The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/09/1992COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council, Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: January 9, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * All Commissioners were present. s s s EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of December 5, 1991: Minutes of Commissioner Debay requested that page 9 regarding the motion 12/5/91 to approve Use Permit No. 3434, be clarified to state that the unidentified individual would not receive a copy of the Granary Unit Ordinance in response to the stated concerns because the letter was signed by an anonymous individual with no return address She further requested that page 35 be corrected to state prior to issuance of a Building or Grading Permit. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve the amended December All Ayes 5, 1991, Planning Commission minutes. MOTION CARRIED. s s s Public Comments: Public Comments Commissioner Glover stated that a public telephone does not exist in the shopping center located at Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road. Mr. Hewicker explained that the City does not require public telephones in shopping centers. COMMISSIONERS 11 January 9,1992MINUTES f CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Posting of the Agenda: posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, January 3, 1992, in front of City Hall. Planning Commission Review No 14 (Discussion) Item No.1 Request to permit the construction of a false chimney which PCR No. 14 exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District in conjunction with the construction of a new Approved single - family dwelling. LOCATION: Lot 106, Tract No. 4003, located at 106 Linda Isle, northerly of Linda Isle Drive, on Linda Isle. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: R. Douglas Mansfield, Irvine OWNERS: Dr. and Mrs. Benvenud, Newport Beach Commissioner Pomeroy made a motion and the Commission voted * on the approval of Planning Commission Review No. 14, subject to Motion All Ayes the findings and condition in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. Fi in : 1. That the proposed false chimney is a minor architectural feature which will not obstruct any views from Bayside Drive or from surrounding residential properties. 2. That the proposed false chimney is in keeping with the residential character and architectural style of the area. 3. The approval of the proposed false chimney will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental or injurious to -2- COMMISSIONERS .4 O d� 00 ,1 O January 9, 1992MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 1111 INDEX property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Cni.in: 1. That the construction of the proposed false chimney shall be in substantial conformance with the approved roof plan and elevations. xs* Exception Permit No. 43 (Public Hearing)' Item No.2 Request to permit the installation of seven wall signs on an existing EP No. $3 office building located in the M -1 -A District where the Sign Code Approved permits only three wall signs per building. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the relocation of an existing freestanding pole sign so as to be located within the required 15 foot side yard setback adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard. LOCATION: Lot 14, Tract No. 5169, located at 4667 MacArthur Boulevard, on the westerly side of MacArthur Boulevard, between Campus Drive and Birch Street, across from the John Wayne Airport. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Advertising Graphics, Anaheim OWNER: Birtcher Pacific, Laguna Niguel The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Cindy Huber appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Huber concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" (approves application as proposed and provides the required sight distance) and Exhibit 'B" ((approves location of pole sign and denies the additional wall signs). In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the function of the LA Cellular store, Ms. Huber explained that the -3- COMMISSIONERS 0 • January 9, 1992MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 111 1111 1 1 INDEX tenant will occupy office space and not retail space. Mr. Jim Murphy, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Murphy stated that the purpose for the request is to install contemporary sign standards and ideas, and if the pole sign would be relocated, it would provide better visibility. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross with respect to the number of requested signs, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that Exhibit 'B" does not allow additional wall signs; however, the Sign Code allows three wall signs on the building. He said that if it is the desire of the applicant to combine two identification signs into one sign that would be acceptable. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the location of the requested signs, Mr. Laycock explained that Exhibit 'B" allows the pole sign to be located in the side yard . setback and does not allow additional wall signs over what the Sign Code allows. The applicant would be permitted to provide three wall signs, and said signs could be installed any place on the building. Commissioner Merrill explained that the applicant could locate wall signs on the north side and south side; however, if the applicant requested to install a sign on the east side only one sign would be permitted. Mr. Laycock replied that the applicant could combine the signs into one sign on the east side of the building. Mr. Murphy responded to a concern posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the landscaping wherein he explained that the trees would be trimmed to below the facade level so the sign would be visible. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Murphy replied that additional tenants could be included on the pole sign. Commissioner Glover indicated that she observed that a LA Cellular sign was extended over the sidewalk at the corner of the building. Mr. Murphy explained that the sign was installed by the tenant and not by the sign company or the property owner. Mr. Hewicker explained that he observed that the sign was supported by angle irons and was laying on its side across the public sidewalk, -4- COMMISSIONERS � o0 CITY OF NEWPORT January 9, 1992MIN UT ES BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX and he indicated that the City would require the removal of the sign from the sidewalk. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Exception Permit No. All Ayes 43 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'B" (approves location of pole sign and denies the additional wall signs). MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the location of the proposed pole sign is compatible with surrounding land uses and is consistent with other sign encroachments that have been approved by the City on the adjoining property. • 2. That the proposed signs pole sign will not have any significant environmental impact. 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 with the proposed construction. 4. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances involved with the property which make the additional wall signs necessary to achieve the identification of the subject property or building. That Section 20.06 of the Municipal Code makes provision for adequate signage for the identification of the subject property which can be achieved with fewer signs than proposed by the applicant. 5. That the signage allowed by Section 20.06 of the Municipal Code will allow signage for the bank which is comparable to other financial institutions and buildings in the vicinity, which generally provide either one wall or one monument sign per street frontage. 6. That the granting of this exception permit, to allow an increase in the number of wall signs, will be contrary to the -5- COMMISSIONERS a 1\\ \ee\N January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL III Jill I INDEX purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons working in the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City, inasmuch as it may set a precedent for additional signage on the adjoining property. 7. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning code, so as to allow the pole sign encroachment into the required side yard setback 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 adequate sight distance is being provided, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and elevations except as noted below. 2. That the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Traffic Engineer, prior to issuance of building permits, for the location of the proposed freestanding pole sign in conformance with the City Sight Distance Standard 110 -L. 3. That the total square footage and number of wall signs on the building, shall be in conformance with Section 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 4. That the existing temporary leasing signs located within the front yard setbacks, shall be removed prior to issuance of the building permits for the signs which are the subject of this application. That any future temporary real estate signs shall be erected in accordance with Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -6- COMMISSIONERS � Q�� dh It January 9, 1992MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3122A permitted the construction of the Edgewater Place complex Approved including the Parker's Seafood Grill with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment, a take -out restaurant, a variety . of retail uses, and the Edgewater Place parking structure. The proposed amendment consists of a request to change the operational characteristics of the existing take -out restaurant so as to permit the service of on -sale beer and wine. LOCATION: Lots 1 -3, 7 -12, an unnumbered lot, all in Block 3 of the Balboa Bayside Tract; and Lots 22 and 23, Block A of the Bayside Tract, located at 309 Palm Street, on the northerly side of East Bay Avenue, between Palm Street and Adams Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Gina's Pizza, Newport Beach OWNER: Bank of America Mortgage and International Realty, Gardena The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Andrew Costa, 216 Evening Canyon Road, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3122 All Ayes (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit W. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the existing development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal -7- COMMISSIONERS d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Program, Land Use plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the proposed change in operational characteristics of the restaurant so as to add the on -sale service of beer and wine will not increase the demand for parking. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. • CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3122 shall be fulfilled. 3. That the on -sale service of beer and wine shall be permitted in conjunction with the subject take -out restaurant and that such activity shall be incidental to the primary food service operation of the take -out restaurant. 4. That the sale and consumption beer and wine shall be limited to the interior of the take -out restaurant. 5. That no off -sale of alcoholic beverages shall be sold in the subject take -out restaurant unless an amendment to this use permit is approved. 6. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the service of on -sale beer and wine in the take -out restaurant facility. -8- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the 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 use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 8. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3325 LArended) (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3325A permitted a change in the allowable occupancy of an existing Approved restaurant located in the C -1 -H District. Said approval also included: a change in the operational characteristics of the restaurant so as to include a bar and dining area with background music; the establishment of a new parking requirement; the retention of a valet parking service; the establishment of operational hours from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 am. on Sunday; and the continued use of a reciprocal parking arrangement with an adjoining commercial property. The proposed amendment includes a request to amend Condition No. 8 of the existing use permit so as to permit the restaurant to be open for Saturday lunch. LOCATION: Lots A and B of Parcel Map 6 -10 (Resubdivision No. 249) and a portion of Lot 1, Tract No. 5361, located at 333 Bayside Drive, on the southwesterly side of Bayside Drive, between East Coast Highway and Linda Isle Drive. ONE: C -1 -H . APPLICANT: Hans Prager, Newport Beach OWNER: Marvin Burton, Newport Beach -9- COMMISSIONERS \0� ,n January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL ill Jill INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that two letters of opposition from Linda Isle residents were received by staff regarding the request. The concerns expressed may be a misunderstanding of the public notice, inasmuch as the restaurant currently is open until 2:00 a.m., and the proposed application only establishes a lunch hour on Saturdays. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hewicker explained that no noise problems have been registered with the Police Department by Linda Isle residents towards the subject restaurant. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'i There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Debay suggested that Mr. King notify the concerned Linda Isle residents for the purpose of clarification of the restaurant's operating hours. Motion Motion was made and voted onto approve Use Permit No. 3325 All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit W. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking is available to accommodate the proposed change in the hours of operation of the restaurant. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, and -10- January 9, 1992 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL il Jill INDEX landscaping, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3325 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3325 shall be fulfilled. 3. That the hours of operation of the restaurant shall be from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 9:00 . a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. 4. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the establishment of the Saturday lunchtime operation of the restaurant. 5. That a minimum of one parking space for each 41 t square feet of "net public area" (62 spaces) shall be provided during the Saturday lunch operation of the restaurant and one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area" for all other hours of the restaurant's operation. 6. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the 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 use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 7. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -11- COMMISSIONERS \0�G 'Od� January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL il Jill INDEX Use Permit No. 3435 (Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to permit the establishment of a dry cleaning facility on UP3435 property located in the C -1 -H District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 7 and a portion of Lot 8, Tract No. 1235, located at 3426 Via Lido, on the northeasterly side of Via Lido, between Central Avenue and Via Oporto. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Cha Kwang Koo, Yorba Linda OWNER: Trident Capitol Group, Los Angeles The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Eugene Bleich appeared before the Planning Commission on • behalf of the applicant, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to the available parking for the establishment, Mr. Bleich explained that parking is available at the front and rear entrances of the facility. Mr. Ward Riggins, 3428 Via Lido, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Riggins expressed a concern that all of the property owners adjacent to the subject property had not been notified of the dry cleaning plant on the basis that chemicals will be used in the facility, and that said requirement is a State regulation. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that all of the property owners are notified within 300 feet of the application, and he further stated that State licensing authorities will notify all of the property owners in the area. Commissioner Edwards advised that Condition No. 6, Exhibit 'W, states That the proposed dry cleaning operation shall be installed and operated in conformance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Commissioner Merrill stated that Condition No. 3, Exhibit 'W, states 77tat the use of chemicals shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau of the Fire Department. -12- January 9, 1992 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3435 All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. Fin ' s• 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and with the Local Coastal Program and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3435 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and worldng in the neighborhood, or be • detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDMONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan. 2. That any boilers shall be isolated in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 3. That the use of chemicals shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau of the Fire Department. 4. There shall be no outside storage of materials, supplies or other paraphernalia likely to be objectionable to the adjacent property owners. 5. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be screened from view and shall be sound attenuated to be no greater than existing sound levels at the property lines. 6. That the proposed dry cleaning operation shall be installed and operated in conformance with the requirements of the 43- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX South Coast Air Quality Management District. 7. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of the building permit for the dry cleaning facility. 8. 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. 9. 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: A. Use Permit No. 3424 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permits UP3424A the construction of a drive -in and take -out restaurant facility in Ts No.77A conjunction with a new retail commercial building on property located in the "Retail and Service" area of the Koll Center Newport Approved Planned Community. The approval also included: a request to allow a portion of the required off - street parking spaces to be provided within the proposed drive- through lane of the facility; a modification to the sign standards for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community; a traffic study, and the acceptance of an environmental document. The current proposal involves a request ° to amend the previous approvals by approving a revised environmental document which deletes a previous mitigation measure requiring the restriping of a portion of the intersection at Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. AND -14- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX B. Traffic Study No. 77 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to approve an amended Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of a 3,822± square foot (gross) retail building and a 4,188± square foot (gross) drive -in and take -out restaurant. LOCATION: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 76-45 (Resubdivision No. 506), located at 4880 Campus Drive, on the southwesterly comer of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive, in the "Retail and Service" area of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Carl Karcher Ent. Inc., Anaheim OWNER: Elco Partners, Newport Beach Commissioner Edwards stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Lorenzo Reyes appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Gross addressed comments in the staff report that there may be a conflict with the City of Irvine regarding the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that portions of the intersection are located in the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach. Several years ago the City of Irvine imposed additional conditions on another applicant to widen the Jamboree Road and Campus Drive intersection; therefore, staff added a mitigation measure that stated that the applicant would be required to restripe the . intersection prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy on the two buildings on the site. -15- COMMISSIONERS A Oar ` ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL il Jill I INDEX The public hearing was reopened in connection with this item, and Mr. Reyes reappeared before the Planning Commission. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Reyes explained that the applicant disagreed with the traffic study that was prepared for the project, and a subsequent on -site analysis has indicated that the intersection will not be impacted; therefore, the foregoing mitigation measure could be deleted from the application. Mr. Hewicker further replied that the applicant will not be required to go to the City of Irvine as previously stated. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3424 Ayes (Amended), Traffic Study No. 77 (Revised), and related Absent environmental document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and requiring the following the mitigation measure: Findings: 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measure identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon • which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the -16- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL III Jill I INDEX California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 7535(c) of Title 14, CCR. MITIGATION MEASURE: 1. The project's outdoor lighting system shall be designed to minimize light spillage on to the adjacent sites to the extent feasible. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a licensed Electrical Engineer shall prepare electrical plans and submit a written certification to the Building and Planning Departments that this requirement has been satisfied, unless otherwise approved by the Building and Planning Departments. B. TRAFFIC STUDY: Approve the Traffic Study, making the • findings listed below: Fin 'n 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major; 'primary- modified,' or primary' street. 3. That the revised Traffic Study No. 77 indicates that the project- generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2-5 hour peak period on five of the seven study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the sixth and seventh intersections indicate that the ICU values of the A.M. and P.M. peak will not be altered by the addition of the project at the intersections of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive; and MacArthur • Boulevard and Campus Drive. -17- COMMISSIONERS o�� doh CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX C. USE PERMIT NO. 3424 Fin in 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the waiver of the take -out restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter fencing and a portion of the required parking Q parking spaces) will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed drive -in and take -out restaurant is part of a larger integrated development which is not conducive to such standards, but is designed in a way that meets the purpose and intent of such design standards; and adequate parking is being provided on -site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding offices. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not • conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. Adequate provision for traffic circulation is being made for the drive -in and take -out restaurant facility. 6. That the proposed modification to the Koll Center Newport sign provisions allow two 5 foot high 32 sq. ft. menu signs, one additional 5 square foot logo wall sign and one 6 foot high ground sign 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 or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3424 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, -18- COMMISSIONERS o " Ndca \\ 0 �ee CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, elevations and sign plans, except as noted below. 2. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 3. That the intersection of the private drive and Campus Drive provide sight distance in conformance with City Standard No. 110 -L Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction • shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping 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 City Traffic Engineer. 4. That the on -site trash enclosure and Edison transformer be relocated in a location acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer so that vehicular and pedestrian sight distance is provided. 