Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 11 - Exhibit 11 - 3-20-08 Planning Commission MinutesExhibit No. 11 Excerpt of minutes from Planning Commission meeting dated March 20, 2008 1I.! THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY BLANK t,.2- Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 5 of 19 an Hawkins noted that with a noticing problem, it is impossible to open the lic hed�h►e Lepo suggested this item e n April 17, 2008. :ion was made to receive and file. None UBJECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2007 -073) ITEM One Hoag Drive PA2007-07 -073 Recommended for ;ontinued hearing from March 6, 2008, for a request to reallocate up to 225,000 approval to City ross square feet of permitted buildable area from the Lower Campus to the Council ipper Campus through the approval of the proposed General Plan and Planned ;ommunity Development Plan Amendments. Applicant also requests approval o mendments to development regulations contained within the existing Planned :ommunity Development Plan, also known as the Hoag Master Plan or the P ext. The changes principally relate to the allocation and limit of permitted uilding area between the Upper and Lower Campus, noise regulations, indscaping requirements and sign standards. Lastly, applicant requests an mendment of the existing Development Agreement to reflect the changes to the faster Plan as summarized above and to provide additional public benefit rincipally in the form of providing funds for improvements and communit rojects to public facilities such as streets, parks, water quality and public safet . Campbell gave an overview of the staff report. He referenced the preparal responses to additional written comments received at the prior meetings; alysis of the proposed soundwall has been prepared by Bonterra Consult solutions have been included recommending certification of the SEIR )jest approval, including revised draft PC text language; and, he noted that generation facility is not part of this application and will be addressed by y Council as part of their Development Agreement compliance revi wever, the city has had Fluor Enterprises review the cogeneration facility apare a report that was transmitted to the Commission due to the pu crest that surrounds the facility. The report discusses the three plur nerated by the facility and possible options for abatement and further study. nmissioner Eaton asked about: the mitigation monitoring and enforcemen the lack of a reference to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program it draft resolution; parking rate sources; parking requirements for support uses se mitigation, balcony barriers and timing issues; cogeneration facility beinc a part of the project but could be addressed through a recommendation t( r the Development Agreement. Campbell indicated that a section can be added to the resolutions rence compliance and implementation of the mitigation monitoring a )rting program. Additionally he gave a summary of the sources of the existi proposed parking rates and indicated that the footnote source for several parking rates in Table 2 of the Planned Community text need to be correch correct source was identified and discussed. In regards to the propos (I.3 http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn03202008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 6 of 19 rking rate for support uses, he went on to note that in the parking anal, rking for support uses was included in the parking rates for other uses. Par ;ilities will be maintained as currently situated as it would be unwise to sug at the existing conference center (a support use) would not need the par pply currently devoted to it and that the modified parking rates should a m this day forward for future approvals and that should be noted as a foot Table 2 as well. He noted that the balcony barriers are part of the proposal addresses noted in PDF 3.4 -1 are the correct units provided that undwall is constructed and should the soundwall not be approved, additi s would be added. Harp noted that the negotiations of the Development Agreement amendr being handled by Mayor Selich and Councilmember Rosansky. The Plan mmission could make recommendations to the City Council regarding 3eneration facility that would be addressed through the Developr reement. iairman Hawkins noted the resolution for the SEIR needs to include a refere the earlier EIR on which the supplemental document is based, )generation facility is a problem for the residences and is not part of location of square footage; and, noted his concern of an annual review wit performance standard for problems related to the cogeneration facility. Lepo noted the information for the costs of various options for the plumes available to the City Council for their deliberation. Hawkins added this issue has not been fully analyzed. an Hawkins noted staffs recommendation to address the as part of the Council's annual compliance review of the )ent (DA) and Hoag's performance pursuant to the DA. Campbell answered that was correct. airman Hawkins noted that some performance standard in connection ne abatement could be recommended through the Development Agreer