Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutsr_pc_20080131_pa2007-073Newport Beach Planning Department Memo To: Planning Commission From: James Campbell, Senior Plannep& G'V"n Date: January 25, 2008 11 Re: Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment (PA 2007-073) On January 18, 2008, Mayor Selich, Councilmember Rosansky and staff met with representatives of Hoag Hospital and resident of the adjacent community of Villa Balboa to discuss unresolved issues that are summarized in the attached staff report. Modifications of the draft Development Agreement Amendment and Planned Community Development Plan (PC Text) could result. Additionally, the precise language of several provisions of the Development Agreement Amendment are still under discussion. The PC Text may be revised relative to landscaping and screening improvements outlined in the staff report. Hoag has committed to landscaping enhancements but a method to ensure completion of improvements has not been established. Noise mitigation continues to be an issue. Hoag has agreed to implement a window replacement program for certain Villa Balboa units. Although a proposed "project design feature" (page 3-17 of SEIR Volume III), the program may be modified to include more units based upon a recommendation by the noise consultant. What remains to be finalized is the precise language of the condition and how it will be incorporated within project approvals to ensure enforcement. Discussions of other potential noise mitigation including a sound wall or partial enclosure of the loading dock are continuing. At the public hearing on January 31st, major components of the application will be presented. The Supplemental EIR and the Responses to Comments will also be considered and testimony from nearby residents and the general public taken with the hearing to be continued to February 7th. Staff will provide a progress report at the hearing. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 31, 2008 Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update (PA2007-073) One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California • Certification of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report • General Plan Amendment No. 2007-005 ▪ Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2007-001 • Development Agreement Amendment No. 2007-001 APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian CONTACT: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644-3210 jcampbelWcity.newport-beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to implement the proposed project: 1. Certification of the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 1991071003). The Master Plan Update Project requires the acceptance of the environmental document as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and City CEQA Guidelines, as well as certification that the information contained in the Final SEIR was considered in the final decisions on the project. 2. General Plan Amendment No. 2007-005 to allow an increase in the maximum allowable gross square feet of development on the Hoag Upper Campus with a corresponding decrease in allowable gross square feet on the Lower Campus. No change in the General Plan Land Use designation for Hoag is required. 3. Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2007-001 (PC text) to modify the existing planned community development criteria and district regulations. Noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise noted. 4. Development Agreement No. 2007-001 to amend the existing Development Agreement between Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Hoag) and the City of Newport Beach (City) that would vest development rights and establish a public benefit contribution to the City. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Continue consideration to February 7, 2008. INTRODUCTION In response to the ever changing health care industry and the needs of the community, Hoag Hospital is requesting project approval in order to provide greater flexibility to meet those demands. The development of Hoag Hospital is regulated by the General Plan that establishes a separate limit on development within the Hoag Upper and Lower Campuses; a Planned Community Development Plan that provides specific development criteria; and a Development Agreement that gives Hoag the right to develop and expand the hospital provided it complies with applicable restrictions. The Planned Community Development Plan (PC text) and the Development Agreement were adopted by the City in the early 1990s and have served to guide the growth of the hospital campus. Project Setting Hoag is an existing facility located at One Hoag Drive in the City of Newport Beach (City). The approximately 38-acre site, inclusive of the Lower Campus (20.41 acres) and Upper Campus (17.57 acres), is generally bound by Hospital Road to the north, West Coast Highway to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and residential development and open space to the west. Superior Avenue is the closest major street to the west. Vehicular access to Hoag is provided at three locations. The Upper Campus can be accessed from Hospital Road which serves as the northern boundary of Hoag. The main entrance is a signalized intersection located at the intersection of Hospital Road at Placentia Avenue —Hoag Drive. A non -signalized secondary access, West Hoag Drive, on Hospital Road into the Upper Campus, follows the western boundary of Hoag. West Hoag Drive is gated to preclude vehicular access between 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM. A second signalized intersection, located on West Coast Highway at Hoag Drive, serves as the main entrance to the Lower Campus. Hoag Drive, South Hoag Drive, and West Hoag Drive provide internal vehicular access throughout Hoag. Surrounding lands uses include the residential communities of Villa Balboa and Versailles, both located to the north of the Lower Campus and west of the Upper Campus. Medical offices and residential care facilities are located to the north of the Upper Campus across Hospital Road. General commercial, offices, and residential uses are located to the east across Newport Boulevard. Commercial and residential uses are located to the south of the hospital campus across West Coast Highway. To the west of the Lower Campus on either side of Superior Avenue is open space planned to be an active and passive park (Sunset Ridge Park). Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 3 VICINITY MAP Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN and ZONING Hoag Hospital General Plan Land Use Environs Haab GP Ennron,.mrd Janury/rJ8 cora Yam[ iees �CitieBluffJ l%7 �`n�planned �:$, �manijP mC=10)' v 'a Mc Hoag W(pspitai-(PG38) ) Retail and 11 7.;, , } Hoag Hospital Zoning Districts Environs 1 aao Feet Old Ne.w ork" Specific Pia 000 Hwg_Th, Erc, mite January/ICON vrao Feel Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 5 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE PROJECT SITE Private Institutions (PI) Planned Community Hospital NORTH Multiple Residential (RM) Medical Commercial Office (CO-M) Private Institutions (PI) PC Versailles on the Bluff Planned Community Administrative Professional Office Residential condominiums Medical office Residential care facility SOUTH Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Multiple Residential (RM) Single Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) General Commercial (CG) RSC (Retail and Service Commercial) MFR (Multi -Family Residential) R-1 (Single Family Residential) RSC (Retail and Service Commercial) Neighborhood shopping center Multi -family residential Single family residential Vehicle rental/sales Restaurant EAST General Commercial Office (CO-G) Two Unit Residential (RT) SP-9 (Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan R-2 (Two family residential) Business, medical and professional offices Residential WEST Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Parks and Recreation (PR) PC - Versailles on the Bluff Planned Community OS -A (Open Space Active OS (Open Space) Residential condominiums Open space — Sunset Ridge Park planned Background Hoag Hospital was constructed in 1952 as a 75-bed, 50,000 square -foot (sf) facility. The complex has undergone several major construction phases that have expanded and remodeled the facilities. In 1979, the first Master Plan and EIR were prepared and approved for Hoag. At the time the 1979 Master Plan was prepared, Hoag facilities were located solely on what is now known as the Upper Campus (this is discussed in more detail below). The 1979 Master Plan provided for 217,600 sf of additional uses, included a new 10-story hospital tower, and provided for the expansion of the existing tower (the West Tower); a new hospital tower was not constructed until 2005 as the Sue and Bill Gross Women's Pavilion (East Tower). Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 6 When the 1979 Master Plan was approved, Hoag did not own the Lower Campus area. On June 19, 1984, Hoag purchased the approximate 22-acre Lower Campus from the State of California. Subsequent to that purchase and prior to the 1992 Master Plan and EIR, Hoag constructed the Patty and George Hoag Cancer Center and a child care center in 1991 on the Lower Campus. The development of the Lower Campus was completed with separate CEQA documentation. In 1992, the City certified the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final EIR No. 142 for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan and adopted both Planned Community regulations and the "Development Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian" (Development Agreement). In 1994, the City approved Ordinance No. 94-8 to readopt the Development Agreement to reflect Coastal Commission consideration. The Planned Community Development Plan is the Hoag Master Plan. The existing 1992 Master Plan allows for up to 1,343,238 sf of uses at Hoag, inclusive of the Upper and Lower Campuses. Of the 1,343,238 sf of permitted development, 765,349 sf is the Upper Campus limit and 577,889 sf is the Lower Campus. Currently, 698,121 sf have been constructed on the Upper Campus and 188,149 sf have been constructed on the Lower Campus. It should be noted that the Master Plan provides for redevelopment of current uses at Hoag. The 1992 Master Plan assumed that development on the Upper Campus would be primarily reconstruction and redevelopment because the Upper Campus contained the early hospital development. The Lower Campus, which was essentially undeveloped at the time the Master Plan was approved in 1992, provided for new development. It also provided for the relocation of some services from the Upper Campus to the Lower Campus. The Master Plan was intended to guide development at Hoag over a period of approximately 21 years. The PC text and the Development Agreement set forth the development standards and terms and conditions by which Hoag may be developed, and it includes maximum permissible building area, building height limits, permitted land uses and other typical development standards. Since the 1992 Master Plan and Final EIR No. 142 were approved, Hoag has constructed a cardiac services addition, a parking structure, a new inpatient hospital tower (the Sue and Bill Gross Women's Pavilion [East Tower]), and a minor expansion to the James Irvine Surgery Center on the Upper Campus. On its Lower Campus, Hoag has constructed a conference center with an associated parking structure, two auxiliary parking lots, an employee childcare center, and the cogeneration facility that provides power, heating and cooling support to the campus. Additionally, Hoag relocated a pre- existing methane gas flare and upgraded the scrubbing/cleaning technology associated with the methane gas flare onto the Lower Campus. On the Lower Campus, the relocation and expansion of Hoag's employee childcare center and a retaining wall project were recently completed. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 7 In 2002, the City Council approved the First Amendment to the PC text. The First Amendment changed the definition of "Gross Floor Area Entitlement" so that certain unoccupied building areas are not counted toward the maximum permissible building floor areas for the project site. Unoccupied building areas were defined to include areas such as stairwells and elevator shafts (except on the first floor), areas used for structural systems upgrades directly related to the requirements of government agencies (and are therefore not for general or routine occupancy) and rooftop enclosures for mechanical equipment (not for general or routine occupancy). Project Description The General Plan and 1992 Master Plan allow for up to 1,343,238 sf of development at Hoag, inclusive of the Upper and Lower Campuses. Of the 1,343,238 sf of permitted development, 765,349 sf is allocated to uses on the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf of uses to the Lower Campus. There are currently 890,005 sf of medical and medical - related uses at Hoag, of which 698,121 sf are inpatient, outpatient, and support uses on the Upper Campus and 188,149 sf of outpatient and support uses on the Lower Campus. Therefore, of the remaining 456,968 sf of approved but not constructed uses, 67,228 sf could be developed on the Upper Campus and 389,740 sf could be developed on the Lower Campus. All or a portion of the approved but not constructed square footage for the Upper Campus can be used for additional hospital beds because additional hospital beds are a function of the square footage allocation for Hoag. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for up to 225,000 sf of medical uses that are currently approved for the Lower Campus to be reallocated to the Upper Campus. As a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the Applicant is not requesting the approval of any project -specific land uses or development projects, only the ability to reallocate square footage. The following table identifies the existing, currently permitted, and proposed reallocation square footage changes associated with the proposed project. HOAG MASTER PLAN UPDATE Location Approved (sf) Constructed (sf) Remaining Approved (sf) Proposed Reallocation (sf) Remaining After Reallocation (sf)a Upper Campus 765,349 698,121 67,228 +225,000b 292,228 Lower Campus 577,889 188,149 389,740 -225,000b 164,740 Total Approved (sf) 1,343,238 Total Constructed (sf) 886,270 Total Remaining Approved (sf) 456,968 Proposed Maximum Allowable (sf) Upper Campus: 990,349` Lower Campus: 577,889 Total not to exceed: 1,343,238d a Assumes full reallocation of 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Up to 225,000 sf can be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. The maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus would be 990,349 sf (existing + currently approved but not developed + the maximum reallocation of 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus), and a maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus would be 577,889 sf (existing + currently approved but not developed; assumes no reallocation of square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus). However, in no event could the combined total building areas of both Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 8 the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. This means that if the Upper Campus develops at the maximum allowable building area, then the amount of development on the Lower Campus would have to be reduced accordingly. Square footage is inclusive of inpatient hospital beds. Demolition of some existing structures on the Upper Campus would occur to ensure maximum square feet would not exceed 1,343,238 sf. To accommodate the reallocated square footage, amendments to the General Plan, PC text, and the Development Agreement are required. General Plan Amendment The General Plan Land Use Element designates the Hoag site as "Private Institutions" with a maximum allowable building area of 765,349 sf for the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf for the Lower Campus, for a total of 1,343,238 sf. The General Plan Amendment would allow up to 225,000 sf to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. The maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus would be 990,349 sf (if all 225,000 sf are reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus) and the maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus would be 577,889 sf (if no square footage is reallocated). However, in no event could the combined total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. What this means is that if the Upper Campus develops to the maximum square footage, then the amount of development on the Lower Campus would have to be reduced by the actual amount transferred. PC text Amendment The PC text would be amended to establish the same maximum allowable building areas for the Upper and Lower Campuses, consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment. In no event would the total building areas of the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed the current total limit of 1,343,238 sf. The existing PC text provides that mechanical equipment noise generated from Hoag not exceed 55 decibels (dB) at all Hoag property lines. This noise restriction, which was established prior to the creation of the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance, is proposed to be eliminated. Instead, noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in the following paragraphs. 1. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag property line adjacent to the loading docks shall be as follows: 7AM-10PM Daytime 10PM-7AM Nighttime Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 58 dBA 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 9 A map of the loading dock area is proposed to be included within the PC text. Minor changes and clarifications are proposed to the permitted uses and definitions. Hoag proposes changes to the landscape regulations and sign standards as well and a more complete description follows. The existing and proposed PC text are attached to this staff report Exhibit 2. Development Agreement Amendment An amendment to the Development Agreement is necessary and negotiations on behalf of the City are being conducted by a Council appointed subcommittee. The draft amendment indicates an extension of the term from 2019 to 2029, but as of the drafting of this report, an extension is no longer being considered. The amendment would provide an increase in the public benefits through the payment of 3 million dollars for City public facility improvements, designation of the City as the point of sale for major hospital equipment purchases. Lastly, Hoag is requesting a one time fee waiver for issuing bonds pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.26 of the Municipal Code. The Development Agreement Amendment would also incorporate the revised PC text by reference. The existing Development Agreement and draft amendment is attached as Exhibit 3. DISCUSSION Community Issues Outside the Scope of the Project Members of the community have raised issues that, while not a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project, have been addressed by City staff and Hoag, and have been responded to in the responses to comments on the Master Plan Update EIR. Primary issues are a belief that Hoag is in noncompliance with applicable requirements, the cogeneration facility, lighting on the Lower Campus, and landscaping particularly on the Lower Campus. City Council Annual Review of Development Agreement The development agreement requires an annual compliance review by the City Council at a notice public hearing. This review was conducted between 1995 and 1999, but has not occurred since. The abutting Villa Balboa community asserts that Hoag is in noncompliance with the Development Agreement and PC text. The allegations are contained within their comment letter on the SEIR prepared by their attorney (SEIR Volume III, Letter #5) and in Exhibit 4. While these issues are not within the specific purview of the Planning Commission, resolution of some of them could impact the content of the PC text and testimony during the public hearing will likely raise these issues. Staff is preparing a report for the City Council's consideration that outlines construction activities conducted since 1999 and related compliance issues. It is anticipated that the annual compliance review will occur with the City Council's consideration of the subject application. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 10 Cogeneration Facility The cogeneration facility is not a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project as it is an existing facility. The facility provides several critical support functions for the hospital campus; specifically, it provides power for the campus and it also provides significant amounts of heating and cooling for several campus buildings. The City provided approval -in -concept for the cogeneration facility on September 17, 2002, and the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) approved the facility on December 10, 2002. The Coastal Commission issued Coastal Development Permit No. 5-02-325 for the cogeneration facility on June 12, 2003. All necessary air quality permits for current operations were issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The City issued a grading permit for the facility on July 22, 2003 and construction commenced on August 26, 2003. The cogeneration facility has been constructed and is fully operational and, as such, was considered part of "existing conditions" in the Draft EIR. No discretionary approvals are presently required to continue operation of the cogeneration facility, and the Master Plan Update Project does not request any modifications or additions to the facility. Because the cogeneration facility is not considered part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project, CEQA does not require that the Master Plan Update EIR assess aspects of the cogeneration facility. Additional information supporting this conclusion is presented in the Responses to Comments on the SEIR beginning on page 3-3. Villa Balboa residents have expressed concerns with the appearance of the cogeneration facility and the visual impact of 1) water vapor from the cooling towers, 2) periodic steam emissions from the roof of the facility; and 3) visual impact of engine exhaust. The cogeneration facility was painted a buff/tan tone in September 2007, a color more consistent with existing buildings on the Hoag Lower Campus in an effort to improve the aesthetics of the facility. Hoag has also planted or plans to plant additional landscaping to screen the facility. Landscaping issues are discussed in more detail below. The roof of the facility has several penetrations necessary for operation of the power generators and other related mechanical or electrical equipment within the building. Louvered screens were designed and installed to approve the appearance of the roof. Given the nature of the facility, the roof of the facility was determined to be consistent with the PC text standards to avoid major mechanical equipment installations on rooftops in the Lower Campus and to screen mechanical appurtenances. Although the PC text requires screening elements to use materials compatible with roofing materials, compliance was determined based upon compatible architectural elements and the facility was permitted. The cogeneration facility dissipates heat to the atmosphere via 4 cooling towers and under particular conditions (temperature and humidity) a water vapor cloud develops. Villa Balboa residents consider this a violation and has requested Hoag to mitigate. Information to date suggests that mitigating the water vapor is technically feasible, complete mitigation may not be possible and the costs of doing so appear to be Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 11 significant. The City is presently reviewing this issue in preparation for the City Council's review of the Development Agreement. Lighting Hoag is in the process of redesigning the lighting plan for the Lower Campus to convert all parking area lights from metal halide to high-pressure sodium. Lighting was installed earlier this year on a portion of the Lower Campus proximate to the cogeneration facility and adjacent parking areas. Villa Balboa requested the lighting fixtures be adjusted as they felt the new lighting was too bright. Hoag is in the process of obtaining City approval to replace the 400 watt metal halide fixtures with 250 watt high pressure sodium fixtures, which provide a monochromatic or amber light source similar to City streetlights. Additionally, 50% of the lights will be turned off at in the evening after activities at the childcare center conclude. Lastly, one light located on the upper level of the cogeneration facility service road is proposed to be replaced with florescent postlights with a motion sensor switch so the light will be on only when necessary. Once City permitting is obtained for these new fixtures, they will be installed. Landscaping The following landscape modifications have been completed or are planned by Hoag that exceed the standards of the PC text regulations. 1. Installed five, 48-inch-box, evergreen trees and new irrigation in November 2007 to screen/soften the views of the west end of the cogeneration facility; 2. Submitted plans to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for permission to install three, 48-inch-box, evergreen trees and new irrigation to provide added screening of the cogeneration facility area with an estimated installation date of May 2008, pending CCC approval; 3. Submitted plans to the CCC to install a green, metal screen lattice structure and plant flowering vines to cover the green screen on the east wall of the cogeneration facility in order to provide additional screening and softening of specific views of the cogeneration facility with an estimated installation of May 2008, pending CCC approval; 4. Installed additional shrubs, groundcover, and new irrigation system to the slope behind the cogeneration facility upon completion of the retaining wall project in November 2007 to provide added visual quality and erosion control; 5. Installed 24 trees, shrubs, and ground cover plantings and new water conserving irrigation system near the cogeneration facility in November 2007 to provide added visual quality screening and erosion control as part of completing the Lower Campus retaining wall project; 6. Installed eight, 24-inch-box, evergreen screen trees in November 2007, at the base of the west parking lot to screen and soften views of the retaining wall; Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 12 7. Installed twelve, 36-inch-box, flowering trees and four fan palm trees and irrigation system at end islands in the west parking lot in November 2007, to provide increased shade and visual enhancement to the parking area, with additional parking area trees to be installed in the future as construction needs in the area are completed; 8. Installed 550 bougainvillea shrubs in November 2007, as part of the Lower Campus retaining wall project, for color and to soften of views along the top of the retaining wall; 9. Requested an Approval In Concept (AIC) from the City of Newport Beach to re - grade the north slope above the retaining wall to allow shrubs, ground cover, and a new irrigation system to enhance visual quality, safety, and erosion control. To be installed in January 2009 pending City and CCC approval; 10. Installed 17 trees, shrubs, groundcover, and irrigation systems in December 2007 around the new Child Care Center to provide added visual relief, parking area screening and building drop-off and entry area definition; 11. Plan to replace and enhance existing trees, shrubs, and groundcover in areas altered by a planned Lower Campus utility upgrade project to improve and unify Hoag landscaping along the West Coast Highway frontage. Installation would occur after underground utility installation and plantings are tentatively scheduled for December 2009, pending City AIC and CCC approval; 12.Install approximately 870 linear feet of green screen lattice along the West Coast Highway frontage to screen views of the west parking lot and cogeneration facility from West Coast Highway. This landscape project is in preliminary design with installation tentatively scheduled for December 2009, pending City AIC and CCC approval. 