Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 6 - Exhibit 6 - 1-31-08 Planning Commission MinutesExhibit No. 6 Excerpt of minutes from Planning Commission meeting dated January 31, 2008 4. t THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY BLANK &.#2% Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes January 31, 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 15 6.3 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PhiAgendas/nm01312008.htm 04/08/2008 INDEX R CALL om loners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter and McDaniel ommis er Toerge was excused, all others were present. TAFF PRES David Lepo, Plannin irector Aaron Harp, Assistant Attorney Tony Brine, , Transportatio evelopment Services Manager Jim Campbell, Senior Planne Jamie Murillo, Associate PlannX Ginger Varin, Planning Commary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on January 25, 8. HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of January 17, 2008. ITEM NO.1 Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner proved ole to approve the minutes as corrected. yes: I Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren NOW INone Excused: I Toerge OBJECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2007 -073) ITEM NO. 2 One Hoag Drive PA2007 -073 request to reallocate up to 225,000 gross square feet of permitted buildable area Continued to from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus through the approval of the 02/07/2008 proposed General Plan and Planned Community Development Plan Amendments. pplicant also requests approval of amendments to development regulations ordained within the existing Planned Community Development Plan, and reflecting Hoag's Master Plan. Lastly, applicant requests an amendment of the misting Development Agreement to reflect the changes as summarized above and o provide additional public benefits principally in the form of providing funds fo 6.3 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PhiAgendas/nm01312008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 cements and community projects such as streets, parks, water quality safety facilities. item was heard second. Planner James Campbell gave an overview of the staff report. He r ntatives from Bonterra Consulting, Mestre Greve and Linscott Law pan were available to answer questions. iry McKitterick, representing Hoag Hospital, gave an historical background )ag, locations, current programs, national recognition and long -range plans. ecified that there is no request for new density, but they are shifting the den: meet the need for increased in- patient critical care. McDermott of Government Solutions representing Hoag gave a station noting: . Aerial site with entrance locations and newer facility buildings; . A General Plan Amendment is necessary to allow the increase in maximum allowable gross square feet of development on the Hoag U Campus with a corresponding decrease in the Lower Campus; . The Planned Community Development Plan provides for the del standards allowing the Master Plan to be evaluated and assessed; . The Coastal Commission has review authority for the Lower Campus well; . The Development Agreement is being amended in negotiations with the Council; . A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report with responses to has been made available to the public; . Square footage transfer of up to 225,000 square feet while maintaining current entitlement of the maximum square footage will not exceed currently approved 1,343,000 square feet; . Upper Campus has 698,000 square feet of building area with a rema entitlement of 67,000 square feet; the Lower Campus has 188,000 sq feet existing and 389,000 square feet of remaining entitlement; the trai would be 225,000 square feet; . There are height limits and development requirements associated with buildings, landscaping, mechanical equipment, etc.; . If all the square footage was transferred, the Upper Campus would have allowable 765,000 square feet and the Lower Campus would have 577,( square feet and will not exceed the 1,343,000 square feet; . There are additional minor revisions of definition, clarifications, Page 2 of 15 (W .y http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PinAgendas/mn01312008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 references to completed activities, modified building areas and statistic analysis; new exhibits are. provided; the sign program has been updat along with the landscaping regulations including increases in landscal requirements; and, we have asked to amend the noise standards in order address the issues raised in the response to comments; The Development Agreement provides for a benefit of a $3,000,000 development fee, which will pay for public improvements in the vicinity o Hoag and elsewhere in the City; . The Master Plan is permitted by the General Plan; . She then requested to present a brief video regarding Hoag and its stating it is essential to the presentation. missioner Eaton asked for the reasoning for the 225,000 square -feet shift the internal plans are for projects and future plans. McDermott described the thought and planning process that Hoag performs. then described what the board's responsibilities are when considering ilopment; there is a multiple review procedure including a traffic review fo i building increment to evaluate access into and internal circulation; othe s of details will include landscape, setback and height requirements. State icies will also have their reviews as will the Coastal Commission. Based on, Is assessment she noted they need more than the remaining 67,000 square on the Upper Campus. iairman Hawkins noted his concern that the Cogan plant was not a part of proval and moving the overall square footage of 225,000 square foot entitlen the Upper Campus with