suggested a change to the PC text regarding deliveries such that deliv uld not occur after 8PM as opposed to be not being scheduled. gested adding a recital indicating Commission review and revise the ings to recommendations. try McKitterick, representing Hoag Hospital, gave an overview of past hearings :ognized the work done by all those affiliated with the project, the planninc )cess, landscaping, utility project, noise issues and mitigation measures sucl the soundwall design and location to the end of 260 Cagney Lane, 65 decibel: a commercial level and requests that for their daytime levels, and 55 decibel: night, staging areas in the lower campus with trailers and will continue a) aging areas in the future. He continued by noting the Development Agreemen part of the package and Hoag will be paying three million dollars to the city o dch part of that is designated for specific items with the balance to be used fo blic benefit as the city chooses. The project is important for the community. e cogeneration facility provides electricity and cooling for the hospital. Thi -thane from Balboa Cove comes into this facility. He noted that there is no alth risk associated with the cogeneration facility and that any modifications to 11.4 http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.usIP1nAgendas /mnO3202008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 system have to be custom - built; referenced the costs and the S iessy memorandum as well as the Fluor Report. He asked that cation be recommended for adoption to the City Council. Commission inquiry, he answered that Hoag has agreed to extend posed sound wall further to the north by 105 feet in length and it will be 14 d Greve of Mestre Greve, noted the 14 ft high wall was to provide nr uction from vehicle noise at the request of the neighbors. The length of I was proposed to be to the end of 260 Cagney Lane. is Privitt of Bonterra Consulting noted that the analysis of the soundwall in tl f report that would become part of the Final EIR, indicates that the wall will r ult in a significant impact. The overall sound wall has been determined ult in a less than significant impact and therefore the SEIR does not need re- circulated. The extended wall is not covered in the analysis, but she not t she has walked the site many times and the wall is a result of additior ind attenuation along West Hoag Drive as requested by the nearby neighbc I it was her opinion that the extension would not create a significant Impact. ommendation of approval to the City Council would include a modifi dysis of the wall to include the extension. Hawkins asked about the vegetation along the proposed Is. Privitt answered that the vegetation of the whole length is in most cases is 1 20 feet and in some cases higher. The vegetation exceeds the height of th 4 foot extension. Campbell referencing an exhibit noted the wall extension and the dense vegetation. Raben of Raben Urban Landscape Architects, noted the tree vegetation in s is about 25 feet high and taller than the proposed soundwall. Campbell then explained the revisions to Mitigation Measure PDF 3.4-1 Id include the balcony barriers, units with cedar siding potentially ha itional sound insulation. Copies were made available to the public. comment was opened. J. Gehlke - noted the concern that this is an on -going issue of expansion on ited amount of real estate. She suggested that it could be feasible for tt spital to expand at other real estate elsewhere in the community. dy Kaiser - noted her concern about the cogeneration facility and agreed should be performance standards included in the Development Agreen that an annual review should be mandatory. She then discussed the t lust and her concern with the vapor to be consistently analyzed for safety. chard Banks - noted the noise has gotten worse over the years; suggested II should be 18 feet high and continue that height to the end of the propo Page 7 of 19 11.5 http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn03202008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 extension to half -way to the tennis courts due to the traffic noise. iette Warner - noted her concern with the cogeneration facility and plun ag Hospital does not follow - through with their promises; her view is destrc the plumes; Hoag should fix the problem with the plumes regardless of A as this was promised to the neighbors some time ago. She then asked v happen on the lower campus and if there was going to be parking? rothy Holmes - presented a view from her condominium and that the wall ugly and hopes there are trees placed in front of it. Hacker - noise will come up and over the wall and it will be very hot with glas on the balconies; window awnings could be advantageous; sound) not help her at all; new construction during the proposed build -out will loud. mnie Justice - noted the wall will end in the middle of her living room and the units should be entitled to the window upgrades and the Plexiglas on ilconies as they are on the same level as the 3rd level of 280 Cagney and ft major traffic on the road. Kaiser - noted the plumes is the main problem and Hoag should not oed to move forward until this plume problem