13. Hydroseeding of native groundcover including coastal wild flowers and grass, as well as the installation of irrigation systems was completed in December 2007 for erosion control and enhanced visual quality; 14.Twenty trees have been removed and over 50 trees have been trimmed in the last six months. A portion of these trees were trimmed to comply with the required height limits of the Lower Campus, and a portion were trimmed or removed at the request of residents to the north of the Lower Campus to remove view obstructions. These landscape features that are not installed to date are planned to be incorporated within the overall landscape plans for the campus and staff anticipates administrative approval of these features. In order to ensure compliance, a provision may be included within the PC text. Completion of the New Employee Childcare Facility Villa Balboa residents expressed concerns regarding the completion of the new Child Care Center and its landscaping and lighting. The new Child Care Center is complete and operational. The landscaping for the center has been installed and landscaping has or will be augmented as noted in the previous section. The parking lot lighting is Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 13 consistent with the adjacent lighting of the Lower Campus (high pressure sodium amber fixtures); these lights have been put on timers. Around the Child Care area, the lights come on at 5:30 AM and go off at dawn to accommodate early child care drop-offs. The lights go back on at dusk and turn off at 8:30 PM. Hoag will be installing screens or shields on specific lighting fixtures on the building to reduce the glare from above. Completion of the Lower Campus Retaining Wall Villa Balboa residents also expressed concerns with the timing of completion of the Lower Campus retaining wall. That wall is now fully constructed and the construction site associated with the project has been removed. Some residents have expressed concerns that the construction of the retaining wall has caused settlement behind the wall. The Building Department investigated the complaint and found it to be unfounded. Portions of the public walkway that is north of the wall does have some typical cracking due to the infrequent use of expansion joints. The Public Works Department maintains the walkway; they will continue to monitor and maintain the area as necessary. Ongoing Construction Staging Residents have expressed an ongoing concern with the construction staging activities on the Lower Campus. They have also been concerned that the landscaping that was to be part of the Lower Campus has not been completed which contributes to their concerns with the overall appearance of the area. As noted above, the majority of the landscaping has now been completed or is in the process of receiving the necessary permits for completion. The construction areas have been cleaned up and construction trailers will be consolidated in one area adjacent at the west end of the Lower Campus, as feasible. Hoag has also provided stringent guidelines to its contractors to keep the area orderly and to not store equipment or supplies on the roof of the trailers. It should be noted that the use of the Lower Campus for construction staging is a necessary part of Hoag's ongoing operations and may change from time to time. The area between the new employee child care center and the cogeneration facility will be the primary staging area in the future. Due to this need, the installation of several trees in the center portion of the parking area have been deferred until the need for construction staging terminates in the future. Lastly, enhanced screening elements are planned between the area and Coast Highway as noted in the previous discussion on landscaping. Analysis General Plan Amendment The General Plan designates the Hoag Campus as Private Institutions (PI) and this designation is intended to provide for privately owned facilities that serve the public including places for religious worship, private schools, health care, cultural institutions and other comparable facilities. No change to the designation is requested. The General Plan limits total development at Hoag to 1,343,238 gross sf with 765,349 sf on the Upper Campus (Anomaly #56) and 577,889 sf on the Lower Campus (Anomaly #57). Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 14 Hoag seeks the ability to transfer up to 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. The maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus would be 990,349 sf (if all 225,000 sf are reallocated) and the maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus would be 577,889 sf (if no square footage is reallocated). However, in no event could the combined total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed the current limit of 1,343,238 sf. Implementing this transfer can be accomplished by combining the two anomalies and provide the Upper and Lower Campus limits in the "Additional information" column of Table LU-2 within the Land Use Element. The change would be as follows: Table LU2 Anomaly Number Anomaly Statistical Area Locations Land Use Designation Development Limit (sf) Development Limit (Other) Additional Information 56 A3 PI 1,343,238 990,349 sf Upper Campus 577,889 sf Lower Campus In no event shall the gross floor area exceed the upper campus, lower campus or total development limit 765,318 57 A3 P4 577,889 The following table contains a discussion of the project's consistency with applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. Goals and Policies Consistency Evaluation City of Newport Beach General Plan Goal LU 1: A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, business, and visitors through the recognition that Newport Beach is pr manly a residential community. LU 1.1: Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Hoag is a prominent feature in the West Newport area of the City because of its visibility from West Coast Highway and its reputation as a leading medical facility. Continued development of Hoag with medical uses would not detract from the character of the area. Buildings would be constructed in conformance with the standards established in the PC text. Newport Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and view sheds. (Imp 1.1) LU 1.5: Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial and marine- oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high quality community services. (Imp 1.1, 24.1). The City identifies Hoag is the largest employee (2,700) in the City (Newport Beach 2007). The proposed Master Plan Update Project would provide for additional medical -related facilities in support of the needs of the local community and region. Goal LU 2: A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, & protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. LU 2.1: Accommodate uses that support the needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing, retail, services, employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, civic engagement, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with community natural resources and open spaces. (Imp 1.1, 2.1) The first hospital opened in September 1952 at Hoag and was initiated to serve the needs of coastal Orange County residents. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for the continued compliance with this policy. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 15 Goals and Policies Consistency Evaluation LU 2.4: Accommodate uses that maintain or As noted above, the City has identified Hoag as the largest employee in the City. Additional facilities would be constructed based on the medical needs of the local community and region so that the quality of life for local residents will continue to be enhanced. enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and account for market demands, while maintaining and improving the quality of life for current and future residents. (Imp 1.1, 24.1) LU 2.8: Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). (Imp 1.1, 10.2, 11.1) The purpose of this Supplement to Final EIR No. 142 is to assess any potential significant environmental effects associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. As identified in this SEIR, the Project would not result in any new significant impacts to transportation, utility infrastructure, or public services. Goal LU 3: A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. LU 3.1: Maintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and employment districts, commercial centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean districts. (Imp 1.1) The proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for the reallocation of previously approved development for Hoag within the existing site boundaries and within the same development envelope assumed in the existing Master Plan for Hoag. Therefore, the overall pattern of development for the area would not change. LU 3.2: Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place As previously stated, the objective of the proposed Master Plan Update Project is to allow greater flexibility within the Hoag Hospital Master Plan in an effort to allow Hoag to respond to changes in the health care industry while maintaining an overall development cap. The proposed potential intensification on the Upper Campus with a corresponding potential reduction in square footage on the Lower Campus is proposed to respond to the changing needs of Hoag and how medical services are provided to the residents of Newport Beach and the region. to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic levels of service. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 5.1, 10.2, 16.2, 16.3, 17.1, 18.1, 19.1, 22.1, 23.1, 23.2) Goal LU 4: Management of growth and change to protect and enhance the livability of neighborhoods and achieve distinct and economically vital business and employment districts, which are con -elated with supporting infrastructure and public services, and sustain Newport Beach's natural setting. LU 4.1: Accommodate land use development consistent with the Land Use Plan [Figures LU1 through LU15 of the General Plan]. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 10.2) The proposed Master Plan Update Project is consistent with the underlying land use definitions for Hoag provided in the General Plan. Goal LU 6.1: A diversity of govemmental service, ins itutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods. LU 6.1.1: Accommodate schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses. (Imp 1.1, 2.1) The remaining square footage at Hoag represents approved but not constructed development. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would permit the reallocation of this overall allowable development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 16 Goals and Policies Consistency Evaluation LU 6.1.5: Support Hoag Hospital in its mission to provide adequate facilities to meet the needs of area residents. Work with the Hospital to ensure that future development plans consider its relationship to and assure compatibility with The proposed Master Plan Update Project evaluates its relationship to adjacent land uses. With mitigation, the reallocation of approved but not constructed square footage may result in improved noise attenuation and a reduction in traffic volumes. The City's Implementation Program 24.1 states that "The Economic Development Committee should complete the Strategic Plan for Economic Sustainability for City Council approval. This plan should outline the incentives to be provided and other City actions to be undertaken to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. This plan should be dynamic and reviewed and updated annually as a part of the City budget." As previously noted, the City identifies Hoag is the largest employee in the City. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would provide for additional medical -related facilities in support of the needs of the local community and region consistent with the City's economic needs. The buildout of Hoag in accordance with the proposed update to the Master Plan supports Hoag in its mission to provide adequate facilities to meet the needs of area residents. adjoining residential neighbors and mitigate impacts on local and regional transportation systems. (Imp 24.1) Goal LU 6.6: A medical district with peripheral medical services and research facilities that support the Hoag Hospital campus within a well -planned residential neighborhood, enabling residents to live close to theirjobs and reducing commutes to outlying areas. LU 6.6.1: Prioritize the accommodation of medical -related and supporting facilities on properties abutting the Hoag Hospital complex [areas designated as "CO-M (0.5)" (Figure LU18, Sub -Area A)] with opportunities for new residential units [areas designated as "RM (18/ac)"] and supporting general and neighborhood retail services ["CG (0.75)" and "CN (0.3)] respectively. (Imp 2.1) Hoag is an existing medical facility that has been located in the City since 1952. No Hoag development is proposed outside the existing boundaries of the project site. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not preclude future off -site medical, retail, or residential uses adjacent to Hoag. Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan 2.1.2-1: Land development in The Lower Campus in its entirety and 0.21 acre of the Upper Campus are within the coastal zone. The LCP Land Use Plan designates these areas as "Public Facilities." The Public Facilities designation is "intended to provide public and quasi - public facilities, including educational institutions, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, community centers, hospitals, religious institutions, and utilities." (page 2-4) No changes in land use are proposed in the Lower Campus, only the ability to transfer a maximum of 225,000 sf of development to the Upper Campus. Because the CCC approved the existing Master Plan, the proposed Master Plan Update is considered consistent with this LCP policy. uses and new the coastal zone shall be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan Map and all applicable LCP policies and regulations. 2.2.2-1 Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development within and adjacent to the existing development areas in the coastal zone subject to the density and intensity limits and resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. As previously addressed, no additional square footage is requested as a part of the Project, only the ability to transfer currently approved but not constructed square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. As noted above, only 0.21 acre of the Upper Campus is in the coastal zone. 2.2.2-2 Require new development to be located with adequate public services or in areas that are capable of having public services extended or expanded without significant adverse effects on coastal resources The Project is not expected to have impacts to public facilities or to utility service; no significant impacts were identified in Final EIR No. 142. No additional square footage is proposed as a part of the Project. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 17 In conclusion, staff believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been evaluated pursuant to City Charter Section 423 and Council Policy A-18 to determine whether the amendment requires a vote by the electorate. An amendment requires a vote when it generates increases in excess of 100 residential units, 40,000 square feet of non-residential intensity or 100 peak hour trips. Additionally, an amendment would require a vote if the increases associated with the proposed amendment when added to 80% of the increases from prior amendments within the same Statistical Area of the General Plan exceed these thresholds. The project site is within Statistical Area A-3 and there has been no prior amendments approved. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not increase residential density nor does it increase gross floor area. Based upon the trip generation rates contained within Council Policy A-18 that predicts traffic increases based upon increases in gross square feet, the project will not generate any additional trips given that there is no increase in gross floor area proposed. In conclusion, no vote by the electorate is required pursuant to Charter Section 423. Amendment of the PC text The draft amendment of the PC text is attached as Exhibit 3 in a strikeout and underline format clearly showing what is being deleted and added. Several of the proposed changes provide clarification and are not highlighted or discussed below. The current PC text contains 3 map exhibits that are proposed to be updated and replaced for clarity. 1. Change to Development Limits The most significant change is to the maximum allowable building areas of 990,349 sf for the Upper Campus if all 225,000 sf are reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf for the Lower Campus if no square footage is reallocated in order to be consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment. As with the General Plan, in no event would the total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. Table 1 within the existing PC text establishes the current development limits and this table would be replaced. 2. Change to Noise Standards The existing PC text provides that noise generated from Hoag not exceed 55 decibels (dB) at all Hoag property lines. This noise restriction, which was established prior to the creation of the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance, is proposed to be eliminated. Instead, noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in the following paragraphs: "1. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag property line adjacent to the loading docks shall be as follows: Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 18 7AM-10PM Daytime 10PM-7AM Nighttime Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 58 dBA 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. In addition, the grease pit cleaning, which is exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance because it is a maintenance activity, would occur on a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM." Within the amended PC text, Exhibit No. 4 depicts the loading dock area where the proposed standard in the first paragraph would apply. The current limits that are contained within Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) are as follows. 7AM-10PM Daytime 10PM-7AM Nighttime Leq (15 min) 60 dBA 50 dBA The SEIR includes an extensive noise analysis and recommends mitigation that will reduce noise, but not to the exterior noise ordinance levels. Additionally, Hoag has offered certain units within Villa Balboa that are in closest proximity to the loading dock area window/sliding door replacement. If the Homeowner's Association and individual owners agree to participate, the windows/sliding doors that directly face the loading dock area on approximately 24 residential units will be replaced with windows/sliders specifically selected and designed to reduce sound transmission to the interior of the units. The window/slider replacement program has been included as a project design feature that will be included in the updated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Discussions are ongoing as to the feasibility of constructing a sound wall between Hoag and Villa Balboa that was deemed infeasible in the Draft EIR. Additionally, staff is examining the feasibility of a partial enclosure of the main loading dock possibly in combination with a lower wall. Staff will report on these discussions at the meeting. 3. Changes to Section V.K - Internal Circulation Section V.K (Internal Circulation) requires the implementation of a "pilot program" that controls the usage of service roads during non -working hours. The program was to ensure that routine deliveries not occur after 8PM or earlier than 7AM. The pilot program that was implemented in the in the early 1990's consisted of the scheduling of routine deliveries during the daytime combined with physically closing the west service road near Villa Balboa between 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Signs regarding delivery hours were also posted. Hoag proposes to continue this effort. Existing provisions should be replaced given the success of the measures implemented. Hoag suggests that the existing provisions of this section be replaced with the following: Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 19 "The project sponsor shall continue to limit the use of that portion of West Hoag Drive adjacent to residential uses located on the Upper Campus. To the extent reasonably possible and with the understanding that special situations may arise, the project sponsor shall use its efforts to limit truck deliveries to the hours of 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. The project sponsor shall also use other methods to restrict access of this road including signage restricting access." Staff believes this suggested language is unenforceable and recommends the following: "The project sponsor shall continue to limit the use of that portion of West Hoag Drive adjacent to residential uses located on the Upper Campus. Except in emergency situations, deliveries to loading areas shall not be scheduled after 8:00 PM or before 7:00 AM daily. The project sponsor shall physically restrict access to the roadway between these hours and appropriate signage indicating permitted delivery hours and access limitations shall be installed and maintained at all times. Deliveries and vehicular access to loading area located along West Hoag Drive are allowed in emergency situations where critical supplies or materials are necessary for the continued operation of the hospital." 4. Changes to Section V.L — Loading Dock The principal change is to require implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the SEIR related to noise. The only change suggested is to change the "should" and "may" within the second sentence to "shall" and "will." The two paragraphs to be deleted refer to the "critical care surgery addition" that was possibly going to be located in close proximity to Villa Balboa and acoustical analysis of future buildings. The critical care surgery addition project was abandoned by Hoag shortly after the approval of the PC text in 1992 and acoustical analysis is required by current mitigation measures, and hence, these paragraphs proposed to be deleted are not necessary. 5. Changes to Section VI — Sign Program The following changes are proposed by Hoag and staff has no concerns regarding the changes: a) General Sign Standards, modify Section VI.B.2 to eliminate the requirement that signs attached to buildings are flush or surface mounted. b) General Sign Standards, add Section VI.B.5 to provide a definition of a building for the purposes of sign program regulations as an occupied structure or any occupied portion of a structure that is added to an existing building and identified as a separate building for wayfinding purposes. c) Number of Signs Allowed, add a new Section VI.C.2 to permit a primary entrance identification sign at the entrance of the facility and at the main entrance to the emergence department. Height of the signs would be limited to 8 feet and 70 square feet. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 20 d) Number of Signs Allowed, renumber former Section VI.C.2 to VI.C.3 and modify the provisions applicable to secondary signs. The proposed amendment clarifies that secondary identification signs are building and entrance signs and it would allow for freestanding to be 9 feet in height rather than 4 feet. The proposed amendment increases the maximum sign area from 35 square feet to 50 square feet. e) Number of Signs Allowed, renumber former Section VI.C.3 to VI.C.4 and modify the provisions applicable to directional signs. The proposed amendment would allow triple -faced signs and to be sized to all for readability given the numerous physical factors involved. The proposed amendment would limit such signs to 11 feet and it would eliminate a specific design restriction such that directional signs may only be suspended between two upright poles with the sign cabinet being the same thickness as the poles. f) Number of Signs Allowed, add a new Section VI.C.5 to permit 1 donor recognition sign per building elevation with a maximum area of 175 square foot for this type of signage. Number of Signs Allowed, renumber former Section VI.C.4 to VI.C.6 and modify the provisions related to hospital identification signs on hospital towers. The proposed amendment will eliminate a limit that such signs be affixed to a building parapet. The proposed amendment provides a maximum sign area limit of 275 square feet. h) Number of Signs Allowed, renumber former Section VI.C.5 to VI.C.7 and modify the provisions related to Lower Campus building mounted identification signs. The proposed amendment increases the number of signs per building from 1 to 2 and makes the signs subject to the provisions applicable to secondary building and entrance signs as noted in #4 above. i) Number of Signs Allowed, add Section VI.C.8 to allow one, 30-square-foot identification sign for each entrance or exit of a parking structure. 6. Changes to Section VIII - Landscape Regulations The following changes are proposed by Hoag, and staff has no concerns regarding the changes: g) a) General, Section VIII.A.1 requiring the preparation of landscape and irrigation plans is proposed to be amended to provide clarification with no substantive change. b) General, Section VIII.A.2 is proposed to be amended to increase the minimum size of parking lot trees from 15 gallon to 24 inch box. c) General, Section VIII.A.3 is proposed to be amended to increase the minimum size of shrubs from 1 gallon to 5 gallon. d) General, Section VIII.A.5 regarding the placement of vehicle wheel stops is proposed to be amended to provide clarification with no substantive changes. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 21 e) General, Section VIII.A.5 regarding the parking lot trees is proposed to be amended to provide clarification with no substantive changes or diminishment of requirements. f) General, Section VIII.A.6 regarding the use of native, drought -tolerant and naturalized plantings is proposed to be amended to provide clarification that reduces the emphasis to plant native, drought -tolerant on the Upper Campus, include an emphasis to use non-invasive plans on the Lower Campus and requires an automatic irrigation system where an automatic controller is not specified presently. Maintenance, Section VIII.B.1 is proposed to be amended to require cultivation of landscape areas. h) Maintenance, Section VIII.B.2 regarding the trimming and/or mowing of lawns and ground cover is proposed to be amended to provide clarification with no substantive change or diminishment of standards. i) Maintenance, Section VIII.B.3 regarding required landscape maintenance is proposed to be amended to provide clarification that the maintenance program is a regularly scheduled annual program. Although the change could be read to suggest only annual maintenance, maintenance pursuant to Hoag's program is regular as needed. Maintenance, Section VIII.B.4 regarding the maintenance of irrigation systems is proposed to be amended to provide better clarification with no diminishment of requirements. k) Maintenance, Section VIII.B.5 regarding planting supports is proposed to be amended to provide better clarification with no diminishment of requirements. I) Special Landscape Street, Section VIII.0 is proposed to be amended to provide clarification with no substantive change or diminishment of requirements. m) Villa Balboa Landscape Zone, Section VIII.D regarding a specific landscape area between Hoag Hospital and Villa Balboa is proposed to be amended to provide clarification with no substantive change or diminishment of standards. n) Parking Areas, Section VIII.E regarding parking lot landscaping is proposed to be amended to provide clarification such that landscaping around buildings is not included in landscape area calculations where 5% of a parking area must be landscaped. Other changes clarify language with no substantive impact or diminishment of standards. g) J) Development Agreement Hoag is requesting an amendment of the existing Development Agreement to facilitate the proposed transfer of building area and changes to the PC text. The draft amendment indicates an extension of the term from 2019 to 2029, but as of the drafting of this report, an extension is no longer being considered. The amendment would provide an increase in the public benefits through the payment of 3 million dollars for Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 22 City public facility improvements, designation of the City as the point of sale for major hospital equipment purchases. Lastly, Hoag is requesting a one time fee waiver for issuing bonds pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.26 of the Municipal Code. Although not a party to the original Development Agreement, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) would review and approve the Development Agreement. Aside from the changes to the PC text that would be referenced by the draft amendment, the significant changes are financial in nature and of benefit to the public. Villa Balboa contends that the request is prohibited by the existing Development Agreement as Section 6.5 prohibits Hoag from applying and the City from approving an amendment of the Master Plan (PC text) that would increase the maximum permitted gross floor area or the maximum building heights on the Lower Campus. These circumstances are not present. Environmental Review In 1992, the City certified the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final EIR No. 142 for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan allowing for up to 1,343,238 sf of uses at Hoag, inclusive of the Upper and Lower Campuses. CEQA Guidelines §15163 allows a lead agency to prepare a supplement to an EIR when any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines §15162 would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR, but only minor additions or changes are necessary to make a previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. CEQA Guidelines §15163(b) further states, "the supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised" and "the supplement may be circulated by itself without re -circulating the previous Draft or Final EIR." The City determined that a supplement to Final EIR No. 142 was the appropriate CEQA documentation to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the proposed modifications to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. Substantial changes were not proposed to the Hoag Master Plan resulting in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects (CEQA Guidelines §15162(1)). Changes in the circumstances under which the Hoag Master Plan Update Project will be implemented would not result in new significant effects that substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects (CEQA Guidelines §15162(2)). New information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified would not result in one or more significant effects not discussed in Final EIR No. 142, or a substantial increase in the severity of effects identified in Final EIR No. 142, or that mitigation or alternatives that are now feasible are rejected by the Applicant (CEQA Guidelines §15162(3)). Further, it is important to note that it is not the substantial changes in the project or a substantial increase in the severity of effects that are involved in the project that triggers the need for a Subsequent versus a Supplemental EIR. Rather, it is whether the changes in the project or the increase in the severity of effects require major revisions of Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 23 a previous EIR or minor additions or changes to make the previous EIR adequate (see California Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15163(a)). If the former, then a Subsequent EIR is appropriate. If the latter, a Supplemental EIR is appropriate. This is a critical distinction because even if the proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in substantial changes to the previously approved project or substantially increase the severity of impacts, which it does not, a Subsequent EIR would be required only if such changes required major rather than minor revisions to the previous EIR. In this case minor revisions were needed so a Supplemental EIR was the appropriate document to prepare. The following environmental topics are addressed in the Supplemental EIR: land use, transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, and aesthetics. The findings of the EIR with respect to these issues are summarized below: Land Use The reallocation of up to 225,000 sf of approved but not constructed development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus as proposed with the Master Plan Update Project would have no greater or different land use effect than the existing Master Plan, and would therefore not have a significant project impact. However, the project would not alleviate the significant unavoidable land use impact to residences to the west of Hoag on the Upper Campus identified in Final EIR No. 142. Final EIR No. 142 found that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable land use impact on residential units located directly adjacent to the western buildings of the Upper Campus. Although the project setback limits are more stringent than City Code, the placement of hospital buildings closer to residential units located to the west of the Upper Campus was identified as a significant impact when considered in combination with other impacts: shade and shadow impacts and noise impacts in this location. Consistent with the conclusions of Final EIR No. 142, the Supplemental EIR finds that the proposed Master Plan Update Project would also result in significant impacts to existing residential development west of the Upper Campus. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter or make these impacts more severe. Therefore, while the project would cause a significant unavoidable land use impact, it would not constitute a new impact. The proposed Master Plan Update Project is considered compatible with land uses to the north, south, and east. No significant land use compatibility impacts would be associated with the Lower Campus. No land use policy or other significant land use impacts were identified. Transportation and Circulation A traffic study was prepared for Final EIR No. 142. That traffic study focused on the evaluation of Phase I traffic and parking -related issues, and also provided a detailed analysis based upon an assumed buildout size for the two remaining phases of the Master Plan although Hoag was not stipulated to build out the project site in three phases. Final EIR No. 142 evaluated traffic impacts on the basis of whether the project would cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the entire traffic load Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 24 and capacity of the Circulation System; "substantial" is defined as per the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)" (page 4-72). Final EIR No. 142 determined that the Master Plan Project would not adversely affect intersections in the traffic study area, but that subsequent TPO analyses and Master Plan Trip Budget analyses would be required. Final EIR No. 142 also addressed potential traffic impacts associated with construction activities. In summary, Final EIR No. 142 found that traffic and parking impacts with buildout of the Master Plan would be less than significant with mitigation. Final EIR No. 142 found that all traffic and parking impacts could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. A traffic study was prepared for the Supplemental EIR using the current Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM). The NBTM "Constrained" network was used for 2015 analysis and the City's "Buildout" network (also known as the City's "General Plan Baseline" network) was used for 2025 analysis. The traffic analysis assumed the maximum reallocation of 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus by 2015. Traffic generation is based on specific land uses. Although no site -specific development projects are proposed as a part of the proposed project, for CEQA purposes, the traffic analysis identifies the total square footage for Hoag (inclusive of currently approved but not constructed square footage) and correlates to a portion of the square footage reallocation to inpatient hospital beds, specifically 76 inpatient hospital beds. Trip generation rates for inpatient hospital uses are expressed in terms of "trips per bed," rather than "trips per square feet." The number of beds is a better indication of (or a better correlation to) the trip -making potential of inpatient uses than is square footage and accounts for traffic generated by inpatient drop-off/pick-up activities, inpatient visitors, medical staff, administrative staff, and emergency room -related uses. The proposed project does not require Hoag to provide this number of beds or preclude Hoag from requesting more inpatient hospital beds as long as the square footage allocations set forth in this SEIR are not exceeded and no new environmental impacts would occur. The outpatient trip rates account for traffic generated by "stand alone" outpatient facilities at Hoag (i.e., Cancer Center) and other medical office buildings at Hoag that provide outpatient care and receive medical referrals from the hospital/inpatient facilities at Hoag. Outpatient trip rates include trips by outpatients, outpatient drop-off/pick-up activities, outpatient visitors, medical staff, and administrative staff. With respect to support services, the traffic analysis identifies that these services do generate traffic. The City determined that trips generated by support services are the same trips accounted for in other land use categories, and are considered to be internal trips within Hoag that would not be additive at the key intersections located outside of Hoag. The increase from approximately 16 percent under existing conditions to approximately 20 percent presumed in the future for support services is due to the anticipated need for increased space to accommodate advancing technology in the delivery of health care, and to ensure the proper utilization of related supplies and equipment. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 25 The Supplemental EIR finds that no new significant traffic impacts have been identified associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Consistent with the conclusions of Final EIR No. 142, the project's contribution and all project -specific cumulative traffic, circulation, and parking impacts can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Air Quality Final EIR No. 142 was certified in 1992, prior to the publication of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook in 1993 and the significance thresholds presented in the handbook. Final EIR No. 142 found that construction emissions would result in significant, unavoidable impacts. The EIR found no significant impacts to long-term, project emissions associated with carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), or reactive organic gases (ROG). However, it should be noted that the project -related CO, ROG, and NOx emissions presented in Final EIR No. 142 exceeded the significance thresholds which were subsequently published in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The analysis in Final EIR No. 142 compared project emissions with regional emissions for the basin and Source Receptor Area 18 (the SCAQMD-designated area within which Hoag is located), and concluded that since the project represented such a small portion of regional emissions, the project did not result in a significant impact. Final EIR No. 142 did determine, however, that development of the Master Plan in conjunction with present and future projects would have a significant unavoidable cumulative impact on regional air quality. An air quality study was prepared for the Supplemental EIR. With respect to short-term construction air quality effects, consistent with the findings of Final EIR No. 142 for the existing Master Plan, the proposed project would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD's construction thresholds. The proposed mitigation program would reduce construction -related emissions, but not to a level considered less than significant. Therefore, short-term construction air quality impacts, including potential human health implications, would be significant even with mitigation incorporated resulting in a significant unavoidable adverse impact. With respect to long-term operational effects, the proposed project could generate fewer pollutant emissions than would occur with the 1992 Master Plan because of trip reductions associated with the proposed project. The amount of reduction would be dependent on the amount of square feet reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Therefore, compared to the long-term air quality impacts associated with the 1992 Master Plan, the proposed project's impacts could be reduced. However, consistent with the findings of Final EIR No. 142 for the existing Master Plan, the proposed project's operations would result in emissions of CO, VOC, and NOx, which would exceed the SCAQMD-established operational phase thresholds. Proposed mitigation would reduce these impacts, but not to a level considered less than significant. Therefore, project implementation would result in unavoidable, significant long-term regional air quality impacts, including potential human health implications. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 26 Noise Final EIR No. 142 found that the Master Plan would not result in any significant traffic noise impacts but would contribute to existing noise level exceedances along five road segments. The EIR identified that the project's incremental addition to cumulative traffic noise impacts was a significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impact. Final EIR No. 142 also found that an exhaust fan was generating excessive noise levels resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was identified, but the fan is currently generating noise levels in excess of the mitigation requirements. Loading dock noise was not identified in Final EIR No. 142. However, the noise measurements performed for the exhaust fan analysis were in the general location of the loading dock. Grease traps were not in use at Hoag in 1991 and have only recently been implemented to comply with water quality regulations. Therefore, noise generated by the grease trap cleaning was not analyzed in the previous EIR. Final EIR No. 142 also assessed impacts on the project from traffic noise. As a Master Plan, specific projects were not defined. The EIR concluded that patios and buildings located within the 65 CNEL roadway contours could be significantly impacted. Mitigation was identified. As previously noted, Final EIR No. 142 found that the intensification of development on the Upper Campus would result in a significant unavoidable land use impact to residential units to the west when the combination with visual (shade and shadow) and noise impacts were considered. A noise study was prepared for the Supplemental EIR. With respect to vehicular noise, consistent with Final EIR No. 142, the proposed project's contribution to changes in traffic noise levels would be less than significant. On a cumulative basis, four roadway segments are projected to have traffic noise level increases of 3 dB or more when compared to existing conditions. The proposed project is expected to result in a 1 dB or greater increase along three of these segments; the project has not contributed to one segment. Because the noise standards would not be exceeded, the proposed project's contribution would not result in a significant cumulative impact along these road segments. With respect to long-term on -site activities, noise generated from activities in the loading dock and in the vicinity of the loading dock is considered significant, as the proposed Master Plan Update Project will modify the applicable noise standards such that limitations under the Noise Ordinance will be allowed to be exceeded. The Supplemental EIR identifies that proposed changes to the noise standards for the loading dock area could eventually result in higher noise levels at the nearby residences (compared to existing conditions). Mitigation measures are recommended and it has been determined that there is no feasible mitigation to reduce impacts from the loading dock area to below the limits contained in the City's Noise Ordinance. Modifications to the noise standards would allow noise to exceed the Noise Ordinance criteria in the vicinity of the loading dock area. However, even with the application of the feasible Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page 27 'r mitigation measures, the Supplemental EIR identifies the proposed changes as resulting in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. With respect to the grease trap located in the general loading dock area of Hoag, it is cleaned once per month. The City considers grease trap cleaning a property maintenance activity in accordance with the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance of the Municipal Code: Sections 10.26, 10.28, and 10.32. Property maintenance occurring between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Friday or between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday is exempted from the Noise Ordinance criteria. Therefore, the grease trap cleaning is exempt from the Noise Ordinance limits as long as it occurs during these hours. Property maintenance activities are prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Although the grease trap cleaning is exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance because it is a maintenance activity and maintenance occurs during hours stipulated by the Noise Ordinance, the hours for maintenance have already been changed at Hoag to occur on a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. The applicable noise standards for the cogeneration facility are the Noise Ordinance regulations. The City's Noise Ordinance regulations apply to this use because this facility is not a mechanical equipment operation that would be regulated by the current Development Agreement. The particular paragraph in the Development Agreement refers to "new mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops and utility vaults" and the cogeneration facility is not consistent with this description. Residential areas within 100 feet of the Hoag property line would be protected by the Zone 3 — Mixed Use Residential criteria. The noise criterion for Zone 3 is 50 dBA (Leq) during the night and 60 dBA during the day. The noise levels for the cogeneration facility are below the nighttime criteria of 50 dBA contained in the Noise Ordinance. Nighttime noise levels have ranged from 46.1 dBA to 49.8 dBA at the upper floor of the nearest residence to the cogeneration facility. With the current equipment in operation, the noise levels generated by the cogeneration facility are in compliance with the Noise Ordinance at locations within 100 feet of the property line. A fourth cooling tower is being installed at the facility. The addition of this cooling tower is expected to increase the cooling tower portion of the noise levels by approximately 1.2 dB. The addition of the fourth cooling tower is expected to raise the overall noise level to between 46.7 and 50.4 dBA. The operation of a fourth cooling tower is not part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project because the cogeneration facility is already permitted and no further approvals from the City are required for this facility to operate. Therefore, the operation of the cogeneration plant becomes a Noise Ordinance compliance issue. That is, the City would need to take measurements once the fourth cooling tower is operational and determine if it is in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Should the City determine the cogeneration facility is not in compliance, the City would require Hoag to correct the situation to maintain compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page28 d(1-1— Aesthetics Final EIR No. 142 evaluated the potential aesthetic, topographic, and landform effects for the 1992 Master Plan project. Final EIR No. 142 determined that landform alteration would not result in significant visual impacts. Grading on the Upper Campus was not anticipated to be extensive and would not result in substantial landform alteration because previous grading activities had already altered the natural topography in this area. Although grading would occur on the Lower Campus, the slope would visually retain a similar configuration to what existed at the time the EIR was certified in 1992. Final EIR No. 142 concluded that there would be no significant visual impacts as result of grading activities on the Lower Campus. Views of the Upper Campus consist of the developed Hoag site. Development approved for the Upper Campus allows for the demolition and reconstruction of existing structures, additions to existing buildings, and/or construction of new buildings. Final EIR No. 142 concluded that even though implementation of the Master Plan would alter existing viewsheds of the Upper Campus, the change would not have a significant visual impact because the visual perception of the Upper Campus would not be substantially altered. The EIR concluded that the changes to the Lower Campus were not out of character with the surrounding area and were consistent with City plans and policies. Final EIR No. 142 identified that the development on the Upper Campus would cast shadows on adjacent land uses; development on the Lower Campus would not cast shadows on other properties because it is at a lower elevation than the adjacent land uses. The Versailles and Villa Balboa residential developments were identified as the only sensitive land uses for shade and shadow. Final EIR No. 142 identified that Master Plan buildout would increase shadow effects to residential units west of Hoag. While this may be perceived as adverse by some of the residents, Final EIR No. 142 concluded that it would not be a significant impact because of the short daily duration of the effect. However, Final EIR No. 142 identified that the combination of shade, shadow, and noise effects would contribute to significant unavoidable land use compatibility impacts to residences located west of the Upper Campus. The analysis conducted in the Supplemental EIR determined that, consistent with the 1992 Master Plan, the proposed project would not result in any significant visual impacts either prior to or after mitigation. Impacts associated with the proposed project would be no greater than identified in Final EIR. 142. Hoag Master Plan Update January 31, 2008 Page,29- A I 3 Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property, and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared By: Submitted by: es Campbe'I, Senior Planner David Lepo, PlannipfDirector EXHIBITS (in the order they are referenced within the report) 1. Draft Resolution recommending certification of the SEIR 2. Existing PC text and proposed draft amendment 3. Existing Development Agreement and proposed draft amendment 4. List of Violations alleged by Villa Balboa 5. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Separate — Volume I & II) 6. Responses to Comments received on the SEIR (Separate — Volume III & IV of the SEIR) Exhibit No. 1 Draft Resolution recommending certification of the SEIR Blank 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN MASTER PLAN UPDATE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 1991107103) WHEREAS, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian has applied to the City of Newport Beach for General Plan Amendment No. 2007-005, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2007-001 and Development Agreement No. 2007- 001 (PA 2007-073) to modify existing regulatory documents that provide for the current use and future development of the 38-acre, Hoag Hospital campus located at One Hoag Drive in the City of Newport Beach. WHEREAS, as part of its application, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian requests approval of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 142 (Final EIR No. 142) "Supplemental Environmental Impact Report." WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§21000, et seq.) and its implementing State regulations (CEQA Guidelines) (14 Cal. Reg. §§15000, et seq.), the City of Newport Beach prepared Final EIR No. 142, which was certified in 1992. The FEIR was prepared to address the potential impacts associated with construction of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Development program. The Final EIR addressed the impacts associated with the phased reconstruction and development of the Upper Campus and development of the Lower Campus. The Final EIR included a supplemental EIR volume (Final EIR No. 142, Volume V), which was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15163, provided clarifications to the EIR and project, and was distributed for public review before Final EIR No. 142 was certified. WHEREAS, In accordance with CEQA §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162 and §15163, the City has determined that a Supplement to Final EIR No. 142 is required to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the proposed modifications to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 31, 2008, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the Planning Commission considered the North Newport Center Addendum. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was duly given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting, including the evidence and arguments submitted by the City staff, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, and all interested parties. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in the North Newport Center Addendum and in the full administrative record, 3� Planning Commission Resolution No. Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment Page 2 of 3 including the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, before taking any action recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, Planned WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that: (1) The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report assessed the environmental effects of the requested applications and has been prepared in compliance in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§21000, et seq.) and its implementing State regulations (CEQA Guidelines) (14 Cal. Reg. §§15000, et seq.). (2) The Supplemental EIR adequately analyzes project -related impacts, identifies feasible mitigation measures, and discusses project alternatives, and that the Supplemental EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends certification of the Supplemental EIR, attached as Exhibit "A," based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including Final Environmental Impact Report No. 142. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2008. BY: BY: Robert Hawkins, Chairman Bradley Hillgren, Secretary AYES: NOES: Planning Commission Resolution No. Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment Page 3 of 3 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 142 (To be attached upon recommendation of approval) Blank Exhibit No. 2 Existing PC Text and proposed draft amendment Blank 35 HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA AND DISTRICT REGULATIONS Recommended for Approval by the Planning Commission February 20,1992 Adopted by the City Council City of Newport Beach Amendment No. 744 Ordinance No. 92-3 May 26,1992 Amendment No. 2002-001 City Council Ordinance No. 2002-17 August 27, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number I. Introduction 1 II. General Notes 2 III. Defmitions 3 IV. Development Plan 5 V. District Regulations 10 VI. Sign Program 18 VII. Parking Program 20 VIII. Landscape Regulations 22 IX. Site Plan Review 24 EXHIBITS Page Number 1. Planned Community Development Plan 6 2. Internal Circulation 8 3. Development Criteria 14 TABLES 1. Statistical Analysis 9 2. Parking Requirements 21 I. INTRODUCTION Background The Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community District in the City of Newport Beach has been developed in accordance with the Newport Beach General Plan. The purpose of this Planned Community District is to provide a method whereby property may be classified and developed for hospital -related uses. The specifications of this District are intended to provide land use and development standards supportive of the proposed use while ensuring compliance with the intent of all applicable regulatory codes. The Planned Community District includes district regulations and a development plan for both the upper and lower campuses of Hoag Hospital. In general, over the long term, the upper campus will become oriented primarily towards emergency, acute and critical care (predominantly inpatient) uses and the lower campus will be developed with predominantly outpatient uses, residential care and support services. Whenever the regulations contained in the Planned Community text conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained in the Planned Community text shall take precedence. The Municipal Code shall regulate this development when such regulations are not provided within these district regulations. All development within the Planned Community boundaries shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code and other governing building codes. 1 H. GENERAL NOTES 1. Water service to the Planned Community District will be provided by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Development of the subject property will be undertaken in accordance with the flood protection policies of the City of Newport Beach. 3. All development of the site is subject to the provisions of the City Council Policies K-5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resources. 4. Except as otherwise stated in this text, the requirements of the Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance shall apply. The contents of this text notwithstanding, all construction within the boundaries of this Planned Community District shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code, other various codes related thereto and local amendments. 5. All buildings shall meet Title 24 requirements. Design of buildings shall take into account the location of building air intake to maximize ventilation efficiency, the incorporation of natural ventilation, and implementation of energy conserving heating and lighting systems. 6. Any fire equipment and access shall be approved by the Newport Beach Fire Department. 7. New mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops and utility vaults, excluding communications devices, on the upper campus shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with building materials. Rooftop mechanical appurtenances or utility vaults shall be screened on the lower campus. Noise shall not exceed 55 dBA at all property lines. No new mechanical appurtenances may exceed the building height limitations as defined in these district regulations. 8. Grading and erosion control shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and shall be subject to permits issued by the Building and Planning Departments. 9. Sewage disposal facilities within the Planned Community will be provided by Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permits it shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available. Prior to the occupancy of any structure it shall be further demonstrated that adequate sewer facilities exist. 