5. That the proposed monument sign at the corner of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive be positioned so that sight distance is maintained in accordance with the City's sight distance standard 110 -L. 6. That sidewalk be constructed along the Von Karman Avenue frontage and connect to the sidewalk located on the westerly side of the access driveway located at the southerly property boundary. The sidewalk shall be six (6) feet wide meandering or eight (8) feet wide, constructed adjacent to • the curb. That the existing curb access ramp constructed out into the access drive be reconstructed so that the ramp is positioned behind the curb. The design of the revised -19- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I INDEX access ramp shall be approved by the Public Works Department. That all work within the public right -of -way be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. That pedestrian access shall be provided from the Campus Drive entrance to the restaurant as approved by the Public Works Department. 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Campus Drive or Von Karman Avenue rights -of -way. 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 11. That the parking lot shall be lighted in such a manner as to prove adequate illumination to all areas of the lot without causing any light or glare to impact adjacent properties. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from adjoining streets. 13. That the development standards pertaining to walls and 7 of the required parking spaces for the take -out restaurant shall be waived. 14. That only two wall identification signs, one logo wall sign, one 4 foot high (50 sq. ft. per face) ground sign (with a 4 inch portion of the trademark star to exceed the permitted 4 foot height) and two drive - through menu signs shall be _20- COM�nMISSIONER$ 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX permitted, in conjunction with the take -out restaurant; unless otherwise permitted by the Koll Center Development Standards. 15. That the proposed directional signs shall not exceed 6 sq.ft. and shall not include the restaurant name. 16. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 17. That the service of any alcoholic beverages in the take -out restaurant facility is prohibited unless an amended use permit is approved by the City. 18. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 19. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, the City Traffic Engineer and Public Works Department. 20. That 102 off - street parking spaces (including the 10 spaces in the drive -up stacking lane) shall be provided. 21. That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 22. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 23. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such away as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 24. That grease interceptors shall be provided on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by -21- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX the Building Department. 25. That exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 26. That one bathroom for each sex shall be provided and shall be made readily available to patrons of the facility during all hours of operation. 27. 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. 28. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council 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. Modification No. 3928 (Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to consider amending conditions approved by the Planning Mod 3926 Commission on November 7, 1991 in conjunction with the approved construction of an 11 foot 6 inch high retaining wall topped by a No Action tempered glass windscreen, 3 feet 10± inches in height, for an Taken overall height of 15 feet 4± on property located in the R -1 -B District. The approved wall is to be located on 12 contiguous lots, and is permitted to encroach to within 14 feet of the front property line adjacent to East Coast Highway, where Districting Map No. 33 establishes required front yard setbacks ranging from 30 feet to 38 feet, and the Zoning Code limits such construction to 3 feet in height. The proposed amendments to the approved plans consist of: relocating the proposed wall so as to encroach to within 11 feet of the front property line adjacent to East Coast Highway; reducing the required number of steps the proposed wall is to be set back; and planting trees in the 10 foot wide water easement adjacent to East Coast Highway where no trees were originally permitted. The -22- COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL Ill Jill I INDEX proposal also requests the review of a landscape plan as required by the Planning Commission. LOCATION: Lots 2 through 13, Tract No. 3519, located at 4709 -4839 Cortland Drive, on the southerly side of Cortland Drive, easterly of Cameo Highlands Drive, in Cameo Highlands. ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT: Cortland Noisewall Trust, Corona del Mar OWNER: Various property owners in Cameo Highland James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the applicant has indicated they cannot comply with the required number of tiers in the wall that were imposed at the Planning Commission meeting of November 7, 1991, and the applicant has requested that trees be • planted in the water line easement which were prohibited when the application was originally approved. Mr. Hewicker referred to the copies of a booklet that was submitted to the Planning Commission by the applicant, and on page 2 it states that the plant material selected will cover the bottom two terraces of the wall in a maximum of 2 years, thereby eliminating the need for additional terracing at additional expense. Mr. Hewicker responded that staff is not aware of any engineering that says the wall cannot be built as it was approved by the Planning Commission, and it is feasible that the applicant is requesting to modify the conditions of approval so as to install the wall at a lower cost. Staff is opposed to allowing the planting of trees within the 10 foot wide water easement. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Gary E. Malazian, landscape designer, 4829 Cortland Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he opposed the findings and conditions in Exhibits "A' and "B ". Mr. Malazian read a prepared text from the homeowners regarding the subject wall. It is agreed that the wall is in order; the height and basic design are acceptable; the material to be used is acceptable; and the plant material to cover the wall • is acceptable. The concern is where to locate the wall and how many tiers to place in each terrace of the wall. The homeowners request is to have the wall as close to the 10 foot wide water -23- COMMISSIONERS o� ` d. on�\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX easement as possible, preferably abutting the easement; have the wall as vertical as possible and landscaping for the purpose of minimizing the dust from East Coast Highway; to maximize the useable lot size so they may utilize the land they pay taxes on; minimize noise pollution from East Coast Highway; and minimize the construction and maintenance costs of the wall. The homeowners would prefer a wall abutting the 10 foot wide water easement and have only one tier in the wall for landscaping purposes. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Malazian stated that the requested location and design of the wall would create 15 feet of additional flat area at the top of the existing slope, thereby enlarging the usable front yards of the subject twelve lots. Commissioner Gross stated that at the November 7,1991, Planning Commission meeting, he opposed the wall's configuration because he had not seen similar walls that allow planting, and the wall would be a potential for graffiti and would be a massive entrance into Corona del Mar. He opposed the requested design because the product is the wrong product. Mr. Malazian explained that the two vines that were selected to be planted in the terraces will cover the wall in one year. Commissioner Gross asked if the applicant would be willing to post a landscaping bond. Mr. Malazian agreed to post a bond if the concerned homeowners supported the request. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that he contacted the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department regarding the previously suggested landscaping for the wall, and Jack Brooks replied that bougainvillea would grow in 8 inch wide steps and the type and locations of the suggested vines would grow rapidly over the wall. Commissioner Pomeroy asked how much more yard space has been added with the requested plan than what was previously approved. Mr. Malazian replied that approximately an additional 5 feet would be added, and about 2 -1/2 feet is attributable to the change in the number of steps in the wall. Commissioner Pomeroy explained that the previously approved change in steps was to eliminate the . vertical mass at the entrance to Newport Beach. -24- COMMISSIONERS o \v,r o L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX Commissioner Merrill indicated that the previously approved wall allowed for trees, and he stated that the portion below the glass should be screened with trees. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Malazian explained that the applicant discussed an extension of the wall and to leave the slope as it exists with staff prior to the Planning Commission public hearings. Mr. Malazian further replied that The Irvine Company will pay for the bulk of the wall and the concerned homeowners will add funds towards the construction of the wall. Commissioner Glover and Mr. Laycock discussed the 8 inch planting areas in the wall. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Malazian explained that his educational and professional background has made him knowledgeable about plants. Mr. Malazian explained that a drip irrigation system would be designed and installed in the proposed wall so as to allow plant growth in the wall, and he described the proposed landscaping. Commissioner Gross pointed out that at the November 7, 1991, Planning Commission meeting it was determined that The Irvine Company was going to contribute $300,000.00 towards the wall and the 12 homeowners would contribute an additional $300,000.00, and the total cost of the wall would be approximately $600,000.00. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross with respect to why the engineering of the previously approved wall would not work, Mr. Malazian explained that the wall would be more expensive to build inasmuch as each tier is more expensive. He further explained that in 4 years it would not matter how many tiers exist on the wall because the plant material will cover the wall. Commissioner Gross responded that he would like to have some strong evidence that the requested wall would work favorably. Mr. Peter Juteau, 4821 Cortland Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Juteau responded to Commissioner Gross' statement regarding posting a bond, and he indicated that the Cameo Highlands Community Association is responsible for the upkeep of the slopes; however, if the plants would not survive, the Association would hold the homeowners responsible to replace the plants. In responsible to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Juteau explained that the requested palm trees at the base of the -25- COMMISSIONERS � o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX wall would tie in with the landscaping in the area, and palm trees could be planted in a 1 foot area and grow 15 feet in 40 years. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the staffs policy is not to allow trees in an easement area, and palm trees would fit within a 4 foot area and would not fit into the 1 foot area without encroaching into the easement area. Exhibit "B" would address the 4 foot easement. Mr. Juteau stated that staff informed the homeowners that for every foot that is closer to the water easement, it would be necessary to go one foot underground. Mr. Juteau stated that the homeowners have indicated they would like to have additional space in their front yards. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Juteau explained that the 4 foot setback adjacent to the water easement, because of the angle and the water line, would be more costly. He further explained that the homeowners would reconsider a 2 foot area adjacent to the 10 foot wide water easement so as to plant palm trees. Mr. Juteau and Commissioner Gross discussed the design of the proposed wall. Mr. Juteau explained that to cut two tiers as previously approved it would be necessary to install two additional irrigation lines. Commissioner Glover stated that the Commission determined to only review a landscape plan at the November 7, 1991, Planning Commission meeting, and now the applicant has returned with a new project. Mr. Hewicker agreed that the applicant decided that the conditions that were previously imposed were not acceptable. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Juteau discussed the cast of the irrigation system for a 860 long foot wall. Commissioner Merrill expressed his opposition to the proposed wall. Mr. Malazian reappeared before the Planning Commission and be stated that the homeowners would make a compromise for 2 feet from the easement, 2 terraces, and 2 tiers on each terrace, and the proposed vines would be aesthetically appealing. Commissioner Pomeroy clarified the foregoing by stating that the wall as • previously approved, would be 2 feet further forward to East Coast Highway, and there would be 2 steps instead of 3 steps. Mr. Laycock explained that the original plan was approved with 4 steps -26- COMMISSIONERS d� o�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX in 2 locations. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the angle of the wall was more of a concern than the location of the wall, and he would agree that the wall would come 2 feet closer to East Coast Highway if it maintained the same configuration that was previously approved. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Webb explained that staff would approve the design as long as the foundation is deep enough to make sure that it does not encroach into the area of the water line, and 2 feet between the wall and the water easement would probably not be an adequate width to plant trees. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to deny Modification No. 3928. • Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the previously approved wall on November 7, 1991. He said that an adjustment of 2 feet forward towards East Coast Highway . would be appropriate. Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve Modification No. 3928, allow the wall Motion * to move forward 2 feet and remain in the same configuration as previously approved. The maker of the motion approved the landscaping proposed by Mr. Malazian. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Commissioner Gross clarified the motion to deny Modification No. 3928. He explained that he would not object to the application that was approved by the Planning Commission on November 7, 1991. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the motion could be in the form of "no action" and let the prior approval stand. Commissioner Edwards clarified the substitute motion wherein he stated that the motion supports the project that was approved by the Planning Commission on November 7, 1991, the same number of steps that were originally approved, but to relocate the wall forward 2 feet towards the water easement. He said that he would • not support the substitute motion. Substitute substitute motion was made to take no action and to _27_ COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Substitute reaffirm Modification No. 3928 as approved by the Planning Substitute Commission on November 7, 1991, and to accept the landscaping Motion plan as proposed during the subject public hearing. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. L.aycock explained that the proposed landscaping would not allow palm trees in the water easement; however, palm trees would be allowed in the 4 foot wide area between the wall and the easement. The palm trees that were shown on the proposed plan would have to be moved back. Commissioner Merrill supported the landscaping shown on the drawing, and he requested that the applicant come back with a landscape plan for review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Edwards stated that he would support the recommendation. Withdrawn The maker of the substitute substitute motion withdrew the motion based on the similarity of the original motion. O * * * * The substitute motion was voted on, MOTION DENIED. s Motion was voted on to take no action on Modification No. 3928, and that the Planning Commission shall review the proposed Ayes * * * landscaping at a future Planning Commission meeting. MOTION No CARRIED. Variance No. 1178 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on V1178 property located in the MFR (2178) District which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposed Appeoved development provides the required amount of open space, but the location of the open space does not meet Ordinance requirements. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right -of -way as established by Districting Map • No. 17, and to encroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said construction also proposes to extend beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation -28- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL il Jill INDEX Avenue, so as to encroach an additional 6 inches on the first floor and one foot on the second floor. LOCATION: A portion of Block "D", Corona del Mar, and a portion of Carnation Avenue (vacated), located at 319 Carnation Avenue, southerly of Bayside Drive and westerly of the midline of the vacated extension of Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: MFR (2178) APPLICANT: Robert S. Losey, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that subsequent to the staff report, an alternative proposal was submitted by David • Diem, an adjoining property owner, to staff. The alternative proposal would allow the full basement as proposed by the applicant and would allow an encroachment into the 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to abandoned Carnation Avenue. The alternative would allow the applicant to build more square footage in the dwelling and at the same time, generally preserve the views that exist from abandoned Carnation Avenue and Seaview Avenue to the end of abandoned Carnation Avenue above Bayside Drive. It is feasible there would be some impact on the residents living on the westerly side of Carnation Avenue towards Bayside Drive. The alternative plan would allow architectural relief on the side of the building as it abuts the abandoned Carnation Avenue right -of -way. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hewicker explained that the foregoing alternative would modify Condition No. 26, Exhibit 'B ". In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Hewicker explained that the alternative plan would also allow a first floor encroachment into the 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to abandoned Carnation Avenue. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the deadend barrier on abandoned Carnation Avenue, and he stated that he has never observed anyone at that end of the street looking out at Begonia COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Park. The public looks toward the ocean at the other end of Carnation Avenue. He questioned how viable a public view is the park. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross regarding a statement in the staff report that the applicant has indicated to staff that the objections of some of the neighbors have been satisfied with regard to obstruction of a- fisting views; however, this information has not been verified., wherein Mr. Hewicker explained that the concern was expressed by several residents residing at the comer of First Avenue and Carnation Avenue. Commissioner Glover stated that Carnation Avenue is a private street, and the rear of the house is more visible to the public from Bayside Drive. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hewicker explained that a public view exists from the end of Carnation Avenue, a private street. • The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bob Losey, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Losey stated that he would approve the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and if the Planning Commission approved Exhibit 'B ", the applicant would request to come back with a compromise design because of the concern for the architectural appearance from Bayside Drive. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Losey addressed the line of sight in the staff report. He said that it would be advisable to have the basement and the first level to encroach into the front yard setback area, and if he had to give up the third level, rather than give up the entire area of encroachment, he would rather come back to show the Planning Commission how the public view would be affected so as to retain a part of the encroached area for additional square footage for the master bedroom. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Losey explained that he was successful in contacting several of the neighbors with the exception of Mr. Pease. He submitted letters from residents in support of Exhibit "A". Mr. Losey submitted photographs indicating a minimal loss of public view. -30- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. David Diem, 180 Newport Center Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his opposition to Exhibit' A ". He said that he represents three properties, or 21 residential units. He stated that he has no problem with the basement level encroaching into the 10 foot front yard setback; however, he expressed concerns that the second and third floors would encroach into the 10 foot setback of the comer that hinders the view of Begonia Park from the end of the street and the properties on the easterly side of abandoned Carnation Avenue. He suggested an alternate plan that would clip the comer of the building on the second and third floors and to allow the encroachment elsewhere. The plan would provide the most square footage and would not impact the view. Mr. Diem described a photograph taken from the end of the street demonstrating if the 10 foot encroachment were eliminated at the comer of the building. Mr. Diem distributed two proposals to the Planning Commission. Proposal B would be similar to Mr. Hewicker's description of an alternate plan which would be to clip the corner of the building in the area of the sight line. Proposal A • would be to jog the building into two small segments so as to give architectural detail at the end of abandoned Carnation Avenue adjacent to Bayside Drive, and it would provide the applicant additional footage on the second and third floors. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the two proposals, Mr. Diem described the encroachment that would be cut off from the building. Commissioner Glover stated that after she visited Mr. Diem's property, the view that Mr. Diem is concerned about would not inhibit the future residents of his development. Mr. Diem concurred that 302 and 304 Carnation Avenue would be the only units that would be affected by the view of Begonia Park. He said that he is most concerned about a future project that is in the planning stage. Commissioner Debay stated that the Planning Commission is concerned about public views and not private views. She said that her concern is the request to exceed 1.5 times buildable up to 3.16 buildable. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the floor area to land area ratio should be considered in this particular case, and the ratio is less than what is allowed on a typical lot. -31- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Butram Rowe, the property owner and resident of the triplex located at 407 Fernleaf Avenue appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rowe addressed the sight poles that the applicant established on the subject property for the purpose of review by the residents. Mr. Rowe stated that his bay view would be impacted by the proposed structure. Mrs. Lila Crespin, 707 Begonia Avenue and property owner of 2600 Bayside Drive appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Crespin distributed photographs to the Planning Commission and she requested that the Planning Commission consider the value of private property. She indicated that the proposed structure would impact the view from her Bayside Drive property. Commissioner Debay stated, and Mrs. Crespin concurred, that if the applicant is allowed to build within the allowable footprint that Mrs. Crespin would not have a complaint. Mr. Hewicker explained that the structure as proposed does not encroach into the Bayside Drive setback, and it is the building and the relationship to the Bayside Drive setback that is impacting the view on the northerly side of Bayside Drive. The applicant is not requesting to exceed the permitted building height of the MFR District. Dr. Bruce Cairns, 405 -1/2 Fernleaf Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he expressed a concern regarding the impact that the proposed structure would have on his view of the harbor. Mr. Eric Mossman, architect for the project, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Mossman explained that Mr. Diem's photograph was taken beyond the barrier at the end of abandoned Carnation Avenue, looking down the hillside from the applicant's property, and the view that would be impacted by the proposed structure is minimal. A Carnation Avenue resident concurred that no one goes to the end of Carnation Avenue to look at the park. Mr. Diem's projects are oriented towards the view of the bay with the exception of the two aforementioned units which also have an ocean and bay view. Approximately 40 percent of the subject property is an ingress /egress easement that was made by a previous owner, and • the buildable area is 68 percent of the total lot area. Exhibit "B" would have an affect of the architecture from Bayside Drive, and 90 percent of the building is below the mid- height requirement, or -32- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX essentially 4 feet lower than would be allowed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Mossman replied that he has no comment regarding the alternate proposal as explained by Mr. Hewicker. Exhibit "A" would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and there would be a minimal impact of park view. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Mossman stated that the applicant intends to landscape the entire slope adjacent to Bayside Drive, and also has a desire to landscape within the public right -of -way above the sidewalk on Bayside Drive. Mr. Losey reappeared before the Planning Commission at the request of Commissioner Gross. Mr. Losey explained that he has not had an opportunity to see what view impact the proposed project would have on the concerned neighbors' residential • properties, and the concerned residents had not contacted him after the sight poles were installed on the property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the view impact that the project would have from Fernleaf Avenue, Mr. Hewicker explained that the applicant does not propose to eliminate square footage at the back side of the subject property so as to allow an enhancement of the bay view from the subject property. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this tune. Motion Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1178 subject to the finding and conditions in Exhibit "A" (as submitted by the applicant), on the basis that the expressed concerns have been about private views. Commissioner Pomeroy supported the motion. He said that the abandoned street is ugly, and he has never observed any one looking at Begonia Park from the end of abandoned Carnation • venue. It is a private street. Mr. Diem's comments are about private views from adjacent property, and not public views. -33- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES 0 \\ �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL Ll INDEX Commissioner Debay opposed the motion, and she requested a continuance for redesign so as to address staffs additional comments. Commissioner Edwards opposed the motion and he supported Commissioner Debay's request for a continuance for additional design changes. There is not enough evidence to support Exhibit "'KI. Substitute Commissioner Debay made a substitute motion to continue Motion * Variance No. 1178, to the February 6, 1992, Planning Commission meeting based on her aforementioned statement. Commissioner Edwards supported the substitute motion. Commissioner Glover opposed the substitute motion. She approved the installation of the story poles. The applicant has tried to respond to the piece of property as is, and if the architect redesigned the project, the neighbors would still have the same concerns because there would only be a small amount of square footage that would be eliminated. The design of the structure is important from Bayside Drive, and she requested that the architecture not be modified. Commissioner Merrill stated he would not support the substitute motion. Chairman Di Sano stated that the Planning Commission is required to make findings for variance approval, and exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, and on that basis, he supported the original motion. * Substitute motion was voted on to continue Modification No. 1178 Ayes * * * to the February 6, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Noes DENIED. * Motion was voted on to approve Variance No. 1178 subject to the Ayes Noes * findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the -34- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property maintains a very steep slope which is significantly different than the other lots in Corona del Mar. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is within the permitted height limit of 28/32 Height Limitation Zone and the property is encumbered by overly restrictive setbacks and an unbuildable easement area which comprises 40 % of the subject property. 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 4. That the irregularly shaped lot has less buildable area than other lots in Corona del Mar, since the site has two front yard setbacks and two rear yard setbacks which are more restrictive than other lots on the same block. 5. That the proposed development is designed to minimize the alterations of natural landforms along the bluff. 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 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. 8. That the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the open space location requirement of the MFR District. -35- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL il Jill INDEX 9. That the approval of the modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed encroachments into the required front yard setback adjacent to abandoned Carnation Avenue into the vacated Carnation Avenue right -of -way, and into the required rear yard setbacks will not, under the circumstances of this 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; and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code, inasmuch as the subject property is encumbered by unusual setback requirements and an abandoned right -of -way which is not included in the buildable area of the site. CONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and section, except as noted below. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That the design of the sewer lateral serving the site be reviewed and approved by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. That the on -site parking and vehicular circulation be subject to furtber review by the Traffic Engineer. 6. That the Carnation Avenue street end be improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement and that a standard • street end guard rail be constructed to protect the motoring public and pedestrians with the design to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. That the proposed retaining wall -36- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX along Bayside Drive be redesigned as two (2) walls, one located approximately 4 feet behind existing sidewalk and the other wall located within the project property lines with a maximum slope of 2:1 behind each wall. The wall design shall be approved by the Public Works and the Building Departments. That an Encroachment Agreement be executed by the owner for maintenance of the wall located in the public right -of -way and to hold the City harmless from any liability associated with the existence of the wall. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. That the Encroachment Agreement be executed prior to issuance of arty Grading or Building Permits. 7. That the slope along the Bayside Drive frontage be landscaped as approved by the Public Works Department, the City Grading Engineer and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 8. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown of standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 11. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 12. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. • 13. That driveway slopes shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. -37- COMMISSIONERS pA ' d. O� G �� January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL L INDEX 14. That a geological report that determines areas of potential instability or hazard along with a map indicating such information must be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits for construction or grading. 15. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments. 16. That the grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 17. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul • operations. 18. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 19. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 20. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and 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. 1. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. -38- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 22. That any proposed fill slopes shall not exceed a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope ratio and shall be subject to further review by the City Grading Engineer. 23. That any planned slope irrigation shall be controlled by an automatic system control device with an override keyed to continuous soil moisture measurement devices. The preparation and planting of the site slopes shall be designed by an experienced landscape planner, and all slopes shall be planted upon their completion and all planting must be maintained in growing condition for at least two years or until accepted by the Building Official. 24. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of building or grading permits. 25. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section • 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 10:00 P.M. A. Amendment No. 744 (Continued H Item No.9 Request to establish Planned Community District Regulations and A744 adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for Hoag Hospital. The proposal would establish regulations and development xs 81 standards for the long term build -out of acute and non -acute health x1180 care facilities. The proposal also includes an amendment to Districting Maps No. 22 and 22 -A so as to rezone the hospital Corte ' d roperty from the A -P -H and U (Unclassified) Districts to the P -C to 6:00p.m (Planned Community) District an amendment to Chapter 20.02 of 1/25/92 the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to amend the Height Limitation Zones Map and the legal description of the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District to place the Lower Campus wholly -39- COMMISSIONERS `" cn o q� January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District; and the approval of a development agreement and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Traffic Study No. 81 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of Phase I of the Hoag Memorial Hospital master plan of development. AND C. Variance No. 1180 (Public Hearing) Request to exceed the Base FAR of 0.5 up to the maximum FAR of 0.65, consistent with the provisions of the General Plan Land • Use Element and Chapter 20.07.