Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/1992COMMISSIONERS �0�� REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: February 20, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Present *Commissioner Gross was absent. Absent sss EX-OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT, James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of FebruM 6. 1992• Minutes of 2/6/92 Commissioner Debay requested that page 26, second paragraph, be modified to state Superior Avenue instead of West Coast Highway; Commissioner Pomeroy requested that page 26, first paragraph, be corrected to state that the neighbors in the surrounding area may not e proponents of the bicycle bridge; Ms. Flory referred to page 42, ourth paragraph, and requested that the paragraph be clarified to state Ms. 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..; Commissioner Merrill requested that page 22, paragraph, be corrected to state January 23, 1992; and airman Di Sano requested that the minutes reflect that F omond missioner Edwards was excused from the February 6, 1992, Tanning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the February 6, 1992, AYes Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Absent Abstain * * s s s COMMISSIONERS s CA) February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL Ill Jill INDEX Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non- agenda items. sss Posting of the AEenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, February 14, 1992, in front of City Hall. Re Quest for Continuances: request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that Agenda Item No. Cont. 4, Use Permit No. 3437, regarding the relocation of Hidi's Restaurant, property located at 605 East Balboa Boulevard, be removed from calendar as requested by the applicant, Geoffrey E. Landon. Motion Motion was made and voted on to remove Item No. 4 from Ayes * calendar. MOTION CARRIED. Absent sss Chairman Di Sano stated that Commissioners Edwards, Glover, and Gross have listened to the tape of the February 6, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, and they are prepared to participate in the Hoag Memorial Hospital public hearing. s :• -2- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES 0�0t � o��� 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Resubdivision No 975 (Public Hearing) item No.1 Request to resubdivide two existing lots into two parcels of land, 8975 each for two unit residential condominium development, on property located in the R -2 District Approved LOCATION: Lots 13 and 15, Block 543, Corona del Mar, located at 513 -515 Poppy Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Poppy Avenue, between Second Avenue and Third Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Lloyd Myles Development, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Duca - McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Lloyd Rucker appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public Baring was closed at this time. Motion dotion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 975 Ayes * * * * * * ubject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION Absent * ARRIED. INDINGS: 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. -3- COMMISSIONERS cn February 20, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I I 11111 INDEX 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. NDM NS: 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 comer 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 arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to 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 tree damaged and displaced curb and gutter be reconstructed along the Poppy Avenue frontage; that the cracked, chipped and displaced sections of sidewalk be reconstructed and the unused drive approach be removed and replaced with curb and gutter along the Poppy Avenue frontage; and that the existing concrete alley, which has been badly cut up with utility trenching, be reconstructed to • the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. That all -4- COMMISSIONERS 0 0 \` �s February 20, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX work within the public right -of -way be constructed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 7. 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. 8. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. That a park dedication fee for two dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 10. 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. -5- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Off -Site Parking Proposal (Discussion) Item 2 Request to approve an off -site parking proposal so as to provide off -site required off - street parking on an adjoining parcel in conjunction Parking with alterations and additions to an existing office building located Proposal in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area LOCATION: Building Site: A portion of Lot A, Tract No. 919; Off -Site Parking Site: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 256 -46 (Resubdivision No. 926) located at 2436 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, easterly of Tustin Avenue, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. • ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Waterfront Homes Realty, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Gil Forrester, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Off -Site Parldng Ayes * * oposal according to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W'. Absent VIOTION CARRIED. indin 1. That the off -site parking location is located so as to be useful in conjunction with the proposed use or uses on the building site. That the use of the off -site parking location in this case will . not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. -6- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES o3 �P dn� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the off -site parking location and the building site are in the same ownership, and the owner or owners are entitled to the immediate possession and use thereof for parking purposes. 4. The owner or owners, upon the approval of City Council, intend to execute a written instrument or instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, providing for the common ownership of the building site (Parcel 1) and the off -site parking location (Parcel 2) as well as the maintenance of eight (8) off - street parking spaces on the off -site parldng location for the duration of the office uses on Parcel 1. 5. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large • for access through or use of property within the proposed development. Conditions: 1. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the owner or owners, upon the approval of City Council, shall record a covenant, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, which shall: guarantee that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 remain in the same ownership and as one building site and that a minimum of eight (8) off - street parldng spaces shall be provided on Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel 1 throughout the duration of the office uses on Parcel 1. Should a change in use or additional use be proposed, the off - street parking regulation applicable at the time shall apply. Such covenant shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Planning Department. • 7 COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant sball obtain the City Council's approval of this off -site parking proposal, as required by Section 20.30.035 D of the Municipal Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of the proposed addition to the existing office building. 4. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 6. That the driveway between the existing parking lot and the off -site parking lot be a minimum of 24' wide and be paved with asphalt over aggregate base per City standards. x x x Use Permit No 171 n (Public He Item No.3 Request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted UP1711A the expansion of an existing restaurant now known as the Warehouse Restaurant which included on -sale alcoholic beverages, Approved dancing and live entertainment in the C -1 -H District. The proposal includes a request to add 12 billiard tables to the existing restaurant facility which will be located within the existing "net public area" of the restaurant. The proposal also includes a request to allow the second floor of the restaurant to be used for billiards during the day, whereas the existing use permit prohibits the use of e second floor during the day, Monday through Friday. A 9 onth review of the existing restaurant operation is also included, as required by the Planning Commission. • _g_ COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES 1 0'4 �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I INDEX LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 63 -11 (Resubdivision No. 447) located at 3450 Via Oporto, on the northeasterly side of Via Oporto, easterly of Central Avenue, in Lido Marina Village. ZONE: C -1 -11 APPLICANT: Warehouse Restaurant, Newport Beach OWNER: Lido Marina Village, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the memorandum from the Police Department dated February 17, 1992, and a letter from an adjoining property owner east of the subject property. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and • Mr. Lee Riley appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Riley concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W'. Mr. Riley stated that the applicant withdrew the request to allow the second floor of the restaurant to be used for billiards during the day after discussion with staff regarding the parking in the area. He further stated that the request is consistent with the dialogue that occurred with the staff when the applicant requested dancing and live entertainment at the May 9, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Riley stated that the request is based on the current economy, e changing nature of the restaurant business, and the desire of the public to go to an up -scale operation to play billiards. The estaurant would not change the existing operational characteristics ,vith the exception of adding the billiard tables. Mr. Riley ddressed the successful operation of the Classic Q Restaurant. e Warehouse Restaurant in Mission Viejo recently converted to successful operation similar to the subject proposal. Mr. Riley xplained that good management practices changed the restaurant ramatically since the May 9, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. • -9- COMMISSIONERS 0 February 20, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Di Sano stated that Condition No. 5, Exhibit "A ", allows the Planning Commission to recall the use permit so as to add or modify conditions of approval if it is determined that the operation is detrimental to the community. Mr. Riley concurred with the condition. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Riley stated that the restaurant is operating under the same owner/ management as it did in May, 1991. He further replied that the restaurant is not for sale. Commissioner Glover addressed the Police Department's aforementioned memorandum indicating that the restaurant is operating under good management. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the strength of the subject conditions applied to the use permit, Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant has been very responsive to requests that the Police Department has made concerning the restaurant. Commissioner Glover expressed her support of the application on the basis of the information contained in the Police Department's foregoing memorandum and the emphasis on good management. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public Baring was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1711 Ayes * (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Absent MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed restaurant with the addition of the billiard tables is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. -10- COMMISSIONERS c�•Ap''M� G •�.� • February 20; 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL 11 Jill I INDEX 3. That the proposed intensity of use in conjunction with the addition of billiard tables will be within the existing limits established in conjunction with the previously approved Use Permit No. 1711. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1711 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. NDM N 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved floor plans. 2. That all previously applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1711, and Use Permit No. 1711 (Amended) as approved by the Planning Commission on July 17, 1975 and May 9, 1991, shall be maintained. 3. That the billiard tables and the bar /cocktail area on the second floor of the restaurant shall not be used before 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 4. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to installing the proposed billiard tables. 5. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. • -11- COMMISSIONERS 'k February 20, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3437 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to permit the establishment of a new location for the UP3437 existing Hidi's Restaurant on property located in the C -1 District. The proposed restaurant will include an outdoor waiting area with Removed from seats. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of p p q Po Calendar the required off - street parking spaces. The establishment of the restaurant also represents a conversion of the existing building from a Base FAR use to a Reduced FAR use which also requires the approval of a use permit. LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 8, Balboa Tract, located at 605 East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard, between Palm Street and Washington Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Geoffrey E. Landon, Balboa OWNER: Kover Family Trust, Balboa James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that Use Permit No. 3437 be removed from calendar. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to remove Use Permit No. 3437 Ayes Absent * * * * from calendar. MOTION CARRIED. sss • -12- COMMISSIONERS February 20; 1992 MINUTES 0�� q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 10 ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 1061 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which ori061A permitted the establishment of a veterinary hospital on property Approved located in the M -1 -A District. The proposed amendment involves a request to permit the following additional services: bathing, grooming and boarding dogs and cats within the existing facility, and permitting outdoor kennels and exercise areas for the animals. LOCATION: Lot 3, Tract No. 5169, located at 4263 Birch Street, on the northwesterly side of Birch Street, between Dove Street and Corinthian Way, across from the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: M -1 -A • Dr. George Katcherian, Newport Beach APPLICANT: OWNER: Same as applicant William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, distributed revised staff reports' regarding the subject application inasmuch as minor revisions were made to Exhibit "A". The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Dr. George Katcherian, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and he opposed Exhibit "B". Mr. Laycock explained that Exhibit "B" requires that all of the uses be contained within the existing wilding, or if the kennels and exercise areas are to be maintained at the rear of the property, that those uses be enclosed by solid ails and roofs so as. to control the noise from barking dogs. Exhibit "A" requires that the dog runs be roofed so the rain water does not flow into the sewer system. Dr. Katcherian replied that he would correct the concerns regarding the dog noise and drainage. problems, and he would concur with Exhibit "B" if he had -13- COMMISSIONERS 0 February 20, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX no other choice. Dr. Katcherian addressed the outdoor improvements he made subsequent to when he purchased the property from The Irvine Company. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano with respect to why the applicant did not immediately respond to the Code Enforcement Officer, Dr. Katcherian explained that he was negotiating with the Police Department regarding a City Animal Shelter on the site, and he had concluded the Police Department would contact the Code Enforcement Office regarding the pending negotiations. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding the February 13, 1992, Police Department memorandum from W. P. Lyons, the Senior Animal Control Officer, Mr. Katcherian explained that he was not previously aware of any complaints from the adjacent neighbors, and the concern regarding the runoff associated with cleaning the outdoor kennels would be corrected. The neighbors indicated to Dr. Katcherian that after he met with them, it was their impression that he was going to construct a full-scale open kennel operation wherein he explained that he had no plans to construct that type of facility. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Dr. Katcherian explained that he intends to construct a drainage system that would prohibit all animal matter from entering the adjacent property. Mr. Barry West, 4229 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his concerns regarding the barking noise and the existing drainage. In reference to Condition No. 5, Exhibit "A ", W. West stated that a fence would not deter the barking noise; however, he would support Exhibit "B ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. -14- COMMISSIONERS �" February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1061 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Merrill referred to Exhibit "B ", Condition No. 5, wherein he suggested that the applicant could come back to the Commission with a plan for review. Mr. Hewicker explained that said condition requires the applicant to enclose the dog runs and kennels with solid walls and a roof. The number of kennels and runs would be limited to those that currently exist on the property. If the applicant wanted to add additional facilities to board animals inside a building, the applicant would be required to amend the use permit. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that Exhibit "A", Condition No. 2, states that a building permit is required for the existing construction, and Exhibit's" should also require a building . permit for additional construction. Commissioner Pomeroy and Commissioner Debay discussed the fact that Exhibit "B" requires an additional building with enclosed dog runs, and no outdoor area for the animals. Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1061 Motion (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", and to modify Condition No. 5 so as to provide a solid wall, minimum 6 feet in height, be constructed so as to protect the neighbors from the barking noise, and the wall would allow the dogs to go outdoors. Commissioner Edwards supported the substitute motion. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Commissioner Pomeroy explained that the solid wood fence would be removed and replaced with a sound wall that would reduce the sound substantially. Mr. Hewicker suggested that a masonry wall could be constructed along the side property line so the sound coming from the dog kennels would carry toward the north instead of the south. He suggested a curb around the perimeter of the wall • so the wash water would flow into the sanitary sewer system. -15- COMMISSIONERS February 20; 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL. INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy suggested a partial roof that would extend back into the wall an additional 2 feet so as to capture the sound. Commissioner Glover stated that based on the neighbors' concerns, the subject area may not be proper for outdoor kennels. Commissioner Debay supported the substitute motion wherein she pointed out that Condition No. 4, Exhibit "A", requires solid roof structures over all outdoor kennels and dog runs. The solid roofs and the masonry wall would address the neighbors' concerns, and the applicant would not be required to construct enclosed buildings around the kennels. Ms. Flory and Mr. Hewicker discussed the masonry material and the type of construction that would be the most beneficial to protect the neighbors from the barking noise. • Discussion ensued regarding the location of the solid masonry wall. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the solid wall be constructed along the common property line between the subject property and Newport Stationers, and a partial masonry wall be constructed on the west and east sides of the run so as to contain the noise, and to construct a partial roof over the runs so the animals would have an area that would allow them to remain in the back of the run. Commissioner Merrill determined that if the applicant enclosed the entire rear yard with a 300 lineal foot, 6 foot high masonry wall, the neighbors' concerns regarding the animal noise would be addressed. The maker of the motion concurred with the foregoing statements. Commissioner Glover opposed the substitute motion based on her concerns that an outdoor kennel is an incompatible use in the area. Chairman Di Sano opposed the substitute motion based on the development that has occurred in the area, and Exbibit "B" would be more appropriate. He said that it may be less expensive to construct buildings as required in Exhibit "B" than to construct a 6 • foot high, 300 foot long masonry wall. -16- COMMISSIONERS 03 j c' • 0`v q� February 20, 199: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX * * * Substitute motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1061 Ayes Noes * (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", Absent and to modify Condition No. 5, to require a solid masonry wall. MOTION CARRIED. 1. That the proposed application is support service in nature and as such, is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate parking exists on -site for the proposed development. 3. That the change in the operational characteristics of the subject facility will not have any significant environmental • impact. 4. That the noise associated with the barking dogs will not adversely affect the surrounding commercial properties any more than the noise of the traffic on Birch Street or the John Wayne Airport noise. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1061 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That a building permit shall be obtained by the applicant for • the as -built construction in accordance with the Uniform -17- COMMISSIONERS February20, 1992 MINUTES �I` q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Building Code, and the Orange County Health Department, if applicable. 3. That the use of the outdoor kennels or dog runs shall be permitted only during daylight hours, daily. 4. That the outdoor kennels and dog runs shall be constructed on concrete slabs, provided with drainage tied directly into the sewer system, surrounded by 3 to 6 inch high berms and covered by solid roof structures to prevent the introduction of rain water into the storm drain system, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Utilities Department. 5. That a 6 foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines, so as to enclose the entire • area to the rear of the existing veterinary hospital from adjoining properties. 6. That the rash area shall be fully screened from view from Birch Street and adjacent properties, and the final location of any trash enclosure shall be subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. That this approval is for the number of kennels and dog runs as existing (on the approved plot plan) and shall not extend to the development or construction of any additional kennels, dog runs or buildings associated with this facility, unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the City. 8. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the • community. -18- COMMISSIONERS \0� February 20, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3439 (Public Hearin.) Item No.6 Request to permit the establishment of an installation facility for UP3439 automobile cellular phones on property located in the M -1 -A District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 2, Tract No. 5169, located at 4229 Birch Street, on the northwesterly side of Birch Street, between Dove Street and Corinthian Way, across from the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., Cerritos OWNER: Barbara Tucker, Irvine The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Ron Henry, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3439 Ayes * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION Absent CARRIED Findings: 1. That the proposed application is support service in nature and not an intensification of use of the existing structure, and as such, is consistent with the Land Use Element of the • General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. -19- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 3. That adequate parking exists on -site for the proposed development. 4. That the establishment of the subject business will not have any significant environmental impact. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3439 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted below. That all installation, testing and demonstration of cellular telephone equipment shall be conducted within the building and no outdoor display shall be permitted. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Birch Street and adjoining properties. That no outdoor sound system shall be utilized on -site. That all employees shall park on -site at all times. That the Planning Commission may add or modify • conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to 1 11111' -20- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES 0 o 0 0 % �� ��. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 7. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. -21- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES oG'' 0 \\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX A. Amendment No 744 (Continued Public Hearing) Item -No.7 A744 Request to establish Planned Community District Regulations and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for Hoag Hospital. (Resolu- The proposal would establish regulations and development tion No. standards for the long term build -out of acute and non -acute health 1281) care facilities. The proposal also includes an amendment to Ts 81 Districting Maps No. 22 and 22 -A so as to rezone the hospital property from the A -P -H and U (Unclassified) Districts to the P -C v1180 (Planned Community) District, an amendment to Chapter 20.02 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to amend the Height Approved 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 B Traffic Study No. 81 (Continued Public HearhW 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. 11 (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 -22- COMMISSIONERS �` February 20, 1492 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 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 Chairman Di Sano stated that a resident of Villa Balboa has advised City staff that there may be individuals who have chosen not to testify before the Planning Commission because of a • perception that one or more of the Commissioners is biased and in favor of Hoag Hospital. The Planning Commission would like to hear all relevant evidence concerning the Hoag Master Plan and will reopen the public hearing to receive additional testimony if anyone in the audience has not made a presentation because of a perception of partiality on the part of or a comment made by any member of the Commission. The Planning Commission has conducted four public hearings and taken approximately 12 hours of testimony so it is difficult to imagine that at least one of the speakers has not testified about every aspect of the project relevant to the Commission's decision. Nonetheless, the Commission believes that it is vitally important to hear from all persons interested in the project, and the Commission would encourage anyone who has not testified for the reasons previously stated, to address the Commission during the subject public hearing. Chairman Di Sano further stated that he did not believe that any member of the Commission has made or will make a decision on the project until all testimony has been received and deliberations have concluded. He asked if anyone in the audience has not testified relative to the project, and would like to provide new additional information for the Commission to consider to come -23- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 �0 ' 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES I ROLL CALL INDEX before the Planning Commission. No one appeared before the Planning Commission to testify. Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, indicated that staff met with representatives of the hospital involving issues of previously stated concerns for the purpose of assisting the Commission. She addressed the document from Hoag Hospital dated February 17, 1992, wherein the applicant reviewed the issues in the staff report relating to the straw votes. She addressed the item that differed between the positions of the applicant and staffs representation of the hospital's position in the staff report. Issue No. 7, West Coast Highway setbacks /articulation requirements, the applicant requested that the following provision be added to the straw vote list in the staff report: Because of the configuration and depth of the site west of the signal, in Zones A and B, the Hospital would be able to guarantee view corridors between buildings, as • viewed from the bike path for a minimum of 10% of the length of the Zones A and B adjoining the bike tram Ms. Temple addressed the supplemental staff report that was distributed to the Commission prior to the subject public hearing. The staff report enumerates several relatively minor alterations for clarification to the following mitigation measures: Nos. 4, 16, 31, 33, 34, and 48. In reference to a previous request by the Commission regarding the cost estimate of .8 acre linear park, Ms. Temple stated that an estimated cost to improve a .8 acre linear park would be approximately $80,000.00. In reference to new technologies for pile driving to limit construction noise, Ms. Temple stated that the ability to use alternate technologies for pile driving are limited considering the soils conditions on the hospital campus. James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to his opening statements during the December 5, 1991, Planning Commission ® meeting, and to concerns that are currently being expressed as to -24- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX why the City is engaging in the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. When the City amended the General Plan in 1988, it is stated on page 27 of the Land Use Element Hoag Expansion - That this site which is commercial area number 3, located on the West Coast Highway located between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue" is designated for Governmental Educational and Institutional facilities to allow the expansion of Hoag Hospital facilities on the site .... It shall be subject to the review and approval of Planned Community District Regulations and a Development Plan. When the 1988 General Plan Amendment was considered by the Coastal Commission for the adoption of the Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Commission refused to amend the City's Local Coastal Program for the Hoag Hospital expansion site until such time as the City and Hoag Hospital went through the Planned Community text and the Development plan, and as a consequence, on page 46, the Local Coastal Program refers to Cal -Trans East, Hoag Hospital — • expansion, and it states that the area between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue northerly of West Coast Highway is shown for recreational and environmental open space, for parkin& public recreational and visual environmental purposes. Expansion of Hoag Hospital facilities may also be accommodated on the site. The direction that was given to the hospital and the City was until such time as the City and the hospital went through the subject procedure, the Coastal Commission was not going to amend the Local Coastal Program When Hoag Hospital went to the Coastal Commission for the Cancer Center expansion, the Coastal Commission specifically asked that the Planned Community text be provided, and the most recent public hearings concerning Hoag Hospital, the Planning Commission has asked that the hospital provide a master plan. Mr. Hewicker gave a slide presentation to review stated concerns during previous public hearings: Issue 5: West Side Upper Campus Setback - the expansion of the Critical Care Unit for the existing condominiums in Vtlla Balboa. One alternative that was considered during the public hearing process was that there would be no expansion beyond the existing tower. A second alternative suggested that there be an expansion for the critical care unit, but -25- _ COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX that it be allowed to the curb on the easterly side of the service drive. Mr. Hewicker stated that a third alternative that could be considered would be to allow the critical care unit to expand to the edge of the existing cafeteria portion of the structure, which would mean pulling the critical care unit at least 20 feet back from the curb location to the base of the building, and perhaps that would allow more distance between the hospital expansion for the critical care unit and the existing residences on the east side of Villa Balboa. Issue 7 West Coast Highway Setbacks and Articulation Requirements. This issue addresses a major development under an undivided single ownership occupying 2,080 lineal feet of frontage on the major east /west highway through the City. The area easterly of the entrance to the driveway nominally has a depth of 120 feet at the • shallow end which is on the most easterly end of the property, to a depth of 140 feet in front of the Child Care Center. The hospital has suggested a 15 foot setback along West Coast Highway frontage, and staff has suggested a setback that varies between 20, 25, and 30 feet, depending upon the number of stories in the building. Mr. Hewicker presented slides that were taken of buildings throughout the City illustrating setbacks of 15 and 20 feet. He also described a building that was designed with a reverse pyramid type of setback that allows for a minimum setback of about 20 feet at the upper level from the back of sidewalk, a second level that is approximately 25 feet back, and a 30 foot setback at the lower level. Mr. Hewicker distributed a draft provision to the Commission that would allow for the described pyramid setback. Issue 8. Setback on Newport Boulevard There is a concern that the setback of the buildings would be located at the comer of the Upper Campus at the property line inasmuch as the hospital requested a zero setback along the property line. The comer of the Upper Campus at the property line is in the mid -rise Height Limitation Zone, and would allow a height limit of 140 feet above mean sea level which, in this location, would mean a building