10. Mass grading and grading by development phases shall be allowed provided that landscaping of exposed slopes shall be installed within 30 days of the completion of grading. 2 ttb III. DEFINITIONS Building Elevation: 1. A vertical distance of a building above or below a fixed reference level, i.e., MSL (mean sea level). 2. A flat scale drawing of the front, rear, or side of a building. Building Envelope: The volume in which a building may be built as circumscribed by setback lines and maximum allowable building heights. Building Height: The vertical distance measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the structure. At all points, the height measurement shall run with the slope of the land. Emergency Room: A service and facility designated to provide acute emergency medical services for possible life threatening situations. Entitlement, Gross Floor Area: Any area of a building or portion thereof including the surrounding exterior walls, but excluding 1. Area of a building utilized for stairwells and elevator shafts on levels other than the first level of a building in which they appear; 2. Area of a building which measures less than 8 feet from finished floor to ceiling and is not for general or routine occupancy; 3. As applied to new construction permits issued on or after August 13, 2002, area of a building used specifically for base isolation and structural system upgrades directly related to requirements of governmental agencies and is not for general or routine occupancy; and 4. As applied to new construction permits issued on or after August 13, 2002, enclosed rooftop mechanical levels not for general or routine occupancy. Fast Aid: Low acuity medical treatment for non -life threatening situations. General Plan: The General Plan of the City of Newport Beach and all elements thereof Grade: For the purpose of determining building height: 1. Finished - the ground level elevation which exists after any grading or other site preparation related to, or to be incorporated into, a proposed new development or alteration of existing developments. (Grades may be worked into buildings to allow for subterranean parking.) 2. Natural -the elevation of the ground surface in its natural state before man-made alterations. 3. Existing - the current elevation of ground surface. Inpatient Uses: Hospital patient services which require ovemight stay. 3 Landscape Area: The landscape area shall include on -site walks, plazas, water, rooftop landscaping and all other areas not devoted to building footprints or vehicular parking and drive surfaces. Mean Sea Level: A reference or datum mark measuring land elevation using the average level of the ocean between high and low tides. Outpatient Uses: Hospital patient services which do not require overnight stay. Residential Care: Medically -oriented residential units that do not require the acuity level generally associated with inpatient services but require overnight stays. Site Area: For the purpose of determining development area: 1. Gross - parcel area prior to dedications. 2. Net - parcel area after dedications. Special Landscaped Street: West Coast Highway is designated as a special landscaped street, containing special landscape requirements. Streets: Reference to all streets or rights -of -way within this ordinance shall mean dedicated vehicular rights -of -way. 4 IV. DEVELOPMENT PLAN Project Characteristics The upper campus of Hoag Hospital is located on a triangular site of approximately 17.57 acres and is bounded by Newport Boulevard to the east, Hospital Road to the north and existing residential developments (the Versailles and Villa Balboa/Seafaire condominiums) to the west. The lower campus is located north of West Coast Highway, south of the Versailles and Villa Balboa/Seafaire Condominiums, west of Newport Boulevard and east of Superior Avenue. It contains approximately 20.41 acres and adjoins the upper campus at its eastern boundary. The upper campus is, and will continue to be, oriented towards inpatient functions, while the lower campus will be developed with predominantly outpatient, residential care and support services. Development Plan The Planned Community Development Plan for Hoag Hospital is shown on Exhibit 1. From 1990 to 2015, many of the existing buildings shown on the Development Plan for the upper campus may be redeveloped in order to functionally respond to the needs of the Hospital and conform to the requirements of State agencies. The Development Plan includes a 0.8 acre view park adjacent to the bike trail between the lower campus and the Villa Balboa/Seafaire Condominiums. This view park includes a twenty -foot wide linear park area adjacent to the bike path (approximately 0.5 acres) and a consolidated view park at the westerly edge of the property (approximately 0.3 acres). A bike trail connection is also provided between the existing bike trails at the northern and southern boundaries of the lower campus. Access to the lower campus will be from West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, as well as from Hospital Road, via the upper campus. Exhibit 2 shows the internal circulation for Hoag Hospital. The Development Plan does not specify building locations or specific hospital related uses. Instead, a developable area is identified based on the regulations established for this Planned Community District. Because of the dynamic nature of the health care industry which leads to rapid technological changes that effect how health care services are delivered, the Development Plan for Hoag Hospital sets development caps as a function of allowable densities established by the Newport Beach General Plan. 5 LEGEND AREA OF DEVELOPMENT SUPERIOR r AVENUE, WEST COAST PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAI- HIGHWAY ROAD 0 9 y OUVA lnoe /A I EXHIBIT 1 The statistical analysis (Table 1) provides a summary of a potential development profile for Hoag Hospital. In order to provide flexibility for the hospital to respond to changes in the health care industry, while at the same time ensuring that trip generation restrictions are adhered to and the overall development cap is not exceeded, this Development Plan allows Hoag Hospital to adjust the development profile provided in the statistical analysis. For example, if changing hospital needs necessitate the development of additional outpatient uses, this development would be allowed, consistent with the Development Plan, as long as a corresponding adjustment in square footage and trip generation for another use were to occur. This Development Plan allows Hoag Hospital to adjust the development profile provided in the statistical analysis (Table 1) as long as the development limit (i.e., square feet) or the trip generation limit for the peak period (as identified in the Environmental Impact Report) established within each phase of development is not exceeded. Adjustments to the Development Plan may be allowed if the total square footage or trip generation allowed in the current phase of development is exceeded, if the total development or trip generation allowed under the Development Plan is not exceeded. 7 45 LEGEND •� d PRIMARY ACCESS (SIGNALIZED) SECONDARY ACCESS SERVICE ACCESS PUBLIC CIRCULATION • STAFF / SERVICE CIRCULATION n,. WEST COAST VEHICULAR ACCESS HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN sprta� �®�Y HIGHWAY ROAD z a H a2VAalno9 EXHIBIT 2 vss Table 1 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS' Use Square Feet Lower Campus Existing: Outpatient Services (Hoag Cancer Center) Child Care Subtotal: 65,000 7,800 72,800 Phase I: Outpatient Services 115,000 Support Service 55,000 Administrative 30,000 Subtotal: Phases II & III: Subtotal: 200,000 305,089 Total Lower Campus 577,889 Upper Campus Existing2: 480,000 Phase I: Outpatient Services 25,000 Inpatient 115,000 Subtotal: 140,000 Phases II & III: 145,349 Total Upper Campus 765,349 GRAND TOTAL 1,343,2383 Full development of the upper and lower campuses is anticipated to occur over an approximate 20-year period and will likely occur in three, seven-year phases. 2 Up to 50% of the existing upper campus may be redeveloped by master plan buildout. 2 Based on development allowed under the General Plan at a floor area ratio to gross site area of .65 for the lower campus and 1.0 for the upper campus. Building Bulk limit for the lower campus is 0.90 for all structures which includes above grade covered parking. 9 91 V. DISTRICT REGULATIONS The following regulations apply to all development within the Hoag Hospital Planned Community. The individual uses listed under the five permitted use categories are not an exhaustive list. Other hospital -related uses which fit into the five permitted use categories are allowed by definition. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, plot plans, elevations and any other such documents deemed necessary by the Planning, Building and Public Works Departments shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, and Public Works Departments. A. Permitted Uses 1. Lower Campus a) Hospital facilities, including, but not limited to: Outpatient services: • Antepartum Testing • Cancer Center • Skilled Nursing • Rehabilitation • Conditioning • Surgery Center • Clinical Center • Day Hospital • Back and Neck Center • Biofeedback • Breast Imaging Center CT Scan Dialysis EEG/EMG/NICE Laboratory First Aid Center Fertility Services G.I. Laboratory Laboratory Magnetic Resonance Imaging Nuclear Medicine Occupational Therapy Pediatrics Pharmacy Physical Therapy Pulmonary Services Radiation Therapy Radiology • Respiratory Therapy Sleep Disorder Center Speech Therapy Ultrasound 10 ii. Administration: • Admitting • Auxiliary Office • Business Offices • Information • Registration • Patient Relations • Social Services iii. Support Services: • Employee Child Care • Health Education • Power/MechanicaUAuxiliary Support and Storage • Food Services • Cashier • Chapel/Chaplaincy Service • Conference Center • Dietitian • Gift Shop Laboratory Medical Library Medical Records Pharmacy Engineering/Maintenance • Shipping/Receiving Microwave, Satellite, and Other Communication Facilities iv. Residential Care: Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Extended Care Hospice Care Self or Minimal Care Congregate Care v. Medical/Support Offices b) Methane gas flare burner, collection wells and associated system components. c) Accessory uses normally incidental to hospital development. d) Temporary structures and uses, including modular buildings. 2. Upper Campus a) Hospital facilities, including, but not limited to: 11 Inpatient uses: • Critical Care • Emergency Care Unit • Birth Suites • Cardiology • Cardiac Care Unit • Intensive Care Unit • Mother/Baby Unit • Surgery/Waiting Rooms • Radiology • Laboratory • Pharmacy ii) Outpatient services as allowed on the lower campus iii) Administrative uses as allowed on the lower campus iv) Support services as allowed on the lower campus v) Residential care as allowed on the lower campus vi) Heliport (subject to Conditional Use Permit) b) Accessory uses normally incidental to hospital development. c) Temporary structures and uses, including modular buildings. B. Prohibited Uses 1. Lower Campus a) Emergency Room b) Heliport c) Conversion of mechanical, structural or utility spaces to uses that allow general or routine occupancy or storage. 2. Upper Campus a) Conversion of mechanical, structural or utility spaces to uses that allow general or routine occupancy or storage. 12 56 C. Maximum Building Height The maximum building height of all buildings shall be in accordance with Exhibit 3 which established the following height zones: 1. Upper Campus Tower Zone - maximum building height not to exceed the existing tower (235 feet above mean sea level). 2. Upper Campus Midrise Zone - maximum building height not to exceed 140 feet above mean sea level. 3. Upper Campus Parking zone - maximum building height not to exceed 80 feet above mean sea level, exclusive of elevator tower. 4. Lower Campus Zone, Sub -Areas A, B, C, F and G - within each sub -area no building shall exceed the height of the existing slope and conform to the range of maximum building heights indicated on the development criteria Exhibit 3. 5. Lower Campus Zone, Sub -Areas D and E - maximum building height shall not exceed the height of the existing Hoag Cancer Center (57.5 feet above mean sea level). D. Setbacks Setbacks for the Hoag Hospital Planned Community are shown on Exhibit 3. 1. Setbacks will be provided along property boundaries adjacent to the Villa Balboa / Seafaire Condominiums, as defined below: a) Upper campus western boundary setback shall be the prolongation of the westerly edge of the existing cafeteria/laboratory building to the points of intersection with the easterly curb line of the existing service drive, then continuing along said line of the existing service drive. b) Lower campus northern boundary, all of which will have a 20' minimum building setback. 13 9 LEGEND IIEIONT ZONES DIM TOWEN ZGNE-µ0Ay,WA'?I PWLCINO HEIGIrt {{ +MOVE II.EOJFEALEVEL. E: MCPL54 ZONE-;WIMLNBVRCING IIEIOI10 .. LGVE MF0N EEA LOVE'L. PAX -NNE- IMIMVYOLI0000I TJ B]MGVEMEFYSL' . E%GLIISIVE CE E'LEVM1TOX TO W F11. r-,CAMPIS-IIXIE- EXCEED EWI 1C NEIGH or tilt EX5iwp SLOPE ON YXE MNGE OE MA}IMDf4 WILD WG HEIGXM 'VEPNENAND LVAEVOA'HIG PiEINXEi A -EELAROVE MEAN SEA GLEVEL rTi,I LWrNG HCIONK SOO AREAS °�N001R W.0001EE0E000Eo4BADE (65) J n3 WM.,. EUILDINNM pEMD OF Mn00 S. &tutu SEA LEVEL Iusal AvERANE SLOPE ELEVATION 0TIEA LESION ELEMENTS ACCESS !INFERNAL CNCLUTLN yy ;, o.ACBE vmv14llx OONSOLwA1r0V(Ewvt".-. fl0S(122EW 5YJ DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN OFP OVIUEO000 sA A10 O._ Sitka CCNWDON10OM£EN Olrierrp5 NNARVIEIMARX ota000EI(3 ul ONL0IPI OETIACK�\ IaNN S+104CK e us mmmw+a WAu0 Es' 9EPVICE.A CC+SS BUILDING BSEI FCN At.PEr£Ir1 O a l �p E000ALTO EDGEOE P• 2INO C4i'1ENIxjA00P0TONt: WILDING Wiwi NMI l0/PEn1En Es IV MINIMIIMOVLLDINO SEi11PCX co uo LIW INNIMum Null SETBACK PLIW ANNr0IIAlION ONO SETBACK ANDxs LFING FIRMA EXHIBIT e:..,v� Iy 2. The setback on West Coast Highway easterly of the hospital entry signal shall be 15 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 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 20% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 2nd floor setback of 20 feet. 3rd Floor and above: A minimum of 20% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 3rd floor and above setback of 25 feet. The setback on West Coast Highway westerly of the hospital entry signal shall be 45 feet. In addition, vertical articulation shall be required for buildings westerly of the signal for buildings 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 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 20% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 2nd floor setback of 55 feet. 3rd Floor and above: A minimum of 20% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 3rd floor and above setback of 65 feet. In order to avoid any future structures in this area (within 150 feet of West Coast Highway) from 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. 10% of the linear length of height zones A and B as viewed from the existing bicycle/pedestrian trail, exclusive of that area adjacent to the consolidated portion of the view park, shall be maintained as view corridors between buildings. These requirements may be altered for individual buildings, if requested by the hospital, through the site plan review process defined in Section IX. 15 53 3. There will be no building setbacks along the boundary with CalTrans east property at Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. 4. A 20-foot setback from property line shall be provided along Newport Boulevard from Hospital Road to a point 600 feet south; a 25-foot setback from property line shall be provided along the remainder of Newport Boulevard and along the Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway Interchange. 5. A ten (10) foot building setback from the property line shall be provided along Hospital Road. E. Lighting The lighting systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer. F. Roof Treatment Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the roof 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 roofmg materials. G. Signs All signs shall be as specified under the Hoag Hospital Sign Program, Part VI. H. Parking All parking shall be as specified in Part VII, Hoag Hospital Parking Regulations. I. Landscape All landscaping shall be as specified in the Hoag Hospital Landscape Regulations, Part VIII. J. Mechanical and Trash Enclosures 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. 16 K. Internal Circulation 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any of the proposed Master Plan facilities, the project sponsor shall implement a pilot program that controls 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 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 prior to the issuance of the grading permit. If such 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 will be investigated at that time to reduce service road impacts to the adjacent residential units. 2. The lower campus service road shall include provisions for controlled access to limit usage to physicians and staff, and service vehicles. L. Loading Dock Within one year from the date of fmal 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. 17 65 VI. HOAG HOSPITAL SIGN PROGRAM A. Purpose and Intent 1. The purpose of this Sign Program is to provide adequate, consistent and aesthetically pleasing on -building wall and ground -mounted signage based upon the provisions set forth by the City of Newport Beach Sign Ordinance and the information signage requirements of Hoag Hospital. 2. The intent of this Sign Program is to produce uniform standards for Hoag Hospital. B. General Sign Standards 1. All signs visible at the exterior of any building or facility of the Hospital, ground mounted or on -building, may be illuminated or non -illuminated, depending upon need. Illumination method may be by external or internal source. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, nor create the illusion of motion, in any fashion. All signs attached to building or facility exteriors shall be flush or surface mounted as is appropriate to the architectural design features of said building or facility. 3. All signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly maintained, legible, functional and safe with regard to appearance, structural integrity and electrical service. 4. All street signs shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be in compliance with Ordinance 110-L. C. Number of Signs Allowed 1. One (1) double-faced primary identification ground -mounted sign or two single faced gateway entry signs shall be allowed per street frontage. In the case of a sign occurring upon a slope, the average height shall be established by measuring the sign height at the mid -point of the sign length perpendicular to the slope direction. Total maximum signage area shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet and shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height per sign and street frontage. This sign may occur as a wall sign, to be located upon a project boundary perimeter wall, subject to the same number and area maximums described above. This sign may also occur as part of an entry gateway system. 2. Secondary identification signs shall be allowed. This sign type shall not exceed a maximum height of 48" average height above finished grade. In the case of a sign occurring upon a slope, the average height shall be established by measuring the sign height at the mid -point of the sign length perpendicular to the slope direction. Maximum sign area shall not exceed thirty-five (35) square feet. This 18 sign may occur as a wall sign to be located upon a project boundary perimeter wall, subject to the same number and area maximums described above. 3. Vehicular and pedestrian directional signs shall be allowed. This sign type may occur as a single -faced or double-faced sign. This sign type shall occur with the sign suspended between two upright supports having the same depth (thickness) as the sign cabinet described above. 4. Hospital identification signs shall be allowed upon hospital tower parapets, one (1) at each elevation. The elevation facing west (Villa Balboa property line) may not be illuminated. 5. On the lower campus, one (1) building -mounted identification sign will be allowed per structure and shall not be placed so as to directly face the Villa Balboa/Seafaire property. Such signs will be no higher than the roof line of the building upon which they are mounted. 19 VII. HOAG HOSPITAL PARKING REGULATIONS A. General 1. Off-street parking for Hoag Hospital shall be provided on -site. Parking may be on surface lots, subterranean or in parking structures. 2. The design and layout of all parking areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the city Traffic Engineer and the Public Works Department. 3. Parking lot lighting shall be developed in accordance with City standards and shall be designed in a manner which minimizes impacts on adjacent land uses. Nighttime lighting shall be limited to that necessary for security and shielded down from any adjacent residential area. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that the requirements have been met. The lighting plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Planning Department. B. Requirements for Off-street Parking Parking requirements for specific sites shall be based upon the parking criteria established in Table 2. All parking shall be determined based upon building type and the area allotted to the following functions. Any area that is calculated as part of the total floor area limitation shall be included in the gross floor area to determine the parking requirement. 20 ** Table 2 PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Category Parking Requirements Outpatient Services 2.0 spaces/1,000 square feet* Support 1.0 spaces/1,000 square feet* Administrative 4.0 spaces/1,000 square feet* Residential Care 1.0 spaces/1,000 square feet* Medical Offices 4.0 spaces/1,000 square feet* Inpatient 1.25 spaces/1,000 square feet** Parking requirements are based on a study performed by DKS Associates in May, 1987. Parking requirement is based on current Hoag Hospital parking demand. 21 VIII. HOAG HOSPITAL LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS A. General 1. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans, prepared by a registered Architect or under the direction of a Landscape Architect, shall be reviewed by the Planning and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments and approved by the Public Work Departments prior to issuance of a building permit and installed prior to issuance of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. The Landscape Plan may include a concept for the roofs and the parking structures. Trees shall not be used, but a planter box or trellis system shall be designed to provide visual relief of parking structures. All landscaping shall conform to the building height limits established in this text. Parking lot trees shall be no less than fifteen (15) gallon size. 3. Shrubs to be planted in containers shall not be less than one (1) gallon size. Ground covers will be planted from (1) gallon containers or from root cuttings. 4. Every effort should be made to avoid using plants with invasive and shallow root systems. 5. Earth berms shall be rounded and natural in character, designed to obscure automobiles and to add interest to the site. Wheel stops shall be so placed that damage to trees, irrigation units and shrubs is avoided. 6. Trees in parking lots should be limited in variety. Selection should be repeated to give continuity. Regular spacing is not required and irregular groupings may add interest. Care should be exercised to allow plants to grow and maintain their ultimate size without restriction. 7. Heavy emphasis shall be placed on the use of drought -resistant native and naturalized vegetation and the use of an irrigation system designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. B. Maintenance 1. All planting areas are to be kept free of weeds and debris. 2. Lawn and ground covers are to be kept trimmed and/or mowed regularly. 3. All plantings are to be kept in a healthy and growing condition. Fertilization, cultivation and tree pruning are to be carried out as part of regular maintenance. 4. Irrigation systems are to be kept in working condition. Adjustment and cleaning of system should be part of regular maintenance. 22 5. Stakes, guys and ties on trees should be checked regularly for correct function; ties to be adjusted to avoid creating abrasions or girdling to the stems. 6. Damage to plantings created by vandalism, automobile or acts of nature shall be corrected within thirty (30) days. C. Special Landscaped Street West Coast Highway is designated in the Hoag Hospital Planned Community as a special landscaped street. A 15' building setback from right-of-way / property line is required along West Coast Highway. Only driveways, parking and signage are allowed in the setback area. Parking areas shall be screened from view of West Coast Highway with landscaped berms. Landscaping along West Coast Highway shall consist of trees, ground cover and shrubbery. All unpaved areas not utilized for parking or circulation shall be landscaped in a similar manner. Tree size to be no less than twenty-four (24) inch box. D. Villa Balboa Landscape Zone The area between the Villa Balboa/Hoag property line and the loading dock service access road shall be landscaped except for any driveway, walkway, or other hardscape elements in said area. The purpose of the landscaping will be to screen and buffer residential units from hospital activities. E. Parking Areas A minimum of 5% of the surface parking areas shall be devoted to planting areas. Planting areas around building shall not be included in parking area. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not necessarily be in regular spacing. Alternative landscape programs may be developed, including perimeter parking area landscaping, berming and depressing of parking areas. Alternative landscape programs shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. A rooftop landscaping program may be developed for parking structures and shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. Rooftop landscaping shall conform to height restrictions. 23 IX. SITE PLAN REVIEW. A. Purpose The City Council finds that development on the West Coast Highway frontage of the lower campus of Hoag Hospital may have the potential to affect the aesthetics of the West Newport area as viewed from surrounding arterial roadways. The effect of this section is to establish a Site Plan Review requirement by the Planning Commission for certain individual projects which are proposed by the hospital to differ from the setback, horizontal and vertical articulation requirements as set forth in Section V.D.2. to insure that these projects conform with the objectives of the General Plan and the Master Plan for Hoag Hospital. B. Findings The City finds, determines and declares that the establishment of Site Plan Review procedures contained in this section promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community by ensuring that the development of Hoag Hospital proceeds in a manner which will not result in inadequate and poorly planned landscape areas, excessive building bulk on arterial roadways, inappropriate placement of structures and impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in the area. C. Application Site Plan Review approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for any new structure or the addition to an existing structure which does not conform to the provisions of Section V.D.2. D. Plans and Diagrams to be Submitted The following plans and diagrams shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval: A plot plan, drawn to scale, showing the arrangement of buildings, driveways, pedestrian ways, off-street parking and off-street loading areas, landscaped areas, signs, fences and walks. The plot plan shall show the location of entrances and exits, and the direction of traffic flow into and out of off-street parking and loading areas, the location of each parking space and loading space, and areas for turning and maneuvering vehicles. The plot plan shall indicate how utility and drainage are to be provided. 2. A landscape plan, drawn to scale, showing the locations of existing trees proposed to be removed and proposed to be retained; and indicating the amount, type, and location of landscaped areas, planting beds and plant materials with adequate provisions for irrigation. 24 3. Grading plans when necessary to ensure development properly related to the site and to surrounding properties and structures. 4. Scale drawings of exterior lighting showing size, location, materials, intensity and relationship to adjacent streets and properties. 5. Architectural drawings, renderings or sketches, drawn to scale, showing all elevations of the proposed buildings and structures as they will appear upon completion. 