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. LOCATION: Lower Campus: A portion of Lot 172, Block 1, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 4000 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue. Upper Campus: Parcel No. 1 of Record of Survey 15 -30, located at 301 Newport Boulevard, on the southwesterly corner of Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. ZONES: A -P -H and Unclassified APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, stated that a map delineating origin and location of the letters received from residents regarding the subject project will be submitted to the Commission prior to the January 23, 1992, Planning Commission -40- January 9, 1992 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL III III INDEX meeting. Ms. Temple further stated that the studies regarding hydrogen sulfide and sulfuric acid are nearing completion, and the technical documents will be contained in the Response to Comments that will be provided to the Commission and available to the public prior to the January 23, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Di Sano reported that the Villa Balboa alternative development concept will be addressed during the subject public hearing. Ms. Linda Rice, 230 Leille Lane, President of Villa Balboa Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Rice stated that the Association, representing approximately 900 to 1,000 residents, supports Hoag Hospital's efforts to improve health care facilities and the requirement to expand and meet the future health care needs of the community. Ms. Rice stated that the Association is prepared to present • solutions that will allow Hoag to meet medical objectives and satisfy the residents' concerns. Ms. Rice introduced the individuals that will make the alternative presentation. Mr. Mark Faulkner, resident of Villa Balboa, has 15 years of experience in design and engineering as a corporate design director and design consultant, is the owner of a design consulting firm in Costa Mesa, and is a member of the faculty of the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena. Mr. Faulkner appeared before the Planning Commission to give a slide presentation of the concerns that the residents of Villa Balboa have with respect to the Hoag Hospital plan, and to make recommendations and propose solutions regarding the project. The slide presentation was presented as follows. A photograph taken in 1922 indicates the Santa Ana River, the bluff, the wetlands and vegetation, prior to development in the area. Photographs showing the development of the Hoag Hospital and West Newport area from the early 1950's to the present indicating the wetlands and bluff, and the service road that separates the residential area from Hoag Hospital. • The California Coastal Act of 1976 states that wetlands are defined as lands within the Coastal Zone which may be covered -41- January 9, 1992 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES d � dCA� _ 0 q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I 111 1 INDEX periodically or permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes, fresh water marshes, and open or closed marshes, swamps, and mudflats. Mr. Faulkner addressed the plant life and the wildlife that exist in the wetlands area, and the hazards of methane and hydrogen sulfide gas seepage in the wetlands area. In response to a comment that Commissioner Pomeroy made during the December 9, 1991, Planning Commission meeting with respect to why the wildlife in the wetlands have not been harmed by the hazardous gas, Mr. Faulkner explained that the gas is currently allowed to seep into the atmosphere; however, an accumulation of gas could cause an explosion if development would occur on the lower campus and certain medical devices are installed in the outpatient facilities. The operation of the air conditioning and ventilation systems to be sure that the gas does not collect within the structures would present a noise problem to the residents. Corrosive soils could also cause a gas collection within the structures. The run -off water flowing from the top of the bluff has been allowed to run down the face of the bluff into . the wetlands area, and he explained how the water is filtered in the wetlands before the water re- enters the water table. He explained how an earthquake or any earth movement could affect the Villa Balboa residential area if the project would be developed. The method to remove the bluff would require heavy equipment, and the possibility of earth movement could affect the foundations of the residences. The development of the lower campus would affect the traffic on West Coast Highway; the intersection at Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway; and the traffic would have an affect on the residential area. Mr. Faulkner referred to the different styles of architecture on the Hoag Hospital campus, and the proposed height of the structures. He determined that the proposed plan is not a good use in view of the aesthetics and the visual land use compatibility with the smaller structures in the area. He demonstrated from a series of slides the land use compatibility changes from a very quiet residential area to an industrial or institutional area. To preserve the feeling of a residential area, the Association suggests that the bluff area be • preserved so as to provide open space. Mr. Faulkner referred to the Land Use Element and the Recreational and Open Space -42- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Element of the General Plan to support the Association's concerns regarding the preservation of the bluffs. Mr. Faulkner demonstrated from a series of slides the public views from the pedestrian and bicycle path, looking toward the turning basin in Newport Harbor to Catalina Island, and be explained why the Association does not agree with the applicant that the views would be enhanced from the bicycle path. The Association recommends the construction of a view park for the benefit of the hospital personnel, the child care center, and the 5,000 residents that are within walking distance of the park. Parking for the view park would be located at the Cal -Trans parking lot, and the parking structure that is located at the east end of the property. Vista points located in the view park would be similar to the vista points located in Corona del Mar. Mr. Faulkner referred to the Recreational and Open Space Element of the General Plan to support the Association's recommendation of a view park and vista point. The Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan addresses the shoreline height limitation that established new height and bulk restrictions around the bay. A key element was to limit the height on West Coast Highway from 85 feet to 26 feet so as to reduce the mass and bulk in the area to make the area more aesthetically pleasing. The areas between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue northerly of West Coast Highway are shown for recreational and environmental open space, parking, public recreation, and visual and environmental purposes. Expansion of Hoag Hospital facilities may also be accommodated on the site. The Association is concerned that the hospital has requested to exceed the height limitation in the area. If the 26/35 Height Limit would be maintained it would be feasible to preserve the public views along the bicycle path. In reference to the Zoning Code, Mr. Faulkner states that in approving any Planned Community District, Specific Area Plan, or granting a use permit for any structure exceeding the basic height limit in any zone, each of the following four points shall be complied with: (a) the increase in building height would result in more public visual space and views than required by • the basic height limit in any zone; however, the Association believes that would not be accomplished by the Hoag plan. (b) The increase in building height would result in a more desirable architectural -43- January 9, 1992 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES off , 0 O did �� \e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual I character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone; however, the Association responds that the architectural details have not been called out, and as a designer, Mr. Faulkner stated that the scale and mass would not relate to the general land use in the area. (c) The increase in building height would not result in an undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the stntchwes and existing developments or public spaces; however, Mr. Faulkner responded that attention should be given to the total bulk of the structure including horizontal and vertical dimensions. (d) The shucttim shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the permits; however, the applicant has requested a greater use of the floor area. Mr. Faulkner determined that the aforementioned items are required before an increase in height can be granted, and he said that the applicant has not met any of the requirements. Mr. Faulkner stated that the residents of Villa Balboa are • concerned with the decline in the property values. He demonstrated from a slide, the view from residences located in the 280 Cagney Lane building before and after the extension of the parking structure and the Cancer Center. A land reduction analysis indicated that it is feasible that a reduction of $10,000,000.00 could be devalued in the evaluation of the residences impacted by the existing hospital structures, and if the land values of the entire residential development are included it is feasible that a depreciation of $50,000,000.00 could be considered and a tax revenue loss for the community. In 1987, Mr. Charles Lamb's land, located at 280 Cagney Lane, was valued at $148,000.00 and the Orange County Assessor's office reduced the land value to $78,000.00, or 50 percent reduction in land value because of the decline in value. The property value was reduced from $245,000.00 to $175,000.00. Mr. Faulkner referred to slides of the Upper Campus of Hoag Hospital. He demonstrated the proximity of the residential area with Hoag Hospital, and he pointed out that the only physical barrier is the service road. The noise, loading dock, industrial equipment and machines, are concerns of the residents. The • Intensive Care Unit encroachment is adjacent to the residents, and the master plan proposes to cantilever a building 16 feet from the property line or 28 feet from Villa Balboa to the cantilevered -44- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX building. The Association recommends no development adjacent to Villa Balboa. The undeveloped area of the Upper Campus along Newport Boulevard is under - developed, and the majority of the space is utilized for ground level parking, smaller structures, open space, and not very well utilized. The Association recommends relocating the mass and density of the lower campus to the upper campus. The non - critical care could be moved to the upper campus or off - site. The alternative plan submitted by the Friends of Cattail Cove was a proposal to restore the wetlands. The alternative plan submitted by the Villa Balboa Community Association is a proposal to move the density and square footage to the upper campus so as to preserve the bluff and the wetland. Mr. Faulkner referred to letters of support for the foregoing alternative plan from the West Newport Beach Association, SPON, Friends of Cattail Cove, and • Balboa Coves Community Association. Mr. Faulkner referred to a letter from Hoag Hospital, signed by Mr. Michael Stephens, March 10, 1983, stating that the hospital recognizes the public view and recreational benefits which would be derived from utilizing the bluff top for pedestrian and bicycle pathway. The letter further stated that the hospital understands the need for an inclusion of a bicycle trail along the top of the Cal -Trans East and West bluff line. A bicycle trail system would also include possible view park sites and a pedestrian overpass across Superior Avenue. Mr. Charles Lamb, 280 Cagney Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lamb addressed the reduction of his land values as previously outlined by Mr. Faulkner, and the Orange County Assessor's Office assessed value of his property that is located within 25 feet of the lower campus site. Mr. Lamb explained that he purchased his residential unit in 1981 when the lower campus site was owned by Cal- Trans, and prior to development of the Cancer Center in 1987. Mr. Lamb explained that The Orange County Assessor's Office reviewed the assessed value of his property when the Cancer Center was approved and prior to construction, and the Assessor's office reduced the land value by 50 • percent or $70,000.00. Mr. Lamb explained that after his neighbors were informed of his land assessment, they received approximately -45- January 9, 1992 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX the same reduction in the assessed value of their property. Mr. Lamb addressed the significance of the tax base. Ms. Ariane Zand, Health Facility Planner, appeared before the Planning Commission to present the Villa Balboa Community Association's conceptual alternative plan. Ms. Zand outlined the issues that she would address in the Villa Balboa Community Association's alternative master plan. The intention of the alternative plan is to find solutions that will be acceptable to the environmental group, the residents, and will satisfy the future growth requirements of Hoag Hospital. Ms. Zand stated that in her opinion, that the concept is environmentally and socially superior, and it is technically and financially more economical. The presentation is limited to the site assessment for an alternative conceptual master plan and not the appropriateness of the site itself for the future of a health care facility. Hoag Hospital Objectives. First, to meet the growth needs of the facility. The growth needs for each department and specialty are not identified, hence the total square feet cannot be assessed correctly. Two, to create flexibility for future needs. It is not identified what flexibility is, and how it has been achieved in the Hoag