Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/1992COMMISSIONERS or' , ` ,,• O�,d REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE, - - City Council Chambers TIME: 6:00 P.M. DATE: February 6, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Commissioners Edwards, Glover, and Gross were absent. Motion Absent * * * was made and voted on to excuse Commissioners Edwards, Glover and Gross from the Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Motion CARRIED. Ayes * * * Absent tss EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney x s * William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Dick Hofstadt, Subdivision Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of Januga 9 199 (Continued): Minutes Motion * of 1/9/92 Ayes * Motion was made and voted on to approve the January 9, 1992, Absent * Planning Commission Minutes, as corrected. MOTION CARRIED. Minutes of JanuM 23. 199 • Minutes of 1/23/92 Commissioner Pomeroy requested that page 15 be corrected to state "subsequent floors might have a lager setback". Commissioner Merrill requested that his statement on pages 27 and 28 be clarified to state that a Site Plan Review would duplicate some of the things that were already set up in setback, height, and footprints or Floor Area Ratio. ion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the January 23, 1992, s sent * Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES d _ d� 0 f CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Public No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on Comments non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, January 31, 1992, in front of City Hall. Chairman Di Sano explained the procedure for the subject Planning Commission meeting. The continued public hearing for Item No. 1, Hoag Memorial Hospital will open at 6:00 p.m. and at 7:30 p.m. agenda items No. 2 through 9 will be heard. Following • said items the public hearing for Hoag Hospital will continue. t Y R Amendment No. 744 (Continued li Hearino stem No.l Request to establish Planned Community District Regulations and A744 adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for Hoag Hospital. The proposal would establish regulations and development TS No. 81 standards for the long term build -out of acute and non -acute health v1180 care facilities. The proposal also includes an amendment to Districting Maps No. 22 and 22-A so as to rezone the hospital Cont' d property from the A -P -H and U (Unclassified) Districts to the P-C to 2/20/92 (Planned Community) District, an amendment to Chapter 20.02 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to amend the Height Limitation Zones Map and the legal description of the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District to place the Lower Campus wholly within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District; and the approval of a development agreement and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND -2- COMMISSIONERS February 6; 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 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 (Continued 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 comer 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, addressed the contents of the staff report for the subject public hearing. She indicated that a supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report has been submitted to the State Clearing house for an additional ublic comment period of 45 days. The purpose for the action was that additional technical information developed and warranted a review by the responsible agencies in the State and the general public. The supplemental circulation period does not affect the consideration of the Planning Commission; however, the City • Council will certify the EIR after the second review period and the completion of additional responses to comments. It is common for -3- COMMISSIONERS d,O CITY OF NEWPORT February 6, 1992 MINUTES BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX deliberations of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Ms. Temple referred to the map that staff prepared showing the location of individuals who submitted correspondence to the staff and Planning Commission regarding the project. The red dots indicate the persons opposed to the project, with reservations about the project, or indicating a preference to an alternate plan. The green dots indicate the persons supporting the hospital's program. 62 individuals had reservations against the hospital project and 87 individuals expressed support of the project. Ms. Temple addressed the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) as it relates to the venting of sub - surface gasses. She explained that a representative of AQMD indicated that active venting in association with a pump or fan would be subject to a permit to operate equipment and would be subject to the Air District's regulations. A passive venting system is currently not subject to any rule or regulation of AQMD. • The public hearing was continued at this time. Mr. Leon Nimberg, 260 Cagney Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nimberg stated that when he purchased his condominium he had views of the bay and the ocean; however, he explained that subsequent construction of the elevator shaft in the parking structure has obliterated his view of the turning basin. He opposed the hospital's plan to construct the critical care project adjacent to the residential units inasmuch as the residents would lose air, light and enjoyment of their residences. Mr. Nimberg asked what instructions did the hospital give to the architects who designed the project and what consideration was given to the environment and the neighboring community. Mr. Richard Banks, property owner of 260 and 280 Cagney Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission. He expressed his support of Hoag Hospital; however, during his slide presentation he demonstrated his concerns that the proposed critical care unit would have a negative impact on Villa Balboa residents. Mr. Michael Stephens, President of Hoag Memorial Hospital, • appeared before the Planning Commission, and he referred to the hospital's presentation during the December 5, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Stephens stated that courage and vision -4- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX prove a or e, and health care is a basic public service and cannot be viewed as a commercial industrial venture. The planning and construction of hospitals is a highly complicated and complex process, and it is unwise and foolish to look at hospital design and construction as simply the movement of blocks of buildings on available space. There is a danger that the basic fundamental questions are obscured by detail, and it is imperative to maintain a perspective. Mr. Stephens stated there are three major questions which encompass most of the reports, studies, and testimony during the previous public bearings.. (1) Is the location of the lower campus a safe site to build and have the environmental issues been adequately addressers (2) Is the public importance of the existing wetlands and expanded park significant enough to compel the hospital to severely limit its ability to respond to the public need for health services in a timely, appropriate, and cost effective manner. (3) Is the proposed density shift fundamentally a sound concept. • Is this a safe site on which to build. The opponents determined the site is safe enough to construct the buildings they would allow in the plan but unsafe for the construction of the buildings proposed by the hospital. Much of the same testimony regarding earthquake, explosions, fissures, instability of the cliff, and the loss of condominiums in a catastrophic landslide were addressed during the Cancer Center public hearings, and the testimony maintaining the unsafe condition of the site is based on conjecture, misinformation, and personal opinion. He stated that the EIR determines all of the safety factors and evaluates them accordingly. What is construction going to mean, is it going to be safe, and can it be done. Mr. Stephens referred to the construction of the Cancer Center, and he stated that the building was successfully constructed in very challenging circumstances. Hospitals are subject to greater design review and approval than most construction projects. The Office of the State Architect reviews plans and approves them specifically for licensed health care projects, and the review is extensive, intense, detailed, and the Office will address the same issues. The hospital has the responsibility and potential liability to construct safe facilities, and he took exception to those who imply that somehow the hospital intends to act in disregard for the safety of the patients or those in -5- COMMISSIONERS c� 0P February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I lNOEX I act upon it, and that is a commitment that they will make. Wetlands, Pinks, and Views. What is the public value of accepting the plan of the opponents compared to the cost to the public of limiting the responsiveness to the hospital. Wetlands - It is accepted that mitigation is an acceptable alternative and there is a question of how accessible and valuable is the wetland to the public. In the alternative proposed by the opponents, there is a remnant of a wetland created by surface runoff, sandwiched between a bluff and structures that would be constructed, not accessible to the public and certainly not able to provide the kind of wetlands that has been portrayed by those who spoke in support of the wetlands. Park - Initially the hospital agreed to provide a consolidated view park that is consistent with not only the plan of Parks and Recreation but in response to a commitment the hospital made much earlier when they entertained purchasing the property. The hospital was responsive to the neighbors and to others by changing the design to a linear park. Now it is the desire of the • opponents to increase the size of the linear park to include the entire surface of the bluff area with the proposition that it would be a nice amenity for the neighbors. It was never envisioned by Parks and Recreation as an active park of the opponents' suggested size. Trews - The hospital met the requirement to maintain or enhance the views, and to require the hospital to enhance the views to a greater extent by allowing a five acre park on top of the bluff which would allow the public to walk to the edge of the bluff, would be too great a price to pay given what the hospital would have to forego. Mr. Stephens referred to the County of Orange Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for West Newport. The proposed plan consists of a total of 100 acres of enhanced wetlands including 7.3 acres of riparian habitat. The Army Corps of Engineers is already underway with an 84 acre marsh restoration, included in the development is a 14 acre community park, a 5 acre neighborhood park, and 18.2 acres of recreation corridor that provides greenbelts, similar to the backbay pedestrian bike trails, connecting from the Santa Ana River to the Pacific Coast Highway bike trail. To portray the five acre park proposed by the opposition and the • remnant wetlands as the last vestige available to the community is a misrepresentation in view of what is underway and planned in the area of West Newport. -6- COMMISSIONERS o� G` February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX e , an e development has to be looked at more than what can happen within 20 years. The master plan defines the relationship of activities and defines limits which will be used as an assumption for placing buildings so the future can be anticipated beyond the 20 years envisioned in the master plan. The impact of fare* the development on a congested site. Should the sequence of projects, i.e. what needs to be done now to