is addressed, now is )rtunity to force Hoag Hospital to do something about it. Ribaudo - noted his concern with the emissions and that the AQMD based on three internal combustion engines. With the three prc onal engines will only increase the emissions. Will there be more e I at a future date? e Webber - noted she had to move her home office to another place )rt Beach due to the noise and dust from the trucks going in and out Hospital. She stated that pollution is increasing and their quality of life compromised. It is time for Hoag to expand to other campuses and the I be a limit to the hospital expansion at this site. :y Smith - presented a picture to the Planning Commission that was from he my at night of the light on the plumes and lights from the children's center. e lights need to be reduced. The new foliage needs to be older trees so tha will be more effective in hiding the soundwall. ly Chen - noted that the Commission should require all the noise abatem( ss; noise levels will only increase with the additional tower as well as t c; Hoag is now only working with the neighbors because it wants somethi i the City, the neighbors have been asking for relief from years; the requi g asked of Hoag is that they meet the mandates of the Developm( lament; she asked that Hoag not be allowed to build a parking structure lower campus; nor should it be allowed to seek to re- assign the assign are footage into the lower campus; existing mandates must be reviewed pliance and issues between the residents and Hoag need to be address to allowing any further development; and, recommends Hoag replace 1 on the cogeneration facility. Thumher - Co- Chairman of the Villa Balboa Hoag liaison committee http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.usIP1nAgendas /mnO3202008.htm Page 8 of 19 11 -(P 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 9 of 19 ambers of the Commission and staff for the public forum that has been ver oductive to get information out into the public. The cogeneration facility wa: ver disclosed nor were the plumes. There was no supplemental EIR.repor =pared as was required by the Development Agreement. There was no visua pact analysis done for the plumes because the Planning Department anc rastal Commission did not know there were going to be plumes. There have en no public meetings or council oversight of the cogeneration facility ever )ugh it is required by the Development Agreement. There is a specific andate about what would happen to views. Residents have been told or ferent occasions that there would be no plumes, both verbally and in writing. rag should be held to their word. There is legitimate reason for the generation facility and is recognized by the neighbors. We are asking tha ery possible mitigation measure be taken to make the facility livable for the mmunity. He requested that the Planning Commission include in its vote e ;ommendation to the City Council that they address the issue of the generation facility as part of the Hoag application as it seems the only avenue get this problem fixed. en Taber of Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus, Petersen and Peckenpaug •esenting the Villa Balboa Homeowners' Association, noted she had submitte tter summarizing her remarks. She noted the cogen facility is included in th R stating that there is going to be three additional internal combustio ines to be added as a result of this overall project. Additionally, the Mitigatio iitoring plan refers to the cogeneration facility in 3.4.9 that says upon th allation of the fourth cooling tower at the cogen facility. The analysis in th ly report by Fluor has not been analyzed and not circulated with th endices. The noise mitigation has been qualified with unreasonable restrains h as the narrow scope of units, an imposition of $100,000 as a limit with n assment as to what the real costs will be, residents are being given tw iks to notify Hoag they want this mitigation. You have heard from th dents that they are not opposed to the project, what they are asking for is the CEQA law be complied with and Hoag Hospital be a good neighbor. comment was closed. nmissioner Eaton noted the benefit and value of Hoag Hospital to the nmunity. There will be a third major tower on the upper campus due to transfe square footage. It is important that the regulations in the Developmen eement be adhered. He concluded that we should recommend to the Citl .rncil that some provision be made in the Development Agreement for some gation of the plumes from the cogeneration facility that were not mitigated. r SEIR has been analyzed by members of the association and responses tc iments have been made and included in the record. The noise level of 55 dE not be achieved without the soundwall. The original request to increase the IB to 58dB at night is not warranted as the 55 dB already exceeds the City'; se Ordinance. He supports the soundwall with the modifications and askec t Hoag consider working with the residents to look at the very restrictive asures such as the timing and the monetary limit. More work needs to be is on the tasks contained in the Fluor report as the recommendations were i they couldn't make recommendations