no guidelines or local review. He asked if this pro II take out one of those levels of review because it is moving square footage the coastal zone up onto the bluff and, therefore, there will be no Coastal re% these buildings proposing to be built. McDermott answered there will not be Coastal review of the 225,000 squi removed from the Lower Campus but still would require Coastal review hing built on the Lower Campus. Campbell noted the following requested information: . Cogan Plant - Approval in Concept was issued in September 2002; approval was a transmittal to the Coastal Commission with determination that no discretionary approvals were required; the project filed by Hoag at the Coastal Commission that was approved at a later d the discretionary approval was the original Master Plan approval in 1992; . Structure of the Planned Community text does not provide for future hearings on these buildings that come forward; it does provide for a of traffic impacts for each major phase that comes through and is a i public hearing for the Planning Commission; . Section X of the Planned Community text is only invoked when facilities planned that don't comply with the setback standards; provided H Page 3 of 15 `•s http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /PlaAgendas/mn01312008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 Page 4 of 15 designs facilities that are consistent with the Planned Community text site plan review process is never invoked; the setback along Coast High' has a provision where a building has to be set back further depending u its size; staff reviewed this at the time the cogen came forward determined it complied with this provision as well as the horizontal vertical articulation standards; • There was an evaluation of view and it was found to be in compliance; analysis was conducted by staff at the time the Approval in Concept issued; • Air Quality Management does review cogen permits, that review conducted and that is what one of the mitigation measure required; facility was issued an Approval in Concept and subsequently a buil permit; . Staff reviewed the AQMD analysis and it was concluded there would be environmental impacts; . The roof of the facility with mechanical equipment was reviewed by staff a the time of the Approval in Concept and the building permit, and staff was aware of the louvered equipment for screening purposes; the architecture continuity with the front of the facility were well tied -in and, therefore, me the provision of the PC text given the nature of the facility; there will be additional exhaust vents when the additional engines come on line and the) will be reviewed and approved by AQMD; . Daytime noise is primarily related to the loading dock as well as equipment; Greve of Mestre Greve Associates, noise consultant for the EIR added: . The current noise level at the Villa Balboa residences is 58 dBA, so it is about 3dBA higher; that equipment could be baffled and noise reduced; currently, Hoag is re- designing some of that equipment and the fans on the ancillary buildings are being replaced; in looking at the preliminary plans, we are confident that they can hit a 55dBA target for the mechanical equipment; . There will also need to be some sound louvers and equipment removed the west tower and Hoag has indicated that is in process as well; . The applicant is asking for the higher dBA for the loading operations; don't bring trucks in at night, but they do some material handling on loading dock; . Balcony barriers were assessed and they could bring the noise level doi to about 52dBA; the noise level for the existing equipment would not be n at the property line but it would bring it down at the balcony; the impedime is that Hoag does not have control of that mitigation measure; they cot offer it to the residents who would have the choice; mitigation that is out the control of an applicant or the City has CEQA problems; . The City's noise standard is that the indoor noise should be measured (0-4 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlaAgendas /mn01312008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 Page 5 of 15 the windows opened; since it didn't directly address the noise ordinance, v also eliminated that because it did not address the ordinance and again was out of Hoag's control; The request to increase the daytime level of noise decibels is due to tl loading dock issue which currently at the residences is at 68 decibels; 70dBA would give a margin of safety; the noise is attributable to the trucl coming in and out; we recommended that the bailer and compacter be put an enclosed unit to help the noise situation, but that material handlii equipment operates only for a short period so the overall noise level woi go down but we were looking for anything that was feasible that would he the situation; the total noise level is not impacted by this enclosure, but does help; The Noise Ordinance standard for daytime noise is 60dBA and Hoag currently operating at 68dBA; In the Technical Study we looked at a wall along the loading dock that w calculated as a 25.5 foot -high wall that would be needed to get the not levels down below the Ordinance levels; the problem with this high a wall trying to protect third floor units from the noise being generated by the truc about 10 feet aboveground; a wall that high is not feasible built that close a residence or that close to a roadway; CalTrans does not build walls high than 16 feet along the road as it is cost - prohibitive. McDermott added: . Hoag is currently operating at 68dBA and in order to be in conformance a standard we have to be able to operate the hospital; . There is no other place for the loading dock as re- location is not feasible; . Due to the extensive operations of the hospital they ask that 70dBA be worst case so that we