respond to health care, be determined by available space on the upper site. It would result in delays, it would result in impairing eventual replacement of inpatient development because outpatient facilities will be constructed in open space and then when it comes time to replace the inpatient facilities, the hospital would have constructed newer buildings that will house, according to the alternative plan, outpatient activities. That would not make sense. If the inpatient buildings would be logically replaced in the hospital site over a projected long period of time, there would be a need for as much available open space as space occupied by the existing buildings because it is necessary to build and occupy the structures. The • buildings cannot be vacated and provide the services somewhere else when the buildings are torn down for rebuilding. If building is done to some extent, then it would greatly increase the disturbance that is going to be experienced by the patients who are housed in those areas and receiving those services. It does not make sense to make a choice to subject an organization to those kinds of limitations. The alternative plan would propose that the hospital make that choice and, thereby, bring on the complexity and disturbance that will follow with a site of that density. The fundamental question that has to be answered is, does it make sense to compel all of this to take place, encumbering the hospital with a congested site, limiting the hospital's ability to build buildings that should be built in a way to be functional and accessible, in order to maintain, on -site, a one and one -half to three acre wetland as it has been described in the EIR and a five acre park given all of the resources with both parks and wetlands that are going to exist in the West Newport area. It is a choice of cost and benefit, where there is no way that the wetland and the park can even begin to approach the importance of the hospital's ability to expand and be responsive. • Mr. Stephens stated that the hospital has an obligation to try to work, to minimize and mitigate the impact, but the density site shift, the alternative, is more than just trying to accommodate the -7- COMMISSIONERS db February 6, 1992MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX neighbors, it will provide a death knell to the ability of the hospital to be responsive. If the master plan is not approved, as proposed, and if the alternative is imposed, who benefits? Is it more than the 20,000 inpatients and their families who are admitted to the hospital annually? Certainly not. Is it all of the patients who represent the 100,000 outpatient visits and treatments that occur every year, and is it going to be in their interest to subject them to the kind of dislocation and difficulty that would be found in a site that is that dense, or one of the projects is delayed because the building can only go in an existing space and cannot evolve as dictated by changes in medical practices and advance technology? Is it the residents of West Newport who will have access to a major restored wetlands area with parks, bike trails, and greenbelts, and how will the five acres and the small isolated wetlands compare or compete with that? Are those who benefit, the residents most of all, who are adjacent to the property and have the most to gain by limiting or excluding its development whatsoever. Mr. F. W. Evins, Vice President of Facilities, Design and . Construction for Hoag Hospital, licensed architect, and land use Tanner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Evins provided a slide presentation so as to address concerns expressed by the opposition during previous public hearings regarding the subject master plan. Mr. Evins stated that the format will address e neighbors' concerns and the Draft EIR facts. The lower campus site contains numerous earthquake faults md no buildings should be allowed to be built upon it. The DEIR fates potential seismic impacts to the project remain below a level A significance. Ground rupture is considered remote because no eatures associated with a fault were observed on the site. arthquake faults are prevalent in Southern California, there is no vidence of active faults on the lower campus site, buildings will be uilt to the latest seismic standards and Uniform Building Codes hich, in turn, would prevent structural failure from occurring. e future construction of the lower campus would force ground water o build up in the event of an earthquake and cause the structures to ail and ensuing mud slide would undermine the Vdla Balboa condominiums. The DEIR states that impacts associated with • grading on the upper campus, possible impacts on the lower campus, i.e. liquefaction, sedimentation, subsistence, ground rupture, and seismically induced slope failure and instability are all -8- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES 0 `0 Ndc \\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX ImIgnIfIcam. Future structures on The lower campus will be engineered with redundant systems to prevent hydro - static or water pressure from building up and accumulating. Such de- watering systems were successfully incorporated in the Cancer Center, and the potential for liquefaction on the site, per the DEIR, is low due to the fact that the site is underlayed by dense and very dense soils. Gas and &Ara= Sulfide An accumulation of gar could cause an explosion if development would occur on the lower campus. The DEIR states that the existing gas collection system on the lower campus will continue to be expanded as necessary and will use shallow wells and vacuum collection systems as originally installed by the City in 1977. Future construction will entail the addition of gas wells, gas collection and venting system, sensors, vapor membranes, thereby increasing gas extraction and reducing potential gas accumulation. These systems have previously been implemented on -site and have proven to be satisfactory with the Cancer Center and Child Care Center. The flare stack will be removed and the gas will be used for hospital energy needs in the future. The corrosive nature of soils on the lower campus will erode the gas collection mitigation systems in future buildings. Based on studies prepared for the Cancer Center, corrosion control methods will mitigate problems associated with underground steel, utilities and concrete. Mr. Evins explained the policy that would be used during the design of the gas protection system for various buildings by the methane engineer so as to be compatible with the site, soils, and materials. W - The natural wetlands on -site were once apart of the Santa Ana River Channel and are subject to tidelands regulations. Mr. Evins described the area that is vegetation on -site. The DEIR states that the original Coastal bluffs extended out to West Coast Highway, and the wetlands or lower mesa was created by excavation over the past 35 years when the bluffs were cut back and the previous slope was moved approximately 200 feet northward to where it presently exists. The wetlands lack tidal flow, and cannot be subject to tidelands regulations. The wetland's communities that are presently on the site came into existence • within the past 25 years. Mr. Evins described several slides taken during the past 30 years indicating the Arches Bridge, West Coast Highway, the present lower campus, the movement of the bluff -9- COMMISSIONERS o.o February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Wca auu Wcuallus area, Me upper campus, and e resIdeME condominiums. Concerns were expressed that the three acre wetland provides a valuable habitat and is home to a significant number of animals and plants, some of which are sensitive and endangered species. The DEIR states that the wetlands on the lower campus are considered to possess relative low wildlife habitat values. There is a total of 1.25 acres of wetland communities which will be impacted by the project. The site does not serve as a critical support area for any nearby wildlife populations, and wetlands do not support substantial wildlife populations. No sensitive plant or animal species are known to use the site on a regular basis and none have been observed on site nor are they expected to occur. Concerns were expressed that the lower campus development will destroy valuable wetlands and mitigation measures may not work- The DEIR states that off -site relocation of the wetlands is preferable to the preservation of the existing wetland area on -site since the habitat value of the existing wetlands is low. The project will only impact wetlands that are marshy and possess relatively low habitat values. The lead Government agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, makes provisions for off -site mitigation which assures no net loss of habitat values via off -site mitigation. Off -site mitigation measures as provided for in the EIR assure that the standard methodology, controls and monitoring, to be followed in this mitigation will enhance and expand an existing, fully functional wetland eco- system. Public Concerns were expressed that the Villa Balboa Association does not agree with the hospital that the views would be enhanced from the bicycle path. The DEIR states that the master plan was drafted with the intent of following the City's General Plan and realization of the importance of preserving and enhancing public views of the ocean, Newport bay, and Catalina Island. In order to understand how the views exist and how they are enhanced, it is necessary to understand the methodology the City pursued. There were seven view points selected along the bike trail. The public views were dictated that they would be from the center of the bike trail, 4 feet above the bike trail, and looking • towards the turning basin, out to the ocean, and to Catalina Island. It is also important to understand the topography of the site. Ibfr. Evins described views from the bike trail and in front of the -lo- COMMISSIONERS °dam CEO • 0� February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX e ame vantage point immediately behind the Cancer Center is the lowest point of the bike trail on the site and moving up to the end of the site there is almost a 15 foot difference in elevation. He pointed out that during excavation on the lower campus area that the bluff was cut back and views were created, and in the future when buildings are constructed there will be views that are created between buildings. The master plan was based on the City's view analysis, and the hospital molded and crafted the building height envelope zones. In each zone it is stated that no building can be built any higher than the existing bluff, and they are all crafted from 2 to 6 feet below the existing bluff. A three dimensional computerized model was constructed depicting building envelope zones and not buildings. The DEIR states that because the proposed development is consistent with City plans and policies and does not eliminate but rather enhances ocean, Newport bay, Catalina views, it is not considered a significant impact. The master plan development would enhance 12 of 19 view sheds, not • affect 4 of 19 view sheds, and diminish 3 of 19 view sheds. View Park - When the hospital purchased the property it was agreed they would donate .8 of.an acre or 35,200 square feet. It is at the western end of the site that they envisioned the view park, it is the highest point on the site, and it would provide enhanced views of the turning basin, the harbor, the ocean, and Catalina Island. It was a consolidated view park that was initially proposed by the hospital and endorsed by City staff. A 20 foot wide linear park was proposed by Villa Balboa, and endorsed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. The hospital revised the plans to include a 20 foot wide linear park. The Villa Balboa Alternative Plan. Mr. Evins addressed deficiencies of the