particularly on the exhaust system. should also recommend to Council that they deal with both plumes in the relopment Agreement. McDaniel asked about the location and extension of 11.7 http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn03202008.htrn 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Greve answered the higher the soundwall, the more noise mitigation The 181/2 foot height is needed to protect the first floor of the 260 Cag ing from loading dock noise. Where it was proposed to stop was all that ad to protect the 260 building from the loading dock. Continuing dwell further would reduce traffic noise on Hoag Road and at 14 feet wi de protection from truck noise. He sees no reason from an acous pective to go to 18 1/2 feet high. The extension of the wall is valid as ants on the end of the 260 building would still be exposed to some n the roadway if it stopped at the end end of the building. However, to go I to the tennis courts may be a bit excessive. Referencing an exhibit in EIR, he noted the distance would be approximately 150 feet from the n of the building to the tennis courts. nmissioner McDaniel noted the issue of the balcony barriers iers prerogative. The issue of the foliage, what size tree ace any foliage that is disturbed during the process? He al lighting. is an ind will be u so asked I. Rabin noted some trees will be affected by the new wall; however, there isting large trees beyond Hoag property adjacent to the 260 building that nain. We have not analyzed the specific condition of that area because ggestion for extending the wall came up very recently. We intend to keep dl as close to West Hoag Road as possible; and, we will plan to keep as m the existing trees as possible while mitigating the sound. We plan to use d 60" boxed trees to provide a more natural appearance on what is to irry Brooks with Hoag, answered that the lights in the lower campus are be anged to high pressure sodium, which is a lower light level and will prop ire of a quieter glow. We are adding awnings to mask the lights on the c re center. These lights will be shut off around 8:45 p.m. by a timer and go 5:30 a.m. ff added that all the lights on the child care center are required to be shield stated in the Planned Community text. There is a photometric study for tl king lot lighting. There will be a security key for the light on the service road cogeneration facility, so it will only be on when it is needed. The revis ding plans to change the lights will be reviewed using this photometric study. nmissioner Toerge asked about the number of units that are to be improved uce noise. What about the dollar amount, can this be changed? Campbell answered it is twelve units. The initial estimate of $100,000 sd on a different scope of work without some added features and a lai fiber of units and the number is probably not a good number. However, looking at other solutions that may provide better noise reductions where upgrades might not be necessary thereby reducing costs and as we e information we might make adjustments to the measure. ssioner Toerge added that there should be no dollar limitation. is that the work has to be done regardless of the cost. The City has led the annual review and this has caused problems for the residents http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn03202008.htm Page 10 of 19 11.0 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 11 of 19 Id have gone a long way to deal with the lighting, cogeneration facility, anc isity issues. The current approval only allows Hoag to move already 'oved square footage to an upper campus. The City Council will deal with the elopment Agreement. He supports the extension of the wall and notec ing concerns need to be addressed, concern about the cogeneration facility that he supports the reallocation of the square footage. ommissioner Hillgren noted this is a reallocation of square footage to the uF impus and his belief that it is appropriate. He is hopes for a resolution of umes, lighting and landscaping. rtion was made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner otter to adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council certify the pplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH #1991071003) and adop :neral Plan Amendment No. 2007 -005, Planned Community Development Plar iendment No. 2007 -001, and Development Agreement Amendment No. 2007 1 with the following changes: . the $100,000 limitation on the physical improvements in PDF 3.4 -1 removed, the work needs to be done regardless of the costs involved; . a relaxation on the timing of the residents to accept the proposed measures such as the balcony and window replacements; . include a recommendation that the City Council consider whatever feasible on the cogeneration facility to deal with the plume issue; . the soundwall to be extended to the end of the 260 Cagney building al that it be extended further north toward the tennis courts based upon determination that it would be of benefit. imissioner Toerge noted that as part of the annual review of the Developm iement the cogeneration plan needs to be considered for plume mitigat sures and the feasibility. On the timing issue of two