencing an exhibit noted the wall extension and the dense to e vegetation. II Raben of Raben Urban Landscape Architects, noted the tree vegetation in tl ea is about 25 feet high and taller than the proposed soundwall. r. Campbell then explained the revisions to Mitigation Measure PDF 3.4 -1 th :wld include the balcony barriers, units with cedar siding potentially havii Iditional sound insulation. Copies were made available to the public. iblic comment was opened. J. Gehlke - noted the concern that this is an on -going issue of expansion on sited amount of real estate. She suggested that it could be feasible for tl )spital to expand at other real estate elsewhere in the community. dy Kaiser - noted her concern about the cogeneration facility and agreed should be performance standards included in the Development Agreen that an annual review should be mandatory. She then discussed the I lust and her concern with the vapor to be consistently analyzed for safety. and Banks - noted the noise has gotten worse over the years; suggested should be 18 feet high and continue that height to the end of the props extension to half -way to the tennis courts due to the traffic noise. iette Warner - noted her concern with the cogeneration facility and plun ag Hospital does not follow- through with their promises; her view is destro the plumes; Hoag should fix the problem with the plumes regardless of ,t as this was promised to the neighbors some time ago. She then asked v happen on the lower campus and if there was going to be parking? rothy Holmes - presented a view from her condominium and that the wall ugly and hopes there are trees placed in front of it. Hacker - noise will come up and over the wall and it will be very hot with glas on the balconies; window awnings could be advantageous; sound not help her at all; new construction during the proposed build -out wil loud. mnie Justice - noted the wall will end in the middle of her living room and the units should be entitled to the window upgrades and the Plexiglas on lconies as they are on the same level as the 3rd level of 280 Cagney and tt major traffic on the road. Kaiser - noted the plumes is the main problem and Hoag should not red to move forward until this plume problem is addressed, now is irtunity to force Hoag Hospital to do something about it. Page 7 of 18 http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/nm03202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 8 of 18 Ross Ribaudo - noted his concern with the emissions and that the AQMD repo as based on three internal combustion engines. With the three proposed additional engines will only increase the emissions. Will there be more engine added at a future date? e Webber - noted she had to move her home office to another place art Beach due to the noise and dust from the trucks going in and out Hospital. She stated that pollution is increasing and their quality of life compromised. It is time for Hoag to expand to other campuses and the I be a limit to the hospital expansion at this site. ;y Smith - presented a picture to the Planning Commission that was from he my at night of the light on the plumes and lights from the children's center. oe lights need to be reduced. The new foliage needs to be older trees so the will be more effective in hiding the soundwall. iy Chen - noted that the Commission should require all the noise abatem es; noise levels will only increase with the additional tower as well as ic; Hoag is now only working with the neighbors because it wants someth i the City, the neighbors have been asking for relief from years; the requ g asked of Hoag is that they meet the mandates of the Developm 3ement; she asked that Hoag not be allowed to build a parking structure lower campus; nor should it be allowed to seek to re- assign the assigi are footage into the lower campus; existing mandates must be reviewed pliance and issues between the residents and Hoag need to be address r to allowing any further development; and, recommends Hoag replace on the cogeneration facility. is Thumher - Co- Chairman of the Villa Balboa Hoag liaison committee thanks ambers of the Commission and staff for the public forum that has been ve oductive to get information out into the public. The cogeneration facility w, ver disclosed nor were the plumes. There was no supplemental EIR rep( apared as was required by the Development Agreement. There was no visu pact analysis done for the plumes because the Planning Department ai )astal Commission did not know there were going to be plumes. There ha, an no public meetings or council oversight of the cogeneration facility ev( )ugh it, is required by the Development Agreement. There is a specs 3ndate about what would happen to views. Residents have been told ( ferent occasions that there would be no plumes, both verbally and in writing )ag should be held to their word. There is legitimate reason for tl generation facility and is recognized by the neighbors. We are asking th ery possible mitigation measure be taken to make the facility livable for tl mmunity. He requested that the Planning Commission include in its vote - ommendation to the City Council that they address the issue of tl generation facility as part of the Hoag