6. Any other plans, diagrams, drawings or additional information necessary to adequately consider the proposed development and to determine compliance with the purposes of this chapter. E. Fee The applicant shall pay a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council to the City with each application for Site Plan Review under this chapter. F. Standards In addition to the general purposes set forth in sub -section B, in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter as established by said section, the site plan review procedures established by this Section shall be applied according to and in compliance with the following standards, when applicable: 1. The development is in compliance with all other provisions of the Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (P-C Text); 2. Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City; Development shall be sited and designed to maximize the aesthetic quality of the project as viewed from surrounding roadways and properties, with special consideration given to the mass and bulk of buildings and the streetscape on West Coast Highway; 4. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, landscaping and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development. G. Public Hearing - Required Notice A public hearing shall be held on all Site Plan Review applications. Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the hearing date, postage prepaid, using addresses from the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more 25 recent addresses, to owners of property within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required by this Section. In addition to the mailed notice, such hearing shall be posted in not less than two conspicuous places on or close to the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. H. Action by the Planning Commission If all applicable standards established by this Section are met, the Planning Commission shall approve the development. Conditions may be applied when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said development into conformity. If the development is disapproved, the Commission shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. A Site Plan Review decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to review by the City Council either by appeal, or upon its own motion, or upon the request of the Commission. The action of the Commission on any Site Plan Review shall be final and effective twenty-one (21) days following the Commission action thereon unless, within the twenty-one (21) day appeal period an appeal in writing has been filed by the applicant, or any other person, the Commission has requested a review of its decision, or unless the City Council, not more than twenty-one (21) days after the Commission action, on its own motion, elects to review and act on the action of the Commission, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affum, reverse or modify the decision. Such action by the City Council shall be final I. Appeal to the City Council Any Site Plan Review decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any other person, at any time within twenty-one (21) days after the date of the Commission decision. An appeal to the City Council shall be taken by filing a letter of appeal in duplicate, with the Planning Department. Such letter shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based and shall be accompanied by a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council. J. Action by the City Council An appeal shall be heard and acted on by the City Council, and the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Commission. The decision of the City Council is final. K. Expiration and Revocation of Site Plan Review Approvals 1. Expiration. Any Site Plan Review granted in accordance with the terms of this Title shall expire within 24 months from the date of approval if a building permit has not been issued prior to the expiration date and subsequently construction is diligently pursued until completion, unless at the time of approval the Planning Commission has specified a different period of time. 26 2. Violation of Terms. Any Site Plan Review granted in accordance with the terms of this Title may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such Site Plan Review are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection there- with. 3. Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing on any proposed revocation after giving written notice to the pemuttee at least ten days prior to the hearing, and shall submit its recommendations to the City Council. The City Council shall act thereon within 60 days after receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. f \ \Planning\PCTEXT\HOAGHOSP 27 HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN DRAFT PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA AND DISTRICT REGULATIONS REVISED JANUARY 9.2008 Recommended for Approval by the Planning Commission February 20,1992 Adopted by the City Council City of Newport Beach Amendment No. 744 Ordinance No. 92-3 May 26,1992 Amendment No. 2002-001 City Council Ordinance No. 2002-17 August 27, 2002 Amendment No. _ City Council Ordinance No. ,2008 Last saved on 1/9/2008 10:35AM TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. GENERAL NOTES 2 III. DEFINITIONS 3 IV. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5 V. DISTRICT REGULATIONS 11 VI. HOAG HOSPITAL SIGN PROGRAM 21 VII. HOAG HOSPITAL PARKING REGULATIONS 23 VIII. HOAG HOSPITAL LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS 25 IX. SITE PLAN REVIEW. 27 Last saved on 1/9/2008 10:35AM EXHIBITS Page Number 1. PLANNED COMMUNITY SITE AND BOUNDARY MAP 7 2. VEHICULAR ACCESS 8 3. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 15 4. LOADING DOCK NOISE STANDARDS �0 TABLES 1. BUILDING AREA STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 9 2. PARKING REQUIREMENTS 24 Last saved on 1/9/2008 10:35AM I. INTRODUCTION Background The Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community District in the City of Newport Beach has been developed in accordance with the Newport Beach General Plan. The purpose of this Planned Community District is to provide a method whereby property may be classified and developed for hospital -related uses. The specifications of this District are intended to provide land use and development standards supportive of the proposed use while ensuring compliance with the intent of all applicable regulatory codes. The Planned Community District includes district regulations and a development plan for both the Upper and Lower Campuses of Hoag Hospital. In general, over the long term, the Upper Campus will become oriented primarily towards emergency, acute and critical care (predominantly inpatient) uses and the Lower Campus will be developed with predominantly outpatient uses, residential care and support services. Whenever the regulations contained in the Planned Community text conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained in the Planned Community text shall take precedence. The Municipal Code shall regulate this development when such regulations are not provided within these district regulations. All development within the Planned Community boundaries shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code and other governing building codes. 1 II. GENERAL NOTES 1. Water service to the Planned Community District will be provided by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Development of the subject property will be undertaken in accordance with the flood protection policies of the City of Newport Beach. 3. All development of the site is subject to the provisions of the City Council Policies K-4 and K-5 regarding paleontological and archaeological resources. 4. Except as otherwise stated in this text, the requirements of the Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance shall apply. The contents of this text notwithstanding, all construction within the boundaries of this Planned Community District shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code, other various codes related thereto and local amendments. 5. All buildings shall meet Title 24 requirements or the requirements of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development as applicable. Design of buildings shall take into account the location of building air intake to maximize ventilation efficiency, the incorporation of natural ventilation, and implementation of energy conserving heating and lighting systems. 6. Any fire equipment and access shall be approved by the Newport Beach Fire Department. 7. Excluding communications devices on the Upper Campus, new mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops and utility vaults on the Upper and Lower Campuses shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with building materials. Rooftop mechanical appurtenances or utility vaults shall be screened designed utilizing compatible architectural materials on the Lower Campus. Noise shall not exceed 55 dBA at all property lines. No new mechanical appurtenances may exceed the building height limitations as defined in these district regulations. 8. Grading and erosion control shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Excavation and Grading Code and shall be subject to permits issued by the Building and Planning Departments. 9. Sewage disposal facilities within the Planned Community will be provided by Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permits it shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available. Prior to the occupancy of any structure it shall be further demonstrated that adequate sewer facilities exist. 10. Mass grading and grading by development phases shall be allowed provided that landscaping of exposed slopes shall :nztalledcommence within thirty (30) days of the completion of grading. 2 III. DEFINITIONS Building Elevation: 1. A vertical distance of a building above or below a fixed reference level, i.e., MSL (mean sea level). 2. A flat scale drawing of the front, rear, or side of a building. Building Envelope: The volume in which a building may be built as circumscribed by setback lines and maximum allowable building heights. Building Height: The vertical distance measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the structure. At all points, the height measurement shall run with the slope of the land. Emergency Room: A service and facility designated to provide acute emergency medical services for possible life threatening situations. Entitlement, Gross Floor Area: Any area of a building, or portion thereof, including the surrounding exterior walls, but excluding: 1. Area of a building utilized for stairwells and elevator shafts on levels other than the first level of a building in which they appear; 2. Area of a building and/or buildings which measures less than 8 feet from finished floor to ceiling and is are not for general or routine occupancy, such as interstitial or mechanical occupancies; 3. As applied to new construction permits issued on or after August 13, 2002, area of a building used specifically for base isolation and structural system upgrades directly related to requirements of governmental agencies and is not for general or routine occupancy; and 4. As applied to new construction permits issued on or after August 13, 2002, enclosed rooftop mechanical levels not for general or routine occupancy. First Aid: Low acuity medical treatment for non -life threatening situations. General Plan: The General Plan of the City of Newport Beach and all elements thereof. Grade: For the purpose of determining building height: 1. Finished - the ground level elevation which exists after any grading or other site preparation related to, or to be incorporated into, a proposed new development or alteration of existing developments. (Grades may be worked into buildings to allow for subterranean parking.) 2. Natural - the elevation of the ground surface in its natural state before man-made alterations. 3 3. Existing - the current elevation of ground surface. Inpatient Uses: Hospital patient services which require overnight twenty-four (24) hour or more stays. Landscape Area: The landscape area shall include on -site walks, plazas, water, rooftop landscaping and all other areas not devoted to building footprints or vehicular parking and drive surfaces. Mean Sea Level: A reference or datum mark measuring land elevation using the average level of the ocean between high and low tides. Outpatient Uses: Hospital patient services which d :ght ' ' do not exceed twentv-four (24) hours. Residential Care: Medically -oriented residential units that do not require the acuity level generally associated with inpatient services but require overnight stays. Site Area: For the purpose of determining development area: 1. Gross - parcel area prior to dedications. 2. Net - parcel area after dedications. Streets: Reference to all streets or rights -of -way within this ordinance shall mean dedicated vehicular rights -of -way. 4 `1 ; IV. DEVELOPMENT PLAN Project Characteristics The Upper Campus of Hoag Hospital is located on a triangular site of approximately 17.57 acres and is bounded by Newport Boulevard to the east, Hospital Road to the north and existing residential developments (the Versailles and Villa Balboa/Seafaire condominiums) to the west. The Lower Campus is located north of West Coast Highway, south of the Versaille Sunset View linear and consolidated park and Villa Balboa/Scafaire Condominiums, west of Newport Boulevard and east of Superior Avenue. It contains approximately 20.6137.38 total acres, including 8,603 square feet of land encumbered by a roadway easement. The Lower Campus adjoins the Upper Campus at its eastern boundary. The Upper Campus is, and will continue to be, oriented towards inpatient functions, while the Lower Campus will be developed with predominantly outpatient, residential care and support services. Development Plan The Planned Community Development Plan for Hoag Hospital is shown on Exhibit 1, Planned Community Site and Boundary Map. Through the year 20152017, many of the existing buildings shown on the Development Plan for the Upper Campus may be redeveloped in order to functionally respond to the needs of the Hospital and conform to the requirements of State agencies. r Carp. s arrel—ta BalbeacSear e Condominiums This viow park ineludes a two id l' i µ ad'a ent-to the Like att, (..,,....,,xiraratel., n c es) _a consolidated view park at the westerly edge of the property (approximately 0.3 acres) A bikc trail connection is also provided between the existing bike trails at the northern and southern boundaries of the Lower Campus. Access to the Lower Campus will be from West Coast Highway and potentially from Superior M enue, as well asand from Hospital Road, via the Upper Campus. Exhibit 2, Vehicular Access, shows the internal circulation for Hoag Hospital. The Development Plan does not specify building locations or specific hospital -related uses. Instead, a developable area is identified based on the regulations established for this Planned Community District. Because of the dynamic nature of the health care industry which leads to rapid technological changes that effect how health care services are delivered, the Development Plan for Hoag Hospital sets development caps as a function of allowable densities established by the Newport Beach General Plan. Hoag Hospital. In order to provide flexibility for the hospital to respond to changes in the p Hoag Hospital to adjust the dm,clopment profile provided in the statistical analysis. For Ihi rd ' � t ld all.o ed stent itl. tl.e rl... elop...ent Plan long 5 statistical analysis (Table 1) as long as the development limit (i.c., square feet) or the trip established within ach phase of devel pment is not exceeded. Adjustments to the Development Plan may be allowed if the total square footage or trip trip generation allowed under the Development Plan is not exceeded. The maximum allowable building area for Hoag Hospital., which encompasses both the Lower Campus and the Upper Campus, is 1,343,238 square feet. Each Campus is also subject to a maximum allowable building area limit: the maximum allowable building area for the Upper Campus is 990.349 square feet: the maximum allowable building area for the Lower Campus is 577.889 square feet. Table 1 Building Area Statistical Analysis, provides a summary of allowable square footage for both the Upper and Lower Campuses. 6 UPPER CAMPUS 210 PARIS LANE 210 UWE LANE PLANT ^SURFACE PARTYING MODULAR OFECES LOWER CAMPUS Note: Buildings labeled for identification purposes only PLANNED COMMUNITY SITE AND BOUNDARY MAP HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN 230 LILLIE LANE LOADING DOCK (Under 13ulldIng3 MAIN LOADING DOCK 270 CAGNEY LANE SURFACE h p.i . PARKING - POWER PLANT:. 260CAGNEY LANE 2BOCAGNEY LANE L _.- GATED NREACCESs CANCER CENTER �.. / ca CONFERENCE p .ROq H� U CENTER CO L'f OO ' CONFERENC -- PARKING �..'. `., ULTURE moilwAy NO KICA EPENDA ORIGINAL 1952 BUILDING SOUTH PARKING STRUCTURE NORTH PARKING STRUCTURE NORTH 100 0 100 200 � u SCALE: 1"=200' EXHIBIT 1 08.20.07 REVISED 01.22.08 TABLE 1 BUILDING AREA STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TOTAL OF LOWER CAMPUS & UPPER CAMPUS BUILDING AREAS - MAxIMUM ALLOWABLE: 1,343,238 SQUARE -FEET Site Area Allowable Existingi Net Maximum Allowable Building Area Remaining Net ko� _�o Exee4d UPPER CAMPUS Lh A 0 m 765,349 sq. ft. 698,121 sq. ft. 67.228 sq. ft. 990,349 sq. ft.2 LOWER CAMPUS LaC 577,889 sq. ft. 188,149 sq. ft. 389.740 sq. ft. 577.889 sq. ft. TOTALS 00 W a A ti 1,343.238 sq. ft. 886,270 sq. ft. 456.968 sq. ft. 1.343,238 sq. ft.3 I As of the date of adoption. 2 Up to 225 000 square -feet can be transferred from the Lower to the Upper Campus 3 Demolition of some existin« structures on the Upper Campus willoccur to ensure maximum square -feet will not exceed 1,343,238 square -feet 9 T STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Uac Square Feet Leaver• Cainpns Existing: Outpatient Services (Hoag Cancer Center) 65,000 Child Care 7,800 Subtotal: 72,800 Phase -I: Outpatient Services 115,000 Support Service 55,000 Administrative 30 000 Subtotal: 200,000 Phase T Subtotal: 305,089 Total Lower Campus 577,889 Upper -Campus listings: 480,000 Phase-I4 Outpatient Services 25,000 Inpatient 115 000 Subtotal: 110,000 Phases II and III: 145,319 Total Upper Campus 765,349 CRAND TOTAL 1„313,2386 a.. and will likely occur in three, seven y ar phases. 3 Up to 50% of the existing upper campus may be redeveloped by master plan buildout. a e. hich includes .above grade c e red parkin. 10 lc V. DISTRICT REGULATIONS The following regulations apply to all development within the Hoag Hospital Planned Community. The individual uses listed under the five permitted use categories are not an exhaustive list. Other hospital -related uses which fit into the five (5) permitted use categories are allowed by definition. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, plot plans, elevations and any other such documents deemed necessary by the Planning, Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments. A. Permitted Uses 1. Lower Campus a. Hospital facilities, including, but not limited to: (1) Outpatient services: (a) Antepartum Testing (b) Cancer Center (c) Skilled Nursing (d) Rehabilitation 1 Conditioning (e) Surgery Center (f) Clinical Center (g) Day Hospital (h) Back and Neck Center (i) Biofeedback (j) Breast Imaging Center 2CT Scan (k) Dialysis (I) EEG/EMG/NICE Laboratory (m) First Aid Center (n) Fertility Services (o) G.I. Laboratory 3-Laboratory (p) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (q) Nuclear Medicine (r) Occupational Therapy (s) Pediatrics (t) Pharmacy (u) Physical Therapy (v) Pulmonary Services (w) Radiation Therapy 1I Radiology (x) Respiratory Therapy (y) Sleep Disorder Center 11 1� (z) Speech Therapy (aa) Ultrasound (bb) Urgent Care (2) Administration: (a) Admitting (b) Auxiliary Office (c) Business Offices (d) Information Desk (e) Registration (0 Patient Relations (g) Social Services (3) Support Services: (a) Employee Child Care (b) Health Education (c) Power/Mechanical/Auxiliary Support and Storage (d) Food Services (e) Cashier (f) Chapel/Chaplaincy Service (g) Conference Center (h) Dietitian (i) Gift Shop (j) Laboratory (k) Medical Library (1) Medical Records (m) Pharmacy (n) Parking Facilities (o) Engineering/Maintenance (p) Shipping/Receiving (q) Microwave, Satellite, and Other Communication Facilities (4) Residential Care: (a) Substance Abuse (b) Mental Health Services (c) Extended Care (d) Hospice Care (e) Self or Minimal Care (0 Congregate Care Parking structures or decks do not count toward square -footage 12 (5) Medical/Support Offices b. Methane gas flare burner, collection wells and associated system components. c. Accessory uses normally incidental to hospital development. d. Temporary structures and uses, including modular buildings. 2. Upper Campus a. Hospital facilities, including, but not limited to: (1) Inpatient uses: (a) Critical Care (b) Emergency Care UnitDepartment (c) Birthing Suites (d) Cardiology (e) Cardiac Care Unit (f) Intensive Care Unit (g) Mother/Baby Unit (h) Surgery/Waiting Rooms 1 Radiology (i) Laboratory (j) Pharmacy (k) Patient Beds (2) Outpatient services as allowed on the Lower Campus (3) Administrative uses as allowed on the Lower Campus (4) Support services as allowed on the Lower Campus (5) Residential care as allowed on the Lower Campus (6) Heliport (subject to Conditional Use Permit) b. Accessory uses normally incidental to hospital development. c. Temporary structures and uses, including modular buildings. 8 Does not count toward square -footage 13 B. Prohibited Uses 1. Lower Campus a. Emergency Room b. Heliport c. Conversion of mechanical or structural or t spaces to uses that allow general or routine occupancy or storage. 2. Upper Campus a. Conversion of mechanical or structural or utility spaces to uses that allow general or routine occupancy or storage. C. Maximum Building Height The maximum building height of all buildings shall be in accordance with Exhibit 3, Development Criteria Plan, which establishes the following height zones: 1. Upper Campus Tower Zone - maximum building height not to exceed the existing tower which is two -hundred thirty-five (235) feet above mean sea level. 2. Upper Campus Mid -rise Zone - maximum building height not to exceed one - hundred forty (140) feet above mean sea level. 3. Upper Campus Parking Zone - maximum building height not to exceed eighty (80) feet above mean sea level, exclusive of elevator towers. 4. Lower Campus Zone, Sub -Areas A, B, C, F and G - within each sub -area no building shall exceed the height of the existing slope and conform to the range of maximum building heights indicated by the development criteria shown on Exhibit 3. 5. Lower Campus Zone, Sub -Areas D and E - maximum building height shall not exceed the height of the existing Hoag Cancer Center which is fifty-seven and one-half (57.5) feet above mean sea level. 14 LEGEND 0 PRIMARY ACCESS (SIGNALIZED) SECONDARY ACCESS PRIMARY ROADWAYS SECONDARY DRIVEWAY AND SERVICE 210 PARIS LANE 210 DWEIANE Suus[Txnvvnw COGEN PLANT /MR v, PROPERTYLI E ` `` ?SURFET'c PARKING MODULAR OFFICES PACIFIC COAST Note: Buildings labeled for identification purposes only VEHICULAR ACCESS HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN SOUTH PARKING STRUCTURE 230 LILUE LANE LOADING DOCK (Under Building) MAIN LOADING DOCK 270 CAGNEY LANE r I �G�r- `•.� I 'PA'SURKING r '� NOR NIRY —'. HOSPITAL ROADLVAIESIME as.. HOgG DRNE... NORTH PARKING STRUCTURE WOMEN'S PAVILLION 260CAGNEY LAN ORIGINAL 1952 BUILDING 280 CAGNEY LANE .\.f iIN- III L_� — �1• GATED FlREAC�ESS .F I' :b. '.. CANCER CENTER CENTER CONFERENCE ^^-l�y♦�NO=`4 CONE ' ENCCS� �.— �`�. PARK NG /. _.. STRUCTURE .�. HIGHWAY off PWN Q0Q FAO' NORTH 00 0 100 200 SCALE : 1"=200' EXHIBIT 2 08.20.07 REVISED 01.22.08 LEGEND HEIGHTZONES UPPER CAMPUS ZONES ae'•'aycu�,�I�g�e; .vt�f�•• A. 42 (62) •72 TOWER ZONE- MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 235' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL MIDRISE ZONE- MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 140' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL PARKING ZONE- MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 80' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL, EXCLUSIVE OF ELEVATOR TOWER LOWER CAMPUS ZONES LOWER CAMPUS ZONE - BUILDING HEIGHT SUB AREAS TYPICAL RANGE OF BUILDING HEIGHT, ABOVE PROPOSED GRADES SUB - AREAS A, B, C, F, AND G- NO BUILDING SHALL EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING SLOPE OR THE RANGE OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS INDICATED SUB - AREAS D AND E - MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 57.5 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL TYPICAL RANGE OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS, MEAN SEA LEVEL (MS) AVERAGE SLOPE ELEVATION Consolidated View 0.26 Acres (12355 d5' Minimum Building Sotoack Plus Articulation at 55 and 65' Along Street Frontage West of South Entry 10°b of Frontage along linear Viewpark within Zones A and B Shall Provide Open Vow CotddOrs Between Buildings Note: Buildings labeled for identification purposes only DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA PLAN HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN LOADING DOCK (Under Building) Wast Edge of the Existing Ancillary Building Shall Constitute Inp Minimum setback long the West Pmpeny Line P Minimum 501140 NLack 15 Minimum Building Setback Plus Adkvletlon at 20'end 25' Along Slleel Frontage East of South Entry 10' Minimum Building Setback Along Street Frontage NORTH 100 0 100 200 -1 SCALE:1"=200' EXHIBIT 3 08.20.07 REVISED 01.22.08 roc- D. Building Setbacks Setbacks for the Hoag Hospital Planned Community are shown on Exhibit 3. 1. Setbacks will be provided along property boundaries adjacent to the Villa Balboa / Scafaire condominiums, as defined below: a. Upper Campus western boundary setback shall be the prolongation of the westerly edge of the existing cafeteria/laboratory building to the points of intersection with the easterly curb line of the existing service drive, then continuing along said line of the existing service drive. b. Lower Campus northern boundary, all of which will have a 20-foot minimum building setback. 2. The setback on West Coast Highway easterly of the hospital entry signal shall be fifteen (15) feet. In addition, vertical articulation shall be required for buildings easterly of the signal within one -hundred fifty (150) feet of the West Coast Highway frontage, as follows: 1st Floor: Up to eighteen (18) feet in height no additional articulation is required. If the 1st floor exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, it shall be subject to the articulation requirements of the 2nd Floor. 2nd Floor, up to thirty-two (32) feet in height: A minimum of 20% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 2nd floor setback of twenty (20) feet. 3rd Floor and above: A minimum of 20% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 3rd floor and above setback of twenty-five (25) feet. The setback on West Coast Highway westerly of the hospital entry signal shall be forty-five (45) feet. In addition, vertical articulation shall be required for buildings westerly of the signal for buildings within one -hundred fifty (150) feet of the West Coast Highway frontage, as follows: 1st Floor: Up to eighteen (18) feet in height no additional articulation is required. If the 1st floor exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, it shall be subject to the articulation requirements of the 2nd Floor. 2nd Floor, up to thirty-two (32) feet in height: A minimum of 20% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 2nd floor setback of fifty-five (55) feet. 16 3rd Floor and above: A minimum of 20% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 3rd floor and above setback of sixty-five (65) feet. In order to avoid any future structures in this area (within 150 feet of West Coast Highway) from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than two -hundred fifty (250) linear feet in width. Additionally, 20% of the linear frontage within one -hundred fifty (150) feet of West Coast Highway shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. 10% of the linear length of Height Zones A and B as viewed from the existing bicycle/pedestrian trail, exclusive of that area adjacent to the consolidated portion of the view park, shall be maintained as view corridors between buildings. These requirements may be altered for individual buildings, if requested by the hospital, through the site plan review process defined in Section IX. 3. There will be no building setbacks along the westerly boundary of the Lower Campus (adjacent to the municipal parking lot at Superior and West Coast Highway). with CalTrans east property at Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. 4. A twenty (20) foot setback from property line shall be provided along Newport Boulevard from Hospital Road to a point six -hundred (600) feet south; a twenty-five (25) foot setback from property line shall be provided along the remainder of Newport Boulevard and along the Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway Interchange. 5. A ten (10) foot building setback from the property line shall be provided along Hospital Road. E. Lighting The lighting systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to shieldconceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer. F. Roof Treatment Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the roof of any structure on the Lower Campus. Rathers •cl buildings ""l have clean rooftop Minor rooftop equipment, necessary for operating purposes, will comply with all building height criteria, and shall be cone algid and designed and screened to blend into the building roof using materials compatible with roofing materials. 