alternative plan as follows: The Villa Balboa alternative plan is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan per the General Plan. The basic intent of the plan is to shift 50 percent of the development from the lower campus to the upper campus. It is functionally not responsible or flexible, it is environmentally inferior to the proposed plan as it is documented by the EIR. It would be much more costly to the hospital and, thereby, the general public to pursue such a plan, and from an engineering standpoint, it is unworkable. Shifting 50 percent of the lower campus development to the upper campus would provide the same square footage but it would provide a different approach to medical services. It would -11- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX all national trends and all hospitals try to get away from. As far as functional deficiencies, the plan is rigid and dictated uses. Basically all of the uses proposed for the lower campus are not necessarily what the hospital would build. There is no parking provided for functionally on the upper campus. While the alternative plan is more than doubling the size of the upper campus, it was not explained bow parking would occur, how to construct an additional parking structure that would house 1,100 automobiles. Is it not desirable to build these uses to inpatient hospital standards, that it would be infeasible to build a three or four level parking structure, and then add three or four levels of medical offices above the structure. The environmental deficiencies of the alternative project are evident. It degrades the wetland without mitigations. According to the DEIR there are greater cumulative substantial significant and unavoidable impacts on earth resources, land use, transportation, air quality, noise, visual aesthetics, public services, and construction. The economic deficiencies are self - evident. It would hamstring the hospital from being able to pursue what it • truly needs to pursue, which is incremental development based on need. The alternative plan states that it would provide for off -site relocation of services, and temporarily move things around, there are costs associated with that concept. It could double if not triple, the entire cost of the hospital's planned development over the 20 year period. The engineering problems of the alternative plan are insurmountable. The hospital would not be able to build the structures on the site because of the seismic codes involved with them. It would not be feasible to adequately assure that the parking structure, as envisioned in the alternate plan going subterranean, would meet the seismic safety standards with the buildings above them. The Villa Balboa Shift Plan is not a realistic alternative, and it should not be considered to provide a framework for future health care for this community. Mr. Evins pointed out from slides, the areas surrounding the hospital, including Seafare, Villa Balboa, Versailles, and Balboa Coves. Villa Balboa requested that the mass and density of the lower campus be reduced to be consistent with the surrounding area. The Villa Balboa condominiums are 1.00 FAR; Versailles 1.18 FAR; Balboa Coves 1.10 FAR; Hoag's lower campus is .65 FAR. The conclusion is that the lower campus as proposed at .65 FAR is less dense than the surrounding developments. -12- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX LIMM UVV73UV7YAW11wn awpovemol op ocahonr the facility. The hospital objectives are meeting the health care needs of the community, but if they are to expand the existing third floor ICU capacity in the tower and expand the first floor OR surgery capacity, the solution is to expand on the west side of the existing nursing tower. The first floor OR units, the third floor critical care and intensive care units, those are the driving forces and the hospital's needs in pursuing the building. The hospital would couple the existing units with the OR units and basically extrude them out. It would minimize disruption and cost of duplication of services to the hospital, and naturally it would maximize efficiency, adjacencies, and land use. Mr. Evins explained from slides, that the structure would not extend into an area that had been previously expressed during the public hearing by Mr. Banks, and he explained the proposed floor expansion plan. Mr. Evins addressed previous statements that the cantilevered building is unacceptable. It is the position of the hospital to accept that limitation and to go back and work within it because the building program is so important to the hospital. The critical care /surgery • addition location provides economies of scale, it provides adjacencies to existing support services and infrastructure, and it is a consolidation of similar services and use zones that are critical in the hospital. Currently there are four intensive units throughout the hospital on three different levels. Shared staffing, materials flow, improved patient care, minimal loss of disruption services, efficient use of available land, minimal demolition, reconstruction of existing services, are all very important. Also the building provides something for the future. In terms of the basement level, the communication and computer services would be housed there, thereby freeing up other areas on the existing campus. The location options for the critical care building are the west, the ast, the north, and the south. If the services would be tied to the north side of the tower, the impacts would be to the main central laboratory, the radiology department, dietary services and cafeteria, and all of the support services. The tower is built of very heavy feel and concrete, and the existing master plan does not take into consideration the demolition, it is an anchor to the hospital. Major utilities run through the tower that support the rest of the hospital, d it is not feasible to remove the laboratory and the radiology department and still have a functional hospital. The emergency oom is located just on the other side, the impact of that besides e loss of services that the laboratory and the radiology -13- COMMISSIONERS Q t February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX ess ano er . building was built somewhere else to replace said services so the building could go in place of the critical care /surgery addition. The east side impact is similar. The services that would be lost are cardiology, cath laboratory, maternity services, surgery recovery, heart surgery suites, central pharmacy and materials management and severe concerns about corridor circulation and fire exiting. This is in the core of the hospital, and is surrounded by buildings. The south side impact is where there is the main portal to the hospital. It is where all of the shipping and receiving comes in, all of the materials are distributed, it is also associated with the cardio- vascular and intensive care unit, the Cancer Center link tunnel and the lower campus, all of the OR storage, outpatient treatment center, and GI labs. The DEIR states that although the location of the critical care unit on the west side of the existing tower will contribute to a decrease in space between the existing and future hospital structures and adjacent residential units, the setbacks proposed with the master plan development are more stringent than setback requirements identified in the City's Zoning Code. Therefore, project development in accordance with the minimum setbacks would insure that land use impacts related to the setbacks are mitigated to a greater extent than required by the City's Zoning Code. In consideration of the above facts, it was concluded that the proposed location of the critical care /surgery addition is a logical place for the facility. Mr. Burr Allegaert, 9792 Ocean Crest Drive, Huntington Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed master plan. Mr. Allegaert addressed the master plan and the DEIR. He said that the master plan is in response to a 1987 request from the City, and the plan is in conformance with the General Plan, Land Use Plan, and Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The EIR stated that the proposed project as mitigated will not create a significant impact on the environment except in the areas of construction noise and cumulative affects on air quality. The Floor Area Ratio proposed for the lower campus is less dense than the surrounding residential communities. The master plan will significantly improve views from the bike trail. The hospital has met with the neighboring communities and has tried to be responsive to their concerns, and the plan has been changed and • enhanced a number of times. Hoag Hospital has provided numerous public benefits to the community, not the least of which are the dedication of a public view park and the giving away of 2- -14- COMMISSIONERS `' February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX paying over $1,000,000.00 towards the construction. Hoag Hospital has given Balboa Coves a safe signalized entryway to their community, and the hospital has provided funding for the parldng at the new lot at the comer of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. Hoag Hospital is an excellent, if not world class full- service, not for profit, community hospital that provides superb medical services to 20,000 inpatients and over 100,000 outpatient visits which has contributed to the health and welfare of the community for the past 40 years. The hospital responded to the request of the Planning Commission for a master plan which, as mitigated, would be in conformance with the City's plans, policies, and regulations. However, there is a small group of vocal residents, neighboring homeowners, who are resisting change. He questioned what the problem is in granting entitlement to the hospital in order to use its property. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 1 after Items * * * No. 2 through 9 have been heard. MOTION CARRIED. nt The Planning Commission recessed at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened at 7:40 p.m. to open the public hearings for Items No. 2 through No. 9. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. to continue Item No. 1. Mrs. Ellen Wilcox, 2027 Deborah Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission to support the master plan, and she commended the Planning Commission for the approval of the hospital's emergency room. Mrs. Wilcox stated that the master plan meets the General Plan and Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements. Mrs. Wilcox stated that the City has a quality, full- service, community-based hospital that has given health care to the citizens for over 40 years. Approximately 6,000 persons per year have made contributions totalling $2,000,000.00 to assist the hospital in needed growth and to be certain that the very best of medical equipment is available for the professionals. Members of the community volunteer over 70,000 hours to make patients feel comfortable and cared for while they are being treated for their medical problems. Mrs. Wilcox addressed the personal care that her family has received at the hospital. She said that it does not seem fair that a few people who moved in around the hospital after it was built would be able to deny expansion of the hospital for the rest of the community. -15- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES o� "o 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX the Planning Commission in support of the master plan. He addressed the numerous hearings that the representatives of the hospital have had with staff and residents concerning the master plan. He stated that if the original bluff still existed, the adjacent residents would not have the view that currently exists, and inasmuch as proper drainage was not originally provided by the developer, a wetland was created on the site. He suggested a mitigation of the wetland in West Newport. He said that be was offended to see people redoing.a plan that is very delicate, very sensitive, and internal. He stated that the recommended envelope is the maximum build -out, and view corridors will be provided between the buildings. The hospital is needed and they should be given the right to use their property. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the building envelopes, and he said that it is assumed that they will not be built out to the extent of the envelope and it is assumed there will be view corridors. However, if the envelopes provided for certain percentages that • would be view corridors, certain percentages that would be set back, then everyone would feel much more comfortable with the bulk and mass. Commissioner Pomeroy and Mr. Blurock addressed a Site Plan Review and view corridors. Mr. Blurock stated that the Floor Area Ratio will restrict using the total site. Commissioner Debay requested a clarification of a Site Plan Review. Ms. Temple explained that a Site Plan Review can specifically be set up to address any site planning issues that the Commission would consider important. The original drafted Site Plan Review that was distributed to the Commission was intended to address the massing and bulk of the buildings on West Coast Highway. If there are other issues or reasons why the Commission would want to have certain types or sizes or positions of structures subject to additional review than staff could provide specific review provisions for the issue areas. Mr. Jim Orstad, 11 Summerwind, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he addressed the positive experiences that his family has had at the wetlands. He expressed his appreciation for the hospital; however, hospitals are supposed to heal and not harm, • City's are supposed to protect and not let things harm, and he said the hospital project did harm the City when a part of the wetland -16- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX z ea. tie saia Inat e nospital nas not come up witn an alternate plan to beautify the wetland. Mrs. Sharon Pence, 725 Via Lido Soud, appeared before the Planning Commission, and she expressed her support of the master plan. She expressed her appreciation for the wetlands that currently exist in the City; however, she stated that the hospital provides convenient quality care and cooperates in educational programs in the City. She disputed the claim that the lower campus is a residential area inasmuch as the lower campus located on West Coast Highway is a commercial area. West Coast Highway is not currently well landscaped, and the development of the lower campus will enhance the City. She sympathized with the neighbors living adjacent to the hospital; however, residents throughout the City are living with a variety of inconveniences. The residents have the advantages of living in an open area with an open feeling; nearness to the beach; ocean breezes; and views. The hospital has tried to be a good neighbor to the residents by installing mechanisms that have been previous concerns. The . • residents do not have the right to dictate the use of private property, and she said that the City needs and wants the project to go forward as it has been thoughtfully and tastefully designed. W. Chris Welsh, 1104 Park Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission He said that he is a professional property tax appeal specialist, and in reference to concerns that were previously expressed regarding a reassessment of personal property, Mr. Welsh explained that it would be difficult to obtain a reduced assessment for a change in view, and it would be even tougher without a member of the Assessor's Office coming out to inspect the view. He said that it has been his experience that a reduction in property taxes has been caused by declining market value because of the general trend in the real estate industry. Mr. Welsh expressed his support of the hospital and the technology that is available to the residents. He stated that private donations support the hospital and he said that every condition that is added costs private dollars, and he recommended the conditions be kept to a minimum because they cost dollars that would otherwise go to health care. • Mr. Paul Nyquist, 1212 Cambridge Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission He said that the master plan is a health care issue and not an Irvine Company development. A national -17- COMMISSIONERS 0, 0 \0� No� \\ February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I f I I I INDEX UU11%ourn tshe=i care at a cost Mat Is asona a an �s accep a e to as many people as possible. Hoag Hospital has provided quality health care at a reasonable cost to as many people as possible, and the hospital is in the bottom 25 percent in terms of daily health care costs and admissions to the hospital. One of the reasons why health care costs are kept reasonable for the hospital is because of the community-wide support for the hospital. The issue that should be focused on for decades to come is how can Hoag Hospital deliver quality health care at a reasonable cost to as many people as possible. He said that the objections to the master plan are counter- productive to that issue. The higher cost of health care the less accessible the hospital or health care facilities is, and the hospital's master plan is designed to provide quality, accessibility at a reasonable cost. He stated that the decision that the Planning Commission and City Council makes will affect the community for decades, and the decision should be made wisely and with the community as a whole in mind and not with the special interests of a small group of people who are really looking out for their own • interests and not the interests of the entire community. Dr. Benjamin Wright, 804 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that rather than consider Hoag Hospital a regional medical center he would consider it a state -of- the -art hospital, and the medical community no longer has to send their patients away from the support of family and friends to receive care that they cannot have at Hoag. The community owes the hospital a commendation for the services they provide and the residents will continue to demand that level of excellence from the hospital. The cost of inpatient medical care and the innovations in medical treatment and equipment continue to fuel the development of outpatient care. Outpatient care represents a medical system of delivery, and it is necessary to combine equipment for specialized people who are well- trained in a certain area, and people who need a certain common health care. It is ineffective and difficult to group the very sick people with the well persons. If a number of systems would be provided in one building there would be a compromising of equipment, the space, and the staff. Dr. Wright opined that a multi-use building on the upper campus may hamper the hospital's ability to maintain its level of excellence. • Mr. Jim Dale, 434 Tustin Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, as a Co- Chairman of Hoag 2010. He addressed the concerns regarding the wetlands. The wetlands were originally a -18- COMMISSIONERS \0� c` ° 0 February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX v w rans constructed the 405 Freeway. Mr. Dale expressed his support of wetlands and his participation in wetlands activities when he was Marine Division President of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce in 1979. Mr. Dale addressed the numerous functions that the wetlands provide as recognized by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The wetlands on the lower campus site do not fall within the eight categories defined as important wetlands. The site does not serve as a critical support area for any nearby wildlife population; the site does not support substantial wildlife populations; no sensitive species are known to utilize the site on a regular basis; no sensitive or endangered plant or animals have been observed on the site; the results of repeated surveys on the site by numerous observers support the conclusion that the site does not serve as a stop -over site for substantial numbers of migrating birds because of the proximity to larger and more attractive wetlands. The cattail marsh is over - grown, it lacks sufficient shoreline and open water beaches that attract ducks and wading birds. The wetlands lack tidal flow. The area is a small, isolated, man-made marsh with confirmed low habitat environmental value. Hoag Hospital has agreed to mitigate the wetlands off -site in accordance with Government regulations that are applicable at the time. Other areas where mitigation could occur would include Bolsa Chica, Upper Newport Bay, and West Newport. Mr. Dale emphasized that the wetland is located on private property. The master plan is vital to the community, and the great benefit by the hospital to the community is their ability to provide outstanding health care to the community. The hospital has been a team player with the community for many years. Mr. Dale addressed the personal experiences that his family has. had with Hoag Hospital. Mr. Ivan Vasco, 200 Paris Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission. He expressed his support of the hospital; however, he stated that the hospital should be considerate of the height restrictions and long term utilization of the land on the upper and lower campus. Ms. Rayleen Miracle, 4 Seaside Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission as a real estate broker. She said that the view properties in the area have been difficult to sell because of concerns regarding the proposed development. Ms. Miracle -19- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES 0 \(�n-\N\\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX the hospital. Mr. John Miller, P. O. Box 1475, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the low occupancy rate of medical buildings in the area, and he questioned the need for a vast expansion of the hospital. The previous approvals of medical buildings in the area have set a precedent to continue approving medical facilities. Ms. Dorothy Hutchison, 4011 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of SPON. She addressed the supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report. Ms. Temple repeated previous statements that she made at the beginning of the subject public hearing regarding the supplemental DEIR. Ms. Hutchison expressed surprise that the medical community has such little information from the scientific community about the importance of wetlands. 