proposal. Three to create a regional center. This depends on the development of health care in the area, the competition, the association with other health care centers, and the future of the health care system. To be the state of the art center. What is the state of the art now and in the future for the policies and practice methods on the basis of which equipment, staffing, relationships, and therefore, space can be quantified and cost compared. To be user friendly. What does it mean to staff and patients. Is it provisions of amenity, personal service, ease of access, clarity of circulation, one stop shop service, or aesthetics, and what is the order of priority, and therefore, the cost implications. To be cost effective and competitive. Unless all of the above is qualified and quantified, and prioritized, it would not be possible to assess cost and competitiveness. Project Objectives. The lack of program data and information described for the master plan does not allow any depth or detail • for proper master planning. The goal is to develop a conceptual master plan, and to test the site for the feasibility for project -46- January 9, 1992 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX growth. This is achieved on the basis of the following objectives. For the facility to show the potential growth positions for the upper and lower campus to the approximate required square feet envisaged by Hoag Hospital considering the existing buildings and their use; To consider and allow similar functions to grow in place and allow future flexibility; to allow for inter - departmental relationships best suitable for the high utilization of staff, services, and better management; to provide accessibility and quality service for the patient; to be cost efficient; for the community and the residents it is to preserve the wetlands and natural landscape; to preserve the Newport Beach image and the future objectives; to preserve public views; to reduce the environmental impact at acceptable levels; and to provide the community with enhancement rather than further urbanization and industrialization. Functions. Assume that Hoag Hospital's growth requirements are a real need; assume and prepare hypothetical departmental space programs; assume departmental requirements based on similar facilities; assume phasing as appropriate from limited information for the master plan; assume adjacencies and departmental relationships functionally required for health care practice; assume that issues raised in the geological report for lower campus can be mitigated as stated in the Hoag Hospital EIR, the geological report for the upper campus is not available; assume no issue exists on the basis of existing use and old master plan; and assume all data available from Hoag EIR is correct. The upper campus is a conglomeration of buildings from 1952 to present. With the exception of 1974 structures, most buildings are one story and stretch out throughout the site covering the high rise zone of the hospital site. There is no information regarding the type or the state of the structures and if they have been brought up to code. The lower campus is separated from the upper campus by a massive parking structure, creating an obstacle for any effort in joining the upper and the lower campus. Otherwise, a number of scenarios could have been developed to create a more homogeneous use of the site. The Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designates the lower campus as Recreational and Environmental Open Space. This is to be rezoned for the hospital expansion where the hospital proposes to build high rise residential and outpatient services and future alternative projects. The lower campus houses the employee child care center which is positioned -47- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX in the center of the lower campus, next to the gas burner, and it is also in the pathway of intense traffic flow and the only entry into the site to the lower campus from Pacific Coast Highway. The residents were informed in the past that this strategic position on the site is temporary, and that the child care center is on a movable pad and is to be repositioned when the master plan is designed, which seems logical. It has since been stated by Hoag Hospital that this is a permanent feature and a very costly one. The site therefore, is divided into three parts: the upper campus divided from the lower campus by the massive parking structure, and the lower campus divided in two sections by the child care center. The Adhoc situation of different structures and functions randomly positioned on the site without consideration to the future development and without a master plan, not only complicates our present master planning efforts but also does not allow for flexibility or the best use of site potential. The homeowners of Villa Balboa have taken the following statements • by Hoag Hospital as the basis for our design. (1) 480,000 square feet of acute care emergency diagnostic and treatment and support services will remain on the upper campus; (2) Assume the same buildings for demolition on the upper campus as proposed by Hoag Hospital in agreement with their old master plan. The residents agree with the need to design a new maternity wing and outpatient surgery, including the labs, before the demolition of the 1957 and 1971 existing buildings. Adjustments to the master plan have been made for this purpose. The residents were misinformed of the change in use of the 1957 buildings to administration services. The conference center can be provided for temporarily on the lower campus, and there are alternative methods of doing that differently. Even though the residents are providing for the following in conceptual master plan, the residents suggest the possibility of an off -site location as an appropriate position to reduce the congestion to the site in order of priorities. The order of priorities is which one goes out first. The substance abuse center, hospice, residential care, conditioning and rehab, a total of 258,000 square feet can be off -site. The existing tower is approximately 235 feet above sea level, and 10 stories above ground on the upper campus. The conceptual master plan maximum building height does not exceed 6 floors. This would allow a parking structure with medical office buildings above on the upper campus without the need for subterranean parking. The issue of subterranean parking and the 48 COMMISSIONERS 0 oA�" '�.�cdn� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX cost was brought up by the hospital even though there is no indication of the location of the Hoag Hospital's future parking for the upper campus development. This brings up the issue for the subterranean parking indicated for Hoag Hospital's lower campus master plan. The floor area ratio for the upper campus is taken from the Hoag Hospital existing master plan giving the site size as 20 acres throughout the campus, vs. the new master plan giving the upper campus 17 acres. A shrinkage of 3 acres requires some explanation The problem we have had with quality information. With the new information, adjustments have been made to the original master plan to accommodate the basic need. Lower Campus. Since the upper campus has been locked in by inefficient use of the site it is necessary to focus on two initial building increments to allow for demolition and construction of the upper site of the campus. Since no close relationship can exist from the lower campus to the upper campus site, the lower campus should house the services least • relating to the diagnostic treatment services. These are identified on the plans and can be built in one phase. These are the skilled nursing center; hospice; residential care; conditioning and rehab; and the expansion of the cancer center which can be built any time that is feasible. The West Coast Highway is not the most ideal place for a residential setting which would prefer the soothing and healing power of nature and a meditative environment. For this, one needs to best utilize the site and to create such an environment. For example, by developing and enhancing the wetlands, the bluffs into a park -like area with walkways and access to residential buildings, where the families of patients can take the patients for strolls with wheelchairs to see vistas and wetlands and enjoy the habitat areas of numerous species living in the area. The same principle applies to the school. Taking the children on a nature walk. The original master plan with the child care center is more appropriate because it is limited and contains the traffic to the school only. It allows a more picturesque and open view of the wetlands from West Coast Highway. The buildings are two story residential care units and will lend themselves to the site, find harmony with the landscape, and have less adverse impact. The Upper Campus. From a patient's perspective it is important to arrive at one point, to be examined and diagnosed, and preferably, to be treated at one time. It is for this reason that close -49- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX connections and accessibility to the hospital facilities and services from the medical office building are the desired trend. This relationship makes the clinic and outpatient services more marketable and gives the patient a better sense of security for any outpatient procedures. It is not only a preferred option from the perspective of the patient and staff, but also more cast efficient from the management by better utilization of the . services, equipment, and would be close to the hospital. Since on this site, any close connection for the patient, staff, and emergency services from upper to lower campus is not possible without some method of vehicular transport, it is the inevitable position to build the offices on the upper campus. Design concept for upper campus. The site plan shown does not represent building form, it is for massing and location purposes only. The actual master plan design could be any form suitable. The upper campus requires structures for different types of functions. Agencies have different codes and regulations for • building different uses, and it is cost efficient to separate the buildings for this purpose. Future codes change and make more restrictions, for example, with the advancement in technology and new inventions, the definition of what is an outpatient procedure vs. inpatient procedure may change. The design perimeters and codes can limit flexibility. The conceptual master plan design concept would be to create flexibility, to create a sense of permanence and image, to allow for continuity and change, and to design cost efficiently. For these reasons in view of the existing buildings and the circulation pattern, the following are the main components of the alternative plan: an atrium and mall as a main access along which buildings of different types and functions can be placed, and can be independent and yet relate, and allow greater flexibility for the future. The medical office building can be built in increments as necessary. By creating parts and courts and open soft spaces, view and future expansion have been considered. The position of the expansion area does not only relate to the existing departments functionally but also the building types, height, and support services. The expansion and phasing consider the facilities have to be operable at all times. The floor area shown on the site plan indicates the approximate square feet of expansion and • function relating to the existing department on each floor. The conceptual master plan assumes the maximum growth for each department, so the intermittent growth patterns and flexibility are -50- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX not shown and cannot be designed without a program showing growth patterns for each department. The total footprint for the upper campus at the final buildout will be less than the existing footprint of the one story buildings. The total footprint of the upper campus at final buildout in the project would be less than the Hoag's suggested master plan for the upper campus. Phase One. The maternity wing and cardiac care and supports, as necessary, or anything else that may come up. Also, by building this, and having built the lower campus, certain departments can be moved that do not require OSHPD type buildings to the lower campus. The following are suggested departments that could move: outpatient psychiatry, administration support services, charts and records, public relations, business office, conference center, personnel, medical secretary, education and training. The buildings constructed in 1965, 1957, 1952, (psychiatry, administration, maternity wing and conference center) could