application as it seems the only even( get this problem fixed. leen Taber of Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus, Petersen and Peckenpa( presenting the Villa Balboa Homeowners' Association, noted she had submit letter summarizing her remarks. She noted the cogen facility is included in =1R stating that there is going to be three additional internal combust igines to be added as a result of this overall project. Additionally, the Mitigal onitoring plan refers to the cogeneration facility in 3.4.9 that says upon stallation of the fourth cooling tower at the cogen facility. The analysis in ady report by Fluor has not been analyzed and not circulated with ipendices. The noise mitigation has been qualified with unreasonable restrai ich as the narrow scope of units, an imposition of $100,000 as a limit with sessment as to what the real costs will be, residents are being given I http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas /Mn03202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 9 of 18 eeks to notify Hoag they want this mitigation. You have heard from th residents that they are not opposed to the project, what they are; for is the he CEQA law be complied with and Hoag Hospital be a good neighbor. comment was closed. nmissioner Eaton noted the benefit and value of Hoag Hospital to the nmunity. There will be a third major tower on the upper campus due to transfe square footage. It is important that the regulations in the Developmen •eement be adhered. He concluded that we should recommend to the Cib incil that some provision be made in the Development Agreement for somi Igation of the plumes from the cogeneration facility that were not mitigated. SEIR has been analyzed by members of the association and responses tc nments have been made and included in the record. The noise level of 55 dE snot be achieved without the soundwall. The original request to increase tha IB to 65 dB is not warranted as the 55 dB already exceeds the City's Nois( linance. He supports the soundwall with the modifications and asked tha ag consider working with the residents to look at the very restrictive measure: :h as the timing and the monetary limit. More work needs to be done on the ks contained in the Fluor report as the recommendations were that the., ddn't make recommendations particularly on the exhaust system. We shoulc 3 recommend to Council that they deal with both plumes in the Developmen McDaniel asked about the location and extension of Greve answered the higher the soundwall, the more noise mitigation The 181/2 foot height is needed to protect the first floor of the 260 Cac ing from loading dock noise. Where it was proposed to stop was all that led to protect the 260 building from the loading dock. Continuing dwell further would reduce traffic noise on Hoag Road and at 14 feet w de protection from truck noise. He sees no reason from an acous oective to go to 18 1/2 feet high. The extension of the wall is valid as ents on the end of the 260 building would still be exposed to some n the roadway if it stopped at the end end of the building. However, to go I to the tennis courts may be a bit excessive. Referencing an exhibit in EIR, he noted the distance would be approximately 150 feet from the n of the building to the tennis courts. nmissioner McDaniel noted the issue of the balcony barriers is an individ iers prerogative. The issue of the foliage, what size tree will be used ace any foliage that is disturbed during the process? He also asked ab lighting. . Rabin noted some trees will be affected by the new wall; however, there isting large trees beyond Hoag property adjacent to the 260 building that nain. We have not analyzed the specific condition of that area because ggestion for extending the wall came up very recently. We intend to keep ill as close to West Hoag Road as possible; and, we will plan to keep as m the existing trees as possible while mitigating the sound. We plan to use d 60" boxed trees to provide a more natural appearance on what is to Brooks with Hoag, answered that the lights in the lower campus are ied to high pressure sodium, which is a lower light level and will pr of a quieter glow. We are adding awnings to mask the lights on the bttp: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/nm03202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 10 of 18 care center. These lights will be shut off around 8:45 p.m. by a timer and go on at 5:30 a.m. aff added that all the lights on the child care center are required to be shield stated in the Planned Community text. There is a photometric study for tl rking lot lighting. There will be a security key for the light on the service road s cogeneration facility, so it will only be on when it is needed. The revis, hting plans to change the lights will be reviewed using this photometric study. ;sioner Toerge asked about the number of units that are to be improved noise. What about the dollar amount, can this be changed? Campbell answered it is twelve units. The initial estimate of $100,000 :d on a different scope of work without some added features and a tai fiber of units and the number is probably not a good number. However, looking at other solutions that may provide better