4on There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, a motion 7 * * * was made and voted on to close the public hearing. MOTION Absent CARRIED. In response to a request posed by Commissioner Pomeroy requesting a summarization of changes to the 40 changes that were made in Exhibit "A' and distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the subject public hearing, Ms. Temple explained that a substantial number of changes to the mitigation measures were enumerated in the Response to Documents that the Planning Commission received. Additional mitigation measures related to air quality and methane gas hazards. a result of additional testimony and additional analysis, Ms. Temple referred to the following Mitigation Measures: No. 105 requiring Hoag Hospital to submit a letter from the City of Newport Beach to the State Architect indicating that the hospital is in compliance with all of the conditions; No. 106 requiring that wetlands mitigation be at a ratio of 1.5:1 for areas determined by the permitting agencies subject to mitigation and that mitigation shall be required to occur within the boundaries of the City of • Newport Beach or its westerly Sphere -of- Influence (the West Newport area); No. 107 requiring non - vehicular activities which occur in the vicinity of the service/access road in the loaded dock -20- COMMISSIONERS c' t February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX MIT be resnUfel n e ours of am. an p.m. daily. The following conditions were added to Development Agreement No. 5:. that the Agreement be for a term of 20 years; that the requirement of initial mass grading of the lower campus be accomplished in a single increment; that the grading shall include initial site preparation work for the final grading of the park, the installation of the crib wall and the roadbed preparation for the service road; that upon the initial mass grading that interim landscaping for the purpose of controlling erosion, siltation and the production of dust be accomplished; that Hoag Hospital shall contribute to the City of Newport Beach a sum of money sufficient to provide for 50 percent of the costs of the planned pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Superior and that this be made prior to the issuance of the initial grading; that Hoag Hospital shall design, grade and improve and dedicate the 0.8 acre linear park subject to the acceptance and approval of the City Grading Engineer, the Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission and the City Council. Ms. Temple stated that the City is requiring the hospital to improve the park as well as to do the initial grading. Ms. Temple stated that a condition was added to Variance No. 1180 that related to the covenant. Significant modifications were made relating to the Planned Community District Regulations. Item No. 3, Additionally, the building bulk limit shall be specified as 0.90 for all structures including above grade covered parking on the lower campus, was added inasmuch as the PC text did not include the building bulk limit specified in the FAR Ordinance and the General Plan; Item No. 7 with the further limitation that the critical care /surgery additional all not extend beyond the westerly line of the existing tower. The original section was to establish a setback on the westerly side of the upper campus to the easterly edge of the existing service access road, and that would limit the critical care /surgery addition beyond the suggested limit. Item No. 8 is staffs attempt to address the direction of the Commission to come up with an articulation setback for West Coast Highway. This setback is in two separate components: the first would establish what might be called a • horizontal articulation requirement and would maintain the basic setback on West Coast Highway as being 25 feet but for only the first oor up to 14 feet, on the second floor up to a height of 28 feet the -21- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES 0�v N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX or a ove 33 jeet She further explained that a vertical articulation requirement was added that would require the faces of the building move back and forth on the setback, and that would be a percentage articulation requirement which is common and exhibited in the staff report. Staff is sensitive to the enactment of restrictive articulation requirements inasmuch as they are not what is typically done in the City. Therefore a provision has been added that the hospital could request revisions to the requirements through a Site Plan Review process. Item No. 14, Any enclosure required pursuant to this requirement may encroach into any required setback upon the review and approval of a Modification as set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code was added inasmuch as it would require the enclosure of the loading dock. It was the feeling of staff that if it could be enclosed it was feasible that an encroachment into a setback would be acceptable. No. 17, a modification of the Site Plan Review Section. It was altered from the one previously distributed to the Planning Commission . inasmuch as the previous Site Plan Review addresses West Coast Highway, and the modified section allows for the variation from the articulated setback requirement as opposed to being required for buildings of a certain size. Commissioner Pomeroy indicated that no Site Plan Review would be required if the building heights, articulations, and setbacks are met and the hospital chooses to build within said requirements. In response to a request posed by Chairman Di Sano, Ms. Temple repeated her previous comments regarding the supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report at the beginning of the public hearing. Commissioner Merrill questioned staffs suggestion of eliminating the critical care /surgery addition. He said that he did not know of anywhere on the campus that the addition could be added unless it was piggy- backed where it is proposed. He said that the requested site is the easiest place to build the addition and the most accessible, and he explained why the hospital's request would be the most logical from a construction access availability. Mr. Hewicker stated that concerns were expressed by the Planning L Commission during the January 23, 1992, Planning Commission meeting and previous public hearings regarding the hospital, and the Commission requested that staff prepare reports for said concerns. He said that staff responded to said concerns by -22- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES Od CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX eaucateu and intelligent decision to the City Council. Commissioner Debay concurred with Commissioner Merrill's foregoing comment regarding the critical care /surgery addition. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he opposed the cantilevered structure that the hospital originally proposed; however, he pointed out that the hospital stated that the cantilevered addition would be eliminated. Mr. Michael Stephens and Mr. F. W. Evins reappeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of a request by Chairman Di Sano. Mr. Stephens stated that Mr. Evins would address mitigation measures and conditions that the hospital considers major concerns. Mr. Evins addressed the following mitigation measures and conditions: Mitigation Measure No. 31 regarding the restriction of the westside service roadway; No. 78 regarding overhead power line relocation; No. 92 regarding construction traffic; No. 100 regarding the bicycle overpass; No. 106 regarding wetlands mitigation within the City; Item No. 107 regarding non - vehicular activities. Development Agreement No. 5, Condition No. 1 regarding the 20 year term; Condition No. 2 regarding mass grading of the lower . campus; Condition No. 4 regarding 50% of the costs of the planned pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue; Condition No. 5 regarding improvements to the park dedication. Variance No. 1180, Finding No. 7--it is the opinion of staff that a two story building in this area would virtually eliminate these impacts. It is, therefore, suggested by staff that a height limit be defined for these areas based upon an extension of the cancer center at two stories only. Ms. Temple responded that the alterations to the height zones would be included in the Resolution in the Planned Community text. Mr. Evins requested further review of the Planned Community District Regulations, Item No. 2, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, No. 13, No. 14, No. 15, No. 16, and No.. 17. response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano with respect to Mitigation Measure No. 106 regarding wetlands mitigation, Mr. Evins explained that the applicant is concerned with the sentence that mitigation shall occur within the corporate boundaries of the City of Newport Beach or its westerly Sphere -of- Influence. Mr. Evins explained that the applicant would prefer that the mitigation measure be modified inasmuch as a lead agency may determine . that a mitigation site is not available within the boundaries of the City. Ms. Temple stated that a Government agency would normally take a proposed mitigation plan and critique the plan and suggest -23- COMMISSIONERS \0 0111� CITY OF NEWPORT February 6, 1992 MINUTES BEACH ROLL CALL Ithiat INDEX I applicant is concerned that they may not be able to come up with a plan that resource agencies will approve. Commissioner Pomeroy and Ms. Temple discussed the feasibility of fresh water wetlands in West Newport and Big Canyon. Commissioner Merrill addressed mitigation measures regarding methane gas and hydrogen sulfide, and he asked if the conditions were written prior to the letter from Merrill Wright dated February 3, 1992. Ms. Temple explained that the mitigation measures were written prior to the receipt of Mr. Wright's letter. The additional mitigation measures give a greater level of comfort in relationship to the issue. Commissioner Merrill referred to Mitigation Measure No. 52 requiring gas sample from the Newport Beach Townhomes, and Ms. Temple explained that the mitigation measure is a suggested change by the applicant. Chairman Di Sano referred to Mitigation Measure No. 78 regarding overhead power lines. Dick Hofstadt, Subdivison Engineer, explained that if the utility is only serving the hospital then the requirement would be to underground. Chairman Di Sano emphatically expressed his opposition to the aesthetics of the power line, and he stated that he would hope that the hospital would give consideration to underground the utility for safety, or more importantly, for beautification. Mr. Evins suggested that Mitigation Measure No. 78 be modified to state In conjunction with the critical care /surgery addition and delete Upper Campus Master Plan expansion. He explained that Upper Campus Master Plan expansion means anywhere on the upper campus whereas critical care /surgery addition would be a utility tunnel that would be developed beneath the road to the power plant. Chairman Di Sano concurred. Commissioner Merrill addressed the landscaping of ficus trees. Mr. Evins explained that the applicant has agreed to pay three- quarters of the cost of planting 30 ficus benjamina 24 inch box trees on Villa Balboa's property. The trees are in the process of being planted. In response to concerns expressed by Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Hofstadt, Mr. Evins replied that the trees were • planted over the utility easement. -24- COMMISSIONERS o, o� February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX concern wim Fe—spect to step setbacks applying regressively as the building goes up in height, and then having to lay on the vertical articulation on each level. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that his original suggestion as a compromise was to increase the setback, and the building would be set back starting at 15 feet, going to 20 feet, and then to 25 feet wherein staff has come back with further suggestions. He said that he would prefer the buildings closer to West Coast Highway if it was possible to lower the over -all height by 2 or 3 feet, which would still allow the same number of stories, and it would satisfy the concerns of the residents in Villa Balboa. Commissioner Merrill addressed the reference in the staff report regarding vertical articulation wherein it states that A wall surface on any level shall be no longer than 80 feet without a break; a recess or offset measuring at least 20 feet in depth and ...that vary the depth of the building by a minimum of 4 feet. Commissioner Merrill asked if the reference is requesting a setback of 4 feet for 20 feet or 20 feet back. Ms. Temple explained that an illustration of the articulation requirement with different dimensions is attached to the staff report. The articulation requirement is either one large one or many small ones. It is 20 feet deep for 25 percent of the building or many small 4 foot articulations. Commissioner Pomeroy requested the hospital provide the slide to the Commission indicating the maximum building envelope. Mr. Hewicker addressed the concept of a landscaped street with a minimum standard of a 35 foot setback to any building throughout the City. He asked if it was the intent of the Commission to allow a setback as shallow as 15 feet along West Coast Highway even if the plan is for one story buildings. Mr. Hewicker stated that the setbacks that are being addressed from the right -of -way on West Coast Highway, and the only area where the setback comes into play, is the area along the easterly section of the property between the entrance drive and the easterly edge because from the entrance drive westerly the applicant is providing a setback well in excess of 35 feet. Further discussion ensued between staff and Commissioner Pomeroy and Commissioner Debay regarding setback areas along West Coast Highway. Mr. Hewicker stated that it is an opportunity for the City to master plan a very large chunk of property and the Commission should not be thinking along the same lines as property that was subdivided decades ago. -25- COMMISSIONERS o � February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Y the City of what the hospital is giving in exchange for the Development Agreement. Chairman Di Sano and Commissioner Pomeroy requested a report what is in agreement between the applicant and the City and what is not in agreement. Chairman Di Sano referred to Mitigation Measure No. 100 stating that The project sponsor may make a contribution of funds to the City of Newport Beach to assist the City in the construction of a bicycle overpass crossing Superior Avenue. The amount of contribution will be determined by the City Council; and will be specified in the project Development Agreement. Ms. Temple stated that said mitigation measure is not consistent with the Development Agreement where there is a reference in Condition No. 4 to 50 percent of the cost. She said that staff would provide a ballpark amount to the Commission prior to the February 20, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the neighbors are not proponents to a bicycle bridge across Superior Avenue. Mr. Hewicker stated that the subject bridge has been in the General Plan since the City developed a development plan for Cal -Trans West parcel. It has not been described as a massive bridge inasmuch as it is a wooden structure that spans Superior Avenue and continues the bicycle trail to West Newport. Ms. Temple stated that in order to warrant a Development Agreement there needs to be a significant amount of up -front costs to the project proponent that would not be recovered if City rules and regulations changed. The applicant would be given protection from subsequent changes and there needs to be an early monetary expenditure for items of public benefit. Discussion ensued regarding the funds pertaining to a Development Agreement. Commissioner Debay asked if the hospital could develop the critical care /surgery addition without the basement inasmuch as she had concerns regarding the excavation of dirt. Mr. Evins explained that the computer services and main communications are under buildings that were constructed in the 1950's and 1960's. It is the intent to relocate said services to the western side of the campus, the newer side where the services would serve the tower and be able to provide a link to serve the lower campus. Mr. Evins stated that excavation will be required in the area whether or not a basement is constructed. -26- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES d 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Measure o. regarding wetlands mitigation be modified to add unless otherwise required by a lead agency. Discussion ensued regarding the concern to keep the wetlands in the City. Commissioner Merrill expressed his concern that the park dedication area would be included in the gross area as stated in the Planned Community text, No. 2. Discussion ensued regarding the requirement. Ms. Temple concurred with Commissioner Pomeroy that the Commission has the alternative of not being required to approve a Development Agreement and to only take action on the master plan. Chairman Di Sano suggested the following issues to straw vote at the February 20, 1992, Planning Commission meeting: the potential that the Commission vote and discuss the amendment to the Planned Community District Regulations; certify and discuss the . certification of the EIR as far as the Planning Commission is concerned; the Traffic Study; the Variance; and talking specifically to the northside, the westside; eastside, southside of the critical care /surgery addition; the setback from West Coast Highway and the crib style buildings; the Site Plan Review provision; and Development Agreement. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that one issue that cannot be mitigated in the process is the constant disruption of construction. He suggested that the residents be given a reprieve of 20 constant years of construction. -27- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES 0 ���` q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Item No.2 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for a two family residential condominium development on property 8974 located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 6, Block 11, Balboa Tract, located at 813 East Bay Avenue, on the southerly side of East Bay Avenue between Main Street and A Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Ross and Susan Whipple, Anaheim OWNERS: Same as applicant ENGINEER/ SURVEYOR: RdM Surveying, Inc., Costa Mesa James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that inasmuch as the existing single family dwelling was constructed on the site in the early 1900's and that at one time there may have been one or two additional dwelling units at the subject location, Condition No. 13 regarding a park dedication fee be modified to state That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code, if The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Paul Balalis, 1129 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", as modified. 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 Resubdivision No. 974 Ayes * * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", as modified. Absent * * MOTION CARRIED. -28- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES O ' 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. That the parcel map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of the construction project. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to the completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the deteriorated curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along the East Bay Avenue frontage and that a concrete approach be constructed along the alley frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. -29- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX - -w y 5 e Tealcatea to Me pul5Tc ong the alley frontage. 7. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 8. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. That 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. 10. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. The power pole located at the southeasterly comer of the property shall be moved back out of the center of alley to a location approved by the Edison Company and the Public Works Department. 11. That any proposed subterranean parking garage have a minimum entrance elevation of 9.00 MLLW (6.27 MSL) unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. That driveway width and slopes shall conform to City Standards. 12. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 13. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code, if required. 14. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. • -30- COMMISSIONERS o.o February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Item No.3 Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to redesignate 11,458 square feet of A749 (Res lzao) existing development entitlement for an athletic club, to be used Approved for office use, on property located in Professional and Business Offices Site 5 of the Newport Place Planned Community. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 238 -5 (Resubdivision No. 866), located at 4100 Newport Place Drive, on the northeasterly corner of Newport Place Drive and Dove Street, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Newport Place Development Corp., Newport Beach SOWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bob Allebom appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he concurred with Exhibit "A'. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Alleborn replied that 46 percent of the subject building is presently leased, and 33 percent is presently occupied. He further replied that the retail space is currently leased and the occupancy of said space is anticipated between May 31 to June 15th. The vacancy percentage includes the former athletic club space. The applicants have made an effort over the past year to find an operator of the athletic club with no success. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1280, recommending to Ayes * City Council the approval of Amendment No. 749 according to Absent * * * Exhibit "A ". • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the traffic, James Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that the -31- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL —Create INDEX s fewer traffic trips. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Modification No. 3928 (Discussion) Item No.4 Request to review the landscape plan in conjunction with an Mod 3928 approved retaining wall and glass windscreen, on 12 contiguous lots located in Cameo Highlands. Approved Landscape. LOCATION: Lots 2 through 13, Tract No. 3519, located at Plan 4709 -4839 Cortland Drive, on the southerly side of Cortland Drive, easterly of Cameo Highlands Drive, in Cameo Highlands. ZONE:. R -1 -11 APPLICANT: Cortland Noisewall Trust, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Various property owners in Cameo Highlands Mr. David Cooper, 4733 Cortland Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding what the height of the Mexican Blue Palms or Chinese Fountain Palms will be, Mr. Cooper explained that the height of the Mexican Blue Palm will be approximately 6 feet when it is planted at a 15 gallon size. The proposed height of the retaining wall will be 11 feet 6 inches±. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that based on the landscaping plan Motion and the retaining wall as it was originally intended, motion was made to approve Modification No. 3928. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would oppose the motion based on the mass of the wall and not enough landscaping is being • provided. -32- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX stateil triat issues tnat the Planning Commission has been concerned about will also be reviewed and addressed by the Public Works and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments. Chairman Di Sano stated that based on the future review by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, he would support the motion. Ayes Motion was voted on to approve the landscape plan in conjunction No with the approved Modification No. 3928, MOTION CARRIED. Absent s s s Planning Commission Review No. 15 (Discussion) Item No. 15 Request to permit the construction of a detached accessory garage PCR 15 structure on the front one -half of the lot, on property located in the R -1 -B District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 132, Tract No. 3357, located at 4615 Camden Drive, on the southwesterly side of Camden Drive, between Milford Drive and Cameo Shores Road, in Cameo Shores. ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT: Weston Whitfield Architecture, Laguna Beach OWNER: William T. Pasco, Corona del Mar Mr. Jack Weston, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the proposed detached accessory building on the front one -half of the lot is not a part of the main structure, which is to be built on the property. * Motion was made and voted on to approve Planning Commission Oon * * * * Review No. 15 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit I'M% sent - k k MOTION CARRIED. -33- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992 MINUTES \ln-\N Ica�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The Planning Commission has approved the elevation and location of the accessory building. 4. That the proposed detached garage location will not be detrimental to adjoining residential properties. 5. That the elevation of the proposed property is not out of character for the neighborhood and will not adversely intrude on views, light, or air, from adjoining residential • properties. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That the proposed construction shall be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. • -34- COMMISSIONERS " ° 0 February 6, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX DUcus-si-o-K-1 Item No.6 Request to clarify and interpret Condition of Approval No. 7 of the previously approved Variance No. 1154 which permitted: the V1154 construction of a second floor addition to a single family dwelling which exceeded 1.5 times the buildable area of the site; and Previous permitted the waiver of one of the required off - street parking tionrmina- spaces. The previous approval also included a modification to the stands Zoning Code so as to allow various front, side and rear yard encroachments associated with the second floor addition. The current discussion involves a request to clarify and interpret the condition of approval which prohibited the construction of a fence, building or other obstruction higher than 6 inches in the side yard setback adjacent to the alley. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 24, Block 13, Section 1, Balboa Island, located at 527 Park Avenue, on the southwesterly side of Park Avenue, between Topaz Avenue and Turquoise • Avenue, on Balboa Island. ZONE: R -1.5 APPLICANT: Maxwell B. Phillips, Balboa Island OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the initial staff report, a letter from Mr. Leonard R. Sager, the attorney representing the applicant, and the addendum to the staff report in response to the letter from Mr. Sager. Mr. Maxwell Phillips, 527 Park Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. He explained that the question is whether a fence existed adjacent to the alley prior to the construction of the remodeling of his house. He submitted photographs of the subject fence before the house was remodeled and pictures of the fence during construction. The City Attorney's Office received letters from individuals dating back to 1964 indicating that the fence existed at that time. Mr. Phillips explained that he was not aware • that the facing on the fence had decayed and had to be replaced. -35- COMMISSIONERS \0� �\N \\ February 6, 1992MI NUT ES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX He replaced the fence with the same type of wood that previously existed. Mr. Phillips stated that after the fence was painted, he was informed by the City that he had constructed a new fence. Commissioner Merrill stated that it was his opinion that the concern was whether or not the fence was eliminated when the Planning Commission approved Variance No. 1154. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the question is also if it was the Planning Commission's understanding that there was an existing fence and how that affected the condition that was imposed. Ms. Flory stated that the applicant submitted. photographs that showed changes in the fence indicating that the basic structure remained when the boards of the fence were replaced. Mr. Lenard R. Sager, attorney for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sager stated that the subject fence existed throughout the entire construction; however, it was not addressed when the variance was approved by the Planning . Commission. Mr. Phillips assumed that since the fence was old, and nothing new could be built in the area, that a pre - existing fence would be allowed to remain under a grandfather clause. Mr. Sager referred to his memorandum to the Planning Commission dated January 30, 1992, wherein he stated that it appears that the parking space across the alley from the subject property has not been used in many years inasmuch as a solid fence exists along the alley. The width of the alley measures 11 feet plus 3 feet in this area, and given the distance from the subject fence to any garage, there would be no problem with egress /ingress. Mr. Sager stated that the fence would provide a safety barrier for a child leaving the house from the door adjacent to the alley. Commissioner Debay stated that the applicant concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibits "A' and 'B" when the variance was originally approved at the July 20, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Condition No. 7 states That no fence, building or other obstnwtion higher than 6 inches be allowed in the 5 foot setback area adjacent to the alley, except for the proposed second Boor encroachment. She stated that is the way that she read the • condition and there was no indication of a pre - existing fence. -36- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992MINUTES O �" d�� 0 N v � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Sager explained that the applicant determined that the condition stated that nothing could be built in the area; however, there was nothing that stated that anything that was existing had to be removed. The condition only states that the applicant cannot do anything more in the area. Mr. Hewicker explained that the applicant is required to submit plans showing existing structures and fences that are to remain, including new construction on the property. The plans that were originally prepared for and submitted by the applicant did not show an existing fence to remain adjacent to the alley. Discussion ensued between Mr. Sager and Chairman Di Sano regarding the aforementioned statement. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the plans submitted at the June 8, 1989, Planning Commission meeting indicate a fence; however, when the applicant came back with revised plans to the Planning Commission on July 20, 1989, the fence was eliminated. He • explained that if the applicant had come back to the Commission on July 20, 1989, showing plans with an existing fence to remain, there would not be a question concerning the fence. He stated that he agrees that the intent of the condition is that there would be no fence existing in the area, and it is the Commission's policy to have non - conforming elements in alleys removed in conjunction with new construction. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that after he personally inspected the fence, he concluded that portions of the fence were old. Ms. Flory explained that the City Attorney's Office listened to the tape of the public hearing and there was no discussion regarding the fence. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the original staff report dated June 8, 1989, addressed the alley setback encroachments, and it discussed the fence. The City Traffic Engineer was concerned with that particular encroachment and recommended that it not be permitted. In addition to said concern and the over - height of the building and the carport, the Commission requested that the applicant revise the plans. The revised plans did not show the fence along the alley, and it was assumed that the fence was to be removed. -37- COMMISSIONERS o ° a� February 6, 1992MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Sager stated that he read the June 8, 1989, and July 20, 1989, Planning Commission staff reports. The applicant was informed that he could not readily apply for a variance for the existing fence because there was no way it would be permitted, and it would be so expensive it would be outrageous. Commissioner Debay stated that the June 8, 1989, staff report states that the City Traffic Engineer's recommendation was that the fence not be permitted, and there was no reference in the foregoing condition whether the fence was old or new, just that no fence would be there. Mr. Sager stated that at the time of the June 8, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant considered moving the fence all the way to the alley, and that was the discussion regarding reducing the space in the alley that the City Traffic Engineer was referring to, and not the fence that existed but simply to a new fence moved out to the alley. Commissioner Pomeroy stated the drawing of the fence on the original plans indicates that the fence extends beyond the existing fence. He said that the existing fence is 3 feet from the alley, and the plan indicates that the fence is located on the property line abutting the alley, and so it was probably a new fence. Commissioner Merrill suggested that the decision stand. The issue was addressed in the June 8, 1989, Planning Commission staff report, and the applicant came back with revised plans on July 20, notion 1989, indicating no fence in the area adjacent to the alley. Motion was made to clarify the intent by the Planning Commission which was to abide by Condition No. 7 stating that no fence, building or other obstruction higher than 6 inches be allowed in the S foot setback adjacent to the alley, except for the proposed second floor encroachment. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the original plans showed a new fence, the revised plans came back to the Planning Commission not showing a new fence, the Commission did not address the existing fence, and if the existing fence were to be demolished, the • condition should have stated to remove the existing fence. It was not the intent of the condition to delete the existing fence, but it was related to the new fence. Substitute motion was made that -38- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992MINUTES ' 'P \ 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Condition No. 7 was unclear and unwarranted, and that staff schedule a public hearing for the Planning Commission to consider modifying or deleting the condition. Dick Hofstadt, Subdivision Engineer, explained that the intent was to provide for a 20 foot wide area for a turning radius in order to enter the driveway on the opposite side of the alley, and a 5 foot setback is required for that purpose. Commissioner Merrill stated that it is necessary to have additional space to maneuver in the alley inasmuch as the alley is narrow and the City Traffic Engineer attempted to improve a bad situation. Substitute Substitute motion was voted on stating that Condition No. 7 is Motion unclear and unwarranted and the variance would need to be Ayes renoticed for a public hearing on March 5, 1992, MOTION Noes * * FAILED. nt Motion was voted on stating that the Condition No. 7 is clear, stating that no fence, building, or other obstruction higher than 6 Ayes * * * inches be allowed in the 5 foot setback area adjacent to the alley Noes except for the proposed second floor encroachment. MOTION Absent * * * CARRIED. sss Planning Commission Inte i n (Discussion) item No.7 Request to consider an appeal from the Ellis Island International PC Eatery Restaurant, concerning staffs interpretation of the Zoning interpreta Code as it pertains to Section 20.72.010 E of the Municipal Code tion which requires the approval of a use permit for a change in Required operational characteristics of an existing restaurant. Said appeal Use Permit involves staffs interpretation that the addition of two billiard tables within the existing "net public area" of the restaurant facility constitutes a significant change in the operational characteristics, as well as a revision to the approved floor plan of the restaurant facility, to