would have the flexibility of being consistent and : to conform to a standard; . Under construction now are roof walls, enclosures, and changes in equipment in order to get the noise level as low as possible; We would meet with the residents adjacent to the loading dock to look opportunities for a wall, where it would be placed, what it would look lil etc.; . Night -time standard should be looked at within the context of the overal noise mitigation plan that we now feel we are prepared to address with the residents and we will come back to let you know where we are on that. Campbell added: Change to the PC text regarding irrigation system proposed by Hoag is insert automatic control and irrigation systems. We could add that I controllers be either satellite based or moisture sensitive. &. http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.usIP1nAgendas /mn01312008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 . The applicant is requesting to change the parking requirements. Parking support services would be changing from 1 per 1,000 square feet to 0 F 1,000 square feet. The rationale is that the trip generation for those c contained within the parking and trip generation rates of other categories development and is accounted for in other rates. Mitigation Measure 32 requires further study and refinement of parki rates. That is done prior to the issuance of permits for another subsequ( phase of development. That process happened in 2001/2002 in advance the permits for the Women's Pavilion. A trip generation and a parking stu were done and are the basis for the rates that were identified. Hoag suggesting that we incorporate those rates into the Planned Commur text. The other rates were not changed from the 1980 Study. Hoag, during the daytime, has internal use of the Conference facility and night for external uses. There is a parking need for the external use of tt facility that will need to be studied. Different rates could be recommended. Tony Brine, at Commission inquiry, noted that depending on whether a use atient or out - patient the trip generation rates are different. A 20,000 sque building with an out - patient is based on square footage and with an in -patie it is based on beds. An out - patient use would be in the range of 300+ tri would trigger a Traffic Phasing Ordinance study. An in- patient use would Bd on the number of beds. Campbell added that there was a formula in the old General Plan for floor an )s for the Upper and Lower Campuses so it is based on the property size tim particular factor. The original Master Plan was approved in 1979 and had :h lower limit than is reflected in the 1992 approval. Campbell noted representatives of the Villa Balboa Association would iI time for an organized presentation. comment was opened. Hawkins noted everyone would have the ability to speak on this matter. ;hele Staples of Jackson/DeMarco representing the Villa Balboa Commun >ociation gave an overview of her letter submitted to the Planning Departme t was made part of the permanent administrative record. She added that is disputing that Hoag's mission is laudable and that it has done a lot of go the community. The problem is the adjoining landowners are being asked it a burden from the impacts of the operation. She continued: . The plumes are a nuisance to the homeowners; . Request to review and comment on any resulting analysis; . Request that all the environmental impacts be analyzed in the EIR; . The EIR discusses the plans to expand the cogeneration plant and cor that the plant is to provide power to the Master Plan Update operations; Page 6 of 15 o.r http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlaAgendas/mn01312008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 . The City is to make clear that subsequent environmental assessments required from here on out; . Request the opportunity to work with the City to refine the replacement program; . Hoag had committed to a full enclosure of the loading dock as noted in Planned Community Development criteria; . CEQA does not allow the City to discard mitigation measures s because they will not fully meet existing standards; it requires that they be adopted if they are feasible measure that reduce impacts; . Request the opportunity to discuss the wall that is being proposed as alternative; . The Development Agreement imposes unchangeable restrictions on location of development set forth in the Master Plan; the City is saying this restriction only applies if Hoag is asking to increase the total gross area and that it is okay to increase the maximums established by the Mi Plan for each of the Campuses; she then noted sections relating to hi and location of development; . Hoag has violated the existing Development Agreement by applying for change of building location; . Enforcement of mitigation measures and annual review imposed on Master Plan would have prevented the severity of many of the imp currently happening such as noise, lighting, trees, etc.; the Associ; residents have been greatly impacted in particular by the plumes; • The City has only acted as a result of citizens' complaint regarding operations; • Re- allocation of building square footage is not required for Hoag to meet mission; there is no information on requirements; we are asking for baler and for the City to monitor Hoag's operation and enforce mitigat measures imposed; • We request that the City conduct annual reviews and request that application be denied until Hoag demonstrates a history of compliance and commitment to the mitigation obligations it has accepted; request an amendment to the building plans established by the exi Development Agreement and Master Plan and deny the open -ei amendment proposed by Hoag. imissioner McDaniel stated that noise, building a wall and changing wind issues. In your opinion, what is a resolution? What is the issue with ;neration plant? Staples answered enclosing the loading dock. Cogeneration issues are ies that obstruct views and could be a potential health hazard, the unsic Page 7 of 15 (.9 http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlaAgendas/mn0131200g.