17 (65 G. Signs All signs shall be as specified under the Hoag Hospital Sign Program, Part VI. H. Parking All parking shall be as specified in Part VII, Hoag Hospital Parking Regulations. I. Landscape All landscaping shall be as specified in the Hoag Hospital Landscape Regulations, Part VIII. J. Mechanical and Trash AreasEnclosures 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 immediately adjacent residentialadjoining properties. K. Internal West Hoag Drive Circulation Limitations 1. The project sponsor shall continue to limit the use of that portion of West Hoag Drive adjacent to residential uses located on the Upper Campus. To the extent reasonably possible and with the understanding that special situations may arise, the project sponsor shall use its efforts to limit truck deliveries to the hours of 7:00 am to 8:00 pm.. The project sponsor shall also use other methods to restrict access of this road including signage restricting access. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any of the pr posed Master Plan usage of the Upper and Lower Campus service roads during non V%orking hours. Suet controls ..elude ecti..g tl at the . rit.. e f . enders deliver products (other than emergency products) during we-kicurs-(i. 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.), signage to restrict use of the road by Hospital tho.7 Tl, tal ill st that .7 t Bt 3erzxcmvas�{j-restF}et-u.�e—rae-H6�spicar=dr"a,-arse=rGq�lc:,i The-iivc deliver (i.e. scheduled and routine deliveries) ou the weekends This restriction specifically applies to scheduled and routine deliveries. The results of this program will be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the grading permit. If such 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 impacts to the adjacent residential units. [Note: This paragraph subject to further review.] 18 3. The lower campus service r ad shall include provisions for controlled acces., to limit usage to physicians and staff, and .,ervice vehicles. L. Loading Dock The project sponsor shall maintain the acoustical and/or landscape screen to provide a visual screen from and reduce noise to adjoining residences from the loading dock area. Mitigation measures to reduce the noise levels in the loading dock area should be incorporated into the design and operations of the hospital' such mitigation may include relocation of the trash compactor and baler, limiting the hours of truck deliveries to the loading dock area, enclosure of the trash compactor, use of acoustic panels, etc. The design process for any building proposed as part of any future pha..e on the Upper to in^ur€-t e :.elusion of ..,.. t. di d 1 L. rti1 7 b f1 b h 7 addition, addition. If no significant sound attenuati n is achieved, the hospital shall submit an effeetive-in-reclueing-noise impacts along the service access road, enclosure shall be required. Beach Municipal Codc. M. Noise Standards Noise generated at the Hoag Hospital property shall be governed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance, except as noted below. Also refer to Exhibit 4, Loading Dock Noise Standards. 1. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag Hospital property line adjacent to the loading dock shall be as follows: Leq (15 min) 7AM-10PM 10PM-7AM Daytime Nighttime 70 dBA 58 dBA 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles, shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. In addition the grease pit cleaning which is exempt from the City Noise Ordinance as a maintenance activity shall occur on a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. 19 op UPPER CAMPUS LEGEND PROPERTY LINE AS IDENTIFIED IN SECTION M.1., DISTRICT REGULATIONS LOADING DOCK AREA AS IDENTIFIED IN SECTION M.2., DISTRICT REGULATIONS 210 PARIS LANE COGEN PLANT PROPERTY LINE LOWER CAMPUS 210 LILLIE LANE MODULAR OFFICES Note: Buildings labeled for identification purposes only LOADING DOCK NOISE STANDARDS HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN 230 LILLIE LANE 270 CAGNEY LANE POWER PLANT. ACCESS GATE 260CAGNEY LA ACCESS GATE nexvun _.._ _.— pI18i -GATED FIREACCESS ,_ru I = I lT a _•U 1 .,_SURFACE 4. IL _ PARKING CONFERENCE CENTER HIGHWAY HOSPITAL ROAD NORTH PARKING STRUCTURE WOMEN'S PAVI WON ORIGINAL 1952 BUILDING 50M1 PARKING STRUCTURE NORTH 100 0 100 200 SCALE:1"=200' EXHIBIT 4 08.20.07 VI. HOAG HOSPITAL SIGN PROGRAM A. Purpose and Intent 1. The purpose of this Sign Program is to provide adequate, consistent and aesthetically pleasing on -building wall and ground -mounted signage based upon the provisions set forth by the City of Newport Beach Sign Ordinance and the information signage requirements of Hoag Hospital. 2. The intent of this Sign Program is to produce uniform standards for Hoag Hospital. B. General Sign Standards 1. All signs visible at the exterior of any building or facility of the Hospital, ground -mounted or on -building, may be illuminated or non -illuminated, depending upon need. Illumination method may be by external or internal source. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, or create the illusion of motion, in any fashion. 2. All signs attached to building or facility exteriors shall be flush or surface mounted as is appropriate to the architectural design features of said building or facility. 3. All signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly maintained, legible, functional and safe with regard to appearance, structural integrity and electrical service. 4. All street signs shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be in compliance with Ordinance 110-L. 5. For purposes of this section, a building shall be defined as any occupied structure or any occupied portion of a structure that is constructed as an addition to an existing structure and identified as a separate building for wayfinding purposes. individual building numbers uniquely define the buildings on the Hoag campus. C. Number of Signs Allowed 1. One (1) double-faced primary identification ground -mounted sign or two (2) single -faced gateway entry signs shall be allowed per street frontage. In the case of a sign occurring upon a slope, the average height shall be established by measuring the sign height at the mid -point of the sign length perpendicular to the slope direction. Total maximum signage area shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet and shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height per sign and street frontage. This sign may occur as a wall sign, to be located upon a project boundary perimeter wall, subject to the same number and area 21 maximums described above. This sign may also occur as part of an entry gateway system. 2. Primary entrance identification shall be allowed at the main entrance to the facility and at the main entrance to the Emergency Department. If freestanding, this sign type shall not exceed a maximum height of eight (8) feet average height above finished grade. In the case of a sign occurring upon a slope the average height shall be established by measuring the sign height at the mid -point of the sign length perpendicular to the slope direction. Maximum sign area shall not exceed seventy (70) square feet. 3. Secondary building and entrance identification signs shall be allowed. If freestanding, this sign type shall not exceed a maximum height of nine (9) feet 48" average height above finished grade. In the case of a sign occurring upon a slope, the average height shall be established by measuring the sign height at the mid -point of the sign length perpendicular to the slope direction. Maximum sign area shall not exceed fifty (50) thirty five (35) square feet whether freestanding or wall -mounted.. 4. Vehicular and pedestrian directional signs shall be allowed. This sign type may occur as a single -faced, double-faced, or triple -faced sign. The sign shall be sized to allow for proper readability given the number of lines of copy speed of traffic, setback off the road and viewing distance. This sign type shall not exceed a maximum height of eleven (11) feet average height above finished grade. This sign type shall occur with the sign suspended between described above. 5. Donor recognition signage shall be allowed. one (1) at each building elevation.. Maximum sign area shall not exceed one hundred seventy-five (175) square feet for donor recognition signage. 6. Hospital identification signs shall be allowed upon hospital towers parapets, one (1) at each elevation. The maximum sign area shall not exceed two hundred seventy-five (275) square feet. Any hospital identification signage on the elevation facing west (Villa Balboa property line) may not be illuminated. 7. On the Lower Campus, two (2) ene{I }-building-mounted identification signs will be allowed per structure and shall not be placed so as to directly face the Villa Balboa'Seafaire property. Such signs shall adhere to the requirements above for secondary building and entrance identification signage and shall be no higher than the roof line of the building upon which they are mounted. 8. Each public parking structure shall be allowed one (1) identification sign above each entrance and exit of the structure. The maximum sign area of each identification sign shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet. Adjacent regulatory parking signage does not count toward the maximum sign area. 22 VII. HOAG HOSPITAL PARKING REGULATIONS A. General 1. Off-street parking for Hoag Hospital shall be provided on -site. Parking may be on surface lots, subterranean or in parking structures. 2. The design and layout of all parking areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Public Works Department. 3. Parking lot lighting shall be developed in accordance with City standards and shall be designed in a manner which minimizes impacts on adjacent land uses. Nighttime lighting shall be limited to that necessary for security and shielded down from any adjacent residential area. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that the requirements have been met. The lighting plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Planning Department. B. Requirements for Off -Street Parking Parking requirements for specific sites shall be based upon the parking criteria established in Table 2. All parking shall be determined based upon the area allocated to the use categories. parking requirement. 23 TABLE 2 PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Category Outpatient Services (1) Support (1) (3) Administrative (1) Residential Care (2) Medical Offices (2) Inpatient (1) Parking Requirements 2.31 spaces/1,000 square feet 0.0 spaces/1,000 square feet 5.3 spaces/1,000 square feet 1.0 spaces/1,000 square feet 4.0 spaces/1,000 square feet 2.35 spaces/1,000 square feet Parking factor based on Traffic Study 2001-002 approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1542. Parking factor based on DKS Associates Traffic Study, May 1987. Support Services generates parking demand that is already accounted for in one of the other categories as determined in Traffic Study 2001-002 approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1542. 24 °I1P VIII. HOAG HOSPITAL LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS A. General 1. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans, prepared by a registered Architect or under the direction of a Landscape Architect, shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. The Landscape Plan may include a concept for the roofs and the parking structures. Trees shall not be used, however planter boxes, green roof treatments or trellis systems may be designed to provide added visual relief of parking structures. All rooftop or top of parking structure landscaping proposals shall conform to the building height limits established in this text. 2. Parking lot trees shall be no less than twenty-four (24) inch boxfifteen (15) a lion size. 3. Shrubs to be planted in containers shall not be less than one (1) five (5) gallon size. Ground covers will be planted from one (1) gallon containers or from rooted cuttings. 4. Every effort should be made to avoid using plants with invasive and shallow root systems. 5. Earth berms shall be rounded and natural in character, designed to obscure automobiles and to add interest to the site. Wheel stops shall be so placed as necessary to avoid that damage to trees, irrigation systems -units -and, shrubs and other planting materials. 6. Trees in parking lots should be limited in variety. Selection should be repeated to give continuity. Regular spacing or the introduction of is not required and irregular groupings may also be considered to add interest and variety. Care should be exercised to allow plants to grow and maintain their matureultimate size without restriction. 7. Heavy-eEmphasis shall be placed on the use of native, drought -tolerant, non- invasive plants on the Lower Campus. On the Upper Campus, naturalized vegetation selections, as well as those plants allowed on the Lower Campus, will be emphasized and naturalized vegetation and the use of Automatically controlledan irrigation systems shall be designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. B. Maintenance 1. All planting areas are to be kept free of weeds and debris and cultivated as necessary to maintain. 2. Lawn and ground covers areas are to be kept trimmed and/or mowed regularly. 25 3. All plantings are to be kept in a healthy and growing condition. Fertilization, cultivation and tree pruning are to be carried out as part of a regularly scheduled annual maintenance program. 4. Irrigation systems are to be kept in good working condition at all times. On- going monitoring. aAdjustments and cleaning of systems are to should be part of regular maintenance procedures. 5. Stakes, guys and tree ties on trees should be checked regularly for correct function; ties teshall be adjusted to avoid creating abrasions or girdling of branches or central leaders. to the stems. 6. Damage to plantings created by vandalism, automobile or acts of nature shall be corrected within thirty (30) days. C. Special Landscaped Street West Coast Highway is designated in the Hoag Hospital Planned Community as a special landscaped street. A fifteen (15) foot building setback from right-of-way/property line is required along West Coast Highway. Only driveways, parking and signage structures are allowed in the setback areas. Parking areas shall be screened from view of West Coast Highway with landscaped berms. Landscaping along West Coast Highway shall consist of trees, ground cover and shrubbery. All unpaved areas not utilized for parking or circulation shall be landscaped in a similar manner. Installed Ttrees size are to be no less -smaller than twenty-four (24) inch box. D. Villa Balboa Landscape Zone The area between the Villa Balboa/Hoag property line and the loading dock service access road shall be landscaped except for any driveway, walkway, or other hardscape elements in said area. The purpose of said zonethe landscaping will be to screen and buffer residential units from hospital activities. E. Parking Areas A minimum of 5% of the surface parking areas shall be devoted to planting areas. Planting areas around building shall not be included in parking area landscape calculations. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not necessarily —be in regularly spaceding. Alternative landscape programs may be developed, including perimeter parking area landscaping, berming and depressing of parking areas to provide additional screening. Altemative landscape programs shall be subject to the review of the Newport Beach Planning Department. A rooftop landscaping program may be developed for parking structures and shall be subject to the review and the approval of the Newport Beach Planning Department. 26 qD IX. SITE PLAN REVIEW A. Purpose The City Council finds that development on the West Coast Highway frontage of the lower campus of Hoag Hospital may have the potential to affect the aesthetics of the West Newport area as viewed from surrounding arterial roadways. The effect of this section is to establish a Site Plan Review requirement by the Planning Commission for certain individual projects which are proposed by the hospital to differ from the setback, horizontal and vertical articulation requirements as set forth in Section V.D.2. to insure that these projects conform with the objectives of the General Plan and the Master Plan for Hoag Hospital. B. Findings The City finds, determines and declares that the establishment of Site Plan Review procedures contained in this section promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community by ensuring that the development of Hoag Hospital proceeds in a manner which will not result in inadequate and poorly planned landscape areas, excessive building bulk on arterial roadways, inappropriate placement of structures and impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in the area. C. Application Site Plan Review approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for any new structure or the addition to an existing structure which does not conform to the provisions of Section V.D.2. D. Plans and Diagrams to be Submitted The following plans and diagrams shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval: 1. A plot plan, drawn to scale, showing the arrangement of buildings, driveways, pedestrian ways, off-street parking and off-street loading areas, landscaped areas, signs, fences and walks. The plot plan shall show the location of entrances and exits, and the direction of traffic flow into and out of off-street parking and loading areas, the location of each parking space and loading space, and areas for turning and maneuvering vehicles. The plot plan shall indicate how utility and drainage are to be provided. 2. A landscape plan, drawn to scale, showing the locations of existing trees (proposed to be removed and proposed to be retained); and indicating the amount, type, and location of anv landscaped areas, planting beds and plant materials with adequate provisions for automatic irrigation. 3. Grading plans when necessary to ensure development properly related to the site and to surrounding properties and structures. 4. Scale drawings of exterior lighting showing size, location, materials, intensity and relationship to adjacent streets and properties. 27 5. Architectural drawings, renderings or sketches, drawn to scale, showing all elevations of the proposed buildings and structures as they will appear upon completion. 6. Any other plans, diagrams, drawings or additional information necessary to adequately consider the proposed development and to determine compliance with the purposes of this chapter. E. Fee The applicant shall pay a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council to the City with each application for Site Plan Review under this chapter. F. Standards In addition to the general purposes set forth in sub -section A, in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter as established by said section, the Site Plan Review procedures established by this Section shall be applied according to and in compliance with the following standards, when applicable: 1. The development is in compliance with all other provisions of the Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (P-C Text); Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City; 3. Development shall be sited and designed to maximize the aesthetic quality of the project as viewed from surrounding roadways and properties, with special consideration given to the mass and bulk of buildings and the streetscape on West Coast Highway; 4. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, landscaping and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development. G. Public Hearing - Required Notice A public hearing shall be held on all Site Plan Review applications. Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the hearing date, postage prepaid, using addresses from the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses, to owners of property within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required by this Section. In addition to the mailed notice, such hearing shall be posted in not less than two (2) conspicuous places on or close to the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. 28 16° H. Action by the Planning Commission If all applicable standards established by this Section are met, the Planning Commission shall approve the development. Conditions may be applied when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said development into conformity. If the development is disapproved, the Commission shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. A Site Plan Review decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to review by the City Council either by appeal, or upon its own motion, or upon the request of the Commission. The action of the Commission on any Site Plan Review shall be final and effective twenty-one (21) days following the Commission action thereon unless, within the twenty-one (21) day appeal period an appeal in writing has been filed by the applicant, or any other person, the Commission has requested a review of its decision, or unless the City Council, not more than twenty-one (21) days after the Commission action, on its own motion, elects to review and act on the action of the Commission, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision. Such action by the City Council shall be final. I. Appeal to the City Council Any Site Plan Review decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any other person, at any time within twenty-one (21) days after the date of the Commission decision. An appeal to the City Council shall be taken by filing a letter of appeal in duplicate, with the Planning Department. Such letter shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based and shall be accompanied by a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council. J. Action by the City Council An appeal shall be heard and acted on by the City Council within sixty (60) days of filing a letter of appeal, and the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Commission. The decision of the City Council is final. 29 IDS K. Expiration and Revocation of Site Plan Review Approvals 1. Expiration. Any Site Plan Review granted in accordance with the terms of this Title shall expire within twenty-four (24) months from the date of approv- al if a building permit has not been issued prior to the expiration date and subsequently construction is diligently pursued until completion, unless at the time of approval the Planning Commission has specified a different period of time. 2. Violation of Terms. Any Site Plan Review granted in accordance with the terms of this Title may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such Site Plan Review are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith. 3. Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing on any proposed revocation after giving written notice to the permittee at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, and shall submit its recommendations to the City Council. The City Council shall act thereon within sixty (60) days after receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 30 Exhibit No. 3 Existing Development Agreement and proposed draft amendment Blank raga RECORDING REQUEST PER GOVERNMENT CODE 6103 Recording Requested By and When Recorded Return to: City Clerk/4 7 9 City of Newpoort Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 DOC #94-0207276�y 23—MAR-13'94 03:59 PM Recorded in Official Records of Oranse County, California Lee A. Branch, County Recorder Page 1 of 61 Fees: $ 0.00 Tax: $ 0.00 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Approved February 14, 1994 Ordinance No. 94-8 6 of- DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into between the City of Newport Beach (the "City"), and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ("Hoag"). i • RECITALS. This Agreement relates to the following: 1.1 Purpose of Agreement. This Agreement is intended to: (a) Enable Hoag to adapt to the ever changing health care needs of those residents within its service area by authorizing design parameters of new or additional facilities in a manner that will allow Hoag to respond to rapid changes in medical and health care technology and delivery systems. (b) Establish strict, binding limits on the amount and height of permitted development as well as ensure compliance with numerous conditions on the density, location, and timing of construction to minimize,. to the extent feasible, any environmental impacts of Hoag's proposed expansion. (c) Impose exactions such as dedication of property, construction of public improvements and/or the installation of landscaping visible to the public, which, when considered in conjunction with the public services provided by Hoag, benefit the general public. 1.2 Authorization. This Agreement is authorized by, and is consistent with, the provisions of 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California, and Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 1.3 Interest of Hoag. Hoag is the legal and/or equitable owner of approximately forty (40) acres of real property located in the City and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B" (the "Property"). 1.4 Development of the Property. This Agreement authorizes development on the Property consistent with the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan and Planned Community Development Plan ("Master Plan", a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "C" and incorporated by reference when appropriate), subject to the conditions and mitigation measures identified in Environmental Impact Report No. 142 and imposed by the City Council as conditions to approval of the Master Plan and this Agreement and, for all development within 1 the coastal zone subject to approval of a coastal development permit by the California Coastal Commission or its successor agency. 1.5 Planning Commission/City Council Hearings. The Planning Commission, after giving appropriate notice, held public hearings to consider a development agreement, the proposed Master Plan, and the EIR on December 5, 1991, January 9, 1992, January 23, 1992, February 6, 1992, and February 20, 1992. The City Council conducted public hearings on the Master Plan, this Agreement and the EIR on March 23, 1992, March 30, 1992, April 13, 1992 and May 11, 1992. 1.6 Consistency. This Agreement is consistent with the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Master Plan, and other applicable ordinances, plans, and policies of the City. This Agreement is also consistent with the purpose and intent of state and local laws authorizing development agreements in that it represents comprehensive planning, provides certainty in the approval of subsequent projects subject to compliance with conditions, reduces the economic costs of development by providing assurance to Hoag that it may generally proceed with projects in accordance with existing regulations, and provides assurance to adjoining property owners that limits on the height of structures and amount of development as specified in the Master Plan and this Agreement will remain in full force and effect for a period of twenty- five (25) years. 1.7 Police Power. The City Council has determined that this Agreement is in the best interests of the health, safety and general welfare of the City, its residents and the public, was entered into pursuant to, and represents a valid exercise of, the City's police power, and has been approved in accordance with the provisions of state and local law that establish procedures for the approval of development agreements. 1.8 City Ordinance. On February 14, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 94-8 approving this Agreement and authorizing the City to enter into this Agreement. The Adopting Ordinance will become effective on March 16, 1994. 2. DEFINITIONS. 2.1 The "Adopting Ordinance" refers to City Ordinance No. 94-8, adopted on February 14, 1994, by the City Council, which approved and authorized the City to enter into this Agreement. 2.2 "Agreement" refers to this "Development Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian". 2 `01 2.3 "Annual Review" refers to the review of Hoag's good faith compliance with this Agreement and conditions on development as set forth in Section 5. 2.4 The "Approval Date" means the date on which the City Council voted to adopt the Adopting Ordinance. 2.5 All forms of use of the verb "assign" and the nouns "assignment" and "assignee" shall include all contexts of hypothecations, sales, conveyances, transfers, leases, and assignments. 2.55 "California Coastal Commission" refers to the California State Resources Agency established under the California Coastal Act of 1976. 2.6 "CEOA" and the "CEOA Guidelines" refers to the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of Resources of the State of California, including any amendments adopted subsequent to the Effective Date. 2.7 "City" refers to the City of Newport Beach, California. 2.8 "City Council" refers to the City Council of the City. 2.9 "Cure Period" refers to the period of time during which a Default may be cured pursuant to Section 9. 