warrant the Planning Commission's consideration of a use permit for such a change. -39- Elio COMMISSIONERS \01-_ YJ G `4q.L February 6, 199PINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INQEX LOCATION: A portion of Lot 237, Block 94, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 353 East Coast Highway, on the southerly side of East Coast Highway, approximately 200 feet easterly of Bayside Drive, across from Bayside Village and the De Anza Mobile Home Park. ZONE: C -1 -11 APPLICANT: Ellis Island International Eatery, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that when the subject restaurant was approved, no pool tables were shown on the floor plan. He distributed provisions in the Municipal Code which pertain to what constitutes changes in operational characteristics of a restaurant and requirements under Title 5 which are the regulations the City has regarding pool tables and amusement devices. The Zoning Code addresses several different changes that can be made to operational characteristics of restaurant uses, and it specifies what they are, but it also states without limitation, that there are other changes in operational characteristics which may be proposed which necessarily do not come under the specific items that are mentioned in the Zoning Code. He would suggest that the Planning Commission include the introduction of pool tables, inasmuch as taking the licensing requirements into consideration for pool tables there is no specific sections in the Municipal Code that are administered by the License Division Supervisor which require that a restaurant obtain a special permit for the pool tables. One way would be to restrict certain patrons in a restaurant during daylight hours or before 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, when basically there is a prohibition of anyone under the age of 18 being allowed to use an amusement device or a pool table unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. Mr. Hewicker addressed the memorandum from the Police Department attached to the staff report concerning pool tables. He asked if an introduction of several pool tables constitutes a change in the basic type of business establishment that exists on the premises. -40- COMMISSIONERS o�G • February 6, 1992MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that it appears that the Ellis Island Restaurant is operating illegally inasmuch as two pool tables exist without the required Skill Game Permit. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Dr. Luhan, applicant, 9 Linda Isle, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. Luhan stated that he would prefer not to cover up the pool tables until the issue is resolved by the Planning Commission. Dr. Luhan stated that a Skill Game Permit was purchased from the City when they applied for the Business License, and they were never informed that the pool tables would be a significant change in the operational characteristics of the restaurant. The restaurant has an occupant load capacity, and the two pool tables that would be used by a maximum of 4 people would represent an infinitesimal portion of the business. He addressed Section • 20.72.010 E of the Municipal Code wherein he stated that he could answer "no" to every one of the suggestions. He said that he would agree with the Police Department of some of the possible problems; however, he would guarantee that those concerns would not happen in the establishment. Chairman Di Sano asked if a Pac -Man game was installed in an establishment and there is not a Skill Game Permit, would that be a violation. Mr. Hewicker replied that one Pac -Man game would not be a violation of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Debay opined that the applicants did not intend to operate in violation inasmuch as they applied for a Skill Game Permit. She stated that the issue of billiard tables needs to be addressed on a use permit basis and whether pool tables impact the operation of a restaurant. Discussion ensued between Dr. Luhan and Commissioner Debay that the installation of the pool tables did not require the removal of 6 booths as stated in the staff report. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Dr. Luhan replied that he would agree to apply for a use permit. • Mr. Hewicker explained that the use permit procedure would provide a variety of opportunities for the City to address the issue -41- COMMISSIONERS A February 6, 1992 MIN UT ES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROLL CALL INDEX of pool tables, and put on the use permit whatever findings and conditions that the Planning Commission may desire. The use permit runs with the land and it does not run with the applicant. If the pool tables would be allowed with the understanding that there would not be a problem, and in the future the restaurant is sold and a new operator comes in and the pool tables are not removed, there could be a problem and there would be no way to address the issue. If the use permit is in place, there is a mechanism to address the issue. Commissioner Merrill concurred with Mr. Hewicker's foregoing statement. He addressed establishments that have installed pool tables and the problems that have occurred. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that two pool tables do not make any change in the operational characteristics of a restaurant that as an occupancy of about 400 people. It is important to bring pool tables into a use permit situation, and the applicant has stated • that he would apply for a use permit. He suggested that the applicant be allowed to use the pool tables until the use permit omes before the Planning Commission for discretionary action. hairman Di Sano concurred with Commissioner Pomeroy's oregoing statement. Hewicker explained that the applicant would be requested to end the use permit for the restaurant so as to permit the existing ool tables, and if the Planning Commission directs staff to come ack with an Amendment to the Municipal Code, this type of pp of staff's interpretation of the Code will not have to come efore the Commission in the future. s. Flory stated that the Commission should determine whether he two pool tables change the operational characteristics of the estaurant, and whether the addition of two tables is not in onformance with the existing plans that were originally approved ,vith the use permit. If the Planning Commission determines that o pool tables is not considered a change in operational haracteristics of the restaurant use, and that two tables is ufficiently covered under Title S through the Business License • Division, then there would not be a requirement for the applicant o apply for an amendment to the use permit as it exists. The -42- COMMISSIONERS 03 60 0 �� CITY OF NEWPORT February 6, 1992 MINUTES BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Commission may also determine that an amendment to the use permit is required because the establishment no longer conforms to the original plans. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that staff would add conditions to the use permit with respect to giving the Commission the opportunity to call the use permit back up for review and to keep current with the basic use permit policy. Mr. Hewicker further replied that he was not aware of any costly conditions that would be added to the amended use permit. Dr. Luhan stated that the restaurant is operating under all of the City's requirements, and the pool tables will not have an influence in the total capacity of the restaurant. There would not be a change in the restaurant's operational characteristics. ion Motion was made and voted on that the addition of two pool tables s * * * is a change in the original plans for the restaurant, and is subject sent to the use permit process; the applicant be allowed to continue the se of the existing pool tables until the public hearing for the use ermit; the applicant sball be required to apply for a use permit thin six weeks from this date and in eight weeks, the applicant would be in violation of the Zoning Code. Staff was also directed o initiate an amendment to the Municipal Code to consider the ddition of billiard tables as a change in operational characteristics o a restaurant use that would require the approval of a use permit. OTION CARRIED. kmendment No. 748 (Discussion) Item No.8 equest to initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport x748 each Municipal Code so as to add the following items to the ower and duties of the Modifications Committee: the number of PH set igns regulated by the Municipal Code, the location of accessory for 3/5/92 ildings on a building site; and the installation of roof -top chitectural features and solar equipment in excess of permitted F ight limits. -43- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1992MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to schedule Amendment No. 748 Ayes * for public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting of March Absent * * * 5, 1992. MOTION CARRIED. General Plan Amendment No. 92 -1 (Discussion) Item No.9 Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General GPA 92 -1 Plan as follows: A, s, C A. 498 Park Avenue and 203 Agate Avenue: A request of Approved Evelyn Smith Cornell, Trustee for the H. Pease Family Trust to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to allow change the land use designation from Retail and Service Commercial to Two Family Residential. on nt * * * * Motion was made and voted on to approve GPA 92 -1(A). MOTION CARRIED. B. Pac Tel Site: A request of Resco Development to amend the Land Use and Housing Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan to redesignate the site at the corner of Bison Avenue and Camelback Street from Retail and Service Commercial to Multi - Family Residential and allow a density of 30 dwelling units per acre with the standard 20% affordable housing component. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve GPA 92 -1(B). Ayes * * * MOTION CARRIED. Absent C. Old Newport Boulevard: A request of Owen Minney to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to allow Residential /Commercial mixed use in the island portion of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area. • James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the subject item was considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council -44- COMMISSIONERS February 6, 1942MINUTES o' c` 0�� 'ee N q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL il Jill INDEX within the past 12 months, and a Specific Area Plan will ultimately be prepared for the area. Mr. Owen Minney appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of 50 property owners in the Old Newport Boulevard area. He explained that the request to develop Old Newport Boulevard is popular among the adjacent property owners, the homeowner's associations, the business groups in the area, Mariner's Mile, and the neighbors in Costa Mesa. He explained that the concerned individuals have requested that something be done to the most neglected area in the City. He stated that he would provide a large amount of support from individuals if the Planning Commission approved the foregoing request. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would recommend the request based on Mr. Minney's comments regarding the large amount of support that he stated, and he suggested that support be demonstrated to the City Council for consideration. Motion was • made to approve GPA 92 -1(C) to the City Council. Commissioner Debay expressed her support of the motion. Chairman Di Sano suggested that the request be reconsidered by the City Council. Motion Ayes * * * * Motion was voted on to recommend GPA 92 -1(C) to the City Absent * * Council. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOI NT• 11;2$ p.m. Adjourn s s s NORMA GLOVER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -45-