weeks, that is to s' weeks after the Council approves this project which could be a month from tonight. The residents need to get on .board now and create a list. McKitterick noted: . $100,000 was actually $8,000 a unit and based on prior scope of work. suggested that the amount be determined with a bid by the City and H to be reconciled as the cap. He accepted a timing of 30 days notice to be coordinated by association on acceptance of the mitigation measure on windows balconies. He would like to see a benefit to extending the wall further than the feet and is concerned with the adjacent property of Versailles. He ac to an extension but would like to see a benefit opinion. IChairman Hawkins suggested Mestre Greve give an opinion on the benefit of the Isoundwall extension to be agreed to by Hoag. q http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn03202008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 12 of 19 Greve added that he could look at a reasonable extension that would efit to the residences at the and without protecting the tennis courts. Hillgren agreed. nissioner Peotter clarified the proposed amendment is to change the to 45 days and change the $100,000 amount to be determined by i Hawkins added with the input of the applicant. Lepo asked for clarification on City estimate. Who is going to do this? id his preference would be that Hoag obtain the estimates. )mmissioner McDaniel suggested Hoag get the estimates and consult with be sure that everything will work. A sioner Peotter noted we will change this to an estimate by Hoag with ( The wall is to be extended 105 feet with an additional extension to ed by Mestre Greve. )ner Eaton clarified that it was the intent of the motion to include to the mitigation monitoring program and the resolution certifying Hillgren agreed. straw vote was taken on the proposed amendments to the motion - unanimous. Peotter noted additional items to be included in the motion: . Hours of operation - deliveries shall not be allowed before 7:00 a.m. after 8:00 p.m. daily. . Discussed adding the term of life critical as there is another dock that available. McKitterick noted that the loading dock is the central space for deliveries licine or certain needs. The current dock is not used very often at night and is a major accident or disaster. Adding the term life makes it ambiguous. Hawkins asked what is non - critical for Hoag. McKitterick answered scheduled deliveries not after 8 p.m. and not before Everything that is a standard delivery for the hospital. Critical would be rer of medicine or medical supplies. ra Legan of Hoag Hospital stated that within the last six months they have r ned the loading dock gate after 8:00 p.m. What Hoag would like to have opportunity, if there is a need for supplies during an emergency, to bd e in through the loading dock if needed after 8 p.m. I I.iv http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/nm03202008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 nmissioner McDaniel stated this should not be an issue. If the hospital has a cal need for these supplies for an emergency, they should be allowed to open loading dock gate at any time. ier Peotter stated he is satisfied with the spirit of the intent. He the definition of mechanical occupancies not being counted for as area. Campbell answered that this definition in this PC text is not a typical provision is tailored for Hoag Hospital. The definition was changes when the Women's Ilion was permitted as there is an entire floor that is not occupied. The )osed PC text change does not significantly alter definition from what was roved in 2002 by the City Council. iirman Hawkins noted his disagreement as there is a numerical limitation in old language. This section could be used to build a whole new cogeneration ity and not go against the floor area ratio. ngston Trigg, Vice President of Hoag, noted this definition is directed towards interstitial space in the tower such as the Woman's Pavilion. Typically, a lot those spaces are less than 8 feet tall, but ours are taller than 8 feet so we inted this language in so that we could exempt the interstitial space. continued on changing the language to '....area of a building or which are not for general or routine occupancy and interstitial or wl occupancies. Trigg agreed. He added that they have space that is taller than 8 feet that is ling but equipment in existing buildings and there is likely to be additional ces in the future similar to them. Campbell noted this is a concern as it could be interpreted incorrectly. He :d his concern about eliminating the 8 feet in that existing building areas that presently counted toward entitlement could be exempted from the new iition and would not be counted and this is not the intent of the change and immended that no change be made to the language. As an alternative, you d include a provision that this new definition would only apply to new struction so it would not be applicable to anything that is existing. Trigg noted the 8 foot height limit was set up when the equipment was very III in buildings; however, we now deal with 2,000 square feet of area to handle much larger equipment. I. Campbell noted the