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 Page 8 of 15 ` machinery, the generated noise that is expected to increase with additional ines, the screening and the terrible way the facility looks from the highway. Thurnher, co- chairman of Villa Balboa Hoag Liaison Committee, noted: • Hoag is a great asset to the community; • Concerned with the cogen plant and presented a PowerPoint of the site referencing the distancing to the residences, view park, number of exhaust stacks, unsightly plumes, release of steam from the roofs creating unsightly conditions, health concerns with venting exhaust, obstruction of ocean views and noise; • Hoag did not disclose the plumes as part of plant operation; • No supplemental environmental report was prepared to assess the impact of plumes and noise to develop mitigation measures; • The Development Agreement mitigation measure 48 requires a view impact analysis be prepared for each building on the lower campus; • The Development Agreement mitigation measure 41 requires the applicant demonstrate buildings on the lower campus will be in compliance with sounc regulations; there seems to be no documentation; • No City Council oversight and no public hearings on this construction; • The Development Agreement has not been reviewed on an annual basis ae required; • There is technology available to address these issues; • In the bid documents there was plume abatement equipment listed; however, the equipment was removed before the final plant design was met; • The Association has hired engineers to look at the exhaust vents and noise issues. nmissioner McDaniel noted the main concerns are the plume and the noise. I noise can be reduced and the plume dealt with, those are your primary issues. Turner answered "yes ", to the maximum extent possible. e following residents noted their opposition to the application for similar health concerns, noise and oversight of Development Agreement: Kaiser asked if more will be added to the Lower Campus after they this square footage to the Upper Campus? There is an electric ing from the Lower Campus. Stameson concerned with landscaping, lighting on the Lower Campus ;ion issues. Neppell - there has been no review process and we need to work together =.ss both Hoag and community needs. Lombardi of Newport Crest. er Asked noted air quality concerns; structural integrity of buildings nearby as some of the walkways may be compromised; quality of life has degrac personal health problems. Quirk, her unit is directly above the cogen plant and she is very 4.10 http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlaAgendas/nm01312008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 potential health risks. Hoag, at a joint meeting with Villa Balboa resides d that within a couple of months, Fall of 2005, there would no longer sions seen from the plumes and that there was nothing to fear. TI ved a letter from Hoag dated August 30th, 2005 a week after national meeting. Residents feel they have been misled by Hoag during ing of this plant. Noted that they are concerned with any multi -level parts lures built on the Lower Campus and particularly with any top lighting. mission inquiry, she presented a copy of the letter. icy Knight, adding a 25 -foot high sound wall would be unsightly as it would breezes and sunlight; enclosing loading docks would reduce noise; there gation measures to address these issues and should be required by the ore granting their request. Quirk noted quality of life, parking and light issues. Sherman noted Hoag had said that there would be no view blockage and cogen plant would only be two stories. The plant blocks views and is 67 sn Miles spoke on behalf of Friends of Sunset View Park noting vesting ril use rights, responsibilities, annual review of the Development Agreement w of CEQA baseline analysis. Jrea Ells indicated the plant is an eyesore; watch and review what the plans the Lower Campus. ly Johnson cited noise and landscape issues with the new child care c( ch has the capacity of 2.5 times the number of children; is this child care employees? This new location of the child care center without landscaping Be from the children will diminish the life quality of nearby residents. esa Colunga asked what is going to be done with the traffic light at Place Hospital Road if there is new development allowed on the Upper Campus; c has gotten worse and something needs to be done such as a left -turn no yield. Ross Ribaudo noted that his quality of life due to noise has been grea mpacted. This is a hospital that is asking for more noise to be emitted from thi )wn facilities and being a hospital that request seems to be a conflict. The cog )lant emissions from the diesel engines is a concern. Reports from the AQMD a )recise on what the amount of emissions and pollutants identified as canc ; auking are for three engines. There are going to be three more so the emissio vill be doubled. Are there recent studies to ensure that we are safe from what )eing emitted from that power generating plan? Right now there is no parkii available and if this building is allowed on the Upper Campus, where will there I additional parking? z Karns concerned with the aesthetics and plumes discharge. When got too big, they moved elsewhere. Hoag has other facilities elsewh they can put some of their activities at another location. d Runon, co -chair of the Liaison Committee, asked that Hoag look at aesthetic issue. They have reviewed all documents in the files and t Page 9 of 15 /r -1/ http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PinAgendas /Mn0l312008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 Page 10 of 15 no evidence that Hoag disclosed the plumes. The cogen plant has 'ance of a factory and is near three parks; the community deserves a N 1 facility. He asked that the cogen plant be retrofitted with plume abatem semary Steinbrecker noted the property on Coast Highway was allowed by iastal Commission to be zoned for a hospital. The properly was taken off ( rolls because it is now owned by a non - profit organization. If they are alto, transfer the entitlement to the Upper Campus, will that Lower Campus get that land back? She then asked about the bond issues for Hoag. Chen indicated there will be quite an impact on parking if the entitlement to the Upper Campus. Traffic will be an issue going onto Newport Blvd. in support of the application: lyer, MD, noted the need is for critical care patients and asked that this d Luehrs, President and Chief Executive of the Chamber of Comm the economic well -being brought to the City through Hoag Hospital. at hand is moving entitlement from the Lower Campus to the U1 is. There are negative impacts from a facility as large as Hoag. al industry is impacted through technology and community needs the most amount of flexibility. The cost of the mitigated measures s. This application needs to go forward. lic comment was closed. )mmissioner McDaniel asked when the cogen plant was constructed. Staff iswered it was approved in 2002 and construction - commenced late 2003. short recess was taken. r. McKitterick, noted: • Need and plan for square footage on the Upper Campus - critical care aspect of the Upper Campus has a Master Plan that is continually updated; evaluation of the need of the community is critical care in the future; the plans for this project need board approval and financing; the plan for the tower will replace the 1952 building that will serve as the footprint; the building will be approximately 280,000 - 300,000 square -feet; cost escalation and timing are major concerns; • The building has not been approved yet because it is a variable process; we plan to build critical care if this application is approved in that location; • The timeframe for delivery is extensive; medical technology is viable only about 18 months; there is a community benefit when we do something; however the current financial markets will impact what we do; • The cogen plant is a permitted facility; • We have had public meetings to discuss this facility. Commission inquiry, Mr. McKitterick noted the south tower could be larger existing tower and to the extent there is traffic, there will be a traffic an. Fiew. We will follow the terms of the Development Agreement. G•% http: / /www. city.newport- beach .ca.us /PlaAgendas /mn01312008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 rl McDermott added that the Planned Community Text currently calls :w by staff to ensure that the application meets all the criteria and mitigai sures and would not require review by the Planning Commission. Th -encing an exhibit, noted the existing and proposed landscaping planned Lower Campus locations, types, trimming and planting timing. She no re new utilities will be placed and screening. She then noted that thi ovements have to be approved by the Coastal Commission. There scaping around the child care center and the play area has the slope with ned landscaping that will soften the area; using 24" box size trees and shn are 5 gallon size throughout the area. nuing, Ms. McDermott added that the noise is occurring around the loa and they are attempting to meet with the community to look at a wall sed windows and how best to combine the noise attenuation. ioner McDaniel noted that the testimony tonight on the cogen etc. I understand it is permitted. Is there something that i s. McDermott answered that it is important that your legal counsel advise you. e went through the process that we were requested to do, it was fully permitted was reviewed by the Coastal Commission and whether any of us like the ocess that was used, the process in place was followed exactly. The facility noy fully permitted and operating. We will address those concerns we can, but alse aintain that there are some things we regretfully have to disagree on. Peotter asked about the mitigation measures for the steam plumes. Lepo stated that the City has retained Fluor Corporation to provide pendent review of possible mitigation measures. We will come back to emission with an update. He discussed the concerns of the noise with icant and will bring that information back to the Commission. The 1 Ling will be a workshop with Hoag, City and residents in the room preset all this information at the same time. Hawkins noted his concern of moving this item forward. He asked be some advance review. McDermott stated that Hoag has hired engineers to look at the issue c ies. The Association has hired there own engineer; and the City has i a firm to oversee what has been done and determine if there are lestions that might work. Their surveys had shown dollar ranges it unt of 2.5 million for an installation that would be uncertain or .tiveness, down -time and the permitting process. Commission inquiry Ms. McDermott added: Elements removed from the original documents did not address the that we believe the community felt that it did; we would rather not c that in detail but I think there was some misimpression of what was re from those documents; The new noise test conducted determined that the noise at the rest units showed we would be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance; not meet the property line level, but it does meet the standard at the I Page 11 of 15 G. /3 http: / /www. city. newport- beach .ca.us /PlaAgendas/mn01312008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 