noise reductions where upgrades might not be necessary thereby reducing costs and as we L- information we might make adjustments to the measure. imissioner Toerge added that there should be no dollar limitation. The ;fit is that the work has to be done regardless of the cost. The City has no lucted the annual review and this has caused problems for the residents anc Id have gone a long way to deal with the lighting, cogeneration facility, anc isity issues. The current approval only allows Hoag to move already oved square footage to an upper campus. The City Council will deal with the alopment Agreement. He supports the extension of the wall and notec ing concerns need to be addressed, concern about the cogeneration facility that he supports the reallocation of the square footage. sioner Hillgren noted this is a reallocation of square footage to the and his belief that it is appropriate. He is hopes for a resolution lighting and landscaping. ition was made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner otter to adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council certify the pplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH #1991071003) and adopt neral Plan Amendment No. 2007 -005, Planned Community Development Plar iendment No. 2007 -001, and Development Agreement Amendment No. 2007• 1 with the following changes: . the $100,000 limitation on the physical improvements in PDF 3.4 -1 removed, the work needs to be done regardless of the costs involved; . a relaxation on the timing of the residents to accept the proposed measures such as the balcony and window replacements; . include a recommendation that the City Council consider whatever feasible on the cogeneration facility to deal with the plume issue; . the soundwall to be extended to the end of the 260 Cagney building a that it be extended further north toward the tennis courts based upon determination that it would be of benefit. ner Toerge noted that as part of the annual review of the Develop : the cogeneration plan needs to be considered for plume mitic and the feasibility. On the timing issue of two weeks, that is to http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn03202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 11 of 18 I more weeks after the Council approves this project which could be a month o I more from tonight. The residents need to get on board now and create a list. McKitterick noted: . $100,000 was actually $8,000 a unit and based on prior scope of work. suggested that the amount be determined with a bid by the City and F to be reconciled as the cap. . He accepted a timing of 30 days notice to be coordinated by association on acceptance of the mitigation measure on windows balconies. . He would like to see a benefit to extending the wall further than the 1 feet and is concerned with the adjacent property of Versailles. He agre to an extension but would like to see a benefit opinion. Hawkins suggested Mestre Greve give an opinion on the benefit of extension to be agreed to by Hoag. Greve added that he could look at a reasonable extension that would efit to the residences at the and without protecting the tennis courts. Hillgren agreed. nissioner Peotter clarified the proposed amendment is to change the to 45 days and change the $100,000 amount to be determined by 1 Hawkins answered with the input of the applicant. Lepo asked for clarification on City estimate. Who is going to do this? d his preference would be that Hoag obtain the estimates. >mmissioner McDaniel suggested Hoag get the estimates and consult with be sure that everything will work. sioner Peotter noted we will change this to an estimate by Hoag with ( The wall is to be extended 105 feet with an additional extension to ed by Mestre Greve. )mmissioner Eaton clarified that it was the intent of the motion to include the Terence to the mitigation monitoring program and the resolution certifying the R. )mmissioner Hillgren agreed. straw vote was taken on the proposed amendments to the motion - unanimous. )mmissioner Peotter noted additional items to be included in the motion: . Hours of operation - deliveries shall not be allowed before 7:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. daily. . Discussed adding the term of life critical as there is another dock that http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn03202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 12 of 18 available. McKitterick noted that the loading dock is the central space for deliveries of licine or certain needs. The current dock is not used very often at night and it s a major accident or disaster. Adding the term life makes it ambiguous. Hawkins asked what is non - critical for Hoag. McKitterick answered scheduled deliveries not after 8 p.m. and not before 7 Everything that is a standard delivery for the hospital. Critical would be a ter of medicine or medical supplies. ra Legan of Hoag Hospital stated that within the last six months they have not ied the loading dock gate after 8:00 p.m. What Hoag would like to have is opportunity, if there is a need for supplies during an emergency, to bring ,e in through the loading dock if needed after 8 p.m. nmissioner McDaniel stated this should not be an