at the comer of the Upper Campus to be around 65 to 70 feet in -26- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES o� C`0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX height. Mr. Hewicker pointed to the roadway behind the Conference Center wherein he described the location of the 25 foot setback from the property line that staff has suggested. He said that staffs suggestion would allow for expansion; however, development would not be allowed to the top of the bluff. Mr. Hewicker indicated that the site is the location that was previously considered by the hospital to construct the Child Care Center, and concerns that were previously expressed by the staff and the Commission regarding the Child Care Center are similar to those that are currently being expressed. The Child Care Center was ultimately moved to the Lower Campus. Chairman Di Sano stated that the public has an opportunity to submit comments to the Environmental Impact Report until March 16, 1992. • Mr. Michael Stephens, President of Hoag Memorial Hospital, appeared before the Planning Commission. Discussion between Mr. Stephens, the Planning Commission, and staff ensued regarding the following straw votes. Issue 1: Site Area Staff has suggested a change to the proposed P-C Text (No. 2) as follows: The definition of Site Area for the purposes of determining development area on Page 5 shall be revised to define Grass Site Area as the parcel area after dedications. Hoag Hospital disagrees with the elimination of the park dedication area from the definition of Gross Site Area. Shall the definition of gross site area include the area to be dedicated to the City for the view park? • -27- COMMISSIONERS 0 , \ February 20, 1992. MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I INDEX Commissioner Debay asked if there was a precedent for park dedication being subtracted within the City. Mr. Hewicker replied that if there was any precedent it would be that typically commercial, industrial and institutional type uses are not requested to dedicate park land to the City. Parks are normally required from residential development. It is unusual for an institutional use to have a view park associated with development. Commissioner Merrill asked when the City's policy changed for not giving credit for a view park and open space. Ms. Temple explained that the original change occurred in 1976 with the adoption of General Plan Amendment 26 which enacted the definition of buildable acreage in the General Plan. Commissioner Merrill asked if any residential development had given a park under that provision. Ms. Temple replied to the affirmative. • In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano regarding the time frame for the park dedication, Mr. Hewicker explained that the dedication would not occur until there is a physical site to dedicate either by map or by deed, and that would occur at the time the grading of the park is completed. The grading of the property would provide a more precise piece of property to be dedicated. Commissioner Merrill indicated that the hospital would provide a view corridor and bicycle trail, and he questioned why the provision for park dedication was requested. Mr. Hewicker explained that in 1972 when Scholz Development Company came to the City with the Planned Community Development for Versailles they indicated a willingness to work with the City and Cal -Trans to try to make sure that there was some type of a view park on the bluff. Subsequently, the City through the General Plan process, designated the trail and the view park at the subject location. The City made provisions for a view park based on early commitments by developers in the area. Mr. Hewicker explained that to his knowledge, the City has never allowed for park areas which were dedicated to be used for calculating the amount of development • which would be allowed on adjacent land. -28- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the applicant's willingness to dedicate, develop and pay for the view park, Mr. Stephens explained that the hospital is willing to pay for the improvements, the engineering and grading. Commissioner Debay asked when the grading would be planned and the park would be in place. Mr. Stephens replied that the intention is as soon as all of the entitlements are present. Commissioner Debay recommended that the Commission include the park in the Gross Site Area because the view park is a benefit to the City. Ms. Temple stated that in order to do the initial mass grading that would establish the grade of the park, it will be necessary for the hospital to go through the wetlands fill permits through the Army Corps of Engineers and other resource agencies. The ability to pull the initial mass grading permit is at the end of a very long and complicated approval process. Mr. Stephens stated that the improvement would proceed before the issuance of a Building is Permit. Ayes * * The straw vote was taken on Issue 1: The Commission AGREED straw votes Absent * with Hoag Hospital to include the park dedication area in the definition of Gross Site Area. Issue I s s e Issue 2: Service road noise studies and restrictions. Issue 2 Staff has suggested as an environmental mitigation measure (No. 31) and an additional provision in the P -C Text (No. 13) the following provision: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any of the pro- posed Master Plan facilities, the project sponsor shall implement a pilot program that monitors and manages usage of the Upper and Lower Campus service roads during non - working hours. Such controls may include requesting that the majority of vendors deliver products • (other than emergency products) during working hours -29- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX (i.e., 7.•00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m.), signage to restrict use of the road by hospital employees, physicians, patients and visitors during non- working hours, and other methods by which to restrict use. The hospital will also request that vendors not deliver (Le., scheduled and routine deliveries) on the weekends. This restriction specifically applies to scheduled and routine deliveries. The results of this program will be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of the grading permit. If such results indicate that such con- trols significantly impact the operations of the hospita4 and provided that requests for specified vendor delivery times is consistent with future Air Quality Management Plan procedures, the City would require that the program be implemented as hospital policy. If . operation impacts are significant, other mitigation measures would be investigated at that time to reduce service road impacts to the adjacent residential units. Hoag Hospital disagrees with the imposition of this provision. Shall this measure be required in the environmental mitigation measures and the P -C Text? Mr. Stephens referred to Ms. Temple's previous statements that the subject Mitigation Measure No. 31 was modified as follows:..If the results indicate that such controls do not significantly impact the operations of the hospita4.. Mr. Stephens stated that the hospital is concerned with the automatic imposition of the standards developed as part of the program. He said that progress has been made in reducing traffic on the service road wherein he referred to the Traffic Volume Reduction Summary in the hospital's aforementioned document to the Commission. The table summarizes the same four day periods in 1990 and 1991, the reduction being that the hospital erected the barriers and closed off the service road during non - working hours. -30- COMMISSIONERS �`0 February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Stephens explained that the hospital's concerns are that if the conditions are met that automatically the guidelines would be enforced as hospital policy, and the hospital would like the opportunity to at least have that considered and have the language in the second paragraph be modified to state ..the City may request that the program be implemented instead of would require. He said that when a standard states that it does not significantly impact, that the hospital would like the opportunity to discuss what is significant rather than have a determination of significance and then automatically have the guideline be mandated as hospital policy.. Commissioner Edwards stated that Issue 2 does not harm the hospital inasmuch as it requires a program. He said that it works potentially to the advantage of the hospital as the provision is drafted. Mr. Stephens explained that would require does not make • it clear that there is going to be some discussion in determination of what significant is with the hospital's involvement. If the controls do not significantly impact then it would require that the program be implemented. Commissioner Edwards stated that there is always the opportunity for the hospital to deal with the City on the particular issue, and also the policies of the AQMD takes precedent. Ms. Flory suggested that may require could be substituted for would require wherein discussion ensued regarding the interpretation of Ms. Flory's suggestion. Ms. Temple stated that considering the foregoing suggestions that she would not be opposed to may require on the basis that if it is warranted that the City would require implementation, and if the staff and the hospital could not agree on the interpretation, then the issue would come back to the Commission for interpretation. Ayes * * The straw vote was taken by the Commission to modify the Absent wording in paragraph 2, Issue 2 from ....the City would require that the program be implemented as hospital policy.... to the City -nja r4uire that the program... The Commission AGREED to modify Issue 2 as recommended. -31- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT February 20, 1992 MINUTES BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Issue 3: Building Heights Near Cancer Center. issue 3 Staff has suggested various changes (Nos. 4, 5, and 6) to the P -C Text and development criteria map which would lower the height limits near the cancer center. The primary change is as follows: The Development Criteria Map shall be revised to place height zones D and G into the 25 (45) height limit. Hoag Hospital disagrees with the lowering of height limits from those originally proposed for zones D and G. Shall the height limits in zones D and G be established at 25 (45)? W. Stephens stated that the hospital has concerns regarding the condition as proposed by staff. The Cancer Center was constructed programmatically at three levels and specifically designed to expand so the integrity of the programs on each floor could be maintained. The views that would be blocked were created by the excavation for the Cancer Center. The lowest point in the bicycle trail was excavated in order to provide additional parking, which was not required in the additional plans that were approved for the Cancer Center. It begins to impose significant limitations on the hospital with respect to program and design, ostensibly to protect a view that did not previously exist, and a problem with view that is created by the bicycle trail and the particular course that it follows. The views have been enhanced and improved on all but two of the points, and the two points are found at this particular location. In balance, it is too big a price to pay by requiring the hospital to reduce the expansion to two levels. Ayes * A straw vote was taken to consider the height limits in zones D and Absent * G. The Commission OPPOSED the height limits in zones D and G be established at 25 (45). -32- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT February 20, 1992 MINUTES BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Issue 4: Sound Attenuation Study for Loading Docks. Issue 4 Commissioner Debay indicated that if the Critical Care Unit were constructed to the curb line as discussed during the public hearings, that the loading dock would be screened. Mr. Stephens concurred. In consideration of Commissioner Debay's concern, the Commission agreed to discuss Issue 5: West Side Upper Campus Setback, prior to taking action on Issue 4. Y i f Issue 5: West Side Upper Campus Setback. Issue s Staff has provided in various reports two options for the setback on the west side of the upper campus. These options are the easterly side of the existing service access road or the westerly line of the existing tower. Hoag Hospital has agreed to a setback of the easterly line of the service access road. What shall be the setback for the critical care surgery addition? The easterly line of the service access road The westerly line of the existing tower Mr. Stephens stated that the easterly line of the service access road complies with Condition No. 5, December 5, 1991, staff report, and the subsequent staff report to the westerly line is a change from December 5, 1991. There is no other option (north, south, or west) that is viable given both functional relationship to the Critical Care Unit and what would have to be demolished in order for any alternative other than the requested location to go forward. To reduce the building any further than the easterly line of the service access road would make it impossible to provide for critical care expansion. The size of the unit was reduced so as to provide it in -33- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX the easterly most line to the service road, and to take it back further to the tower would eliminate that possibility and there would be no project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the number of feet that would be affected if the Critical Care Unit was moved from the easterly curb of the service road to the west side of the existing cafeteria, Mr. F. W. Evins appeared before the Planning Commission and he replied approximately 20 to 25 feet from the curb to the cafeteria. Commissioner Merrill indicated his concern in the number of rooms that would be affected by the difference. Mr. Evins explained the hospital's original proposal included a cantilevered structure that consisted of two 10 bed pods, reducing the structure to the curb line would eliminate approximately 3 or 4 bed pods, and to bring back the structure an additional 20 feet as addressed by Commissioner Merrill, one pod or intensive care unit consisting of approximately 8 to 10 bedrooms would be provided. Commissioner Debay indicated that there are regulations that require each pod a certain dimension, and so it would not just decrease the size of the room. Mr. Evins concurred that certain dimensions around a bed have to be cleared by State Code, provisions are required for an external light, and he listed a variety of backup and support facilities. Commissioner Debay concluded that if 20 feet would be eliminated from the length of the building it would eliminate all of the rooms on that side of the building. Mr. Evins explained that the rooms would be pushed back and there would be only the availability of external light for the rooms that are outward facing. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hewicker explained that the alternative that staff presented to the Commission at the beginning of the subject public hearing was only for the purpose of increasing the westerly edge setback and was perhaps, an idea that might work. Mr. Stephens indicated that the aforementioned alternative is not a reasonable alternative to go to • the expense that would be required to build an 8 bed unit. -34- COMMISSIONERS 0 0'-'\� N \ February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Glover stated that the subject item has been her biggest disappointment, and the hospital has not been able to realign the Critical Care Unit. She said that it would be most appropriate not to extend at all so as not to compound the mistake that occurred when units were constructed close to the back of the hospital. Commissioner Glover concluded that if it was agreed not to go beyond the tower that the hospital would not be able to add an addition on to the Critical Care Unit. Mr. Evins explained that no further from the tower would it be possible to add on to the Critical Care Units as they exist in the tower. Critical care units are spread out in different locations throughout the hospital, and part of the drive is to consolidate the units. Two major units are located on the third floor of the existing tower. The idea is bow to tag the units to the existing to bring them in and consolidate them. In looking at the tower and the area around it, the only option is the west side. Commissioner Glover stated that the hospital must . have some concerns for the residential area as far as light, air, eta Mr. Evins explained that the EIR states that those issues are not significant impacts. The projection of need is not really applicable because the need is already throughout the hospital. Mr. Stephens explained that if there is any hospital service that will expand it will be critical care. An increasing larger number of patients in hospitals will be in critical care units because many of the other patients will go to outpatient units. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Stephens explained that from the original 20 beds, the number has been reduced to 16 beds. Mr. Stephens and Commissioner Merrill discussed the occupancy of the critical care beds and the staffing cost. Mr. Hewicker asked if it could be determined how many critical care beds are being moved from other areas in the hospital to the subject location so it would be known how many additional critical care beds are going to be added beyond what currently exist. Mr. Stephens explained that 17 beds would be occupied and transferred, and there would be no provision for increased growth. • -35- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES 40 �� G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Debay stated that she was convinced that she would never approve the cantilevered extension toward Villa Balboa. She described her visit to the site for the purpose of finding a plan to make the tower go north. After reviewing the floor plans and walking through the hospital to see what impact the extension would have on the residents, and observing there were no empty beds in the Critical Care Unit, that she concluded to support the extension to the curb. She suggested that the hospital not come back to request to extend the Critical Care Unit past the curb to replace the three units. Discussion ensued between representatives of the hospital and Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the number of stories that are proposed for the addition. Commissioner Pomeroy determined, and Mr. Stephens concurred, that there is no building above the Critical Care third floor unit. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that • he visited a Villa Balboa condominium to observe the impact the previously proposed cantilever building would be to the residents. He explained that he opposed the cantilever from the beginning and it was the residents' primary concern, and subsequently the hospital agreed to eliminate the cantilever. The Planning Commission voted to add the westerly line of the existing cafeteria to the ballot. The Commission OPPOSED the addition to the ballot. (1 Aye, 5 Noes) The Planning Commission voted on the setback for the critical care surgery addition: The easterly line of the service access road or the Ayes * * * * * westerly line of the existing tower. The Commission APPROVED * THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SERVICE ACCESS ROAD. Absent Ab sent s s s -36- COMMISSIONERS • February 20, 19 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Issue 4: Sound Attenuation Study for Loading Docks. Issue 4 Cont'd Staff has suggested a change to the P -C Text (No. 14), as follows: Docks Laaft Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for any building or expansion of 10,000 square feet or more on the upper campus, with the exception of the expansion of the emergency room previously authorized by the City, the project sponsor shall submit an architectural and acoustical study assessing the feasibility and sound attenuation implications of enclosing the loading dock areas. If enclosure is determined to be physically feasible and effective in reducing noise impacts along the service access road, • enclosure shall be required prior to the issuance of building or grading permits on the upper campus (except the aforementioned emegency room expan- sion). The plans for the emergency room expansion shall include the submittal of a similar study. 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. Hoag Hospital disagrees with this requirement. Shall this measure be required in the P -C Text? Mr. Stephens stated that the Critical Care addition would provide more than adequate shielding of the loading dock with the exception of the entrance that could be gated or in another form to block out the sound attenuation. The hospital would be willing to study the implementation of an architectural landscape screen to shield visibility and some noise attenuation, and that could be accomplished sooner than the progress on the Critical Care Unit. • -37- COMMISSIONERS t February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Di Sano asked if the screening could be accomplished in cooperation with the neighbors on their own property as well as hospital property. Mr. Stephens replied that would be a purpose of the study, and based on the height and the elevation of the condominiums, and the fact that there would be the intent to go forward with the Critical Care addition, he was not certain if it would be prudent to spend money in order to screen from the residential side, or how acceptable that would be. He said that on the hospital side there would be a landscape architectural barrier prior to the Critical Care construction. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding a further study of the emergency room expansion, Ms. Temple explained that the original measure was written before the emergency room was separated, and she would have no objections to eliminate the sentence stating The plans for the emergency room • expansion shall include the submittal of a similar study. Ms. Temple said that assuming the architectural design of the Critical Care addition will be designed to achieve acoustical control is not necessarily a foregone conclusion, to the extent the Commission has made the decision on the setback, and that could involve some enclosure of the main loading dock area. As the building is designed, she suggested an acoustical engineer review the design in order to assure that the section of the building is optimal for sound attenuation. In response to a comment by Mr. Stephens, Ms. Temple explained that as the Critical Care Unit is designed, that some enclosure and sound attenuation would occur. She suggested that as the plans are refined that they include the participation of an acoustical expert so as to review how the section of the building is designed in order that whatever attenuation could be achieved is optimal from a sound attenuation standpoint. Commissioner Pomeroy requested that the hospital indicate a time frame when the landscaping would be accomplished as a benefit to the residents. Mr. Stephens explained that it is difficult to determine what to do with landscaping until it is determined what to do with the screening and the landscaping, and he commented -38- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH N ROLL CALL INDEX that it is feasible that the landscaping could be accomplished within one year of approval. Commissioner Pomeroy said the second stage would be to involve an acoustical expert to look at the building. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the third stage addresses the completion of the building, and he said that there may be some major considerations that need to be addressed at that time and he suggested an acoustical study upon completion of the building. Mr. Stephens suggested an acoustical study during the design of the building. Commissioner Glover suggested that the straw vote include the time frame to be assured that the landscaping would be accomplished within one year. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the aforementioned three stages and he suggested that the wording be modified to include • landscaping and /or screening from the date of approval by the Coastal Commission. Ms. Temple reviewed a revision of the Sound Attenuation Study for Loading Docks P -C Text (No. 14). Commissioner Merrill requested a clarification of If enclosure is determined to be physically feasible and effective in reducing noise impacts along the service access road, enclosure shall be required., and he suggested that the statement be modified to read reducing noise impacts from the loading zone. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Stephens determined that the Critical Care addition could be constructed in 3 to 4.years, wherein Commissioner Glover pointed out that it could be 5 to 6 years before the aforementioned third stage is addressed. Commissioner Merrill recommended consideration of a method to reduce the sound for the benefit of the residents as soon as possible, and following a discussion with the Commission, it was suggested that acoustical screening be added to the first stage. -39- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES 0 o�� '� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Stephens and Commissioner Glover discussed the hospitars consideration to involve representatives of the Homeowner's Association in landscape decisions. Following a discussion between Ms. Temple and Commissioner Pomeroy with respect to the level of attenuation to be used to determine subsequent requirements, Ms. Temple amended Sound Attenuation Study for Loading Docks P -C Text (No. 14) as follows: Within one year from the date of final approval of the Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan by the California Coastal Commission, as an interim measure, the project sponsor shall implement an acoustical and /or landscape screen to provide a visual screen from and reduce noise to adjoining residences from the loading dock area. • The design process for the Critical Care Surgery Addition shall include an architectural and acoustical study to insure the inclusion of optimal acoustical screening of the loading dock area by that addition. Subsequent to the construction of the Critical Care Surgery Addition, an additional acoustical study shall be conducted to assess the sound attenuation achieved by that addition. If no significant sound attenuation is achieved, the hospital shall submit an architectural and acoustical study assessing the feasibility and sound attenuation implications of enclosing the loading dock area If enclosure is determined to be physically feasible and effective in reducing noise impacts along the service access road, enclosure shall be required. 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. Commissioner Pomeroy concurred wherein he explained that the hospital has the option to come back and go before a public • hearing process if they object to the City's requests. -40- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes * * * * * * A straw vote was taken to change the P -C Text (No. 14) as .Absent modified by Ms. Temple. The Commission APPROVED that the measure be required in the P -C Text as modified by Ms. Temple. ISSUE 6: TERM OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Issue 5 Mr. Stephens requested that the Planning Commission approve a 25 year Development Agreement and would commence with the issuance of a building permit or major building defined as one that exceeds 50,000 square feet. Commissioner Pomeroy recommended that Issue 6, regarding the term of Development Agreement be considered after the Commission takes actions on Issue 9, Issue 7: West Coast Highway Setbacks and Articulation Issue 7 Requirements. Staff has suggested detailed building setback and building articulation requirements as revisions to the P -C Text (No. 8). As discussed in the staff report, after discussions with the hospital, staff has modified its original suggestion as follows: The setback on West Coast Highway easterly of the hospital entry signal shall be a minimum of 20 feet. In addition, vertical articulation shall be required for buildings easterly of the signal within 150 feet of the West Coast Highway frontage, as follows: 1st Floor: Up to 18 feet in height no additional • articulation is required. If the 1st floor exceeds I8 feet -41- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX in height, it shall be subject to the articulation requirements of the 2nd Floor. 2nd Floor (up to 32' in height): A minimum of 25% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 2nd floor setback of 25 feet. 3rd Floor and above: A minimum of 25% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 3rd floor and above setback of 30 feet. The setback on West Coast Highway westerly of the hospital entry signal shall be a minimum of 35 feet. In addition, vertical articulation shall be required for • buildings westerly of the signal within 150 feet of the West Coast Highway frontage, as follows: 1st Floor. • Up to 18 feet in height no additional articulation is required. If the Ist floor exceeds 18 feet in height, it shall be subject to the articulation requirements of the 2nd Floor. 2nd Floor (up to 32' in height): A minimum of 25% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 2nd floor setback of 40 feet. 3rd Floor and above: A minimum of 25% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 3rd floor and above setback of 45 feet. In order to avoid any future structures in this area • (within 150 feet of West Coast Highway) from -42- COMMISSIONERS February 2% 1992 MINUTES \G ov\\N OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 250 linear feet in width. Additionally, 20 % of the linear frontage within 150 feet of West Coast Highway shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. These requirements may be altered for individual buildings, if requested by the hospital, through the site plan review process defined in Section DE Hoag Hospital agrees with the basic approach of this requirement but disagrees with certain specifics. The hospital would find the requirements acceptable with the following changes: The setback easterly of the signal should be 15 feet, with the articulated average setbacks on the second and third floor 20 and 25 et respectively and the articulation percentage of 20 01o. The setback westerly of the signal should be 30 feet with no articulation requirement. What shall be the setback and articulation setback requirements easterly of the entry signal? Staff suggestion: 20 ft., 25 ft., 30 ft. ❑ Hoag Request: 15 ft., 20 ft., 25 ft. ❑ What shall be the setback westerly of the entry signal? Staff suggestion: 35 feet ❑ Hoag request: 30 feet ❑ What shall the articulation percentage be? Staff suggestion: 25% ❑ -43- COMMISSIONERS 'd ,0 d � , O February 20; 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M ROLL CALL INDEX Hoag request: 20% O Shall articulation requirements westerly of the entry signal be imposed? Mr. Stephens addressed the hospital's position on the four straw vote items as follows: What shall be the setback and articulation setback requirements easterly of the entry signal? The hospital's position is to request the 15 foot, 20 foot, 25 foot standard be applied. What shall be the setback westerly of the entry signal? • The hospital's position is to accept staffs recommendation of 35/40/45 feet. What shall the articulation percentage be? The hospital's position is to request 20 percent. Shall articulation requirements westerly of the entry signal be imposed? The hospital's position is to accept the staffs recommendation. The hospital also agrees with the 10% view corridor provisions described by staff at the beginning of the discussion. The Commission considered whether to add Mr. Hewicker's alternate language as he discussed at the beginning of the subject public hearing. In response to a comment posed by Commissioner Debay regarding how the reverse articulation would fit into the need of the • hospital's theme, Mr. Stephens requested that the Commission -44- COMMISSIONERS • 01 �� �•` February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX contemplate the considerable landscape buffer that the hospital has agreed to proceed with on West Coast Highway. He said that it is one thing to look at setbacks and articulations, and it is another thing to look at it through a very significant landscape buffer comprised of significant trees, etc. The Commission needs to take said issues into consideration and to look at what kind of setback is required. The setbacks that the hospital has accepted are significantly greater than the setbacks that currently exist in West Newport, and the hospital has enhanced the visual impact in the area. Mr. Evins reappeared before the Planning Commission to discuss staffs alternate setback language. He stated that staffs idea could be addressed at the time of a future Site Plan Review wherein the hospital may find that the design is appropriate inasmuch as there are benefits to staffs suggestion. Mr. Hewicker stated that when staff met with the hospital representatives that staff was informed that one of the things that the hospital was attempting to do was to provide shade traps for the buildings fronting on West Coast Highway, and one suggestion was to create eaves to create those elements. Staff was addressing the issue that was previously raised by Mr. Evins. Mr. Evins concurred; however, he said that the suggestion should be considered under the parameters of Site Plan Review. He said that it is premature to design the buildings when setbacks, etc. are being addressed. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that when there was a previous discussion of mitigating the mass as an alternate to lowering the over -all building height which would have restricted the amount of stories, the Commission discussed that 20 percent of the area of the buildings on West Coast Highway would be developed as a view corridor through to West Coast Highway, and it would still be possible to get within the allotted buildings the amount of space the hospital wanted. Mr. Evins stated that he reduced the percentage to 10 percent because he reconsidered view corridors ® and what occurred with the bicycle trail and views. He defined the 45- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX areas as view zones A and B for building envelopes because those areas include West Coast Highway, and internal roadway running parallel with it with a landscape buffer. The depth of the site does not afford one building going in front of another whereas in front of the Cancer Center site there is a lower lot. Discussion ensued based on a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding what constitutes 10 percent in feet from the bicycle trail to West Coast Highway. Ms. Temple said there is a dimension on the Site Plan indicating a distance of approximately 750 feet or 75 feet that would be required to be open totally between the bicycle path and West Coast Highway. She said that it is not required to be in a single location. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the minimum that would be required between buildings according to the Building Code, Mr. Evins explained that a minimum distance is approximately 20 feet. Commissioner Glover addressed the area between the hospital entrance and the Arches Bridge on West Coast Highway. She said that one of her concerns regarding articulation is if there would be three buildings on said site, what kind of leeway could the Commission offer to the hospital so there would not be look -alike buildings. Mr. Evins said that the landscaping and the greenbelts need to be considered for visual appearance. Commissioner Glover expressed her concern that there could be too many restrictions on the site. Commissioner Merrill concurred with Commissioner Glover's concerns. He suggested an articulation of 5 feet and 5 feet the first two stories, then articulate back to 10 feet for the third story. He explained that 10 feet is a better module. There would be no change from the view plane because there would still be the front edge at the same point. Mr. Evins suggested that the setbacks be considered and then come back with Site Plan Review to consider architectural studies. Ms. Temple addressed the 5 foot increments wherein she explained that the language that staff proposed does not .dictate 5 foot articulations, it requires average setbacks at 5 foot distances. Should the hospital have a need to build a 10 foot wide unit the -46- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 d, O p0 qe 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX hospital would move and consolidate articulation such as the average ends up being at that next increment. Staffs suggestion is flexible from a design standpoint inasmuch as no minimum articulation distances were set. Commissioner Debay determined that if a building would be constructed 35 feet back from West Coast Highway it would not be necessary to articulate. Mr. Evins concurred that the hospital is concerned about constructing too much building too close to West Coast Highway, and on the eastern portion of the site that would be correct. On the western portion of the site the articulation begins at 35 feet. Commissioner Debay indicated that it is not necessary to have duplicate stairstep buildings. A straw vote was taken to add Alternate West Coast Highway Setback Language as suggested by staff: • The setback on West Coast Highway easterly of the entry signal shall be 25 feet, with the provision that any structure designed to incorporate a greater setback on the ground floor so as to achieve a landscape area of at least 30 feet, the floors above ground level may be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average setback of 25 feet and a minimum setback of 20 feet. The Commission voted NOT TO ADD the foregoing to the straw vote ballot. The Commission took the following straw votes regarding West Coast Highway Setbacks and Articulation Requirements: Ayes * * * The Commission voted to APPROVE Ho4s request of 15 ft., 20 Noes * * ft., 25 ft. Absent Staff and Hoag AGREED that the setback westerly of the entry signal shall be 35 feet. • 47- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES 0 0 \CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes * The Commission voted to APPROVE Hoag's request of 20% .Noes * articulation. Absent Staff and Hoag AGREED that the articulation requirements westerly of the entry signal shall be imposed. Issue 8: Setback on Newport Boulevard. Issue 8 Staff has suggested a change to the proposed P-C Text (No. 9), as follows: Sections D.3. and 4. on Page 17 shall be consolidated and the Newport Boulevard setback shall be defined as • 25 feet. imposition Hoag Hospital disagrees with the of this provision. What shall be the setback on Newport Boulevard? Staff suggestion: 25 feet Hoag request: No setback for 500 feet from Hospital Road, 15 feet for remainder Mr. Stephens stated that the hospital's concern with respect to staffs suggestion is the size of the parcel and their ability to construct on the parcel, specifically the site of the Conference Center. The hospital proposes that the setback be defined as 25 feet per staffs recommendation spanning 470 linear feet, and 15 feet for 600 linear feet starting at Hospital Road going south. At the request of Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Evins explained from a diagram where the Child Care Center was originally 1I8- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX proposed to be constructed and how far it would have encroached to the bluff. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the Commission's previous concerns regarding the construction of the Child Care Center on the bluff. Commissioner Pomeroy requested that Mr. Hewicker describe the slides that he presented at the beginning of the public hearing regarding the subject site. Mr. Evins explained that the difference between the hospital's proposal and staffs suggestion is 10 feet. Mr. Evins and Chairman Di Sano discussed the 15 foot setback and the trees existing on the site and the feasibility of the trees remaining within the 15 foot setback. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he was concerned with a 15 foot setback in the area, particularly if there would be a building of the height that is described. He said that he would consider a 15 foot setback if there could be a change in the height to 25 feet, possibly two or three stories to 15 feet and stagger the building over. Commissioner Edwards indicated he would not support such a suggestion. Mr. Stephens stated that the hospital would rather take the 25 foot setback then deal with architectural definition. A straw vote was taken at the recommendation of Commissioner Pomeroy to add to the straw vote ballot to substitute a 20 foot setback instead of 15 feet in the Hoag request. The Commission voted NOT TO ADD TO BALLOT (3 Ayes, 3 Noes) A straw vote was taken to determine the setback on Newport Boulevard: Staff suggestion of 25 feet or Hoag request of 15 feet for 600 feet as measured from the top of Hospital Road and the remaining 25 feet for 470 linear feet. (3 Ayes, 3 Noes) NO ACTION In consideration of the foregoing straw vote of NO ACTION, Ms. Temple explained that the original Planned Community text had zero setback for the first 500 feet from Hospital Road and 15 feet for the remainder. • -49- COMMISSIONERS y February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy reintroduced his aforementioned strawvote recommendation that the setback be established at 25 feet except for the 600 feet from Hospital Road where the setback becomes 20 feet. A straw vote was taken to establish the setback on Newport Boulevard. Staff suggestion of 25 feet; or Commissioner Pomeroy's Ayes * * * * suggestion of 20 feet for 600 feet from Hospital Road, 25 feet for Noes Absent * * * remainder. The Commission AGREED TO 20 FEET FOR 600 FEET FROM HOSPITAL ROAD, 25 FEET FOR REMAINDER. Issue 9: Bicycle bridge costs. Issue 9 Staff has suggested as an environmental mitigation measure (No. • 99) and as a condition of the development agreement (No. 4) the following provision: The project sponsor shall deposit into an escrow account established by the City of Newport Beach $200,000 for the purpose of defraying 50% of the costs of the planned pedestrian/ bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue. If the actual cost of the bridge is greater than estimated, the sum shall be considered to be the full obligation of the hospital. If the actual cost of the bridge is less, the City shall refund the difference to the hospital This deposit shall be made prior to the issuance of the initial mass grading permit. If the bicycle /pedestrian bridge is not constructed by the City within 10 years, the entire sum shall be refunded by the City to the Hospital. Hoag Hospital disagrees with the imposition of this provision. Shall this measure be required in the environmental mitigation measures and the conditions of the development agreement? • -50- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Stephens indicated that the hospital would abide by the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the subject issue. Commissioner Pomeroy determined that donors money would be used for the deposit. He asked if the hospital would consider a higher flat feet of possibly $250,000.00 at the time the bridge was constructed. Mr..Stephens concurred with Commissioner Pomeroy's suggestion given the choice between the two conditions. Don Webb, City Engineer, agreed to Commissioner Pomeroy's suggestion. A vote was taken to add to the ballot that $250,000.00 flat fee to be paid when the City builds the bridge. The Commission ADDED the recommendation to the straw vote ballot. . A straw vote motion was made to require the project sponsor to deposit $200,000 into an escrow account established by the City of Newport Beach; or the project sponsor would not be required to make the deposit; or that up to $250,000 shall be paid on demand to the City when the bridge is built. Commissioner Glover stated that she did not see why the hospital should have to pay for a bridge that has been on the books for years, and when the issue is reevaluated, it may not be needed. The City should not be spending $200,000 for the bridge when children are currently crossing West Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue to go to Junior high school and the City has never addressed that issue as far as undergrounding or building a bridge. She said that the issue is not connected to the hospital, and she did not agree that the hospital should be making a contribution. Chairman Di Sano indicated that the pedestrian/bicycle bridge is in the General Plan, and it would be necessary to go through the General Plan process to amend the requirement. Commissioner Glover said that she did not see the relationship between the bridge and the hospital and their project. -51- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES o, o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Flory stated that the issue is more of a consideration that the City receives in exchange for the Development Agreement, and it is a recommendation to the City Council for the approval of a Development Agreement. Chairman Di Sano stated that the Planning Commission was challenged throughout the entire public hearings to try and extricate those things that would allow for a Development Agreement, and the subject issue is a building block for the potential of a Development Agreement. Ayes The straw vote was taken and the Commission AGREED TO THE Noes $250,000.00 AT THE TIME THE BRIDGE IS CONSTRUCTED. Absent s . s Issue 6: Term of Development Agreement. Issue 6 • Staff has suggested as a condition (No. 1) of the Development Agreement the following provision: The Agreement shall be for a term of 25 years. Hoag Hospital would agree to a term of 30 years. What shall be the term of the Development Agreement? 20 years 25 years 30 years 40 years Mr. Stephens recommended that the Development Agreement be for a term of 25 years commencing with the issuance of the first major Building Permit,. major being defined as a structure exceeding 50,000 GSF. • -52- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Debay asked what building the applicant envisions being the first one and what phase? Mr. Stephens replied an outpatient diagnostic and treatment center including outpatient surgery within the first phase, possibly within 3 to 4 years depending upon design and approval. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the term of a Development Agreement, Mr. Hewicker explained that the development was planned to extend over three 7 year periods, or 21 years. There was a concern on the part of the hospital that given the fact that the hospital would be required to go to Coastal Commission, and may spend several years trying to locate a suitable site for mitigation on the wetlands, etc., that the hospital wanted to build in a cushion. Staff subsequently suggested 25 years. The hospital currently is requesting that the 25 years be tied to the issuance of a Building Permit, and staff is having a • problem with that request inasmuch as that could get lost in the administration. Mr. Hewicker stated that he would prefer that the Development Agreement become effective when the project is approved by the Coastal Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Stephens stated that the hospital considers the definition of buildout with the commencement of the first building. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that a 25 year Development Agreement from the date of Coastal Commission approval is more than fair. He said that he would not want to make the Agreement so short that the hospital would be rushed to build everything out and before they need it. Commissioner Edwards concurred with the foregoing comments. He said that he considered not adopting a Development Agreement given the circumstances and 25 years is more than fair. A straw vote motion was that a term of the Development Agreement shall be 25 years from Coastal Commission approval of -53- COMMISSIONERS 0 February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes * * * the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. The Commission AGREED to Absent * the straw vote motion. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the hospital has been treated as a developer and not as a non -profit health care center. The City recently completed a survey of people's attitudes regarding various elements in the City and land developers are favored only by 20 percent of the people. Hoag Hospital was favored by 83 percent of the people and it is the highest single rating on the survey. The map indicating the individuals in favor of the master plan and the individuals in opposition to the master plan determined that virtually the vast majority of the letters in favor came from throughout the City with no basic geographic location and the letters of opposition just came from those people very close to the • hospital. The master plan that was requested and the Commission directed the hospital to prepare a long -term use. The issue of a Development Agreement which did not come up at the time, would show what the hospital intended to do over a 20 year period of time, and there would not be piecemeal approval. In the past, because Hoag had such strong base support, most of the piecemeal requests were approved. The request for the overall master plan was in response to the concerns that the residents immediately contiguous had brought forth to the City. Most of the experts stated that to save the wetlands is not appropriate, and a much more appropriate use is mitigation off -site. The hospital has agreed to increase the mitigation by 50 percent, and he said that would be appropriate. He commented that the Commission did a very good job to give everyone an opportunity to speak, and the Commission's task is to try and look at the major benefits to the City and not necessarily the impacts that it may have on a relatively small group of residents. He had hoped that the hospital would have been able to satisfy 100 percent of what the local residents concerns would be, and there would have been one public hearing, but unfortunately that was not the case. The Commission had to try and make a decision as Planning Commissioners as to what they think is the overall best plan for the City as a whole. -54- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES O�'apG,p Y, dcn� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALLJ INDEX Commissioner Glover addressed her appreciation for the work and time that Bill Jennings, Chris Hansen, Dr. Jan VanderSloot, and Hoag Hospital put into the project, and she expressed her belief that these individuals individually and collectively were trying to do the right thing for the City of Newport Beach. Unfortunately, everyone walking away from the proceedings are going to be a bit unhappy because there is no way that everyone can get all that they want. She supports the plan because she thought the hospital needs to be kept together geographically, and carefully, and a thoughtfully planned community occurred. The plan does represent a balance of concerns as stated between the immediate residents and the need of Hoag. The finished plan is severely modified and she emphasized that everyone should be aware of that. She said to look at the original plan and the staff and community input. Many concessions were made and the public hearings have been a very healthy and democratic process. She was pleased that the hospital made a commitment to the community to be a long - standing and good neighbor as they have been in the past. The plan is well- balanced and is going to be a good plan for the community. Commissioner Debay stated that the Commission has addressed every issue, and since she has been on the Planning Commission that a project has never been taken apart as much as the hospital project has been. Even the people speaking in opposition to the way Hoag was developing were not opposed to the actual expansion and they made that point. They had reasonable concerns, and everyone mentally put everything on a scale trying to weigh those concerns with the private property development rights that Hoag had. Staff has been most supportive to give the Commission all of the answers to the questions that they had. Hoag has made concessions over the years and she expected that as they continue to do the expansion that there will be concessions made and there will be meetings with neighbors. She stated that she was grateful to sit through the process, and she felt satisfied with what the Commission has done. Chairman Di Sano concurred with the Commissioners' previous • statements. There are major benefits that will benefit the City as -55- COMMISSIONERS February20, 1992 MINUTES o.o ` on�\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX a whole, first because the City is attempting to obtain one of the major goals which is the master plan for Hoag. There are many people to thank and he addressed individuals who indicated how tough it is to live next to the hospital. He addressed people who spoke on behalf of the hospital to remind the Commission of the many services that the hospital provides as well as reminding the Commission that it is one of the functions of the Planning Commission to make the general health, public safety, welfare a condition for all and not just the people residing around the hospital. He commended staffs work. He addressed the documents that the Commission has read and he said that the Commission has tried to be as fair as possible. He concurred that many people would leave the proceedings saying that it is not what was wanted, and he felt bad that some of the people that he recognized were leaving early because maybe the one issue they wanted, did not go their way. He realized that there is still an EIR out there for comment, the master plan will go to the City Council, and he indicated that he would be surprised if the City Council could uncover anything new. He stated that the EIR is a good EIR, and staff did a good job with the people that were utilized. In summary, he thanked the public for their decorum. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Stephens concurred with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A ", as amended. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Environmental Impact Ayes * * * * * Report No. 142, Amendment No. 744 (Resolution No. 1281), Absent * Development Agreement No. 5, Traffic Study No. 81, and Variance No. 1180, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" as modified by the straw votes and the supplemental staff report distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the subject public hearing. MOTION CARRIED. • -56- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES o 0 0 � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX A. Environmental Impact Be" No. 142 Fin ' 1. That an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That all potential significant environmental effects which could result from the project have been identified and analyzed in the EIR. 3. That based upon the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report, mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project to reduce potentially significant environmental effects to a level of insignificance, except in the areas of Land Use and Construction Noise, and that the only remaining environmental effects are significant only on a cumulative basis. Further, that the economic and social benefits to the community override the remaining significant environmental effect anticipated as a result of the project. 4. That the detailed alternatives to the project were examined and considered by the Planning Commission, and that, based upon the information contained in the public record, it has been determined that the project as modified is superior from a planning and environmental standpoint. 5. That the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report has been considered in the various decisions made relative to this project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project • sponsor shall document to the City of Newport Beach -57- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES d_O 0 0 ��f�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Building Department that grading and development of the site shall be conducted in accordance with the City of New- port Beach Grading Ordinance and with plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. These plans shall incorporate the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist, subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans shall be furnished to the Building Department by the project sponsor. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit documentation to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all cut slopes shall be mon- itored for potential instabilities by the project geotechnical engineer during all site grading and construction activities. 3. Prior issuance the to the of a grading permit, project sponsor shall conduct comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. This investigation shall also identify construction excavation techniques which ensure no damage and minimize disturbance to adjacent residents. This investigation shall provide verification of the potential presence of the Balco and unnamed faults on site. All recommendations contained in this investigation shall be incorporated into project construction and design plans. A copy of this investigation shall be submitted to the City for review. 4. Prior to the completion of the final design phase, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed to the seismic standards applicable to hospital related structures and as specified in the City adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of development, the project sponsor shall ensure that -58- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES FROLL CALL INDEX geotechnical recommendations included in "Report of Geo- technical Evaluation for Preparation of Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport, California" as prepared by LeRoy Crandall Associates, June, 1989, and in the report prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3, are followed. 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall conduct a soil corrosivity evaluation. This evaluation shall be conducted by an expert in the field of corrosivity. The site evaluation shall be designed to address soils to at least the depth to which excavation is planned. At a minimum, at least one sample from each soil type should be evaluated. Appropriate personnel protection should be worn by field personnel during the field evaluation. In the event soils are found to be corrosive, the • source and extent of the corrosive soils should be determined and fully understood. This is important for the development of mitigation measures to control the potential impact of corrosive soils over time. 7. Based on the corrosion assessment and source determination, a soils and construction material compatibility evaluation should also be undertaken, concluding with the appropriate mitigation measures and design criteria. Corrosion resistant construction materials are commonly available and should be used where design specifications require protection. For example, there are many elastomers and plastics, like PVC, which are resistant to corrosion by up to 70 percent sulfuric acid at 140 degrees Fahrenheit. 8. Should the soil be identified as hazardous due the severeness of their corrosivity (i.e., a PH less than 2.5), on- site remediation by neutralization should be undertaken prior to construction. Appropriate regulatory agency • approvals and permits should also be obtained. -59- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES 0 ���� q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall ensure that a construction erosion control plan is sub- mitted to the City of Newport Beach that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and includes procedures to minimize potential impacts of silt, debris, dust and other water pollutants. These procedures may in- clude: • the replanting of exposed slopes within 30 days after grading or as required by the City Engineer. • the use of sandbags to slow the velocity of or divert stormflows. • the limiting of grading to the non -rainy season. 10. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall submit a landscape plan which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation and approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 11. The project sponsor shall continue the current practice of routine vacuuming of all existing parking lots and structures for all future parking lots and structures. Upon implemen- tation of the County of Orange Storm Water Master Plan, routine vacuuming shall be done in accordance with the requirements specified in the plan. 12. Upon completion of final building construction plans, and prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each phase of development, the project sponsor shall ensure that site hy- drological analyses are conducted to verify that existing drainage facilities are adequate. The applicant shall submit • a report to the City of Newport Beach Building Department -60- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT February 20, 1492 MINUTES BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX for approval, verifying the adequacy of the proposed facili- ties and documenting measures for the control of siltation and of erosive runoff velocities. A copy of this report shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Con- trol Board, Santa Ana Region. 13. Prior to the completion of final construction plans, the project sponsor shall submit a comprehensive geotechnical /hydrologic study to the City of Newport Beach Building Department, which includes data on groundwater. This study shall also determine the necessity for a construc- tion dewatering program and subdrain system. 14. Prior to the completion of final building construction plans for each phase of Lower Campus development, the project sponsor shall submit an application to the Regional Water Quality. Control Board for an NPDES permit if a con- struction dewatering or subdrain program is determined necessary. Also, if required by RWQCB, the project sponsor shall also conduct groundwater sampling and analysis, and submit it to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. The results of this testing will assist in determining the specifications for the NPDES permit. 15. Project Sponsor shall continue compliance with its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infectious Control Manual for all new activities associated with the proposed Master Plan, as well as comply with all new regulations enacted between now and comple- tion of the proposed Master Plan. 16. The federal wetland regulations and requirements shall be reviewed by the City and the project sponsor at the time the proposed work is undertaken, and the project shall comply with all applicable laws concerning removal and mitigation of wetlands at that time. If this review results in a finding • that mitigation is required for impacts to the 1.07 acres of -61- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX wetlands dominated by pampas grass, such mitigation will be accomplished as part of the mitigation required for impacts to sensitive wetland plant communities (Mitigation Measures 17 and 18). 17. The project sponsor shall prepare a comprehensive restoration and management plan for the wetland mitigation site as required by law. This plan will be submitted to the following agencies for their review and approval/ concurrence prior to issuance of grading and /or building permits for Master Plan development. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service' • 0 California Department of Fish and Games • City of Newport Beach 18. The resulting final mitigation plan shall be approved as part of the Coastal Development Permit for the project. The plan shall also be approved as part of the Corps Section 404 Permit and Streambed Alteration Agreement, if applicable. The existence of a wetland mitigation plan approved by the appropriate agencies will be required prior to issuance of grading and /or building permits for Master Plan develop- ment in any areas affecting wetlands. 19. The plan will be consistent with the following provisions: ade r t e xisi ing mplations, the Corps and USFWS would be eonsutted as part of the Section 404 permitting process. if changes to the regulations result in removal of the project site from Corps jurisdiction, these agencies )uh ni t b ui to review the wetland mitigation plan. ga f a her masiderations, CDFG will review the wetland mitigation plan for the City of Newport Beach as part of the at e loj me it Permit process; CDFG review would also be provided as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement, if . in ' ea M -62- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES o 6'„d �k CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I INDEX • The amount of new wetlands created under the mitigation plan shall be at least of equal size to the area of sensitive wetland communities impacted by the project. • The wildlife habitat values in the newly created wetlands shall not be less than those lost as the result of removal of sensitive wetland communities for project implementation. • The wetland creation shall not decrease the habitat values of any area important to maintenance of sensitive plant or wildlife populations. • The wetland mitigation planning effort will take into consideration creation of 0.2 acre of salt grass habitat suitable for use by wander- ing skipper; such consideration would be dependent on the nature of the mitigation plan undertaken and whether wandering skipper could potentially occur in the mitigation area. • The plan will constitute an agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies involved. The plan shall be written so as to guarantee wetland restoration in accordance with stated management objec- tives within a specified time frame. The plan shall describe the applicant's responsibilities for making any unforseen repairs or modifica- tions to the restoration plan in order to meet the stated objectives of the plan. 20. The following detailed information will be provided, by the project sponsor in the final mitigation plan: -63- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES , 'k40 � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX • Diagrams drawn to scale showing any alter - ations to natural landforms; • A list of plant species to be used; • The method of plant introduction (i.e., seeding, natural succession, vegetative trans- planting, etc.); and • Details of the short-term and long -term moni- toring plans, including financing of the moni- toring plans. 21. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an Orange County certified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor the grading across the project area. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, at which time moni- toring procedures will be established, including procedures for halting or redirecting work to permit the assessment, and possible salvage, of unearthed cultural material. 22. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an Orange County certified paleontologist shall be retained to monitor the grading activities. The paleontologist shall be present at the pregrading conference, at which time procedures for monitoring will be established, including the temporary halting or redirecting of work to permit the evaluation, and possible salvage, of any exposed fossils. All fossils and their contextual stratigraphic data will go to an Orange County institution with an educational and /or research interest in the materials. 23. The project sponsor shall construct, if feasible and by mutual agreement, and maintain a fence along the common property line west of the Upper Campus. The proposed design of the fence shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. • -64- COMMISSIONERS 0 • ��0� q� February 2o, 1492 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 24. The proposed project is subject to all applicable require- ments of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program (L.CP). Those require- ments that are superseded by the PCDP and District Regulations are not considered applicable. The following discretionary approvals are required by the City of Newport Beach: EIR certification, adoption of the Master Plan, adoption of the Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulations, approval of a Development Agreement, approval of a zone change to Planned Community District, grading permits, and building permits for some facilities. The California Coastal Commission has the discretionary responsibility to issue a Coastal Develop- ment Permit for the Lower Campus and a Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Lower Campus. • 25. Subsequent to the Phase I project, the project sponsor shall conduct a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis for Phase II and III Master Plan development. The results of the analysis will identify potential intersection impacts, the proposed project traffic volume contributions at these impacted intersections, and the schedule for proposed intersection improvements, if necessary. This report will be submitted to the City prior to commencement of Phase II or III construction. 26. Prior to development of the Phase I project, the project sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. This study will demonstrate that traffic to be generated by existing plus Phase I development will not exceed 1,338 PM peak hour traffic trips. 27. Subsequent to completion of Phase 1 Master Plan development, the project sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engi- neer. This study will demonstrate that the traffic to be gen- erated by the subsequent phases of development (Phases II -65- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES c0`� G y 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX and IH) will not exceed 1,856 PM peak hour trips when added to the trips generated by existing (including Phase I) Hoag Hospital development. The frequency at which this study shall be conducted is at the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer. 28. As mandated by law under the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Regulation 15, firms with greater than 100 employees must implement a feasible ridesharing or carpooling program intended to reduce total project trip generation by 15 %. Therefore, since hospital staff currently exceeds 100, the project spon- sor shall continue to comply with Regulation 15. The peak hour traffic demand at the constrained intersections will result in lower ICU values than those identified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan with the current Hoag • Master Plan. 29. It should be noted that the City of Newport Beach, in response to the County wide Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requirements, is preparing a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. The project shall comply with the final City of Newport Beach Transportation Demand Man- agement Ordinance approved by the City Council. Compliance with this Ordinance will result in provision of facility policies to encourage alternative modes of transportation and a reduction in single occupant commute trips. 