2.10 A "day" or "days" refers to a calendar day, unless expressly stated to be a business day. 2.11 A "Default" refers to any material default, breach, or violation of the provisions of this Agreement. A "City Default" refers to a Default by the City, while a "Hoag Default" refers to a default by Hoag. 2.12 The "Effective Date" refers to the effective date of the Adopting Ordinance and is the effective date of this Agreement. provided however, the Agreement has been approved by the California Coastal Commission, and the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission is in receipt of a copy of this Agreement signed by both parties. 2.13 The "EIR" refers to final Environmental Impact Report No. 142 of the City of Newport Beach and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 142. 2.14 An "Estoppel Certificate" refers to the document certifying the status of this Agreement required by Section 5.6 in the form of Exhibit "D". 3 6 2.15 An "Exaction" refers to those specific dedications and improvements required of Hoag and set forth in Section 8.2 below. 2.16 An "Exhibit" refers to an exhibit to this Agreement. All Exhibits are incorporated as a substantive part of this Agreement. The Exhibits to this Agreement are: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Legal Description of the Property Map of the Property The Master Plan Estoppel Certificate 2.17 "Existing General Regulations" means those General Regulations approved by the -city on or before the Approval Date (irrespective of their effective date) and not rescinded or superseded by City action taken on or before the Approval Date. 2.18 "Future General Regulations" means those General Regulations (see Section 2.19 below) adopted by the City after the Approval Date 2.19 "General Regulations" means those ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines of the City, which are generally applicable to the use of land and/or construction within the City and include, the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance, Uniform Building Codes and water and sewer connection and fee ordinances. 2.20 "General Plan" refers to the City's General Plan in effect on the Approval Date, plus all amendments to the General Plan adopted by the City on or before the Approval Date and effective prior to the Effective Date. 2.21 "Hoag" refers to Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, a non- profit corporation. 2.22 "Includes" and all contexts and forms of the words "includes" and "including" shall be interpreted to also state "but not limited to." 2.23 "Master Plan" refers to the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan and Planned Community Development Plan which was adopted by the City on May 26, 1992 (Exhibit "C"). 2.24 "Mortaaaee" refers to the holder of a beneficial interest under any mortgage, deed of trust, sale -leaseback agreement, or other 4 \61:\ transaction under which all or a portion of the Property, including those portions acquired by assignees, is used as security (a "Mortgage") or the owner of any interest in all or any portion of the Property under a Mortgage, including those portions acquired by assignees. 2.25 "Notice" refers to any written notice or demand between the Parties required or permitted by this Agreement. 2.26 The "Parties" refers to the City and Hoag and a "Party" shall refer to either of the Parties. 2.27 "Planning Commission" refers to the Planning Commission of the City. 2.28 The "Project" refers to the proposed development of the Property pursuant to the Master Plan and this Agreement. 2.29 "Project Specific Approvals" means all site -specific (meaning specifically applicable to the Property only and not generally applicable to some or all other properties within the City) plans, subdivision maps, permits, or other entitlement. Project Specific Approvals include subdivision maps, site plan review, conditional use permits, coastal development permits, variances, grading and building permits, as well as amendments or modifications to those plans, maps and permits. Project Specific Approvals does not include Existing or Future General Regulations. 2.30 The "Property" refers to the real property described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B." CONDITIONS TO DEVELOPMENT. 3.1 Introduction. The provisions of this Section express the intent of the parties regarding the extent to which this Agreement vests Hoag's right to proceed with the development described in the Master Plan. Hoag acknowledges that its right to proceed with development described in the Master Plan is subject to numerous conditions and mitigation measures including the following: (a) The specific limitations and restrictions contained in the Master Plan; (b) Conditions and mitigation measures imposed by the City Council to mitigate significant effects identified in the EIR; 5 A. Conditions imposed by the City as a result of subsequent or supplemental environmental analysis pursuant to provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; Conditions imposed by the City Council in conjunction with the approval of Traffic Study No. 81 and Variance No. 1180; Compliance with the terms and conditions specified in this Agreement. Compliance with Existing General Regulations. 3.2 Compliance with Master Plan Conditions/Mitigation Measures. Hoag acknowledges that City Council approval of the Master Plan and this Agreement was subject to compliance with numerous conditions and mitigation measures designed to minimize or eliminate the significant adverse effects of the Project and ensure the health, safety, and welfare of nearby residents as well as Hoag patients and employees. Many of these conditions and mitigation measures impose specific development standards and requirements to be implemented in conjunction with further study and analysis of site or subsurface conditions before grading or construction. Specific mitigation measures that require compliance with, or satisfaction of, standards before grading or construction can occur include the following: (a) Slope excavation techniques which insure stability; (b) Grading and excavation techniques which minimize disturbance to adjacent residents and the general public; (c) Identification of potential faults on site and construction of buildings pursuant to recommendations of certified geologists and in a manner which insures that nearby residents, Hoag patients and Hoag employees are not exposed to a significant risk of injury; (d) Evaluation of soil corrosivity and removal of corrosive soils or use of corrosion resistant construction materials; (e) Mitigation of impacts caused by removal of wetlands through off -site restoration as required by resource agencies; (f) Preparation and approval of a project trip generation study prior to development of Phase I of the Master Plan (if Hoag proposes a land use other than specified in the approved Traffic Study); 6 r�r (g) Preparation and approval of a project trip generation study as a condition to construction of development in Phases II and III of the Master Plan; (h) Preparation and approval of a Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis prior to construction of development in Phase II and Phase III of the Master Plan; (i) Preparation of a view impact analysis of each proposed building prior to issuance of permits; (j) Analysis and mitigation of emissions in accordance with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District; (k) Preparation and approval of a construction phasing and traffic control plan for each phase of development. Hoag's right to develop the Property pursuant to the Master Plan is contingent upon compliance with, and satisfaction of, the conditions and mitigation measures imposed by. the City Council as of the Approval Date, conditions imposed by the California Coastal Commission required for approval of coastal development permits, as well as conditions and mitigation measures resulting from subsequent environmental analysis as specified in Paragraph 3.3. 3.25 Future Coastal Act discretionary review may result in specific mitigation measures to ensure consistency with the Coastal Act that require compliance with, or satisfaction of, standards before grading or construction can occur. 3.3 Program EIR. Hoag acknowledges that the EIR is a "Program IR." The EIR analyzes the impacts of construction phased over time and, ursuant to CEQA, City is under a continuing obligation to analyze Hoag's requests for Project Specific Approvals to ensure the environmental impacts s associated with the request were fully addressed in the EIR. Subsequent environmental documentation is required if this analysis reveals environmental impacts not fully addressed in the program EIR, identifies new impacts, or concludes the specific request is not consistent with the project described in the EIR. Hoag acknowledges the right and obligation of the City and the Coastal Commission orits successor agency to impose additional conditions as the result of the subsequent environmental analysis required by CEQA. 3.4 Mitigation Monitoring Plan. City shall prepare a Mitigation Monitoring Plan ("Plan") within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date. Hoag shall not submit any application for Project Specific Approval until the Plan has been approved by the City Council and the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission or the appropriate entity of its successor agency. 7 The Plan shall comply with and satisfy the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines and the Coastal Act. The Plan shall be available to the public upon request. 3.5 Compliance with General Regulations. Hoag is required to comply with the Existing General Regulations. As to those Existing General Regulations which require the payment of fees, costs, and expenses, Hoag shall pay the fee, cost, or expense required as of the date on which Hoag submits the application for Project Specific Approval. Hoag shall also comply with any Future General Regulations that do not impair Hoag's ability to develop the Property in accordance with the density, intensity, height and location of development specified in the Master Plan. Hoag shall also comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code, whether adopted before or after the Approval Date, which are in effect at the time applications for Project Specific Approvals are submitted. Hoag shall also comply with the Coastal Act and the City's certified Local Coastal Program. 4. RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT. 4.1 Right to Develop. Subject to compliance with the provisions of Sections 3 and 8.2, Hoag shall have a vested right to develop and receive Project Specific Approvals for construction on the Property to the full extent permitted by the Master Plan. Subject to the provisions of Sections 3 and 8, City shall only take action which complies with and is consistent with the Master Plan and this Agreement unless Hoag otherwise consents in writing. Subject to this Subsection, City shall have the authority to impose only those Exactions which are specifically described in this Agreement, except as expressly required (as opposed to permitted) by state or federal law. 4.2 Reservations or Dedications of Land. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, no dedications or reservations of the Property shall be required of Hoag in conjunction with the application or issuance of any Project Specific Approvals. 4.3 Conflicting Measures. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, no initiative measure, moratorium, referendum (except as provided in Government Code Section 65857.5), ordinance, statute or other provision of law which in any way limits or restricts development of the Property to the full extent permitted by the Master Plan and this Agreement (including density, intensity, timing, phasing, and sequencing) shall be applied to the Property during the term of this Agreement. 8 4.4 Time for Construction and Completion of Project. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement and the Master Plan, Hoag shall have the right to decide the timing, phasing, and sequencing of construction on the Property and shall be entitled to apply for, and receive approval of, in a timely manner, permits or approvals at any time. 5. ANNUAL REVIEW. 5.1 City and Hoag Responsibilities. At least every twelve (12) months during the Term, the City shall review Hoag's good faith substantial compliance with this Agreement (the "Annual Review"). After the Annual Review, the City's finding of good faith compliance by Hoag shall be conclusive for the purposes of future Annual Reviews or legal action between the Parties. Either Party may address any requirements of the Agreement during the Annual Review. However, fifteen (15) days' written Notice of any requirement to be addressed shall be made by the requesting Party. If, at the time of the review, an issue not previously identified in writing is required to be addressed, the review shall be continued at the request of either Party to afford sufficient time for analysis and preparation of a response. 5.2 public Hearing. The Annual Review shall be conducted at a public hearing noticed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5.3 Information to be Provided to Hoag. The City shall mail to Hoag a copy of the staff report and related exhibits concerning Agreement performance a minimum of ten (10) days before the Annual Review. 5.4 Mitigation Review. The annual review shall include a detailed report of compliance with the various conditions and mitigation measures contained within the mitigation monitoring plan. The report shall include an analysis of the view impacts of buildings constructed in comparison to the anticipated views as depicted in the EIR. For the five year monitoring period imposed by the Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement entered into between the Department of Fish and Game and Hoag, the annual review shall also assess the success of any off -site wetlands mitigation. Five years after the completion of the Department of Fish and Game monitoring period, Hoag shall submit a final report assessing the success of the off -site wetlands mitigation in its annual review. If the survival and cover requirements set forth in the Streambed Alteration Agreement have not been met, Hoag shall be responsible for replacement planting to achieve these requirements. Hoag shall be found in compliance with this Agreement unless the City Council determines, based upon the 9 evidence presented at the Annual Review, that Hoag has not complied with all mitigation measures and conditions including those imposed as a result of subsequent environmental analysis, applicable to the grading of, or building on, the Property as of the date of the Annual Review. 5.5 Review Letter. If Hoag is found to be in compliance with the Agreement after the Annual Review, the City shall issue, within ten (10) days of Hoag's written request, a letter to Hoag stating that the Agreement remains in effect and Hoag is not in Default. 5.6 Estoppel Certificate. Either Party may at any time deliver written Notice to the other Party requesting an estoppel certificate (the "Estoppel Certificate") stating: (a) The Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the Parties. (b) The Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if so amended, identifying the amendments. (c) No Default in the performance of the requesting Party's obligations under the Agreement exists or, if a Default does exist, the nature and amount of any Default. A Party receiving a request for an Estoppel Certificate shall provide a signed certificate to the requesting Party within thirty (30) days after receipt of the request. The Planning Director may sign Estoppel Certificates on behalf of the city. An Estoppel Certificate may be relied on by assignees and Mortgagees. The Estoppel Certificate shall be substantially in the same form as Exhibit "D." 5.7 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. The City's failure to conduct an Annual Review shall not constitute or be asserted by the City as Hoag's Default. 6. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 6.1 Effective Date. This Agreement and the obligations of the Parties shall be effective as of the Effective Date. However, this Agreement shall bind the Parties as of the Approval Date, subject only to the Adopting Ordinance becoming effective pursuant to California law. 6.2 Applicability to Coastal Zone. This Agreement shall not be applicable to those portions of the Property located within the Coastal Zone as defined by the California Coastal Act (Division 10 \\5 20, California Public Resources Code, beginning with section 30000) until either (1) the required local coastal program for the Property has been certified by the California Coastal Commission or (2) the California Coastal Commission has approved this Agreement. This Subsection is intended solely to comply with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65869 and shall be of no force or effect if Section 65869 is repealed. 6.3 Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall begin on the Effective Date and continue for twenty-five (25) years unless otherwise terminated or modified pursuant to this Agreement. Any modifications to this Agreement prior to effective certification of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP), are subject to the review and approval of the Coastal Commission or its successor agency. 6.4 Assignment. Hoag has the absolute right to assign (see Section 2.5) its rights and/or delegate its obligations under this Agreement as part of an assignment of all or a portion of the Property. Any assignment shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. As long as Hoag owns any part of the Property, Hoag may assign the benefits of this Agreement without delegating the obligations for the portion of the Property assigned. If that occurs, however, the benefits assigned shall remain subject to the performance by Hoag of the corresponding obligations. Where an assignment includes the delegation of both the benefits and the corresponding obligations, those obligations become solely the obligations of the assignee. If an assignee is in Default, then as to Hoag or any assignees not in Default, the Default shall not constitute their Default, give grounds for termination of their rights under this Agreement or be a basis for an enforcement action against them. 6.5 Amendment of Agreement. (a) Subject to the provisions of Subsection (b), and subject to approval of the Coastal Commission or its successor agency prior to effective certification of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP), this Agreement may be amended from time to time by the mutual consent of the Parties, or their successors in interest, but only in the manner provided by the Government Code and this Agreement. After any amendment, the term "Agreement" shall refer to the amended Agreement. (b) The City Council shall not approve, and Hoag shall not request, any amendment to the provisions of the Master Plan or this Agreement that would increase the maximum 11 s permitted gross floor area or the maximum permitted building height (within any lettered building envelope) above that established by the Master Plan as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. This Subsection shall prevail over any conflicting ordinance, resolution, policy or plan adopted by the City Council. 6.6 Enforcement. This Agreement is enforceable by each of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns. 6.7 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) Expiration of the twenty-five (25) year term; (b) Entry, after all appeals have been exhausted, of a final judgment or issuance of a final order directing the City to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the City's approval of this Agreement or any material part of the Project; or, (c) The effective date of a Party's election to terminate the Agreement as provided in Section 9.3 of this Agreement. 6.8 Hoag shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers and employees with respect to any claim, loss or damage in any way related to the grading, excavation or stabilization of the slopes adjacent to the view parks by Hoag or its employees, agents contractors or representatives. This Section is not intended to impose liability on Hoag for the acts of persons other than Hoag or its agents, representatives or contractors. 6.9 Hoag shall enter into an agreement with City to accept ownership of, and responsibility for maintenance of, the existing methane gas venting flare and any device for collecting gas that is subsequently installed on the Property pursuant to conditions or mitigation measures imposed in conjunction with the Master Plan approval or subsequent environmental analysis. 7. CONPLICTS OP LAW. 7.1 Conflict with State and Federal Laws and Regulations. Where state or federal laws or regulations prevent compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, those provisions shall be modified, through revision or suspension, to the 12 extent necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations and the modified Agreement shall remain in effect, subject to the following: (a) the City shall not request modification of this Agreement pursuant to this provision unless and until the City Council makes a finding that such modification is required (as opposed to permitted) by state and federal laws or regulations; (b) the modifications must be limited to those required (as opposed to permitted) by the state or federal laws; (c) the modified Agreement must be consistent with the state or federal laws or regulations which required modification or suspension; (d) the intended material benefits of this Agreement must still be received by each of the Parties after modification; (e) neither the modification nor any applicable local, state, or federal laws or regulations, may render the. modified Agreement impractical to enforce; and (f) Hoag consents in writing to the modification. (g) Any modifications, prior to effective certification of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) are subject to approval of the Coastal Commission or its successor agency. Hoag shall have the right to seek judicial review of any proposed modification to ensure compliance with this Section. 7.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as a result of changes in state or federal law, Hoag remains obligated to comply with the provisions of Section 8.2(a) and (b), unless Hoag has completed construction of less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the maximum permitted development. 8. PUBLIC BENEFITS/EXACTIONS. 8.1 Public Benefits. City and Hoag agree that this Agreement confers a substantial public benefit by enabling Hoag to construct facilities most appropriate to changes in medical technology and thereby better satisfy the health care needs of residents within its service area. In addition, the Master 13 Plan and this Agreement confer benefits on the public and nearby residents by imposing long term restrictions on the height, amount and location of development as well as the public improvements described in Section 8.2. 8.2 Exactions. Hoag shall, as a condition to the right to develop, do the following: (a) Prior to commencement of development, irrevocably offer to dedicate and grade the proposed linear and consolidated view park identified in Figure 3.2.1 of Volume 1 of the EIR. The City shall accept the offer of dedication within sixty (60) days after the initial grading permit has been finalled by the City. The first stage of development shall include grading of the public linear and consolidated viewpark identified in Figure 3.2.1. of Volume I of the EIR. Hoag shall grade and excavate the slope adjacent to the proposed .28 (28/100) acre consolidated public view park and .52 (52/100) acre public linear view park in a way that ensures stability of the park and adjacent slopes. The grade (between the bicycle path and edge of slope) of the view parks shall be the minimum necessary to insure adequate drainage. The improvement for the linear and consolidated public parks shall be completed within three (3) years after the offer of dedication has been accepted by the City. The City shall ensure that adequate erosion control measures are implemented prior to construction. (b) Subsequent to the approval of this Agreement by the Coastal Commission and the expiration of any statute of limitation for filing a legal challenge to this Agreement, the Master Plan, or the EIR, Hoag shall deposit Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) in an account, and at a financial institution, acceptable to City. The account shall be in the name of the City provided, however, Hoag shall have the right to access the funds in the event, but only to the extent that, Hoag constructs or installs the improvements described in (i) or (ii). Funds in the account shall be applied to the following projects (in order of priority upon notice to proceed served by City on Hoag): (i) The construction of a sidewalk and installation of landscaping in the CalTrans right-of-way along the west side of Newport Boulevard southerly of Hospital Road; 14 r. (ii) The construction of facilities necessary to bring reclaimed water to West Newport and/or the Property; Any funds remaining in the account after completion of the projects described in (i) and (ii) shall be used by the City to fund, in whole or in part, a public improvement in the vicinity of the property. (c) City and Hoag shall conduct a study of possible future improvements in and around the easterly end of Semeniuk Slough that would, among other things, improve the appearance of the area and, potentially, serve as a component to improve public access from residential areas in West Newport to park land and public recreation facilities proposed in conjunction with development of the West Newport Oil Company property. The study shall analyze, among other things, the type of improvements that would improve the area without adversely impacting wetlands, the possible location of pedestrian trails and the potential for those trials to improve access to proposed recreational facilities, phasing of the improvements, potential public benefits, and the cost of the improvements. As a part of the study, Hoag and City shall meet and confer with resource agencies relative to the type and extent of improvements that may be permitted in or adjacent to wetlands. Hoag shall fund the study and participate in the cost of constructing any improvements in the area that the City Council determines are feasible and in the public interest, provided, however, the financial contribution of Hoag, including the costs of the study and improvements, shall not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00). (d) Hoag's obligations pursuant to Subsection (c) are contingent on Coastal Commission approval of the Master Plan and attached as Exhibit C to this Agreement with no significant reduction in entitlement from that authorized in the Master Plan. Hoag's obligations pursuant to Subsection (b) shall be reduced through good faith negotiations in the event the Coastal Commission reduces entitlement by ten percent (10%) or more from that authorized in the Master Plan. 9. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION. 9.1 General Provisions. In the event of a Default (see Section 2.11), the Party alleging a Default shall give the other Party 15 Ilk a written Notice of Default. The Notice of Default shall specify the nature of the alleged Default, and a reasonable manner and sufficient period of time (not less than thirty (30) days) in which the Default must be cured (the "Cure Period"). During the Cure Period, the Party charged shall not be considered in Default for the purposes of termination of the Agreement or institution of legal proceedings. If the alleged Default is cured within the Cure Period, then a Default shall be deemed not to exist. 9.2 Oration to Institute Legal Proceedings or to Terminate. If an alleged Default is not cured within the Cure Period, the noticing Party must give the defaulting Party a Notice of intent to terminate the Agreement. Within thirty (30) days after giving of the Notice, the City Council shall hold a public hearing in the manner set forth in Government Code Sections 65865,65867, and 65868, as amended, to consider and review the matter. 9.3 Notice of Termination. After considering the evidence presented to the City Council, the Party alleging the Default, at its option, may give written Notice of termination of the Agreement to the other Party and the Agreement shall be terminated immediately upon giving the Notice. A termination shall be valid only if good cause exists and clear and convincing evidence was presented to the City Council to establish the existence of a Default. The findings of the City Council as to the existence of a Default shall have no weight in any legal proceeding brought to determine the existence of a Default. The validity of any termination may be challenged pursuant to Section 11.16, in which case the court must render an independent judgment, on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, as to the existence of good cause for termination. Termination may result only from a material Default of a material provision of this Agreement. 9.4 Waiver. Failure or delay in giving Notice of Default shall not waive a Party's right to give future Notice of the same or any other Default. 9.5 Default by Hoag. If the City alleges a Hoag Default, the City shall conduct a hearing utilizing the Annual Review procedures required by this Agreement before the City may commence legal proceedings to terminate this Agreement. 