be demolished. The outpatient clinic, surgery center, the atrium and mall, and parldng • as required, would be built. The remaining one story buildings constructed in 1966, 1952, 1963, 1978, and 1988 would be demolished. Phase III would be outpatient services and inpatient services, support and parldng. Phase III should consider designing any buildings that need to be replaced from the 1974 structure. The traffic patter. Since there are not sufficient data for traffic count or the impact it is more appropriate to concentrate on the traffic pattern, and see how it can be organized. Since there is only one entry to the lower campus site, the cumulative number as the rush hours could be formidable. For this reason, the buildings with lower traffic needs are positioned on the lower campus but also the traffic from the upper campus that can be scheduled and controlled are suggested for this entrance. With scheduling it is possible for the pattern to be organized in a sequential manner and hence, reduce the traffic impact. In the final phase. The service area on the upper campus is relocated and can be accessed from the lower campus, and this would mitigate the impact on the residents to the north of the site, and it would not be necessary to build the high wall, the original Hoag proposal for mitigating the sound impact. It is also possible to move the emergency entrance and this could be further studied and assessed, and cost analyzed and compared against other -51- COMMISSIONERS • q� � o January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX needed mitigation measures. The bicycle path can be extended along the existing service road. This would support the future Hoag suggestion that a great number of staff would come on bicycles and can park in bicycle parking and access the hospital from that area. This would further reduce the impact on the requirements for mitigation for the residents. Parking. It is possible to build a parking structure consisting of two or more floors on the lower campus and it would be below the height limit allowed on the site. The separation of patients, staff; deliveries and disposals, have to be defined by volume and schedules. External traffic patterns and parking count can only be quantified by statistics for the number of staff; patients, visitors, deliveries, and disposals, and operational schedules. A quality program should contain all of the statistics for this purpose which would allow for realistic parking data which could be used for a parking design. According to the traffic engineer enlisted by Villa Balboa, Mr. Paul Wilkinson, the alternate plan and the Hoag • proposal have been compared and are equal in traffic count distribution for external traffic patterns. Cost comparison. A cost comparison was made by Health Care Specialized Construction Company for the alternative conceptual master plan and the Hoag Hospital proposal, and the difference in the two was that the alternate plan is $6,500,000.00 less than the Hoag Hospital proposal. This is keeping the child care center where it is designed and not changing. The cost analysis did not take into consideration the added cost of the following eliminated . mitigations which the alternate plan proposes: the continuation of the service road which would be on the bluff which is not needed any more; and the mitigation measure for the upper campus north side for the residents, the high wall and sound barrier. The cost of recreating the wetlands elsewhere and the cost of excavation and the cost involved on the lower campus. The long term operational and maintenance costs attached to mitigation and security control required for monitoring the lower campus development such as methane gas has not been considered. The liability and operational and maintenance costs of the mitigation measures for the lower campus need to be assessed over a 30 year life of the facility to • better understand that the cost impact may be inhibiting. The capital cost vs. the operational cost is a key decision maker for health care planning. -52- January 9, 1992 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o �110 r o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Summary. This conceptual master plan shows the following: that this master plan can accommodate the Hoag Hospital growth requirements in a functional and cost effective manner without the necessity to destroy the wetlands or the public view; therefore, it is a superior master plan environmentally. It is financially feasible and more efficient. It is technically buildable and easier to construct in less time than the Hoag concept, that it is aesthetically superior and preserves the Newport Beach community image, and therefore, is socially more acceptable. It further shows that the impact to the neighboring residents can be reduced by better utilization of the site and the circulation pattern. By better utilization of the staff, equipment, and services, therefore, reducing duplication, it may be possible to reduce the total square feet of building that is envisioned by Hoag, thus further reducing the cost. There are a number of alternatives and scenarios and possible solutions for the site in terms of height, size, and shape of buildings. Giving the criteria to save the wetlands and the public views, and a comprehensive program, to 10 major architectural health care • architectural firms, there would be 10 alternative solutions, all of which would save the wetlands, public views, and meet all of Hoag's objectives. That without sufficient study, a program and statistics unavailable at present, the impact to the environment cannot be fully assessed. That without sufficient study, not only the residents and the community would suffer impacts, but Hoag Hospital would incur enormous cost that would not allow it the edge and the possibilities in the present and future competitive market. Ms. Terry Watt, Urban Planner, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Villa Balboa and SPON, to address why the Development Agreement would not be appropriate for the project as currently proposed, and why a Development Agreement negotiation is an opportunity to accomplish the goals as presented during the public hearing. Ms. Watt explained that there is a lack of specificity about the future project; all of the proposed benefits could be exacted under the current regulations; and the unknown environmental consequences of the project. She said the residents are not requesting that the idea of a Development Agreement be dropped, in fact it could be a major opportunity. Public involvement early in the planning process will help set the general parameters of the development as well as to define the public benefit that should be weighed against the private benefits. This -53- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 9, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX would give the City and negotiators guidelines and priorities to follow as specific plans and the agreement are flushed out. The Development Agreement should be treated as a preliminary draft, and the Commission should become actively involved in determining what exactly should be the public benefits that weigh against vested rights to develop the project for 40 years. A suitable benefit would be the kind of aforementioned alternative that is proposed - the dedication of the wetlands area, the bluff, public views, and moving the development to the upper campus. She suggested a series of workshops and negotiations, and some type of process to establish the experts on behalf of Villa Balboa and SPON, to start to work out a redesign of the project. The process in combination with a more specific project, perhaps a shorter term of Development Agreement, 40 years is excessive, and a reweighing of the public benefit that go with the conferring of the massive private benefit in the Development Agreement. Ms. Watt stated that formal text on development agreement issues would be forwarded to the Commission prior to the January 23, 1992, • Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Edwards indicated that the project consists of a 20 year master plan and a 40 year Development Agreement, and he asked if the master plan and Development Agreement normally run for the same period of time. Ms. Watt replied that the documents normally run the same period of time, and it is unusual to see a Development Agreement beyond 20 years. Commissioner Merrill stated that the draft Development Agreement for the master plan was previously discussed by the Commission, and the Commission agreed that the Development Agreement would not be addressed at this time. Mr. Robert McDaniel, 1854 Port Kimberly, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. McDaniel is a general contractor, specializing in commercial and industrial construction and spoke in support of the hospital's flexible master plan. Mr. McDaniel emphasized that the most expensive part of construction is if an existing facility is demolished, and to start new construction. A hospital is regulated by the State, and State Fire Marshalls have strict regulations that are not enforced in the standard commercial building. The most cost effective would be if the facility is expanded to the lower campus. -54- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Linda Taylor, 128 Harbor Island Road, appeared before the Planning Commission as a supporter of the hospital and architect. She stated that it was incredible that the alternate plan could be developed in one month and that an economical evaluation could be made. She addressed the private and public benefits of the project, and the length of time that it takes to develop a medical master plan for the facility. Commissioner Gross requested that Ms. Arian provide the Planning Commission with a copy of the prepared text that she used for her presentation. Ms. Arian agreed to provide said text. Commissioner Merrill requested that Ms. Arian also provide the graphics that were used during her presentation, and she agreed to comply with said request. Ms. Temple explained that Villa Balboa submitted a bound plan on the last day of the EIR period, including a document similar to the document that Ms. Arian stated that she would provide. The document will be included in the Response to Comments that will be forwarded to the Commission prior to the January 23, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. If the new document requires an additional analysis by the Environmental Consultant, then additional time would be needed to respond. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to Ms. Ariani's comments regarding 238,000 square feet that could appropriately be located off - campus, and he asked if that was part of the plan that was presented during her presentation. Ms. Arian replied that the plan that was presented contained all of the hospital's requests. Commissioner Pomeroy asked if the alternate plan is so superior, and cost $6,500,000.00 less, why wouldn't the hospital build to those specifications. Ms. Arian replied that she had the same questions. Ms. Rice informed the Commission that Ms. Arian would return to answer questions posed by the Planning Commission at the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 1992, and the requested documents would be submitted to staff during the week of January 13, 1992. Commissioner Gross requested a copy of the study of the two master plans that resulted in a difference in net change of -55- COMMISSIONERS January 9, 1992 MINUTES 6 ° °� �� Po1,, 1- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX $6,500,000.00. Ms. Arian explained that the difference in cost was only comparing the construction costs. Ms. Rice requested that Ms. Ariani and Villa Balboa Community Association be given the first opportunity to speak at the January 23, 1992, Planning Commission public hearing. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Amendment No. 744, All Ayes Traffic Study No. 81, and Variance No. 1180, 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., and to continue the item after the additional public hearing agenda items have been addressed on January 23, 1992. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Merrill requested a complete documentation of Mr. Lamb's documents from the Orange County Assessor's Office, and to be prepared to address the assessment of units located on the second, third, or fourth floors of the 280 Nice building. • Commissioner Glover requested that Hoag Hospital provide comments concerns regarding the methane gas, and why it is imperative to have the ability to increase the square footage on the west side service access. s s s ADJOURNMENT, 12:27 am. Adjourn s s s NORMA GLOVER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -56-