issue. If the hospital has a cal need for these supplies for an emergency, they should be allowed to open loading dock gate at any time. ier Peotter stated he is satisfied with the spirit of the intent. He the definition of mechanical occupancies not being counted for as area. Campbell answered that this definition in this PC text is not a typical provision is tailored for Hoag Hospital. The definition was changes when the Women's ilion was permitted as there is an entire floor that is not occupied. The )osed PC text change does not significantly alter definition from what was roved in 2002 by the City Council. tirman Hawkins noted his disagreement as there is a numerical limitation in old language. This section could be used to build a whole new cogeneration lity and not go against the floor area ratio. ngston Trigg, Vice President of Hoag, noted this definition is directed towards a interstitial space in the tower such as the Woman's Pavilion. Typically, a lot those spaces are less than 8 feet tall, but ours are taller than 8 feet so we nted this language in so that we could exempt the interstitial space. continued on changing the language to '....area of a building which are not for general or routine occupancy and interstitial V occupancies. Trigg agreed. He added that they have space that is taller than 8 feet that is ling but equipment in existing buildings and there is likely to be additional ces in the future similar to them. Campbell noted this is a concern as it could be interpreted incorrectly. He d his concern about eliminating the 8 feet in that existing building areas that presently counted toward entitlement could be exempted from the new iition and would not be counted and this is not the intent of the change and immended that no change be made to the language. As an alternative, you d include a provision that this new definition would only apply to new >truction so it would not be applicable to anything that is existing. http: / /www.city.newpoTt- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn03202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 13 of 18 Trigg noted the 8 foot height limit was set up when the equipment was ill in buildings; however, we now deal with 2,000 square feet of area to N much larger equipment. Campbell noted the definition with 8 feet was modified in 2002 and ated to the Woman's Pavilion. He suggested not to apply this newer lar existing buildings. Trigg agreed to language that would not allow retroactive application. imissioner Peotter noted he is trying to make this consistent with the e: An eight -foot interstitial space in the middle of a floor is like a large If not, that space is 20 feet tall and it is not a penthouse, typically you as floor area. Trigg added that the industry standard would include closets, mechan' ;es, interstitial spaces, penthouses and basement kinds of spaces that spied exclusively by equipment. They should not be counted as floor area. Lepo noted that after 8 feet you are going to have to count it. If it is going more like 20 feet interstitial space. I understand the need to try >mmodate everyone, but this is not wise. He suggested to revert back to t nal language with no changes. missioner Hillgren noted this is just the concept of where they are placi mechanical equipment, it is not increasing the EIR load. Hawkins noted that as proposed, this could be used to estab generation facility on the lower campus to be entirely devoted I equipment with no size limitation. I don't see that is Hoag's intent. Peotter noted this affects the mass of the building. nan Hawkins asked if the height envelope included mechanical tenances or equipment. Mr. Campbell answered, yes; nothing could go the established building height limitations as defined in the Planned iunity regulations. vote taken regarding the definition of floor area: Commissioner Hillgren suggested adding the concept of "medical" buildings to the definition. Commissioner Toerge suggested going with staffs recommendation to stay with the old language. Commissioner McDaniel answered it is a hospital and needs what it needs. As long as the height level or floor area does not change he agrees with the proposed language. Commissioner Cole agrees with staff recommendation. Commissioner Peotter agrees with staff recommendation Commissioner Eaton agreed with the "medical" limitation http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /Mn03202008.httn 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 14 of 18 Chairman Hawkins noted he would go with staffs recommendation but would make it 10 feet rather than 8 feet. the Commissioners agreed with staffs recommendation with a change from t to 10 feet. Ir. Trigg noted the reality is that they have equipment now that is in spaces up 7 -20 feet tall. Hawkins noted City Council can look at Mr. Trigg's concern. Hawkins suggested that the PC regulations for .permitted power generation as a support facility be limited to to existing bull In McKitterick asked not to add this as the hospital has been here for ma ears and will be for many more to come. Future development will have to be ie lower campus as it relates to support services that may include down the ro nother central plant of some