Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4050 W COAST HWY11111111 lill 111111111111 1111111111111 lill III III 4050 W Coast Hwy TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting SQtember7-1989 Agenda Item No. 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Planning Department Use Permit No 1421 (Amended)(Public Hearinel Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the expansion of `the existing Hoag Hospital facility on property located in the A-P-H and Unclassified Districts. The proposed amendment is a request to establish an employee child care facility and related parking to be located on the lower southwesterly portion of the campus, adjacent to the future Hoag Hospital Cancer Center in the Unclassified District; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 172, Block 1, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 4050 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue, on property known as CalTrans East. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Application This application involves a request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the expansion of the existing Hoag Hospital facility on property located in the A-P-H District and the Unclassified District. The proposed amendment is a request to establish an employee child care facility and related parking to be located on the lower southwesterly portion of the campus, adjacent to the future Hoag Hospital Cancer Center. In accordance with Section 20.53.020 of the Municipal Code, any use not otherwise prohibited by law, is permitted in the Unclassified District subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. TO: Planning Commission-2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K 3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached for Commission review. Conformance nce With the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities". The Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan designates the site for "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" for parking, public recreation and visual/environmental purposes, and specifically accommodates the expansion for Hoag Hospital facilities on the site. The existing and proposed uses are permitted within this designation and are consistent with the area specific land use policies which have established a development limit of a 1.0 floor area ratio (F A.R.). The existing 538,064 square feet of approved hospital development, when combined with the proposed child care facility, will remain within the 1.0 envelope and remain consistent with the approved master plan for the site. Inasmuch as the project property is in the Coastal Zone and this item is discretionary in nature, the applicant will be required to obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. ,subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The proposed project will be located on the lower southwesterly portion of the hospital campus, adjacent to the new Cancer Center which is currently under construction. To the north, at the top of the bluff, is the Villa Balboa Condominium development; to the east is the new Cancer Center and the hospital parking structure; to the south, across West Coast Highway, is the Royal Thai Restaurant facility and the Balboa Coves residential community; and to the west is vacant land. :a=,� IT, W-MMW At its meeting of October 4, 1979, the Planning Commission approved Amendment "C" to Use Permit No. 1421 and a related Traffic Study so as to permit the expansion of the hospital. The action of the Planning Commission was reviewed and modified by the City Council at its meeting of November 12, 1979. The project included construction of a new 10 story patient tower adjacent to the existing tower, and expansion of the first floor which presently houses the radiology and laboratory • departments and the emergency room. Also approved was a request to establish a parking requirement based on demonstrated need, as opposed to the parking requirements set forth in the Zoning I TO: Planning Commission-3. Code. Based on the parking analysis that was subsequently prepared, the Planning Commission determined that an additional 407 parking spaces should be provided for the expanded facility. At its meeting of October 21, 1982, the Planning Commission approved Amendment "D" to Use Permit No. 1421 so as to permit remodeling of the ground floor and expansion of the existing storage area in the respiratory therapy wing to create new offices, storage areas and work rooms. In light of plans to provide additional parking in conjunction with the implementation of Amendment "C", no additional parking was required. Some of the minor alterations to the existing buildings approved under Amendment "C" to Use Permit No. 1421 were accomplished. However, the hospital later decided not'to construct the new patient tower or the expansion of the first floor, and thus the requirement for additional parking was not applied. On April 18, 1985, the Planning Commission approved Amendment "E" to Use Permit No. 1421, which was a request to construct a single story addition to the hospital to be used for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Diagnostic equipment. The proposal also included a request to establish a temporary facility in excess of 90 days to be located in a mobile trailer unit within an existing off-street parking area. Since it had been demonstrated in the past that the parking 'requirements set forth in the Zoning Code did not reflect the actual parking demand on the' site, the hospital asked the Planning Commission to establish a parking requirement for the existing uses based on a demonstrated formula. The Planning Commission agreed to this request and adopted the following condition of approval of Amendment "E" to Use Permit No. 1421: 5. That prior to issuance of grading or building permits for the permanent MRI facility, the Planning Commission shall review and approve a proposal to establish a parking requirement for the hospital facility, based on a demonstrated formula. The parking plan approved by the Planning Commission shall be implemented prior to the occupancy of the permanent MRI facility. Under the approved amendment, the temporary facility was to be removed within one year of the date on which the amendment became effective unless the Planning Commission granted an extension of time. However, because the permanent MRI had not yet been built, an extension of time was requested for the temporary facility. On July 24, 1986 the Planning Commission approved Amendment "F" to Use Permit No. 1421, so as to permit the previously existing MRI facility to remain on the site for one additional year or until the permanent MRI facility was occupied with an extension to be granted by the Modifications Committee, and to permit the installation of a second MRI facility for a similar period 'of time. At its July 24, 1986 meeting, the Planning Commission also established the following parking requirements for the facility, based on site investigations by Newport Traffic Studies: TO: Planning Commission-4. 0.64 spaces/bed x 471 beds — 301' 0.68 spaces/employee x 1,200 employees = 816 1 space/resident doctor x 10 doctors = 10 13 spaces/emergency room bed x 16 beds = 24 1,151 parking spaces At that time, 1,195 parking spaces were provided on -site. On September 4, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Amendment "G' to Use Permit No. 1421 which was a request to construct a 50,000 sq.ft. cancer center and covered walkway system in the Unclassified District, The proposal also included: a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off-street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the required parking to be provided as compact spaces. Plans were subsequently revised and the cancer center was then approved under Amendment "I" to Use Permit No. 1421. On March 19, 1987, the Planning Commission approved Amendment "H" to Use Permit No. 1421 which was a request to permit the construction of a new hospital entry area I ncluding new administrative offices, conference room, chapel, lobby and waiting area, and an out -patient registration area; and the construction of a new storage room for the cardiac surgical unit. Inasmuch as no new beds, employees, or doctors were to be added, no additional parking was required. On November 5, 1987, the Planning Commission approved Amendment "1" to Use Permit No. 1421 which was a request to construct a 65,000 square foot cancer center on a portion of the hospital property located in the Unclassified District, commonly referred to as the "CalTrans East" site. The proposal also included: a request to exceed the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off-street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the required parking to be provided as compact spaces. The Planning Commission required that 136 additional parking spaces be provided. Under the approved plans, these spaces were to be located in the vicinity of the cancer center, primarily on the CalTrans East site. On December 14, 1987, the City Council sustained the action of the Planning Commission. lIncludes all visitor parking, including conference center parking. Because conference center users park in the visitors' lot, on -site surveys of lot usage would reflect usage by conference center visitors as well as patient visitors, out patients, etc. TO: Planning Commission-5. On November 19, 1987, the Planning Commission approved Amendment "J" to Use Permit No. 1421 which was a request to retain the site for various mobile modular diagnostic facilities that may be temporarily located at the hospital facility. At its meeting of January 5, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Amendment W' to Use Permit No. 1421 which involved a request to permit the construction of an MRI emergency waiting room; the construction of a first floor pedestrian link building which includes a pedestrian corridor, a small lobby and a future laboratory; and the construction of two, two level parking structures with roof -top parking. A modification to the Zoning Code was also approved so as to allow the proposed parking structure to encroach 5 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback adjacent to Hospital Road. Said action was taken with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated January 5, 1989. Recent Background At its meeting of May 4, 1989, the Planning Commission considered Amendment "V to Use Permit No. 1421 which requested approval of the following additions to the hospital facility: 1. An employee child care center, which was to provide weekday child care for hospital staff who have infant, toddler and pre-school age children. Said facility was to be located on the upper portion of the campus, near the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road; 2. A 1,500 square foot addition, which was to be used to house a Gamma Knife facility which is used in conjunction with Radiation Oncology for the treatment of deep, inoperable brain tumors; 3. A 700 sq.ft. addition to the north end of the existing administrative wing. Said addition was to be used as an office for the Chief of Staff, along with support and storage areas; and 4. The installation of a 1,680 sq.ft. temporary modular office space which was to be used for temporary hospital offices and