there are no noise standards for parks or open space; The responses to comments were reviewed with the members of the Balboa Association at a meeting on January 18th. Commission inquiry Eric Thurnher noted: The landscape presentation made by Hoag represented an improvement. The planting is not all in place yet but once they are will be a majo improvement. There were a lot more trees represented to be placed in thi parking lot and the terminology was there would be a canopy of trees. When the landscaping was put in the parking lot, a lot of the islands tha contain this landscaping were not there. We were subsequently told the, will be moving a lot of equipment as they work on the Upper Campus ani that at some point in the future they will be planted as originally planned. The lighting that is in place is so bright and with the intervention by the City they have been turned off. When the new lighting goes in it is to be ai improvement. There are not to be any unshielded lights on the Lowe Campus and even today there are some on the buildings that an unshielded and this needs to be addressed as well. imissioner Cole inquired about the reference of a $3,000,000 development how it was arrived at the use. Harp noted it is an item that is being negotiated with City Council mem i Hoag. As part of the Development Agreement additional public benefits attached to the project. The amount has been agreed to by Hoag. nmissioner Eaton asked about the feasibility of sound attenuation of dock area. Was a study ever done? Campbell noted that provision is in a paragraph that talks about that sty ig done after what was known as the Critical Care surgery additi struction. That was a project anticipated in the early '90s which would ha a building between the west tower and Villa Balboa. It was hoped that buildi ild provide some sound attenuation from the loading dock. Once that would e we would then re- assess the noise at that future time and look at the furtl sibility of enclosing the loading dock. That has not been done because I ical Care surgery addition has never been constructed. The intent of tl vision was to re- evaluate the loading dock at some time. This was looked ng the analysis of the EIR and it was concluded to be not feasible. We will Iress this issue in the coming time. He then noted the reference to the Criti e surgery could be removed. Harp noted that there are a lot of items subject to the on -going discuss it the Development Agreement related to noise and these are items are ly for discussion tonight. iairman Hawkins noted his concern that there is something that could be plat the Development Agreement to address the concerns relayed by tonigt eakers. The loading dock could be reconfigured within the new designs tigate many of these impacts. He would not support the proposal in the gulations to exempt motor vehicles/trucks noise in that loading dock area as t very close to residences and we need to do something there. Page 12 of 15 L. !j� http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.usIPInAgendas /nm0l312008.htm 04/08/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/31/2008 Page 13 of 15 ;sioner Eaton added it seems unreasonable to ask for an increase in e noise as it is related primarily to the mechanical equipment and it that 55dB could be achieved with the proposed mitigation. He would the increase. imissioner Hillgren noted that if we do not approve anything, Hoag car inue to operate as is and build the square footage they have entitled. The ement of the square footage to the Upper Campus is generally a good thing. opportunity to generate some additional benefits in terms of soun( Ovation, better landscaping and some improvements as it relates to the plume! real benefit. He encourages the neighbors and Hoag to work towards that. iissioner McDaniel added the neighbors are complaining about the there is a problem and Hoag must listen to them. Lepo gave an overview of what staff intends to do and the means entation for the next meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Hill ren to continue this item to February 7, 2008. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Absent: Toerge BJECT: Arches Grill (PA 2007 -146) 11 cm rIV. o 508 29th Street I PA2007 -146 reque r an amendment of Use Permit No. 3611 to permit an existing full Approved :Nice, low- nover eating and drinking establishment to: 1) expand their hour ' operation to ude lunch service; 2) increase the number of special event - rmitted per year 8 events to 12 events; and 3) reconfigure the dining area, id authorize use of a eviously unapproved bar area. The property is located in e Retail and Service C ercial (RSC) land use designation of the Cannery illage/McFadden Square ific Plan District (SP-6). Commissioner Hawkins )ted that due to a financial con ' , he was recusing himself from deliberation on is item. its item was heard first. ssociate Planner Jaime Murillo gave an overvi of the staff report. He then stributed a revised floor plan and revised condi s of approval as it was scovered that the size of a booth and two tables wer ' correctly illustrated on e plans previously distributed. The revised plans maintain a same seat count s previously proposed and the applicant will use the foyer as a iting area only. ondition 3 reflects the date of the revised site plan; Condition efers to the oastal Development Permit possible denial and the hours of operatio . Lepo added staff does not believe that this adds to the intensification Coastal Commission staff had been contacted and were und( refore, staff recommends that the applicant appear at the Coastal Comn a determination. nissioner McDaniel, noting the change in special events from 8 to 12, a special event was. L.15� http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlaAgendas/mnOl3l2OO8.htin 04/08/2008