definition with 8 feet was modified in 2002 and it was ated to the Woman's Pavilion. He suggested not to apply this newer language existing buildings. Trigg agreed to language that would not allow retroactive application. imissioner Peotter noted he is trying to make this consistent with the existing e. An eight -foot interstitial space in the middle of a floor is like a large ceiling i. If not, that space is 20 feet tall and it is not a penthouse, typically you count as floor area. http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /PinAgendas/mnO3202008.htm Page 13 of 19 li'.I1 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 14 of 19 Trigg added that the industry standard would include closets, mechan :es, interstitial spaces, penthouses and basement kinds of spaces that spied exclusively by equipment. They should not be counted as floor area. s. Legan suggested that the exception from floor area for interstitial s Auld apply only to "medical buildings." Lepo noted that after 8 feet you are going to have to count it. If it is going more like 20 feet interstitial space. I understand the need to try )mmodate everyone, but this is not wise. He suggested to revert back to t inal language with no changes. missioner Hillgren noted this is just the concept of where they are pl mechanical equipment, it is not increasing the EIR load. i Hawkins noted that as proposed, this could be used to estab ! cogeneration facility on the lower campus to be entirely devoted :al equipment with no size limitation. I don't see that is Hoag's intent. Peotter noted this affects the mass of the building. an Hawkins asked if the height envelope included mechar nances or equipment. Mr. Campbell answered, yes; nothing could the established building height limitations as defined in the Plan mity regulations. vote taken regarding the interstitial space exception for floor area: Commissioner Hillgren suggested adding the concept of "medical" buildings to the definition. Commissioner Toerge suggested going with staffs recommendation to stay with the old language. Commissioner McDaniel answered it is a hospital and needs what it needs. As long as the height level or floor area does not change he agrees with the proposed language. Commissioner Cole agrees with staff recommendation. Commissioner Peotter agrees with staff recommendation. Commissioner Eaton agreed with the "medical" limitation. Chairman Hawkins noted he would go with staffs recommendation but would make it 10 feet rather than 8 feet. the Commissioners agreed with staffs recommendation with a change from t to 10 feet. I. Trigg noted the reality is that they have equipment now that is In spaces up -20 feet tall. 11.12 http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.usIP1nAgendas /mn03202008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 15 of 19 Hawkins noted City Council can look at Mr. Trigg's concern. airman Hawkins suggested that the PC regulations for permitted arding power generation as a support facility be limited to to existing buil Ir. McKitterick asked not to add this as the hospital has been here for ma ears and will be for many more to come. Future development will have to be is lower campus as it relates to support services that may include down the ro nother central plant of some type, There is no plan now, but it could be in 5 0 years. He stated that if we don't have the use we would have to come back mend the use permit simply to build it. rirman Hawkins asked what sort of environmental review would go forward have the square footage and the permitted use? It seems you could avc environmental review for another facility . McKltterick answered that Section 3.3 of the Development Agreer Besse subsequent CEQA analysis. We don't want to be penalized. ested that the Chairman's suggested modification not be placed in ort services. irman Hawkins noted there could be a paragraph in the planned as well for a cross - reference. Campbell suggested putting some language into Section 4 or Section 5 of It text related to Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement would work and ild be applicable to any subsequent approval. r. Harp read Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement, "Hoag acknowled at the EIR is a program EIR that includes Supplemental Environmental Imp eport #142. The EIR analyzes the impacts of construction based over time o arsuant to CEQA the City is under a continuing obligation to analyze Ho, iquest for project specific approvals to insure the environmental imps ssociated with the request are fully addressed in the EIR. Subsequ 7vironmental documentation is required if this analysis reveals environmei ipacts not fully addressed in the program EIR, identifies new impacts, includes the specific request is not consistent with the project described in IR. Hoag acknowledges the right and obligation of the City and the Coe ommission or its successor agency to impose additional conditions as a re the subsequent environmental analysis required by CEQA." McKitterick noted his agreement to include this as a separate paragraph development regulations near the end of that section. 