was to be located next to the conference center, adjacent to Hospital Road. In conjunction with its review of the above described application, the Planning Commission indicated their concern regarding the permanent alteration of the slope area adjacent to Newport Boulevard in order to accommodate a temporary use of the site for an employee child care facility. As a result of these concerns, the Planning Commission took no action concerning the child care facility and directed the applicant to identify another part of the hospital campus for said use, at which time they were to bring the matter back to the Planning Commission for approval. The Planning Commission also took no action concerning the administrative office addition or the installation of the temporary modular office space. It was suggested, with the TO: Planning Commission-6. concurrence of the applicant, that it would be more appropriate to consider such additions in conjunction with the approval of the master plan of development which the hospital is currently preparing. The Plantung Commission did, however, approve the 1,500 sgft. addition for the Gamma Knife facility, indicating that the community benefit for such a facility far outweighed the benefit of considering such construction in conjunction with the master plan of development. It should also be noted that the above application also included a request to install three identification wall signs on the hospital tower; however, this portion of the application was withdrawn by the applicant at the May 4, 1989 public hearing. AaalyEis As indicated previously, the applicant is now proposing to establish the child care facility on the lower portion of the hospital campus, adjacent to the new Cancer Center. Said 22 foot 6± inch high facility will include an 8,400 square foot wood framed and stucco building which will include interior spaces for the care of infants, toddlers, and pre- school children. There will also be administrative offices for the director and assistant director, a staff lounge, utility workroom, and a kitchen. The facility will be open from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and will serve up to a maximum of 100 children. During peak hours of operation, there will be a maximum of 21 staff personnel on duty at the center. There will also be a total of 7,525 sgft. of outdoor play area which will be enclosed in the front by a wrought iron fence and on the sides and rear by a black vinyl covered chain link fence. Although it is not shown on the attached site plan, the limits of the proposed outdoor play area will extend 30 feet beyond the proposed building. (Off -Street Parking ReQ iremeni As discussed in the previous background section, required off-street parking for the hospital is based on a demonstrated formula which takes into consideration the number of beds, doctors, and other staff. The following table sets forth the existing and proposed parking in relationship to the subject application. Parking Formula E .t gxis in 0.64 spaces/bed 471 beds 0.68 spaces/employee 1,200 employees 1.0 space/resident doctor 10 doctors 1.5 spaces/emergency room bed 16 beds Total Parking Requirement (excluding the Cancer Center) F=osed Required Parking no change 301 1,221 employees 831 no change 10 no change 24 1,166 spaces There are currently 1,195 existing parking spaces on the hospital campus. It should also be noted that the applicant is proposing to construct 21 additional parking spaces in conjunction with the proposed child care center. Inasmuch as the child care facility will serve hospital staff only, the only increase in parking demand will come from the new staff members for the Child Care Center. Therefore, there appears to be adequate TO: Planning Commission-7. parking to meet the parking demand of the hospital. Access From West Coast Highway As shown on the attached plot plan, primary acces becif"ic Findings s Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve this application, the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Staff has not included an exhibit for the denial of the application inasmuch as we are unable at this time to determine findings satisfactory to support the denial of the proposed child care center. However, there may be additional information presented at the public hearing which may provide grounds for denial of the use permit. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director v, 'a 'AM WARD ILLL SenYor Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Initial Study and Negative Declaration Letter from Child Care Planning Associates Excerpts of the Planning Commission Minutes dated January 5, 1989 and May 4, 1989 Plot Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations TO: Planning Commission-S. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 1421 (AMENDED) AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT September 7, 1989 A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, malting the following findings and requiring the following mitigation measures: FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K 3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. Mitigation Measures: 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering and sweeping program designed to minimize the impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. TO: Planning Commission-9. 5. The grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on the recommendations of a soil engineer or an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of the landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. Said plan shall give special emphasis to the landscaping provided for the purpose of screening the fence enclosure around the outdoor play areas. 8. All rooftop and other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line, and that all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view. 9. The interior of the building shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL and the outside play areas shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 65 dBA CNEL as measured from the area expected to experience the highest sound levels. Measurement and certification of compliance with this condition shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by a registered engineer practicing in acoustics. 10. The lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. The, plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. TO: Planning Commission-10. 11. The structure shall be designed to protect the building from gas accumulation and seepage, based on the recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer. 12. The building shall be equipped with methane gas sensors. Such sensors shall be installed in areas of likely accumulation, such as utility or other seldomly used rooms. Sensors can monitor on a continuous basis and can be tied into fire alarm systems for 24 hour surveillance. Installation of the gas sensors and alarm system shall be verified by the Building and Fire Departments. B. Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended): Approve the Use Permit with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: :il►1� 1► 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding uses. 2. That adequate parking will be provided to serve the child care facility. 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 the approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. 1421 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 to the general welfare of the City. 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended) shall be fulfilled. TO: Planning Commission-11. 3. That the intersection of the private streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping and walls within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 4. That the child care facility shall be limited to 100 children unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 5. That the hours of operation of the child care facility shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. 6. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. That the child care sidewalk system tie into the cancer center sidewalk system and that a 5 foot wide sidewalk be constructed along the northerly side of the private street between West Coast Highway and the child care facility. 8. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. That the primary entrance located on West Coast Highway shall not be used to serve the child care facility or the Cancer Center until the West Coast Highway widening has been completed and the traffic signal installed. 11. That the applicant shall widen Hospital Road to provide a left turn for east bound traffic, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 12. That the outdoor play areas shall not extend toward the bluff more than 30 feet from the proposed child care building. 13. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. TO: Planning Commission-12. 14. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 15. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. LTYIILL•ttY0OlT1LL tIRYICT ' ItYLY pRtKt [ t[tp[YTILL gtIMR a;t[s mtnn.[ IlplctRpL M.t 11[tO " p[INCT ItM "'[' ptTYCT viciuirr 1.+AP L p t► £ oY "'A -PI — = I A-P CJ$ AP ' A-P-H NOW AVS"G �c Ji b 1 A -rip E11 p I "I L4olo"'F' -MAP-CITY-OF-NEWPORT- MAU" -GALI ru"M16% 0•Y mit [ otIOt pYYlYt1LL CIttMR Y-1 YN[IItRIM1Yt gtTNCf ftms a �� uYn[o coYY[tpLL •YVIr✓lt twl Jtl. gRItCT O mYtwauo rtwrLLYwlYt Oanxcr �� ttAV we T` �i.� N utMT COYYgCY4 ptttlR M� CgNt1YM pl W Wsm" w.a.IM A-fI! pawa Ya u� 5.7•T N�.wf/� rw.wwwM Ir C-t MItML C011YtM1[L p[IIIIR I�COYtp1Yt p1�[�pRtICT •N.p�.N UYvwrrY w»wYMM MJ a+e•1 � wrm� waN dt. _ l •� IYItllllp�R ptlwCT O ..•Y.. •• . , . . s w ti YO YYYAUIfltt YItIMCT I—� � • mao 1449 ?*oravi pY. Yt. 4 SEW PORE . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 c'��iFoa��r NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Office of Planning and Research 1 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 D County Clerk of the County of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: FROM: Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 PROJECT LOCATION: yO©O 11% 4A159 ! /�1 , CA/ 92t063 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: try�fN!lC QN a 4h1Jan A4111* x0eve s w,A 1-4114A ! ,o%y array FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See Q4hvA ( /nl#Q/ INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmeent/al Coo�r7diinnator DATE:2 ✓a/ 1 / 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach lit ENvIRoN!ffi7IAL CHECKLIST FORK I. Background 1. Name of Proponent Arm /�lP�hignirl 2. At}dress and Rhone Numbe r of Proponent �n� 11D�1�/Ta� nQl�i 3. Date Checklist Submitted �/l� 0i/iff Q 4. Agency Requiring Checklist C New 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Impacts , (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached 'sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? — b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? — C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? — d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of Soils, either on or off the site? — — f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? — g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? - 1 - Yes Maybe No 2_ 3. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, X either locally or regionally? -- Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of — surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow Of flood waters? — d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? - — e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, x dissolved oxygen or turbidity? -- --� f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? --- g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? — h. i.• Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public v A water supplies? — J. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? — -2- �G S Yes Maybe No 4. plant Life_ Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the'numbers of any unique, rare k or endangered species of plants? C. introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal x replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life_ Will the proposal result in: a. Change -in the diversity of species, or num- bers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- X fish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, w rare or endangered species of animals? — — c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife x habitat? —" 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new —' light or glare? , 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned U land use of an area? h 3 - Y Yes Maybe No 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural YS resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or X upset conditions? -- —' b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? --' U. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? — 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional'housing? 13. Transportation/Gi'rculation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional x vehicular movement? — b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing trans- portation systems? — d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? — h e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?— f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: -4- /Ir Yes Maybe No a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? — X C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? — 7� f. other governmental services? — 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development X of new sources of energy? — 16. Utilites. Will the proposal result in a•need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? — b. Communications systems? — c. Water? --' d. Sewer or septic tanks? —' e. Storm water drainage? — f. Solid waste and disposal? — X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in? a. Creation of any healthibazard or potential health heazard (excluding mental health)? — b. Exposure of people to potential health — hazards? - 5 - Y, e; Maybe No la. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration a. of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? �-- b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or .✓/ historic building, structure, or object? — f► c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect V A. unique ethnic cultural values? — d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade a. the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of's fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, a reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? — Ea Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) — C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?_ III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation:. I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that although the proposed project could have a signif- icant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q S h, k9 1261/9gq Date�f Signature C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For - 7 - pgOjF,Cp DESCRIPTION Hoag Memorial Hospital proposes to construct a 8,400 sq.ft, child care facility westerly of the Hoag Cancer Center currently under construction on the lower campus (CalTrans East). The facility will serve hospital employees, and will accommodate 100 children. The facility will be staffed by 10 employees. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1b,c. The site proposed for the development of the Hoag Hospital child care facility id currently being used as a stockpile site for soil excavated during the grading for the Cancer Center, In order to prepare the site for construction, this soil will be regraded and spread over the site to the west. The regrading will occur in previously disturbed areas of the site, and will not affect any unique or valuable geologic formations. No adverse effects are anticipated from grading this area. Placement of the building will cover the soil. This is a natural effect of construction is not a significant adverse effect. le. Re -grading and spreading of soil on the site may result in an increase of wind and water erosion on the site. The impacts which can be anticipated to occur will be reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures proposed and incorporated into the project. 3b. The placement of a new structure on the site will alter absorption rates and drainage patterns in that portion of the site. This effect is not anticipated to be significant due to the fact that a significant portion of the project site will be landscaped areas providing for absorption of runoff and the effects are further reduced by mitigation measures incorporated into the project. 6b. The location of the child care facility is on the lower campus of Hoag Hospital, and is in close proximity to West Coast Highway, a major arterial roadway in the City of Newport Beach. The clients of the child care facility are noise sensitive, and will be in routine living situation while they are on -site. In order to minimize potential effects of noise on the children which will utilize the facility, sound attenuation of interior areas and exterior play areas will be required to meet residential noise criteria. 7. Construction of a new structure will result in additional night lighting of the facility producing additional light in the vicinity of the project. Residential development overlooking the project site may be affected by this new light source, but the impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures incorporated in to the project. 13b. The construction of the new child care facility will generate additional parking demands from employees and from persons delivering and picking up children. No impacts are anticipated due to the fact that the facility will provide adequate parking for employees and clients. 17 The lower campus of Hoag Hospital is in an area of known methane gas production ,m """" r: .. of th;a nrn;ert will exnnSe the users and emolovees of the facility environmental measures incc MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering and sweeping program designed to minimize the impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa .Ana Region. 5. The grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on the recommend- ations of a soil engineer or an engineering geologist subsequent to the -completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of the landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan. 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. 8. All rooftop and other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line, and that all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view. 9. The interior of the building shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL and the outside play areas shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 65 dBA CNEL as measured from the area expected to experience the highest sound levels. Measurement and certification of compliance with this condition shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by a registered engineer practicing in acoustics. 10. The lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. Qf 11. The structure shall be designed to protect the building from gas accumulation and seepage, based on the recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer. 12. The building shall be equipped with methane gas sensors. Such sensors shall be installed in areas of likely accumulation, such as utility or other seldomly used rooms. Sensors can monitor on a continuous basis and can be tied into fire alarm systems for 24 hour surveillance. Installation of the gas sensors and alarm system shall be verified by the Building and Fire Departments. MITIGATION MONITORING Mitigation measures 1-7 & 11-12 shall be verified for compliance prior to the issuance of the grading permit by the City of Newport Beach. Measures 8-10 shall be verified for compliance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Newport Beach. PLT/ED\UP1421L2.IS Child Care Pl�n.n..in, Ci►.c�•vr �� April 24, 1989 Mr. Bill Ward, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8912 Dear Mr. Ward, � �44 LRTEK. tie,., rt APR2 61969 at mmu At the request of Dubby Evins of Hoag Hospital I am sending the following information regarding the child care center for hospital employees currently under consideration. The center will be open for child care Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and will serve no more than 100 children at one time. The breakdown of the ages is as follows: Ages # 2 months to 15 months 16 15 months to-24 months 16 24 months to 36 months 20 36 months to 48 months 24 48 months to 60 months 24 At maximum enrollment during the day, there will be 21 staff at the center. Parking for center staff will be in existing and new employee parking areas. New parking for drop-off will include 12 spaces--6 on the side of the center and 6 in front of the center. The current employee population at Hoag is 2,517. Of that number, the center will meet the needs of approximately 125 employees at any one time. Ifyou•have any further questions, please call me at the number at the bottom of this page. Since dly, cipaliV Dennis M. HudsoR n, Principal cc: Dubby Evins P.O. Box 4126, Irvine, California 92716 (714) 733-2272 COMMISSIONERS GZc^Z ao 9�sZo yo t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 5, 1989 ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No 1421 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1421A permitted the expansion of the existing Hoag Hospital facility on property located in the A-P-H District. The Approved proposed amendment includes: a request to construct an addition to the MRI emergency waiting room; the construction of a first floor pedestrian link building which will include a pedestrian corridor, a small lobby and a future laboratory; and the construction of a two level parking structure for doctors with roof -top parking. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to permit said parking structure to encroach 5 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback adjacent to Hospital Road. Also requested is an exception to the Sign Code so as to allow the installation of 4 internally illuminated wall signs on the tower building and adjacent elevator tower whereas only 3 wall signs would be permitted and to allow the installation of an additional ground sign. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Record of Survey 15-30, located at 301 Newport Boulevard, on the southwesterly corner of Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. ZONE: A-P-H APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Pers6n and James Hewicker, Planning Director, discussed Commissioner Pers6n's concerns regarding the applicant's "piecemeal" applications that have been coming before the Planning Commission, and his request that the applicant submit a Master Plan as soon as possible. Mr. Hewicker explained that staff requested that the applicants delay processing major applications during the past year because of the extensive General Plan workload. Mr. Hewicker addressed the rapid changes in medicine, and the desire by Hoag Hospital to meet those needs. Mr. Hewicker explained that the applicants have withdrawn their proposal to install four wall signs on the tower building and elevator tower inasmuch as the -8- �iJ COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y�\15 January 5, 1989 O�c��Zp <' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX adjacent residents 'have expressed concerns regarding said request. In reference to the 82 parking spaces that are proposed, Mr. Hewicker commented that said parking spaces are not required by the expansion; however, he said that the parking spaces could be absorbed by the support personnel' required for the additional services that the hospital is providing. Don Webb, City Engineer, referred to Condition No. 4 which states "that a minimum 4 foot wide sidewalk shall be provided along the main drive adjacent to the doctor's parking structure.", and he commented that inasmuch as said sidewalk could be placed on either side of the driveway that "on either side of the driveway" be added to the condition. In reference to Condition No. 5 which states "that the applicant shall widen Hospital Road to provide a left turn for eastbound traffic. The widening shall be completed prior to occupancy of the waiting room additions.", Mr. Webb commented that inasmuch as the applicants have not had an opportunity to completely review said condition that "unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department" be added. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Pete Foulke, Senior Vice President, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Foulke addressed the "piecemeal" applications and he pointed out that there is a continuous need for hospital expansion. Mr. Foulke commented that a master plan is currently in the process of being developed. In reference to the wall signs, Mr. Foulke explained that the applicants intend to come back to the Planning Commission with the request after they have addressed the proposal with the adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Pers6n pointed out that the sign proposal would require another amendment to the use permit. Mr. Foulke concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", as modi£{ed by Mr. Webb. Mr. Foulke and Commissioner Merrill discussed the site of the second modular MRI facility and Mr. Foulke explained that the intent is to turn the site into a parking area; however, he said that if there is a need for a modular unit for an additional use, the site has been approved to install said modular unit. Mr. Foulke concurred with Commissioner Pers6n that the application for the wall signs has been withdrawn at .9- .COMMISSIONERS ?mG��9�o xJt ff 9�os yo,�� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 5, 1989 ROLL CALL INDEX this time by the applicants, and that any future consideration of wall signs at Hoag Hospital will have to come back before the Planning Commission, regardless of the number of signs. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the pedestrian link and the proposed laboratory, Mr. Foulke explained that the proposal will allow expansion of an existing laboratory area and inasmuch as there would be a limited increase in space, a minimal number of employees, if any, would be added to the staff. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the additional 20 parking spaces adjacent to the emergency room, Mr. Foulke replied that the parking lot would be adjacent to the Versailles tennis courts, and that said parking spaces would be used by the general public. Ms. Peg Morrele, 270 Cagney Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the proposed wall signs. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Di Sano addressed the difficulty of approving "piecemeal" applications without a Master Plan; however, he said that he would not delay improvements that would benefit the community. Commissioner Di Sano stated his support of the monument sign. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", adding "on either side of the driveway" to Condition No. 4, adding "unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department" to Condition No. 5, modifying Condition No. I k 13 to state "that no wall identification sign shall be Ayes 0 A * permitted unless the Planning Commission approves an Absent amendment to this use permit." MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 10- A` A r 'COMMISSIONERS NX9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 5, 1989 ROLL CALL INDEX. 3. That adequate parking exists to serve the facility. 4. That the off -site ground sign at the corner of Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road is necessary for identification purposes; that the sign will replace an existing sign; and the sign will not be detrimental to the area. 5. That the proposed fourth wall sign is not necessary for building identification, inasmuch as two of the wall signs are proposed to face the same direction, and the fourth wall sign could be detrimental to the area. 6. 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. 7. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 8. That a modification to the zoning Code so as to permit a corner of the parking structure to encroach 5 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback adjacent to Hospital Road will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City inasmuch as an average setback of 15 feet along Hospital Road will be provided; and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 9. That the approval of roof top parking will not be detrimental to the area inasmuch as the parking structure is well below the permitted height limit and views of the cars will be screened by a parapet wall. 10. That the approval of this amendment to Use Permit -No. 1421 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 -11- 3� 'COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 5, 1989 ROLL CALL INDEX detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That all conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended) shall remain in effect. 3. That a turnaround shall be provided in the doctors' parking structure. 4. That a minimum 4 foot wide sidewalk shall be provided along the main drive adjacent to the doctors' parking structure, on either side of the driveway. 5. That the applicant shall widen Hospital Road to provide a left turn for eastbound traffic, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. The widening shall be completed prior to occupancy of the waiting room additions. 6. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer according to the City's new standards. That additional sidewalks required by the approved plan will be constructed. 8. That the intersection of the private streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping and walls within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. -12- 31 `COMMISSIONERS 4*1 G wae9iy yf. MINUTES January 5, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ' ROLL CALL 9. That the monument sign proposed at Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard provide sight distance in conformance with City Standard 110-L. 10. That the gate and island in front of the "A" parking lot be relocated to a location approved by the Traffic Engineer. 11. The construction of the emergency department structure and the doctors' parking structure shall be subject to and in compliance with a grading permit. 12. The project shall include landscaping along Hospital Road as illustrated in the proposed site plan. A landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted for review by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval by the Planning and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits for the pdrking structure on Hospital Road. 13. That no wall identification signs shall be permitted unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. 14. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 15. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Coda. -13- 3 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 4, 1989 yy r0 j, C� v� v CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. INDEX ROLL CALL Use Permit No 1421 (Amended)(Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which Up1421A permitted the expansion of the existing Hoag Hospital facility on property located in the A-P-H District. The Gamma Knife proposed amendment includes: a request to establish an Approved employee child care facility to be located in prefabricated modular buildings adjacent to Newport Boulevard; the Child Care construction of a Gamma Knife facility; the construction & Admin. of an addition to the administrative offices, some of which offices will be located in prefabricated modular buildings; the Continued installation of three identification signs on the easterly, to 6_8_89 southerly and westerly elevations of the existing hospital tower; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Record of Survey 15-30, located at 301 Newport Boulevard, on the southwesterly corner of Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. ZONE: A-P-H APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Michael D. Stephens, President, Hoag Memorial Hospital, Presbyterian, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he introduced Mr. Pete Foulke, Senior Vice President, and Mr. F. W. Evins, Vice President for Facilities and Planning. Mr. Stephens requested that the application to install three identification signs on the existing hospital tower be deleted inasmuch as hospital representatives met with adjacent neighbors and the applicant is responding to their concerns. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Stephens concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Mr. Stephens addressed the delay of Hoag Hospital's Master Plan, and the necessity of the projects that the Hospital has brought to the City for consideration prior to the completion of the Master Plan. He maintained that inasmuch as technology is changing at a rapid rate there is a need to expand the facility so as to accommodate additional -10- COMMISSIONERS N0 OV +.p� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1989 ROLL CALL INDEX personnel to provide human services to the community. Mr. Stephens explained that the timeframe after the Hospital submits the City's approved plans to the State Architecture for approval is between four to six months. Mr. Stephens explained that a 700 square foot addition to the existing administrative wing is requested to accommodate additional personnel. He further explained that temporary modular office space would provide a location for administrative functions for the hospital while the child care facility utilized a portion of the Conference Center. Mr. Stephens stated that if the projects coincided with two other projects that would be under construction, the emergency room parking area would be relieved of crowded parking conditions. Mr. Stephens explained that an addition is required to house the Gamma Knife facility inasmuch as the equipment requires special insulation. He stated that the Hospital had been approached by the manufacturer regarding the new technology that provides the treatment of brain lesions, and if they do not have an appropriate facility they will lose the opportunity to install one of the few facilities in the United States. Mr. Stephens emphasized Hoag Hospital's critical need to provide a day care center for the staff. He explained that 80 percent of the employees are female and a large portion of that percentage are single parents. Mr. Stephens further explained that when Hoag Hospital purchased the Cal -Trans parcel, the employees were advised that there would be a day care center at that location; however, he said that subsequent to that time, the cancer center has been approved and under construction and the Master Site Plan has been delayed. Mr. Stephens stated that there is an indication that the Hospital will be losing nurses at a critical time because of the competitive standards that are currently being set in hospitals to provide on -site day care centers. He stated that day care will be provided in the hospital in Irvine, and it is currently available in Fountain Valley. Mr. Stephens explained that the goal is to provide a child care facility available by August, 1990, because parents would be making plans over the summer months for day care and the parents would be making changes at that time. Mr. Stephens advised that the off -site location that had been considered was no longer available because the day care facility would have been only temporary. He explained that on a temporary basis, the only viable use to provide the needed capacity would be a -11- 3`f MINUTES COMMISSIONERS CALL May 4, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX portion of the Conference Center area in addition to the on -site modular buildings. Mr. Stephens emphasized that no facility is more important inasmuch as day care is essential to morale, and it would provide the ability to recruit and retain nurses. He concluded that the next great crises in health care is going to be the lack of availability of nursing personnel and other allied professions. Commissioner Pers6n addressed Hoag Hospital's changing needs and technology; however, he stated that the piecemeal applications could be considered in the Master Plan. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Stephens replied that the child care center has the highest priority with respect to the future of Hoag Hospital. Mr. Stephens replied that the Hospital expects to bring the Master Plan to the City in the Fall, 1989. Mr. Stephens and Commissioner Pers6n discussed the delays of the approvals and construction of the Cancer Center. Mr. Stephens concurred that the Master Plan submitted to the City in the Fall, 19B9, would include a Child Care Center on the Cal - Trans parcel; however, he said that he wanted to assure the employees that there would not be similar delays to the child care facility as there was to the Cancer Center. Commissioner Pers6n addressed his concerns regarding the cost that would be incurred because of the amount of grading and cutting that would be required to add modular buildings on the bluff above Newport Boulevard, and he said it is feasible that the Master Plan may designate the site as a permanent child care facility. Mr. Stephens responded that if the Master Plan is approved in time to construct the permanent child care facility so as to open in August, 1990, that the construction of the temporary modular facilities will not proceed. Mr. Stephens and Commissioner Pers6n addressed the feasibility of the Planning Commission approving a child care facility on the Cal -Trans site so as to assure the hospital's employees that a facility would be constructed in the future. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Hospital does not have any entitlement on the lower portion of the site other than the Cancer Center that is currently under construction. Mr. Hewicker further stated that when the Cancer Center was approved by the ,Coastal Commission, the Coastal Commission stated that they would not approve additional facilities on the Cal -Trans site until there was a Master Plan. -12- 3� COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL May 4, 1989 p Mr. Staphens and Commissioner Persdn discussed variable sites that had previously been considered for the temporary child care center including the Park Lido Building, a arking structure at Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue, and the Hospital's parking structure. C c ommissioner Debay stated her support of the day care enter, and she asked if the. Hospital would agree to a condition that when the child care center is permanent that the Hospital would restore the bluff as an aftermath of using it as a temporary site. Mr. Stephens stated that the facility is important enough that they would stipulate that they would not come forward with any applications for another use that would involve that additional space, and that they would support the restoration of the bluff in compliance with the City's requests. Mr. Stephens emphasized the disadvantage that Hoag Hospital has compared to the Irvine hospital because day care is not provided at Hoag Hospital. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the projected opening of August, 1990, Mr. Stephens explained that in addition to the date being the start of a school year, the date would also coincide with the opening of the Cancer Center when the administrative personnel would be relocated out of the Conference Center to the Cancer Center. Mr. Stephens agreed to a condition that the Hospital would be willing to restore and relandscape the bluff after the temporary modular buildings were removed. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Stephens replied that the Cancer Center is proposed to open in March, 1990. He further replied that the Gamma Knife facility could not be accommodated in the Cancer Center facility because the therapy requires cobalt which necessitates extensive shielding in the form of very thick concrete walls. Discussion ensued between Mr. Stephens and Mr. Hewicker regarding a temporary child care center on the West Coast Highway parking lot site until the Master Plan has been approved and the construction of the permanent child care facility. Mr. Stephens expressed his concern that the consideration of a structure on the Cal -Trans site prior to the approval of a Master Plan would engender more opposition than what the applicants are currently proposing. -13- INDEX 34 May 4, 1989 p Mr. Staphens and Commissioner Persdn discussed variable sites that had previously been considered for the temporary child care center including the Park Lido Building, a arking structure at Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue, and the Hospital's parking structure. C c ommissioner Debay stated her support of the day care enter, and she asked if the. Hospital would agree to a condition that when the child care center is permanent that the Hospital would restore the bluff as an aftermath of using it as a temporary site. Mr. Stephens stated that the facility is important enough that they would stipulate that they would not come forward with any applications for another use that would involve that additional space, and that they would support the restoration of the bluff in compliance with the City's requests. Mr. Stephens emphasized the disadvantage that Hoag Hospital has compared to the Irvine hospital because day care is not provided at Hoag Hospital. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the projected opening of August, 1990, Mr. Stephens explained that in addition to the date being the start of a school year, the date would also coincide with the opening of the Cancer Center when the administrative personnel would be relocated out of the Conference Center to the Cancer Center. Mr. Stephens agreed to a condition that the Hospital would be willing to restore and relandscape the bluff after the temporary modular buildings were removed. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Stephens replied that the Cancer Center is proposed to open in March, 1990. He further replied that the Gamma Knife facility could not be accommodated in the Cancer Center facility because the therapy requires cobalt which necessitates extensive shielding in the form of very thick concrete walls. Discussion ensued between Mr. Stephens and Mr. Hewicker regarding a temporary child care center on the West Coast Highway parking lot site until the Master Plan has been approved and the construction of the permanent child care facility. Mr. Stephens expressed his concern that the consideration of a structure on the Cal -Trans site prior to the approval of a Master Plan would engender more opposition than what the applicants are currently proposing. -13- INDEX 34 COMMISSIONERS \mG��.e�Ne��9 1'PN9y MINUTES May 4, 1989 yocv•! s- CITY OF 14EWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding what the affect would be to the Hospital if the child care center would not be approved, Mr. Stephens replied that it would have an adverse impact on the Hospital. Mr. Stephens explained that there is currently a 12 percent nurse vacancy rate and it is imperative that there be an incentive to attract nurses. He stated that without a child care center it -would be taking away a very important element in the recruiting program. Mr. Stephens further replied that the Master Plan's Environmental Impact Report is currently being processed. Discussion ensued between Mr. Stephens and Commissioner Pers6n regarding compromises that could be made involving parking areas between the Cal -Trans site and the upper campus area. Commissioner Debay expressed her concern regarding a temporary child care center on the Cal -Trans property during the construction of the Cancer Center and the widening of West Coast Highway. Chairman Pomeroy stated that he has no objection to a child care center. He said that there has to be a more prudent solution than to tear a bluff apart, construct temporary buildings on the bluff, and then restore the bluff. Chairman Pomeroy suggested sites should be considered that would accommodate not only a temporary child care facility but also a permanent facility. Commissioner Di Sano concluded that the primary factor concerning the child care center is not dollars but timing, and that the Hospital is requesting the subject site on the basis that the Cal -Trans site is not guaranteed to be approved. Mrs. Peg Morreale, 270 Cagney Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission to state her objections to the numerous amendments to the original use permit. She requested that in fairness to the residents that the subject amendment be denied until a Master Plan has been submitted to the City. Mr. John Chamberlain, 260 Cagney Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the Gamma Knife facility. He requested that the record show that he has never met any' of the Planning Commissioners prior to the public hearing; however, he invited them to his terrace to observe the hole that is in the ground between Villa Balboa and Hoag Hospital, which he believed to be the location of the Gamma -14- 3 COMMISSIONERS \�G\9No9'p.FP_'y MINUTES May 4, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL Knife facility. Mr. Chamberlain stated his concerns regarding the lack of information pertaining to radioactivity. Mrs. Shirley Laskin, 101 Sholz Plaza, appeared before the Planning Commission to inquire how many children would be enrolled in the temporary and permanent facilities. Mr. Stephens reappeared before the -Planning Commission, and he replied that the anticipated occupancy of the temporary facility would be a maximum of 100 children, five years of age and under. He did not have a firm figure for the permanent facility, but he anticipated that there would be approximately 120 children. Mr. Stephens and Chairman Pomeroy discussed the percentage of the staff that would be using the facility, and based on a survey, Mr. Stephens commented that approximately 10 percent of the nursing staff would be using the facility. Mr. Chris Hansen, 22 Encore Court, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the residents of Newport Crest. In reference to the January 5, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended), Exhibit "A", Condition No. 5, regarding the widening of Hospital Road, Mr. Hansen suggested that the condition be amended to include a traffic light to insure a smooth traffic flow. Mr. Stephens reappeared before the Planning Commission to address the previously approved Condition. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Dennis Hudson, Principal Planner with Child Care Associates, Irvine, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hudson addressed the relationship of the child care center with the development of the Cal -Trans site and the widening of West Coast Highway. He had reservations that the Department of Social Services, Child Care Licenses, would allow the facility to be licensed because of the amount of construction in the area. Mr. Hudson also addressed the issue of child care as it relates to transportation. He explained that studies are underway regarding how child care is helping mitigate transportation throughout California, and he pointed out that a major study has recently been completed by the City of Pasadena. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Hudson explained that the Child Care License Division would not be favorable to a facility on the dal -Trans site until the facility has been included in the Master Plan, and in 15- 3� COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 4, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL a timely fashion away from the period of heavy construction and noise level inherent with construction. Ms. J. B. Taylor, 240 Nice, appeared before the Planning Commission. She addressed the "piecemeal" applications and the proposed Master Plan, and the fear that the Hospital will come before the Planning Commission with an application and the residents -will be unable to respond. Ms. Taylor inquired why the administrative staff could not be moved from the Conference Center into a temporary structure which would allow an area that could accommodate the temporary child care center. Mr. Bob Trivison, 240 Nice Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission to discuss the need for a flexible Master Plan. Chairman Pomeroy and Commissioner Pers6n responded that it is anticipated that the Master Plan will be amended periodically to accommodate the change' in technology. Mr. Stephens reappeared before the Planning Commission, and he responded to the foregoing testimony. Mr. Stephens explained that the Hospital has attempted to reduce the demand for modular units by not relocating the administrative staff. Mr. Stephens stated that the use permit for the Cancer Center would need to be amended if the Conference Center activities would be transferred to the Cancer Center. Mr. Stephens addressed the Hospital's concerns pertaining to high priority items such as the child care center, and he said that the Master Plan will not be a guide to future technology needs such as the Gamma Knife facility. Commissioner Di Sano referred to Finding No. 3, Exhibit "B", regarding the public benefit of the Gamma Knife facility, and he inquired if the child care facility would have the same type of benefit to the community. Mr. Stephens replied that the child care facility would have a great impact on the community because of the lack of nursing services. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Stephens replied that two-thirds of the population of Newport Beach uses Hoag Hospital according to the data that has been received from the State. Commissioner Di Sano commented on the right of public benefit. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. F. W. Evins appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Evins explained that the concern regarding the hole between -16- 39 COMMISSIONERS Y MINUTES May 4, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Villa Balboa and the Cancer Center is the tunnel link between the main campus and the Cancer Center that was lowered out of concern of the Villa Balboa residents. Mr. Evins explained that the construction pertaining to the Gamma Knife facility is governed by the office of State Architecture, and State Health, Planning, and Development. He stated that in compliance with the Hospital Seismic Code of 1973 that hospitals are required to overbuild the facilities that are critical and essential to public health after an earthquake. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pers6n requested that a straw vote be taken with respect to each proposal. Motion was made to approve a 100000 square foot child care center, which may be any combination of existing or temporary modular buildings to be located anywhere on the Hoag Hospital campus other than the site proposed, and that Hoag Hospital make application for the specific site subsequent to the public hearings of the Master Plan in the event that the Master Plan is not approved. Commissioner Pers6n explained that Hoag Hospital has a concern to advise its staff that they have taken a project to the City, and they have made a commitment to child care at Hoag Hospital. He said that it is the responsibility of the City not to be emotional and grant the project on a site that is not appropriate for the type of construction that is proposed. Commissioner Pers6n further stated that it is up to the City to support the Hospital's efforts to provide child care on the Hospital campus, and he reasoned that the motion achieves that in view of the Hospital's time schedule which appears to be the summer of 1990. Commissioner Pers6n stated that in the years that he has been a Planning Commissioner, there has never been a request to allow bluff construction for temporary modular buildings. He stated that the Planning Commission may request to have a large setback along Newport Boulevard when the Master Plan comes to the City, and the Planning Commission may be limiting their options to an extent by granting the application to this particular site. He suggested that the Hospital do better planning in terms of their long range goals and needs with respect to specific sites. -17- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS �o,��t y C� 1 o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL Cm mo 'Ho tr co th wi Co tb Ha in Substitute ct Motion * ti Es C1 gC he tl 0 t, r, a H s C b t 1 C t '• P E C i Substitute Substitute Motion Ayes No Absent * 1 Motion * 4 Ayes Absent May 4, 1989 omissioner Debay stated that she would not support the -ion because of the time element. She explained that the apital is aware of the constraints, the circulation of affic, the welfare of the children, and the extreme nplications of licensing child care. She indicated that a proposed site would be temporary, and the Hospital is 11ing to restore the bluff. mmissioner Di Sano addressed Mr. Stephens' requests for e child care facility, the residents' adversity to Hoag spital's previous applications, and the Hospital's mediate desire to proceed in a timely fashion with a ild care facility. Substitute motion was made to approve e child care center as requested and as applicable in hibit "A". iairman Pomeroy concurred with Commissioner Pers6n that iod planning is imperative. Chairman Pomeroy stated that supports the child care center; however, he indicated Let other sites should.also be explored. )mmissioner Edwards stated that he had concerns regarding Cming, and that changes in technology stimulates aactionary planning. He suggested that the request for child care facility be continued to'allow time for the )spital and the City to satisfy concerns pertaining to a Lte that would become available by summer, 1990. Dmmissioner Winburn supported the request for continuance ased on consideration of the schedule of the parking lot hat would become available after the completion of the ido Medical Center. ommissioner Debay and Don Webb, City Engineer, discussed he timing of the widening of West Coast Highway, Newport oulevard, the bridge, and the parking of the construction quipment. ommissioner Pers6n stated that he would support the ontinuance; however, he emphasized that good planning eeds to be a strong consideration. ubstitute Substitute Motion was made and voted on to :ontinue consideration of the child care center to the June {, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. lotion was made and voted on to approve a 1,500 square foot iddition which will be used to ,house a Gamma Knife .acility. MOTION CARRIED. -18- INDEX 41 COMMISSIONERS yY y. MINUTES May 4, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL Motion * Motion was made to deny a 700 square foot addition to the north end of the existing administrative wing. Commissioner Pers6n explained that the proposal should be considered at the time the Master Plan comes forward. Commissioner Debay stated that she would not support the motion inasmuch as the administrative offices would need to be moved out of the Conference Center in order to accommodate the Child Care Center. Substitute Commissioner Di Sano made a substitute motion to continue Motion * consideration of the administrative offices to the June 8, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, inasmuch as the Child Care Center is being continued to June 8, 1989. Commissioner Pers6n emphasized that small projects should not be coming to the Planning Commission piecemeal with the exception of projects that are a result of new technology, and he would not place the subject proposal in that category. He said that he would prefer not to continue the item. Substitute motion was voted on to continue consideration Ayes * * of the addition to the administrative wing to the June 8, Noes * * 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Absent Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue the proposal to Ayes * * * install 1,680 square feet of temporary modular office space Absent to the June 8, 1989, Planning Commission meeting inasmuch as the project would be directly affected by the Child Care Center. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to take action pursuant to the Ayes * * *k k straw votes, and that staff prepare appropriate findings Absent k and conditions to approve only the Gamma Knife facility at this time. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking exists to serve the facility. 19- COMMISSIONERS �A A�.F OHO MINUTES May 4, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 4. 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. 5. That the public benefit associated with installation of the proposed Gamma Knife facility requires that such improvement be considered prior to and independent from the approval of a Master Plan for the hospital facility. 6. That the approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. 1421 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 to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended) shall be for the construction of a Gamma Knife facility only and shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans for said facility. 2. That all conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended) shall remain in effect. 3. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. i -20 From : HOTICH'RRTNERS PHONE No. 714 535 3190 Rpr.29 1994 3:3GPM P01 THE BOTICH PARTNERSHIP PLANNGRl.ARCNRSCTi.GNOINGGRQ.CO ITAU0A0N NANAAGA! F A C S I M I L E PLEASE DELIVER TO: TRANSMITTAL W. PlrAa�Nt� �e.�,A¢�nniwnlC' ..,. �lNa _ C�•�.cEA. FROM: 3vi:rr SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: FAX PHONE NUMI31311: 644 =32 a... , ..... JOD NUMB1311; 5-1171-gLt PAGES TO FOLLOW: 91 .(,EXPLunRR CIC)w-m fj7- HI" 1 e�Lirakl r?... _wwkxr- -C ..y�Arw. o1z L-Mol IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PACES, PLEASE CALL IMMEDIATELY: 714-535-3038 OUR FAX NUMBER Is: 7144.506.0190 ----..-....-....--------------_.._^-------------------------- PLANNERS • AROHITE M • ENGINEERS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS THE BOTICH PARTNERSHIP PMNNM - AAC1417E078 • ENOINEERO • CONSTAWQIVN MANAOGRB DETAIL/CALCULATIONS SHEET r PROJECT NAME: HOAG CHILD CARE CENTER DATE 4.28-94 W.O. NO. B-1177-94 REF. 0 0 ETAIL.: SECTION A 0 0 £0d NdE£:£ veGT ea%tdd 06S£ S£S VU. : 'ON 3NOHd Sa3NiNUd HD I ME : mo AJ From : BOTICH PARTNERS PHONE No. : 714 535 3190 Apr.28 1994 3:37PM P02 IwRYp,4t... 0 THE 130TICH PARTNERSHIP PLANNLnE•Af OWITFOV,- ENGINEERS, CONSTRUCTION YWAOERS DETAIL/CALCULATIONS SHEET PROJECT NAME: HOAG CHILD CARE .CENTER GATE... 4-20-04 - - WHO, 14016 8-1177.94 REF,,.... ........ ..... t. it III if Ii _ �I . I K i I �ETAI� EXTERIOR PLASTER WALL ELEVATION l �I g -From kBOTIOH PARTNERS PHONE No. : 714 535 3190 Apr.26 1994 9:43AM P01 THE SOTICH PARTNERSHIP PI WNERS & AMWITROU • CNOINMR6.00N6TRUO110N MANAaaMs F A C S I M I LE T R AN SMITT AL PLEASE DELIVR1k TO: FROM; qzl_. FAX PHONE NUMBER: JOB NUMBER: PAGES TO FOLLOW: •(EXCI,UnEs COVER SPT;CIAT. INSTRUCTIONS: jag, loegm0w .�.,.�?p►��L 5►-�-ram ��, �G�t.t�.c_�-.___---.. III YOU DO NOT RECEIVU ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL IMMEDIATELY: 714-535-3038 OUR FAX NUMBER IS: . 714-:8354W ' PLANNERS • AlkOHITaCTS • ENGINEERS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS •From s. HOTItH PARTNERS PHONE No. : 714 535 3190 Apr.28 1994 9:44AM P02 `I Illilll;� r�wirr Mwrr�rt l�rr�1 arrr.r �� ��s 1:.'10� MsiariWs HOAG C el I I J - H,C,. R^IYlP. sal mi Qs to C.C.*d f- ce'01P1,4 IMCA L69: .TI I co �j:f mcK `Q |� k`r, Vqcr-->Z� �, � z�. .. - ` � }• |31 ( �[ • - U|�y�� FtcL\(, 22 STORAGE SECTION if / d| 7 t /f « � - § /ED �& ay wi-c . m Lo k z # t C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. box 1767 Newport Beach, Ca. 92658-8915 June 7, 1988 TO: Fong & Associates, Inc. ATTENTION: Dan Butch SUBJECT: Hoag Cancer Center Landscape �� ,� we are transmitting the following: No. Copies ( Remarks: Description Landscape Plans with Public Works D2"rtment Signature. �NI If you have any questions of need additional information, please feel free to call me at 644-3311. R.L. If6ffstadt Subdivision Engineer .,.0odo to mg, Yvvt (ProoATON To f ou %� W�K4 Pwr. per, PAW A .r Mrs- �owi� -� r0#405 go—WIRM (mile �a ; $"VOra . it You �c, ow,uv► Wh'� 'EOM ISSIONERS MINUTES od��3 �d��.��m DRAFT September 7, 1989 c*�OtiS+ G q� y`L `- W CITY OF -NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX modi� conditions of approvai to this ase recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 32. Implementation of Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) as approved by the Planning Commission on September 7, 1989, shall nullify the previous approval of Site Plan Review No. 49, Vesting Resubdivision No. 876, and Traffic Study No. 48 (Revised.) The Planning Commission recessed at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened at 10:10 p.m. Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended)(Public Hearin6 item No.6 Request to amend a previously approved use, permit which UP1421A permitted the expansion of the existing Hoag Hospital facility on property located in the A-P-H and Unclassified Districts. The Approved proposed amendment is a request to establish an employee child care facility and related parking to be located on the lower southwesterly portion of the campus, adjacent to the future Hoag Hospital Cancer Center in the Unclassified District; and the acceptance of an environmental document. ' LOCATION: A portion of Lot 172, Block 1, Irvine's Subdivision, .located at 4050 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue, on property known as Cal Trans East. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant -29- v `COM'MISSIONERS cam � q ��q� o� ��2 MINUTES September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Michael Stephens, President, Hoag Memorial Hospital, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Stephens concurred with the findings, conditions, and mitigation measures as set forth in Exhibit "A", with the exception of concerns regarding Conditions No. 4 and No. 7 of Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended). He reviewed background information pertaining to sites that the applicants considered prior to selecting the subject site adjacent to the Cancer Center on the Cal -Trans parcel. Mr. Stephens explained that said site presented the best opportunity to have a suitable day care program that would be safe and would have the least potential infringement on the Master Plan that the applicants are developing. Commissioner Pers6n commended the staff of Hoag Hospital who, he said, came up with a reasonable alternative to the sites that were previously proposed. Mr. Mel Wright, Geological and Petroleum Consultant, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Commissioner Debay's concern with respect to the methane gas that is in the area. Commissioner Debay asked if there would be a hazard to the children in the area. Mr. Wright stated that there would not be a hazard to children playing outdoors. He said that the subject site that is proposed for the child care center is probably one of the safest and he explained that he was recently involved with recent drilling in the area. He explained that the child care center will be constructed on a site that does not have gas on the surface, it will be constructed on clay that was removed from the cancer center which will be compacted, and the facility will be bpilt off the ground. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Wright replied that the child care center is as safe as the cancer center. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, suggested an addition to Mitigation Measure No. 12 stating that, "the property owner shall comply with any Ordinance requiring mitigation of methane gas hazards provided the Ordinance is effective within 90 days of when the use permit is effective." He explained .that the City Council will take action on the methane gas mitigation Ordinance within sixty days which, he said, would be ample time for the applicants to design and install a system. Mr. Stephens - stated that the applicants would concur with said condition. In response to a request by Mr. Stephens, Don Webb, City Engineer, referred to Condition No. 7, and requested that said -30- . tCOKMISSIONERS MINUTES September 7, 1989 O� pf CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - ROLL CALL 'That INDEX condirton 15e modiVed to state tile cnild care sidewaM system tie into the cancer center sidewalk system and that a 4 • to 5 foot sidewalk be constructed..". Mr. Webb explained that because the applicants are considering landscaping between the sidewalk and curb, a 4 foot sidewalk would be agreeable to staff. Mr. Webb further suggested that the following sentence be added to said condition: "The sidewalk is to be in place when the signalized intersection is open to traffic." Mr. Stephens referred to Condition No. 4 which states "That the child care facility shall be limited to 100 children..", and he suggested that said condition be modified to state "That the child care facility capacity shall be initially limited to 100 children and will not require a further use permit amendment for expansion if it conforms with the adopted Master Plan." He explained that if the capacity exceeded 100 children and the Master Plan would be in effect, then the Master Plan would control the child care center. Mr. Chris Hansen, 22 Encore Court, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hansen requested that the intersection of Placentia Avenue and Hospital Road be modified to allow• a left turn traffic signal. Mr. Webb responded that staff agrees that the restriping and widening of the intersection should commence; however, he said that the hospital has requested that the item -)e delayed until the Master Plan has been approved. Mr. Webb stated that staff is currently working with the applicants to implement Condition No. 11 which states "That the applicant shall widen Hospital Road to provide a left turn for east bound traffic, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department." In reference to Mr. Hansen's request to install a left turn arrow, Mr. Webb explained that it is not the intent of said condition; however, Hospital Road will be widened by approximately 6 feet. Commissioner Pers6n and Commissioner Edwards indicated that they would agree with delaying further improvements of said intersection until the Master Plan has been approved. Mr. Hansen explained the dangers of passing through the intersection. Dr. Jan VanderSloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission with respect to his concerns regarding the protection and preservation of the wetlands. Mr. Webb explained that the project would not affect the wetlands inasmuch as the development is easterly of the entrance drive and the wetlands are westerly of the entrance. -31- 160MMISSIONERS �SI , d `M��irPOD01 e MINUTES September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended) and related environmental document subject to the findings, mitigation measures, and conditions in Exhibit "A", including the foregoing modified Mitigation Measure No. 12, and Condition No. 4, and No. 7. Commissioner Person commended the applicants' proposal. Commissioner Di Sano supported the motion based on the need for a child care center. Chairman Pomeroy stated that the subject site solves many of the concerns that the Planning Commission had with respect to the sites previously suggested by the applicants. Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended) and related environmental document including the All Ayes aforementioned modified conditions. MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and requiring the following mitigation measures: FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. Mitigation Measures: lloDevelopment of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. -32- _ Y ''COMMISSIONERS 0 'AA �So�� �d,d 0� MINUTES September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - ROLL CALL INDEX temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize ' impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering and sweeping l program designed to minimize the impact of haul opera- tions. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5. The grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on the recommendations of a soil engineer or an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 6� A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of the landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the I licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan. 7� The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. Said plan shall give special emphasis to the landscaping provided for the purpose of screening the fence enclosure around the outdoor play areas. 8. All rooftop and other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a. maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line, and that all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view. .4 -33- r 'V `•COMMISSIONERS MINUTES O� �� �''p�,p�,• pin ROLL CALL September 7, 1989 P%ITV AC LIL"11ISA15T' 15V Ad%U' • - — . • ROLL CALL September 7, 1989 P%ITV AC LIL"11ISA15T' 15V Ad%U' • - — . • September 7, 1989 P%ITV AC LIL"11ISA15T' 15V Ad%U' • - — . • "dOM'MISSIONERS "k MINUTES September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - ROLL CALL INDEX conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. That the approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. 1421 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 to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: iy 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended) shall be fulfilled. 3. That the intersection of the private streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping and walls within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight -distance requirement may be modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 4. That the child care facility capacity shall be .initially/ limited to 100 children and will not require a further use t� permit amendment for expansion if it conforms with the adopted Master Plan. S. That the hours of operation of the child care facility shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. 6. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. That the child care sidewalk system tie into the cancer center sidewalk system and that a 4 to 5 foot wide sidewalk be constructed along the northerly side of the private street between West Coast Highway and the child -35- "}COMMISSIONERS MINUTES "k-CITY September 7, 1989 OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX CULU facility. The sidewalk shall be in place when the signalized intersection is open to traffic. 8. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and _ o pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer, 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. That the primary entrance located on West Coast Highway shall not be used to serve the child care facility or the Cancer Center until the West Coast Highway widening has been completed and the traffic signal installed. 11. That the applicant shall widen Hospital Road to provide a left turn for east bound traffic, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 12. That the outdoor play areas shall not extend toward the bluff more than 30 feet from the proposed child care building. 13. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. That the Planning Commission may acid to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit uponGW._/1� a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. _ (� 15. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within �✓ 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -36- HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN 301 NEWPORT BOULEVARD • BOXY • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8912 • PHONE (714) 645-8600 May 21, 1990 Mr. Bill Ward City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Re: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN CHILD CARE CENTER The purpose of this letter is to confirm that Hoag Hospital will comply with conditions #2, 4, 5 and 10 of Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended) as indicated on Plan Check #445-90. These conditions are listed specifically as follows: Condition 2: "That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit 1421 (Amended) shall be fulfilled." Condition 4: "That the Child Care Facility shall be limited to 100 children unless an amendment to this Use Permit is approved by the Planning Commission." Condition 5: "That the hours of operation of the Child Care Facility shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily." R EC"',1, D 5 Y F'I.NUiiiUG 1: EPA R-RZENT CITY OF NEt";."ORT BEACH AEI JUN 11990 Pr1 71819110111112111213141516 A NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED By THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HOSPITALS May 21 1990 Letter to Mr. Ward Page 2 Condition 10: "That the primary entrance located on West Coast Highway shall not be used to serve the Child Care Facility or the Cancer Center until the West Coast Highway widening has been completed and the traffic signal installed." President Human Resources JCC:bw File: 1250-37-30.40 c: Kathleen Dooley F. W. Evins Leif Thompson Kennith Clark/Kennith Clark Associates April 5, 1989 TO: DANA ASLAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: FAIR SHARE FEES FOR HOAG DAY CARE FACILITY The Fair Share Fee for the Day Care Facility proposed for the Hoag Hoag Hospital site is $3968.34. This fee was calculated based upon the following: 1. The project will result in a net increase in daily traffic of 38 trips based upon the assumption of 21 employees, each employee making only one trip to work and one home each day and using the county average of 1.1 persons per vehicle. 2. The current Fair Share fee is $104.43 per daily trip. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the fee. qRchi�ard"M./ Edmonston Traffic Engineer April 3, 1990 Mitagation Measures UP 1421 A 4050 West Coast Highway Plan Check No. 445-90 onditi n 8. Roof top/other mechanical equipment and 55dBA and PL; screened from view 9. 45dBA CNEL interior, 65dBA CNEL outside play area 10. Lighting system minimize spittage Use Permit 1421 A Conditions of Approval 1. Substantial conformance 2. All previous conditions UP 1421A 3. Sight distance 4. 100 children maximum occupancy 5. Hours of operation 6 a.m. - 7 p.m. 6. Improvements Dent. Planning Code Enforcement Planning Code Enforcement Action 55dBA on plans and hold on final Certificate by registered acoustical engineer - Hold for final Planning Hold on final - Plans from licensed engineer and letter from the same Planning Plans approval Planning /L.etter of compliance Traffic Plans approval Planning Letter of compliance Planning vl i etter of compliance Public Works Plans approval I ". Mitigation Measures UP 1421 A Page 2 7. Sidewalk system tied Planning Plans approval into cancer center Public Works Plans approval sidewalk system, also Code Enforcement Hold on final along northerly side of private street between West Coast Highway childcare center 8. Circulation systems Traffic Plans approval 9. County Sanitation Building Permit issuance District fees / 10. Primary entrance Planning �'I..etter of compliance usage Public Works Plans approval Code Enforcement Hold on final 11. Widening of Public Works Plans approval Hospital Road .Fpw 12. Outdoor play area - Planning Plans approvala40,r�'� 30 feet maximum from building 13. Coastal Commission Planning Plans approval approval Waiver No. 14. N/A 15. N/A FONG & ASSOCIATES, INC. Landscape Architecture . Planning* Urban Design September 7, 1990 Ms. Gina Kaznocha City of Newport Beach - Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach. California 92663 Ref: Hoag Hospital Cancer Center Newport Beach. California Plan Check #531-A-88 Dear Ms. Kaznocha: 930 W. 16th Street. Suite A2 -Costa Mesa, California 92627 (714) 645.9444 .FAX (714) 645-1605 a:09kaznocha.ltr A review of the landscape installation was held on September 6. 1990. Based on our field observation. we conclude that the landscape construction improvements included in our scope of work have been installed in general compliance with our plans and specifications. Two sets of landscape construction plans are on file -in your office following approval from Parks. Beaches & Recreation and Public Works Departments (submitted 8/14/90). Sincerely. 40I Michael Spaulding. ASLA cc: Jerry Jensen/Stickler Design D. W. Evins/Hoag RECER E© BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SEP 121990 AMPPd 718A10111112111213141516 A Allen D. Fang A.I.A. 0 Michael B. Spaukring A S.L.A. • Patriva G. Henry 6 Femando V Michele A.S.L. A . David Schneider • Dan Diedrich • Terrance E. Hart Plan Check No.jy �V W COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS VCf j1'_Va1�1/ Telephone (714) 644-3200 By: �rac}LWilliams, Associate Planner P Date: 04I_4 ZZ ' z % ( `� Address: Corrections Required: Legal Description: Lot Block / Section Tract�l/�{%r�7 Resubdivision required to combine lots or portions of lots when construction or alterations are in excess of $5,000. Lot Size}} Zone_ r Proposed Use Required Setbacks: Front T / Rear / Right Side 1 /0 �I Left Side Structural Area: Buildable Area i kb _k U Permitted Area p 1� Proposed Area �puV {N ProviLe— foota"Requing _� Jt^o verify provided a uare v &r Proposed parking (Indicate numb r of stalls provided) Total On -Site Parking j �r , Standard Compact L led u In lieu Parking Dimension building height as measured from natural grade to average and maximum roof height5/L1— Show matural'grade line on all elevations Q Show all rooftop e`�cal �uipment and^���/�� Indicate location of trash containers on site plan. Number of stories I L Floor Plan fully dimensioned showing all room uses. i /1 Plot Plan fully dimensioned showing location of all buildings, fences, etc. in relation to the pr/op�er'ty line. Fair Share Contribution a7( - 3 � i t ._ _ In . — I � San Joa{tuin Hills Corridor Fee (OVER) .., SPECIAL APPROVAL REQUIRED THROUGH: Modifications Committee Planning Commission: _. Use Permit Variance Resubdivision - Tract Site Plan Review Amendment Other - Public Works: Easement/Encroachment Permit Curb Cut Subdivision Engineer Traf-fic Engineer Approval of Landscape Plans Building Department: Grading Engineer .P,' Parks Department: Approval of Landscape Plans Coastal Development Permits: pproval in oncep (Note: File 3 sets of plans: plot plan, floor plan, elevations). Coastal Development Permit No. Waiver/Exemption CcQa�a XVW NOTE: it is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their pI s a obtain the necessary approvals from the departments checked above. If you have questions regarding your 'application, please contact me at (714) 644-3200. 301 A,520