type, There is no plan now, but it could be in 5 0 years. He stated that if we don't have the use we would have to come back mend the use permit simply to build it. jirman Hawkins asked what sort of environmental review would go forward have the square footage and the permitted use? It seems you could avc environmental review for another facility . McKitterick answered that Section 3.3 of the Development Agreei resses subsequent CEQA analysis. We don't want to be penalized. jested that the Chairman's suggested modification not be placed in Dort services. irman Hawkins noted there could be a paragraph in the planned as well for a cross - reference. Campbell suggested putting some language into Section 4 or Section 5 of tI text related to Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement would work and ild be applicable to any subsequent approval. Harp read Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement, "Hoag acknowled at the EIR is a program EIR that includes Supplemental Environmental Imr :port #142. The EIR analyzes the impacts of construction based over time o rsuant to CEQA the City is under a continuing obligation to analyze Hos guest for project specific approvals to insure the environmental imps sociated with the request are fully addressed in the EIR. Subsequ vironmental documentation is required if this analysis reveals environmei pacts not fully addressed in the program EIR, identifies new impacts, ncludes the specific request is not consistent with the project described in R. Hoag acknowledges the right and obligation of the City and the Coe )mmission or its successor agency to impose additional conditions as a re the subsequent environmental analysis required by CEQA." McKitterick noted his agreement to include this as a separate paragraph development regulations near the end of that section. Hawkins clarified that there was no support to limiting pi to existing buildings. With the changes discussed earlier in for typos and insertion of the earlier EIR reports into the recitals http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.usIP1nAgendas /mnO3202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 insertion of Mitigation Monitoring Program in the resolution on the J if there were any other items. nissioner Peotter re- stated the motion to adopt resolutions recomm( Council certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 10710031 and adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2007 -005, PI nunity Development Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001, and Develo :ment Amendment No. 2007 -001 with the following changes: • Staff recommendations including the hand out (PDF 3.4 -1 as amended); • the $100,000 limitation on the physical improvements is removed and be based on estimates secured by Hoag subject to City review; • a relaxation on the timing of the residents to accept the proposed mitigati measures such as the balcony and window replacement from 14 days 45 days; . hours of operation -deliveries shall not be allowed before 7:00 a.m. or 8:00 p.m. daily; • the soundwall to be extended at least 105 feet north to building 260 and additional amount as determined by Mestre Greve if necessary; • revert back to the original language regarding mechanical interstitial with the change of 8 feet to 10 feet; • insert paragraph 3.3 as part of Section V of the PC text; • fix typographical errors in resolutions; • insert the earlier 1992 EIR in the recitals of that resolution; • insert a reference to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan into the resolution; • insert the changes to the Table 2 changing the citation for the parking handwritten page 51; and, McKitterick noted the 10 -foot limit in the definition of floor area is a we can address this at the City Council hearing. None None Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter to recommend to City Council sir annual review of the Development Agreement for Hoag that they consic ime abatement and recommends Option Number 3A and the City Council :)vided with more accurate cost data before they make their decision. Harp clarified if this was part of the annual review or as part of ideration of the amendment to the Development Agreement? Peotter answered we had talked about it being part of their Recommend City Council include plume abatement during their deliberation of amending the Development Agreement. Page 15 of 18 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/nln03202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 riew but would change it to be part of the consideration of the amend the Development Agreement. Eaton seconded the Motion. nmissioner Toerge noted so long as it doesn't limit it to just Option 3, th uld be able to consider the whole report and do what they want to do. He prepared to judge which option is best. nmissioner Peotter clarified that option was a synopsis of a 50% review and the 2 -5 million dollar range as far as the estimate at this point. F ommended this as specific adding the Council needs better cost data. iissioner McDaniel noted he does not support the motion. This issue up at the Council anyway. mmissioner Hillgren noted he does not support this as there is no way to with any