'man Hawkins clarified that there was no support to limiting pow ration to existing buildings. With the changes discussed earlier in t utions for typos and insertion of the earlier EIR reports into the recitals ai insertion of Mitigation Monitoring Program in the resolution on the El J if there were any other items. )mmissioner Peotter re- stated the motion to adopt resolutions recomm y Council certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 9910710031 and adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2007 -005, PI )mmunity Development Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001, and Develc 1(.13 http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn03202008.htrn 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 16 of 19 Amendment No. 2007 -001 with the following changes: . Staff recommendations including the hand out (PDF 3.4 -1 as amended); . the $100,000 limitation on the physical improvements is removed and be based on estimates secured by Hoag subject to City review; . a relaxation on the timing of the residents to accept the proposed mitigati measures such as the balcony and window replacement from 14 days 45 days; . hours of operation - deliveries shall not be allowed before 7:00 a.m. or 8:00 p.m. daily; . the soundwall to be extended at least 105 feet north to building 260 and additional amount as determined by Mestre Greve if necessary; . revert back to the original language regarding mechanical interstitial with the change of 8 feet to 10 feet; • insert paragraph 3.3 of the proposed Development Agreement as part o Section V of the PC text; • fix typographical errors in resolutions; • insert the earlier 1992 EIR in the recitals of that resolution; • insert a reference to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan into the CE resolution; . insert the changes to the Table 2 changing the citation for the parking handwritten page 51. . McKitterick noted the 10 -foot limit in the definition of floor area is a we can address this at the City Council hearing. and None None Council include Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter to recommend to City Council in plume abatement =ir annual review of the Development Agreement for Hoag that they consider during their ime abatement and recommends Option Number 3A and the City Council be deliberation of ovided with more accurate cost data before they make their decision. amending the Development Harp clarified if this was part of the annual review or as part of their Agreement nsideration of the amendment to the Development Agreement? ommissioner Peotter answered we had talked about it being part of their annual review but would change it to be part of the consideration of the recommendatio o amend the Development Agreement. II.I� http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.usIP1nAgendas /mn03202008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/20/2008 Page 17 of 19 Eaton seconded the Motion. imissioner Toerge noted so long as it doesn't limit it to just Option 3, th uld be able to consider the whole report and do what they want to do. He prepared to judge which option is best. nmissioner Peotter clarified that option was a synopsis of a 50% review and the 2 -5 million dollar range as far as the estimate at this point. I ommended this as specific adding the Council needs better cost data. iissioner McDaniel noted he does not support the motion. This issue up at the Council anyway. mmissioner Hillgren noted he does not support this as there is no way to with any quantitative estimate based upon what we've heard. airman Hawkins suggested an amendment to the motion that the City Jude with their discussions and decisions to amend the DevE reement some sort of effective plume abatement. Peotter agreed to the amend the motion based upon the dialogue. ; sioner Peotter then modified the Motion such that the sion recommends that the City Council consider implementing abatement for the Hoag cogeneration facility during the ration of the amendment of the Development Agreement. sioner McDaniel noted his belief that we are recommending that the study this further. Hawkins indicated yes. Commissioner Eaton indicated his understanding of the motion goes beyond recommending further study in that we are recommending that effective mitigation be implemented. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, and Toerge Noes: McDaniel and Hillgren JECT: Seashore Village (PA2007 -100) ITEM NO. 6 44 5515 River Ave PA2007 -100 Permit for buil i ht exemption; Modification Permit for setbacks and Continued to ng separation; Tentative Map established for condominium purposes; 04/03/2008 tal Residential Development Pla mpliance with CA Government Cod on 65590 and Chapter 20.86 of the unicipal Code; and Mitigated itive Declaration (MND). Lepo noted that staff had just received a lengthy set of commZLVR6n D for this project. We had agreed to accommodate the applicant to place i on this agenda with the proviso that if comments were received and staff have time to respond to it, we would have to continue this item. Staff has the opportunity to review these comments and so requests this item 11.15 http: / /www. city.newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn03202008.htm 04/08/2008