30. In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for employees, visitors and patrons of the Hospital, the following transit amenities should be incorporated into the Master Plan project: The provision of bus turnouts shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and, if deemed necessary, shall be provided by the project sponsor at all current bus stop locations adjacent to the project site. Bus turnouts shall be provided -66- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX in accordance with standard design guidelines as indicated in OCTD's Design Gudde&nes for Bus Facilities. 31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any of the pro- posed Master Plan facilities, the project sponsor shall implement a pilot program that monitors and manages usage of the Upper and Lower Campus service roads during non - working hours. Such controls may include requesting that the majority of vendors deliver products (other than emergency products) during working hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.), signage to restrict use of the road by hospital employees, physicians, patients and visitors during non - working hours, and other methods by which to restrict use. The hospital will also request that vendors not deliver (i.e., scheduled and routine deliveries) on the weekends. • This restriction specifically applies to scheduled and routine deliveries. The results of this program will be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of the grading permit. If the results indicate that such controls do not significantly impact the operations of the hospital, and provided that requests for specified vendor delivery times is consistent with future Air Quality Management Plan procedures, the City may require that the program be implemented as hospital policy. If operation impacts are significant, other mitigation measures would be investigated at that time to reduce service road impacts to the adjacent residential units. 32. Prior to issuance of approvals for development phases subsequent to Phase I, the applicant shall submit to the City Traffic Engineer for his/her review and approval a study that identifies the appropriate parking generation rates for the proposed parking supply. The findings of this study shall be based on empirical or survey data for the proposed parking rates. -67- COMMISSIONERS 0 February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 33. Prior to the issuance of precise grading permits for the phase of Master Plan development that includes new, or modifications to existing, internal roadways (other than service roads), the project sponsor will prepare an internal circulation plan for submittal to and approval by the Director of Public Works that demonstrates that the internal backup will be minimized to the extent feasible. 34. Depending on actual site build out, intersection improvements may be required at the Hospital Road (Upper Campus access) Placentia Avenue Intersection and at the WCH (Lower Campus access) intersection. The need for these improvements shall be assessed during subsequent traffic studies to be conducted in association with Mitigation Measure 25. 35. As each phase of the Master Plan is constructed, the project sponsor shall provide each new employee a packet outlining the available ridesharing services and programs and the number of the Transportation Coordinator. All new employees shall be included in the yearly update of the trip reduction plan for Hoag Hospital, as required by Regulation XV. 36. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of development, the project sponsor shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment incorporated within each phase. 37. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of development, the project proponent shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that energy efficient lighting has been incorporated into the project design. • -68- COMMISSIONERS s 0A \"ee\N February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 38. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of Master Plan development, the project sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorporate the site development requirements of Ordinance No. 91 -16, as appropriate, to the Traffic Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and Planning Commission approval. Requirements outlined in the Ordinance include: 1) A minimum of five percent of the provided parking at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These parking places shall be located near the employee entrance or at other preferential locations. 2) A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employers shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided at • such time as demand warrants. 3) A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. 4) Information of transportation alternatives shall be provided to all employees. 5) A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated in the parking area. 6) The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. 7) Bus stop improvements shall be required for developments located along arterials where public transit exists or is anticipated to exist within five years. The exact number of each of the above facilities within each phase of the Master Plan would be determined during City review of grading and building permit applications for each phase. The types and numbers of facilities required of each -69- COMMISSIONERS A � • , 0, \\ February 20, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL 1NOEX phase will reflect the content of the Ordinance at the time that a permit application is deemed complete by the Planning Department. 39. If noise levels in on -site outdoor noise sensitive use areas exceed 65 CNEL, the project sponsor shall develop measures that will attenuate the noise to acceptable levels for proposed hospital facilities. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. 40. Prior to occupancy of Master Plan facilities, interior noise levels shall be monitored to ensure that on -site interior noise levels are below 45 CNEL: If levels exceed 45 CNEI , mitigation such as window modifications shall be implemented to reduce noise to acceptable levels. 41. Prior to issuance of a grading and or building permit the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that existing noise levels associated with the on -site exhaust fan are mitigated to acceptable levels. Similarly, the project sponsor shall demonstrate that all noise levels generated by new mechanical equipment associated with the Master Plan are mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. 42. The City of Newport Beach shall send a letter to each emergency vehicle company that delivers patients to Hoag Hospital requesting that, upon entrance to either the Upper . or Lower Campus, emergency vehicles turn off their sirens to help minimize noise impacts to adjacent residents. Hoag Hospital will provide the City with a list of all emergency vehicle companies that deliver patients to Hoag Hospital. 43. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the project sponsor shall ensure that a landscape and irrigation plan is prepared for each building /improvement within the • overall Master Plan. This plan shall be prepared by a -70- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall inte- grate and phase the installation of landscaping with the pro- posed construction schedule. The plan shall be subject to review by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 44. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Department which detail the lighting system for all buildings and window systems for buildings on the western side of the Upper Campus. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimi e light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical . " engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his • opinion, this requirement has been met. 45. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas will be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. 46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the roof top of any structure on the Lower Campus. Rather, such buildings will have clean rooftops. Minor rooftop equipment necessary for operating purposes will comply with all building height criteria, and shall be concealed and screened to blend into the building roof using materials compatible with building materials. 47. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the project sponsor shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate and grade the proposed linear and consolidated view park as • identified in the project description (Figure 3.2.1.) The -71- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX project sponsor will dedicate land for a 0.28 acre consoli- dated view park and a 0.52 acre linear view park. 48. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any lower campus structure, the project sponsor shall prepare a study of each proposed building project to assure conformance with the EIR view impact analysis and the PCDP and District Regu- lations, to ensure that the visual impacts identified in the EIR are consistent with actual Master Plan development. This analysis shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planning Department. 49. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the project sponsor shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and /or hazardous materials are handled and disposed in the manner specified • by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. 50. Prior to construction of structures over or near the Wilshire oil well, Project Sponsor shall ensure that the Wilshire oil well, or any abandoned, unrecorded well or pressure relief well, is re- abandoned to the current standards. Abandon- ment plans will be submitted to DOG for approval prior to the abandonment procedures. The City's building official shall be notified that the reabandonment was carried out according to DOG procedures. 51. To further determine the source of the gas on the Lower Campus site, prior to issuance of a grading permit on the Lower Campus, Project Sponsor shall collect gas samples from the nearest fire flooding wells and at Newport Beach • -72- COMMISSIONERS o.o February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Townhomes and compare the gas samples to samples taken from the Hoag gas collection wells prior to site grading and construction. 52. A soil gas sampling and monitoring program should be considered for the areas to be graded and /or excavated. Systematic sampling and analysis should include methane and hydrogen sulfide gas. Samples should be taken just below the surface, at depth intervals within the removal zone, and at a depth below the depth of actual disturbance. (The individual(s) performing this initial study may be at risk of exposure to significant - and possibly lethal - doses of hydrogen sulfide, and should be appropriately protected as required.) 53. A site safety plan should be developed that addresses the • risks associated with exposures to methane and hydrogen sulfide. Each individual taking part in the sampling and monitoring program should receive training on the potential hazards and on proper personal protective equipment. This training should be at least at the level required by CAR 2910.120. 54. If the analysis of the initial soil gas samples show unacceptable levels of hazardous constituents that have the potential to pose a health risk during construction activities, additional gas collection wells should be drilled to contain and collect the gas. 55. It is recommended that continuous monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide be conducted during the disturbance of the soils and during any construction activities that may result in an increase in the seepage of the gases. We recommend a continuous monitor in the immediate vicinity of the excavation, and that a personal monitor, with an alarm, be worn by each worker with a potential for exposure. • -73- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 56. A study of other hazardous constituents that may be present in quantities that pose a health risk to exposed individuals should be evaluated prior to the initiation of the project. These may include compounds that are directly related to petroleum, such as benzene and toluene. 57. An initial study should be considered that characterizes the wells, the influent gas, and the effluent of the flare. Results of samples taken in December, 1991, indicate concentration of hydrogen sulfide on the order of 3000 ppm. This elevated concentration, if inhaled, could be lethal. It also is likely to produce a high concentration of sulfur dioxide as a product of its combustion. We therefore recommend this study to characterize the gas over a period of time, to allow for potential fluctuations in concentration and rate. • 58. It is recommended that, based on this study, a scrubber system be considered to reduce the concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the influent gas. This would significantly reduce the risk of exposure to lethal and extremely hazardous concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, and the potentially hazardous and toxic products of its combustion. 59. In the event additional gases are to be collected from newly constructed collection wells as part of a measure to reduce exposures during construction, an evaluation of the capacity and efficiency of the present flare system should be conducted prior to connecting any new sources. 60. An automatic re -light system should be installed on the flare system to reduce the risk of a potential release of high concentration of hydrogen sulfide. The system should be designed with an alarm system that notifies a remote location which is manned 24 hours per day. 61. A continuous hydrogen sulfide monitor that would give warning of a leak of concentrations in excess of acceptable levels should be installed in the vicinity of the flare. -74- COMMISSIONERS o.o February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 62. A study of the concentration of potential hazardous constituents should be considered for completion prior to initiation of the project to characterize the wastewater and any risks it may pose to human health prior to development: A stormwater pollution prevention plan should be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of hazardous constituents from the site. 63. Evaluation of existing vent systems should be considered to determine whether there are emissions in excess of acceptable levels being emitted into the atmosphere. Any additional new vents installed should be analyzed and evaluated in terms of potential hazards or human health effects. Vents that may pose a threat to human health or the environment should be connected to a scrubber and /or flare system. 64. If warranted based on analytical results, an air dispersion model should be considered in order to predict the cumulative effects of the emissions. 65. The construction of new buildings and other ancillary facilities at the subject site should include hydrogen sulfide monitoring equipment with alarms to a manned remote location. The proposed LEL monitoring is likely to detect hazardous concentration of methane, but will not detect unacceptable levels of hydrogen sulfide. 66. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that the fault traversing the site is trenched and monitored for gas prior to site grading and construction. If gas monitoring indicates a potential risk during grading, additional gas collection wells will be drilled to collect and contain the gas. 67. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach ensuring that all • structures built on the Lower Campus are designed for -75- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX protection from gas accumulation and seepage, based on the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer. 68. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach indicating where gas test boring will be drilled under each proposed main building site once specific building plans are complete. Such testing shall be carried out, and test results submitted to the City's building official, prior to issuance of grading permits. If a major amount of gas is detected, a directionally drilled well will be permanently completed and put into the existing gas collection system. 69. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Grading Engineer, City of Newport Beach, indicating that all buildings and parking lots on the Lower Campus will be constructed with passive gas collection systems under the foundations. Such • a system typically consists of perforated PVC pipes laid in parallel lengths below the foundation. Riser type vents will be attached to light standards and building high points. Additionally, parking lots on the Lower Campus will contain unpaved planter areas and vertical standpipes located at the end of each length of PVC pipe. The standpipes will serve to vent any collected gas to the atmosphere. A qualified geotechnical firm shall be retained to design such systems. 70. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach, demonstrating that all buildings on the Lower Cam- pus are sealed from gas migration. Such sealing may be in- stalled by the use of chlorinated polyethylene sheeting or similar approved system. 71. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments demonstrating that all buildings on the Lower Campus will be equipped with methane gas sensors. Such sensors will be installed in areas of likely accumula- tion, such as utility or other seldom used rooms. Sensors -76- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROLL CALL INDEX can monitor on a continuous basis, and can be tied into fire alarm systems for 24 hour surveillance. 72. To avoid possible accumulation of gas in utility or other sel- dom used service or storage rooms, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of building permits indicating that such rooms are serviced by the buildings' central air conditioning system (or an otherwise positive ventilation system that circulates and replaces the air in such rooms on a continuous basis). 73. During construction, Project Sponsor shall ensure that an explosimeter is used to monitor methane levels and percent- age range. Additionally, construction contractors shall be required to have a health and safety plan that includes pro- cedures for worker /site safety for methane. If dangerous . levels of methane are discovered, construction in the vicinity shall stop, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department shall be notified and appropriate procedures followed in order to contain the methane to acceptable and safe levels. 74. The Project Sponsor may remove the flare system, contain the gas and utilize the gas for Lower Campus facilities. During the containment process and removal of the flare, the project sponsor shall ensure that methane levels are monitored throughout the project area to ensure that this transition does not create an upset in methane levels or create odors or risk of explosion. 75. To the satisfaction of the City building official, the Project Sponsor shall expand existing hazardous infectious, radio- logical disposal facilities to add additional storage areas as necessary to accommodate the additional waste to be generated by the expanded facilities. 76. The Project Sponsor shall provide evidence to the Planning . Director that measures to ensure implementation and -77- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX continued compliance with all applicable SCAQMD Air Toxic Rules, specifically Rules 1401, 1403, 1405 and 1415, are being carried out. 77. In conjunction with the Critical Care Surgery addition, the Project Sponsor will place the overhead power lines located west of the Upper Campus underground if feasible. 78. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by the City Public Works and Fire Departments. 79. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate that final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water- saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. The pro- • ject sponsor will also comply with any other City adopted water conservation policies. 80. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a master plan of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared for the site. The project sponsor shall verify the adequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and construct any modifications or facilities necessitated by the proposed project development. 81. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. 82. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Fire Department that all existing and new access roads surrounding the project site shall be designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless the accessway meets minimum width requirements of the Public Works and Fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be permitted if the road • is a minimum 32 feet in width. -78- COMMISSIONERS o n 0 February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX . 83. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that the thermal integrity of new buildings are improved with automated time clocks or occupant sensors to reduce the thermal load. 84. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods have been incorporated into building designs. 85. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall demonstrate that building designs incorporate efficient heating units and other appliances, such as water heater, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. 86. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall incorporate into building designs, where feasible, • passive solar designs and solar heaters. 87. The project sponsor shall ensure that all cut material is disposed of at either an environmentally cleared development site or a certified landfill. Also, all material exported off site shall be disposed of at an environmentally certified development cleared landfill with adequate capacity. 88. In conjunction with the application for a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit a construction phasing and traffic control plan for each phase of development. This plan would identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc.). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. -79- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I INDEX 89. The project sponsor shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. 90. The project sponsor shall provide advance written notice of temporary traffic disruptions to affected areas, businesses and the public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to disruptions. 91. The project sponsor shall ensure that construction activities requiring more than 16 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour, such as excavation and concrete pours, shall be limited between June 1 and September 1 to avoid traffic conflicts with beach and tourist traffic. At all other times, such activities shall be limited to 25 truck (i.e., multiple axle • vehicle) trips per hour unless otherwise approved by the City traffic engineer. Haul operations will be monitored by the Public Works Department and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion problems arise. 92. The project sponsor shall ensure that all trucks used for hauling material shall be covered to minimise material loss during transit. 93. Project sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall be performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, erosion and siltation control, noise, and other grading related activities. 94. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during the morning and evening prior to or after earth moving operations. To further reduce dust generation, grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (MPH), and soil binders on -80- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX SCAQMD approved chemical stabilizers should be spread on construction sites or unpaved areas. Additional mea- . sures to control fugitive dust include street sweeping of roads used by construction vehicles, reduction of speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hours, suspension of operations during first and second stage smog alerts, and wheel washing before construction vehicles leave the site. 95. Prior to issuance of any grading and building permit, the project sponsor shall submit a Trip Reduction Plan for construction crew members. This plan shall identify measures, such as ride - sharing and transit incentives, to reduce vehicle miles traveled by construction crews. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 96. The project sponsor shall ensure that low emission mobile and stationary equipment is utilized during construction, and low sulfur fuel is utilized in stationary equipment, when available. Evidence of this fact shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any grading or building permit. 97. The project sponsor shall ensure that all internal combustion engines associated with construction activities shall be fitted with properly maintained mufflers and kept in proper tune. 98. The project sponsor shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that -81- COMMISSIONERS 0 \0� February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROLL CALL I INDEX produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. 99. The project sponsor shall make a contribution to the City of Newport Beach to defray 50% of the cost of the construction of the planned bicycle /pedestrian bridge over Superior Avenue. This contribution shall be made to the City prior to the award of contract for the construction of the facility and shall be 50% of the total cost of the bridge, or $250,000, whichever is less. 100. Roof top mechanical equipment screening on the emergency room expansion shall not extend closer than fifteen feet from the west edge of the structure and no closer than ten feet from the edge of the structure on any other side. 101. Noise from the emergency room expansion roof top mechanical equipment shall not exceed 55 dBA at the property line. 102. The project sponsor shall pay 75% of the cost of planting thirty 24 inch ficus trees (or the equivalent) in the berm between the service road and Villa Balboa southerly of the tennis courts. Planting shall occur on Villa Balboa property. 103. Use of the heliport /helipad shall be limited to emergency medical purposes or the transportation of critically ill patients in immediate need of medical care not available at Hoag Hospital. Helicopters shall, to the extent feasible, arrive at, and depart from the helipad, from the northeast, to mitigate noise impacts on residential units to the west and south. 104. For any building subject to the issuance of the building permit by the Office of the State Architect, Hoag Hospital shall submit to the State Architect a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that review of the construction -82- COMMISSIONERS o�P c�0 February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX plans has been completed and that the plans are in compliance with all City requirements. 105. Wetlands mitigation, as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and /or the California Coastal Commission, shall be at a ratio of 15:1 for those areas determined by the permitting agencies as subject to mitigation requirements. It is the desire of the City. of Newport Beach that mitigation occur within the corporate boundaries of the City of Newport Beach or its westerly Sphere -of- Influence. Mitigation shall occur outside this area only upon submittal of evidence to the Planning Department verifying the lack of appropriate mitigation sites in the City. 106. Non - vehicular activities, such as the operation of the sterilizer and trash compactor, which occur in the vicinity of the service/access road shall be operated only between the hours of 7:00 am. and 7:00 p.m. daily. B. Amendment No. 744 Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 744. C. Development Agreement No. 3 Findings: 1. That the Development Agreement is in compliance with California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45. 2. That adoption of the Development Agreement would not preclude the City. from conducting future discretionary reviews in connection with the project, nor would it prevent the City from imposing conditions or requirements to -83- COMMISSIONERS \ 0 \�ed\'No February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX mitigate significant impacts identified in such reviews provided that the measures do not render the project infeasible. Condition: 1. Once every 12 months from the date of execution of the Development Agreement, the project proponent or his successor in interest shall prepare and submit for review by the City Council a report demonstrating compliance with the terms of the Agreement, as required by Section 15.45.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Agreement shall be for a term of 25 years which shall commence from the date of the final approval of the California Coastal Commission of the Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan. • 2. That the initial mass grading of the lower campus site shall be accomplished in a single increment. This initial site preparation work shall include the final grading for the park, the installation of the crib wall and the roadbed preparation of the service road. 3. That upon completion of the initial mass grading of the lower campus, Hoag Hospital shall install interim landscaping for the purpose of controlling erosion, siltation and the production of dust in a manner acceptable to the City Grading Engineer and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 4. The project sponsor shall make a contribution to the City of Newport Beach to defray 50% of the cost of the construction of the planned bicycle /pedestrian bridge over Superior Avenue. This contribution shall be made to the City prior to the award of contract for the construction of the facility and shall be 50% of the total cost of the bridge, or $250,000, whichever is less. -84- COMMISSIONERS 0 .per" did February 20, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mir ROLL CALL INDEX 5. Hoag Hospital shall grade the 0.8 acre linear park subject to the acceptance and approval of the City Grading Engineer and the Parks Beaches and Recreation Department. The park shall be dedicated to the City as approved by the City Council. Additionally, the Hospital shall underwrite the costs of park design and improvement in a manner acceptable to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and the City Council. Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach • Municipal Code and City Council Policy S -1. 2. That the traffic study indicates that the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any major, primary- modified, or primary street. E. Variance No. 1180 Findings: 1. It has been demonstrated that the traffic to be generated by the proposed Maximum FAR use will not exceed that which would be generated if a use generating 60 trip ends per 1,000 sq.ft. per day and 3 trip ends per 1,000 sq.ft. at peak hour, were developed at a floor area ratio of 0.5. Traffic generation has been determined in accordance with City Council Policy S -1. A 0.5 FAR on the lower campus would result in development of 427,104 square feet. Therefore, the Hoag Hospital lower campus is allowed a 0.65 FAR if the lower campus project does not exceed 25,626 average • daily trips (427.104 x 60 = 25,626) or 1,281.3 peak hour -85- COMMISSIONERS o� cp ° o� February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX trips (427.104 x 3 = 1,281.3). Based on the lower campus trip rates defined in the traffic studies, the daily traffic generated by the lower campus project (including the existing cancer center and child care facility) is 14,489 trips, the AM peak hour traffic is 767 trips and the PM peak hour traffic is 964 trips. 2. The projections of traffic to be generated utilize standard traffic generation rates generally applied to a use of the type proposed per City Council Policy S -1 in that standard trip rates for the variety of hospital uses were utilized for the traffic analysis. 3. The building tenants will be restricted to the uses upon which the traffic equivalency was based since the uses • permitted by the P -C Text are those upon which the traffic analysis was based. 4. The proposed use and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend itself to conversion to a higher traffic generating use since hospital structures are not readily convertible to other land uses. 5. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, will not create abrupt changes in scale between the Proposed development and development in the surrounding area since the increased FAR is lower than that permitted in surrounding residential areas. The heights of the buildings are similar to the Villa Balboa structures and are also similar in height to other commercial development on Coast Highway. 6. That the proposed use and structures, including above grade covered parking, are compatible with the surrounding area in that Hoag Hospital has been established in the area for many years. As noted in No. 5 above, the heights of the • buildings proposed are compatible with the area. -86- COMMISSIONERS o� G` February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 7. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, will not result in significant impairment of public views since a complex set of height restrictions are proposed to address view preservation and enhancement from the existing bicycle /pedestrian path between Villa Balboa /Sea Faire and the lower campus. The height limits proposed would establish a set of height zones which are designed to allow the greatest height of buildings which would not result in significant view impacts. Additional restrictions to the permitted height limits for the upper campus are also proposed, which currently is in the 375 foot height limitation zone. A computer view analysis was prepared as part of the environmental review process to assess the impact to views. This study reveals that the height limits proposed generally result in preservation or enhancement of views. The height zones proposed for the upper campus area are a substantial reduction from the existing height limit of 375 feet. 8. That the site is physically suitable for the development proposed, including above grade covered parking, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources, since the Hoag Hospital lower campus is adjacent to the hospital facility which has been in existence for many years. As concluded by the Environmental Impact Report, there are no environmental effects engendered by the project which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Condition: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits on the lower campus, Hoag Hospital shall record a covenant, • the form and content of which is acceptable to the City -87- COMMISSIONERS February 20, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Attorney, committing the applicant and all successors -in- interest to use of the property for the hospital uses envisioned in the Master Plan. x x x ADJOURNMENT: 11:40 p.m. Adjourn x x x NORMA GLOVER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION i • -88-