quantitative estimate based upon what we've heard. n Hawkins suggested an amendment to the motion that the City with their discussions and decisions to amend the Deve int some sort of effective plume abatement. Peotter agreed to the amend the motion based upon the dialogue. ; sioner Peotter then modified the Motion such that the ;sion recommends that the City Council consider implementing abatement for the Hoag cogeneration facility during the ration of the amendment of the Development Agreement. sioner McDaniel noted his belief that we are recommending that the study this further. Hawkins indicated yes. Eaton indicated his understanding of the motion goes further study in that we are recommending that 0 (Ayes: I Eaton, Pander, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren (Noes: McDaniel and Hillgren Seashore Village (PA2007 -100) 5515 River Ave Permit for building height exemption; Modification Permit for setbacks ing separation; Tentative Tract Map established for condominium purpc tal Residential Development Plan for compliance with CA Government on 65590 and Chapter 20.86 of the City's Municipal Code; and Mitig itive Declaration (MND). Lepo noted that staff had just received a lengthy set of comments on D for this project. We had agreed to accommodate the applicant to place i on this agenda with the proviso that if comments were received and staff have time to respond to it, we would have to continue this item. Staff has the opportunity to review these comments and so requests this item PA2007 -100 Continued to 04/03/2008 Page 16 of 18 http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn03202008.htm 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 17 of 18 Ontinued to April 3, 2008. the request of the Chairman, Ms. Lennie DeCaro referenced her letter sent o Planning Department regarding improper noticing. She noted she preferr it this item be continued. iinnan Hawkins noted that staff has made a recommendation to open lic hearing and continue this item to a date certain. The project applicant present. missioner Toerge noted that only one member of the public testified on and that was to request that this item be continued. iissioner McDaniel noted the absence of the project applicant and this item should be continued to. r. Lepo recommended this item be continued to April 3, 2008, as the not present, with the option to continue this to April 17, 2008. m was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by to continue this item to April 3, 2008. rman Hawkins noted he had an ex parte communication with the appli discussed the project. He noted his opposition to continuing this item ad to open the hearing and begin the hearing and, if needed, continue Hawkins wxs PA2002 -167 Sejour (PA2002 -167) 3400 Via Lido Continue to 04117/2008 tion of use permits for an off -site alcoholic beverage outlet with alcohol consumption, food service and live entertainment. . Lepo noted that the property owner had requested that this item be contir April 3, 2008. Staff has no recommendation on this request. He noted mence of outside attorneys representing the City for this item. City Attorney Harp recused himself from this portion of the meeting. )mey Alan Burns noted he is serving as counsel to the Planning Commissior this matter. He noted the email continuance request as they claim they di( get noticed on this matter. However, he stated that in the file packet the udes the January materials where the determination to go forward at thi: rring, there was a letter from them asking that this hearing be set in March. a staff packet has not changed for this hearing. He reported that tht nmission gave them what they had asked for, which was to continue thf tter to this month. ssioner Eaton noted that if the applicant is willing to keep the then we could continue this matter and discuss it. Chairman Hawkins asked if the permittee was present. file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn03202008.httn 03/31/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Attorney Burns noted that it should be clarified both the permittee and the business and property owner, the Overstreets. Chairman Hawkins then asked if anybody was present who had interest in ejour. No one responded. Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commission Cole to continue this matter to April 17, 2008, as the facility is closed and no on representing the permittee is present. Commissioner Toerge noted the permittee had asked for a continuance sixty days ago and now we get a letter from an attorney today that was retained yesterday. He is not prepared to continue this item. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, and Hillgren Noes: Hawkins, McDaniel and Toerge ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up. None. b. Planning Commission Reports. Chairman Hawkins reported on the Economic Development Committee. C. Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report. Commissioner Peotter asked to have discussion on the minutes, and other Commission business on the agenda of April 3, 2008. ADJOURNMENT: 10:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 18 of 18 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn03202008.htm 03/31/2008