9.6 Default by the City. If Hoag alleges a City Default, Hoag, without limiting any of its other remedies, shall not be 16 obligated to proceed with or complete the Project or any phase of the Project, nor to perform any further obligations under the Agreement. Upon a City Default, any resulting delays in Hoag's performance shall neither be Hoag's Default nor constitute grounds for termination or cancellation of the Agreement by the City. 111/1 0.0 ENCUMBRANCES AND RELEASES ON PROPERTY. 10.1 Discretion to Encumber. Hoag may encumber all or any portion of the Property in any manner. The City acknowledges that lenders providing financing may require technical modifications to the Agreement which do not materially alter the intent of the Parties. The City agrees to meet, upon request, with Hoag and/or lenders to negotiate in good faith any lender request for modification. The City agrees to not withhold unreasonably its consent to such modification. Any such modification, prior to effective certification of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP), is subject to the review and approval of the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission or its successor agency. 10.2 Entitlement to Written Notice of Default. Any Mortgagee and its successors and assigns, upon written request to the City, shall be entitled to receive from the City written Notice of any Hoag Default at the same time Hoag is provided with Notice pursuant to Section 9.1. 11.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 11.1 Notices. All Notices (see Section 2.26) shall be written and delivered by personal delivery (including Federal Express and other commercial express delivery services providing acknowledgments or receipt), registered, certified, or express mail, or telegram to the addresses set forth below. Receipt shall be deemed complete as follows: (a) For personal delivery, upon actual receipt; (b) For registered, certified, or express mail, upon the delivery date or attempted delivery date as shown on the return receipt; and (c) For telegram, upon the transmission of the telegram. Notices shall be addressed as follows: 17 • To the City: City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: City Attorney Attention: City Manager To Hoag: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 301 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: President With a copy to: Tim Paone Paone, Callahan, McHolm & Winton 19100 Von Karmen, 8th Floor P.O. Box 19613 Irvine, CA 92713-9613 The addresses to which Notices shall be sent may be changed by giving Notice of a new address. 11.2 Enforced Delav;Extension of Time of Performance. Neither Party shall be deemed to be in Default where delays or non- performance are due to war, insurrection, strikes, walkouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, oil spills, casualties, acts of nature, unavailability of materials, governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental entities, suspension of rights in accordance with the existence of unforeseen circumstances, litigation, or similar bases for excused performance. If written Notice of such delay is given to the other Party within thirty (30) days after such delay begins an extension of time for performance shall be granted in writing for the period of the delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon. In no event shall the term of this Agreement be extended as a result of the application of this Subsection. 11.3 Severability. If any material part of the Agreement is found by a court to be invalid, void, or illegal, the Parties shall modify the Agreement to implement the original intent of the Parties. These steps may include the waiver by either of the Parties of their right under the unenforceable provision. If, however, the Agreement objectively cannot be modified to implement the original intent of the Parties and the Party substantially benefitted by the material provision does not waive its rights under the unenforceable provision, the entire 18 Ilk 1) Agreement shall become void. For purposes of this Section, and without excluding the possible materiality of other provisions of this Agreement, all provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 8 are deemed "material." 11.4 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the Parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes all negotiations and previous agreements between the Parties regarding that subject matter. 11.5 Waivers. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the Party making the waiver and, prior to effective certification of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP), are subject to approval of the Coastal Commission or its successor agency. 11.6 Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals set forth in Section 1 are part of this Agreement. 11.7 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Neither Party shall do anything which shall have the effect of harming or injuring the right of the other Party to receive the benefits of this Agreement. 11.8 Further Actions and Instruments. Upon the request of either Party, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 11.9 Successors and Assigns. Subject to Section 6.3 above, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the Agreement inure to, all successors -in -interest and assigns of the Parties. 11.10 Construction of Agreement. All language in all parts of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole and given its fair meaning. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of construction. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. This Agreement is not intended to impermissibly contract away the 19 Ilk legislative and governmental functions of the City, and in particular, the City's police powers or to surrender or abrogate the city's governmental powers over the Property. 11.11 Authority to Execute. The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Hoag warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to do so and the authority to bind Hoag to the performance of Hoag's obligations under this Agreement. 11.12 Consent. Any consent required by the Parties in carrying out the terms of this Agreement shall not unreasonably be withheld. 11.13 Effect on Title. This Agreement shall not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Agreement has terminated. 11.14 Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be executed by the City and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County no later than ten (10) days after the Effective Date. The recordation of this Agreement is deemed a ministerial act and the failure of the City to record the Agreement as required by this Section and Government Code Section 65868.5 does not make the Agreement void or ineffective. 11.15 Institution of Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either Party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any Default, to enforce any provision of this Agreement, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation of this Agreement, to recover damages for any Default, or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Legal actions shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, or in the Federal District Court in the Central District of California. 11.16 Attorneys' Fees. In any arbitration, quasi-judicial, administrative, or judicial proceeding between the Parties initiated with respect to this Agreement, the prevailingparty shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs, expenses, and disbursements in connection with such action. 20 Ik Date: `Z'o73..9y Date: March 9 wb\hoagda4.in1 1/21/94 , 1994 CITY OF NEWPORT��BEACH By:���GGc'uur, Clarence (,a'urner, Mayor , 1994 HOAG MEMORIAL OSPIT RESBYTERIAI By: Albert J. A Chairman of t e Board 21 RECORDING REQUEST BY, AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 DRAFT EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES. CAL. GOV'T CODE § 6103 (Space above this line for Recorder's use) AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5 BETWEEN HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65864-65869 5 and Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45) Approved Ordinance No. 8/10/07 10001.37 HBcO: #25438 vDOC (#25438 v8 v. #40450 vl) � a� DRAFT AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5 (Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian) THIS AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5 ("Amendment") is entered into to be effective on the date it is recorded with the Orange County Recorder (the "Effective Date") by and between the City of Newport Beach (hereinafter "City") and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (hereinafter "Hoag'). RECITALS L The "RECITALS" to the Restated Development Agreement are amended to add newSections 1 9 through Section 1 19(eel to read as follows• 1.9 Hoag Property. Hoag is the fee owner of annroximately 3R acres of re ionerty located in the City divided between the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit °B" (the "Prom" )• and 1.10 Hoag Healthcare Services. Hoag is a modern, for-nrofiit hosni comprehensive mix of healthcare services to treat virtually an routine or complex medical condition. Hoag features centers of c de nter Vascular Institute Hoag Neuroscience Institute Hoag Orthopedic Services and Hoag Women's Health Services, as well as advanced medical programs in many other specialties; and 1.11 Hoag Community Benefit Programs In addition to provid' r Li state-of-the-art hospital, dia a i ostic imagin • and emergency room care medical services, Hoag isinyolved in many other community benefit programs such as police and SWAT team, fire department and paramedic support services, • desianatin_g_the City as th eiiuinment purchases, providing financial and transportation sup_oort for the Citv's senior Oasis Center and providing methane gas flare burnoff to mitigate methane gas fumes along ac allocates apnroximatel )1'_'o, + ! ," _ 1 ti ' i e community's overall health, primarily through disease prevention and wellness and health promotion, especially for those vulnerable and disadvantag , . 1 , _ a ' I I • :. id 1.12 . EIR No 142 and P.C. Text. On May 26.1992, the city Council of City ("City Council") certified the Hoag Hospital 8/10/07 10001.37 H&O: #25438 vDOC (#25438 v8 v. #40450 v1) Master Plan Final EIR No 142 and adopted the Hoag Memoria Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan ("Hoag Master Plan") and the Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regylations ("P.C. Text") setting forth the development standards and terms and conditions by which the Property • y building height Limits and permitted land uses; and 1.13 Square Footage of Buildable Area. Under the existing Hoag Master Plan and P C Text, the Prone allows a total of 1,343,238 square feet of building area with 577,889 square feet allocated to the Lower Campus and 765.349 square feet allocated to the Upper Campus; and the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 92-4 approving Development Agreement No. 5 between the City and Hoag incorporating the Hoag Master Plan and P C. Text and granting vested rights to Hoag to develop the Property pursuant to the Hoag M me Agreement. The Development Agreement was recorded in the Official Records of Orangg County, California on August 4,1991 1.15 Restated Development Agreement. On February 4.the approving an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 ("Restated Development Agreement") incorporating certain provisions clarifying the role, review and approval authority of the California Coastal Commission for development of the Property to ensure consistency and compliance with the California Coastal Act The Restated Development Agreement was recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California on March 23,1994 as Instrument No 94-0207276; and 1.16 First Amendment to P.C. Text. On August 13, 2002. the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2002-17 approving the First Amendment to the P.C. Text to provide that certain non -occupied building areas are not counted towards the maximum permissible bulling floor areas for development of the Property; 1.17 Noise Limitation. The existing PC Text provides that noise generated from Hoag Hospital not exceed 55 dBA at the Property lines. This noise limitation was established prior to the adoption of the City's Noise Element andNoise Ordinance. It 8/10/07 10001.37 H&O: 825438 vDOC (#25438 v8 v. #40450 vl) 2 is nronosed that noise generated and orieinatinP from the Property be governed by the City Noise Ord' . • .i t ,' exceptions; • • actions to attenuate noise generated from mechanical equipment and has installed landscape screening to mitigate and buffer noise. and aesthetic impacts jonguacentresideatigumatertkauts 1.19 Restated Development Agreement Amendments The City and Hoag propose to further amend the Restated Development Agreement by this Amendment to incorporate references to: a Supplemental EIR; an amendment to the City General Plan; extension of the term; an increase in the Public Benefits; designation of the City as the point of sale for major hospital equipment purchases; a one-time waiver of future administrative fee for issuance of healthcare revenue bonds; and further amendments to the Hoag Hospital Planned Community Text to,amon• -_ 'r•:• (al eliminate the reference to 1 0 Floor Area Ratio ("FAR'9 for the Unner Camnus and the .65 FAR for the Lower Camnus in the General Plan Land Use Element. In place of the reference to the FAR's. an absolute ma i nm a towable buiidine area of 1343 238 sauare feet will remain available for development of the entire Property comprised of the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus; (b) maintain a cap under the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment for development of the Lower Campus at 577,889 square feet (if no square footage is reallocated) and establish a cap on development of the Upper Campus at 990 349 sauare feet (if all225 000 agnate feet are reallocated from the Lower Camnus to the Upper Camnusl: (c) allow the transfer of up to 225,000 square feet of buildable area from the Lower Camnus to the Unner Campus which if a 1 225,000 square feet are reallocated, would result in a maximum allowed density of 990,349 square feet for the Unner Camnus and a reduction to nermit 352 889 sonare jegtofillowablestkr the Lower Campus; 8/10/07 1000137 H&O: #25438 vDOC (#25438 v8 v. #40450 v1) (di to modify the noise standards anolicable to the Property and (e) incorporate the First Amendment to the P.C. Text." COVENANTS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Section 1.5 of the Restated Development Agreement entitled Planning Commission/City Council Hearings is amended to read as follows: "1.5 Planning Commission/City Council Hearings. The Planning Commission, after giving appropriate notice, held public hearings to consider a development agreement, the proposed Master Plan, and the EIR on December 5, 1991, January 9, 1992, January 23, 1992, February 6, 1992 and February 20, 1992. The City Council conducted public hearings on the Master Plan, this Agreement and the Ea on March 23,1992, March 30,1992, Apri113, 1992 and May 11, 1992. The Planning Commission. after>ivhrn ao rorooriate notice. beld a nubile hearing to consider this Amendment, the Supplemental EIR the General Plan Amendment. and the Second Amendment to the P.C. Text on , 2007. The City Council conducted a public hearing on this Amendment, the Supplemental MR, the General Plan Amendment and the Second Amendment to the P.C. Text on , 2007." 2. Section 1.8 of the Restated Development Agreement entitled City Ordinance is amended to read as follows: "1.8 City Ordinance. On February 14, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 94-8 approving this Agreement and authorizing the City to enter into this Agreement. The Adopting Ordinance will become effective on March 16, 1994. On , 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. approving this Amendment and authorizing the City to enter into this Amendment. The adopting ordinance will become effective on , 2007 " 3. Section 2.1 of the Restated Development Agreement entitled The Adopting Ordinance is amended to read as follows: "2.1 The "Adopting Ordinance" refers to City Ordinance No. 94-8, adopted on February 14, 1994, by the City Council, which 8110/07 10001.37 H&O: #25438 vDOC (#25438 v8 v. #40450 v1) approved and authorized the City to enter into this Agreement 22 "Adopting Ordinance" further refers to Ordinance No. adootedon . 2007 by the City Counc' which approved and authorized the City to enter into this Amendment" 4. Section 2.2 of the Restated Development Agreement entitled Agreement is amended to read as follows: _ "2.2 "Agreement" refers to this "Development Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian," and this Amendment." 5. Section 2.13 of the Restated Development Agreement entitled The EIR is amended to read as follows: "2.13 The "EIR" refers to final Environmental Impact Report No. 142 of the City of Newport Beach, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 142, and the -Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 442 6. Section 2.23 of the Restated Development Agreement entitled Master Plan is amended to read as follows- "2.23 "Master Plan" refers to the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan and Planned Community Development Plan which was adopted by the City on May 26, 1992 (Exhibit "C"), as amended." L Section 3 of the Restated Development Agreement entitled Conditions to Development is amended to add a new paragraph after Subsection (t] to read as fo lows• "Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section any provisions set forth i t ' endment ha 1 .oer a and control over any inconsistencies with this Section." $ Section 3.2 of the Restated Development Agreement entitled Compliance With Master Plan Conditions/Miti ' ' ' s n Measures is amended to add a new Subsection (1) to read as follows: "(l) The noise generated from the Property shall be governed by the City Noise Ord' ance except he applicable noise standard at the Hoag Property line adjacent to the loading dock shall be as follows; 8/10/07 10001.37 n&o: #25438 vDOC (#25438 v8 v. #40450 v1) 5 Within the loading dock area, delivery vehieles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards 9, • 7-Section 3.3 of the Restated Development Agreement entitled Program EIR is amended to read as follows: "3.3 Program EIR. Hoag acknowledges that the EIR is a "Program EIR:" and includes Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. The EIR analyzes the impacts of construction phased over time and, pursuant to CEQA, City is under a continuing obligation to analyze Hoag's requests for Project Specific Approvals to ensure the environmental impacts associated with the request were fully addressed in the EIR. Subsequent environmental documentation is required if this analysis reveals environmental impacts not fully addressed in the program EIR, identifies new impacts, or concludes the specific request is not consistent with the project described in the EIR. Hoag acknowledges the right and obligation of the City and the Coastal Commission or its successor agency to impose additional conditions as the result of the subsequent environmental analysis required by CEQA." 10. &-Section 4.1 of the Restated Development Agreement entitled Right to Develop is amended to read as follows: "4.1 Right to Develop. Subject to compliance with the provisions of Sections 3 and 8.2, Hoag shall have a vested right to develop and receive Project Specific Approvals for construction on the Property to the full extent permitted by the Master Plan, as amended. Subject to the provisions of Sections 3 and 8, City shall only take action which complies with and is consistent with the Master Plan, as amended, the Restated Development Agreement and this Amendment unless Hoag otherwise consents in writing. Subject to this Subsection, City shall have the authority to impose only those Exactions which are specifically described in this Agreement, except as expressly required (as opposed to permitted) by state or federal law." 11. 9rSection 6.3 of the Restated Development Agreement entitled Tenn of Agreement is amended to read as follows: "6.3 Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall five ''�—`enr-sbe amended to provide that the term of the Agreement shall be extended from March 23, 2019 to March 23, 2029 unless otherwise terminated or modified pursuant to thisthe 8/L0/07 10001.37 H&O: #25438 vDOC (#25438 v8 v. #40450 vI) 13A 12. termsoftheRestatedDevelonmentAgreement. Anymodifications to this Agreement prior to effective certification of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) are subject to the review and approval of the Coastal Commission or its successor agency. amended to add new Subsections (e) and (fl to read as follows: "(e) City and Hoag acknowledge and agree that the Restated Development Agreement and this Amendment confer private benefits on Hoag that should be balanced by commensurate public benefits in favor of the City. Accordingly, the City and Hoag intend to provide consideration to balance the private and public benefits by the imposition of a Development Agreement Fee, which fee shall be used to fund certain needed e the Ci a Development Agreement Fee of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000). Payment of one-half of the Development Agreement Fee of $1.5 million shall be made upon the Effective Date of this Amendment. Payment of the remaining one-half of the Development Agreement Fee of $1.5 million shall be paid to City 24 months from the Effective Date of this Amendment or at the time of issuance of the first buildint Hermit by the City for development of a project on the Upper Campus as provided in Exhibit "C" attached to this Amendment, whichever occurs earlier. City agrees to use the first $1.5 million of the Development Agreement Fee for mar tent of the costs associated with: (1) the Superior Avenue medians extending from Hospital Road to Industrial Way; (id) fan g the right -turn pocket for southbound Newport Boulevard to westbound Hospital Road; and (ill) funding the operational improvements and traffic Cgnal upgrade e Hospital Road and Placentia intersection ("Priority Public Improvements'). Construction of the Priority Public Improvements is anticipated to occur during 2007. The City shall be obligated to pay the actual cost difference if any. for of the Development Agreement Fee shall be used by the City is the City's sole discretion to offset costs associated with other City and community public benefits such as, among other things, public parks (such as Sunset View Consolidated Park), landscaping improvements adiacent to public right of ways. sound abatement programs, public build(ggs, public road improvements, water quality improvements, law enforcement, fire fighting emer envy nrenaredness and other public safety facilities." 8/10/07 10001.37 H&O: #25438 vDOC (825438 v8 v. #40450 v1) 7 (f) To the maximum extent permitted by law, Hoag shall designate the Property as the site on its sales tax statements as the point of sale for purchases of equipment costing 510O.000 or more and to request vendors to sign a Letter of cooperation indicating acknowledgment and agreement to designate the City federal or state taxinn. agencies." 13, 10. Section 11.1(c) of the Restated Development Agreement entitled Notices is hereby amended to delete: "with a copy to: Paone, Callahan, McHolm & Winton 19100. Von Karman, 8th Floor B.O. Box 19613 Irvine, CA 92713 9613" Dennis D. O'Neil Hewitt & O'Neil LLP 19900 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612" 14. Section 11 0 of the Restated Development Agreement entitled Misccell neo7 Provisions is hereby amended to add anew Subsection 11.17 entitied.Revenue Bond Fee to read as follows: "11 17 Revenue Bond Fee. On a one-time only basis after the Effective Date of this Amendment, City agrees that it will not provisions set forth in Chapter 3.26 of the City Municipal Code entitled "Healthcare and Recreation Facilities Revenue Bond Ordinance." 8/10/07 10001.37 H&O: #25438 vDOC (#25438 v8 v. #40450 v1) 8 15, }b-Exhibit C of the Restated Development Agteement shall incorporate the First Amendment to the P.C. Text as part of this Second Amendment to the P.C. Text in revised Exhibit C entitled: "HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA AND DISTRICT REGULATIONS Recommended for Approval by the Planning Commission Febwerf-20,1992 , 2007 Adopted by the City Council City of Newport Beach Ordinance No. 924 May46r-1992 4.-Except as provided for in this Amendment and not otherwise superseded by this Amendment, the provisions set forth in the Restated Development Agreement, all of the other terms, conditions, provisions and exhibits of the Restated Development Agreement continue to have full force and effect as provided therein and this Amendment shall constitute an integral part of the Restated Development Agreement. 17. 43An the event there is any conflict between any provision of the Restated Development Agreement and this Amendment, the later approved and recorded document shall prevail in interpretation, operation and implementation. 1, 14-The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Amendment to be recorded with the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, Califomia within ten days following the effective date of adoption of the Ordinance approving this Amendment. [Signature page follows] 8/10/07 10001.37 H&O: #25438 vDOC (#25438 v8 v. #40450 v1) 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Fourth Amendment to Development Agreement to be binding as of the Effective Date. ATTEST: LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robin Clauson, City Attorney 8/10/07 10001.37 H&O: #25438 vDOC (#25438 v8 v. #40450.v1) CITY: THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California By: Steven Rosansky, Mayor OWNER: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation By: Richard Afable, President and CEO (All Signatures to be Notarized) 10 \3` Exhibit No. 4 List of Violations alleged by Villa Balboa Blank LIST OF VIOLATIONS OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA (May 26, 1992) AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (February 14, 1994) The Development Agreement opens with the following statement of purpose: RECITALS. This Agreement relates to the following: 1.1 Purpose of Agreement. This Agreement is intended to: (b) "...minimize, to the extent feasible, any environmental impact of Hoag's proposed expansion." Unfortunately, as shown herein, there have been numerous failures in minimizing the environmental impacts of Hoag's expansion and in complying with the dictates of both the Development Agreement (DA) and the Planned Community Development Criteria (PCDC). It is the objective of this document to highlight those failures. DA Citation — (1) Recitals (Page 1) The Development Agreement also sets forth the following requirement for annual review: 5.1 City and Hoag Responsibilities. "At least every twelve (12) months during the Term, the City shall review Hoag's good faith substantial compliance with this Agreement..." 5.2 Public Hearing. "The Annual Review shall be conducted at a public hearing noticed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code." 5.3 Mitigation Review. "The Annual Review shall include a detailed report of compliance with the various conditions and mitigation measures... The report shall include an analysis of the view impacts..." The City is required to hold an Annual Review of Hoag's good faith compliance with the Development Agreement. These Annual Reviews included a specific mandate to examine the impact on views of building projects on the lower campus. The City is required to hold the review in the format of a public hearing, with notification sent in advance to nearby residents. No Annual Review was ever conducted. Among other things, this oversight prevented the City and the Community from properly assessing impacts on views of the cogeneration plant before it was built and multiple other facets of Hoag's expansion. No Annual Review has been conducted during the entire 14 year period since approval of the Agreement. Many, if not all, of the controversies that have now arisen (and been ignored for 14 years) regarding Hoag's request for modification of this agreement could have been avoided had this mandated procedure been followed. DA Citation — (5) Annual Review (Page 9) THE FOLLOWING FAILURES ARE INDICATIVE OF THE VIOLATIONS OF BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 1. Failure to assess potential impacts and prepare required environmental document with respect to plumes and noise from the cogeneration plant The DA states that the City of Newport Beach is "under a continuing obligation to analyze Hoag's requests for Project Specific Approvals to ensure the environmental impacts associated with request were fully addressed in the EIR. Subsequent environmental documentation is required if this analysis reveals environmental impacts not fully addressed in the program EIR, identifies new impacts, or concludes the specific request is not consistent with the project described in the EIR. Hoag acknowledges the right and obligation of the City and the Coastal Commission or its successor agency to impose additional conditions as the result of subsequent environmental analysis required by CEQA." Potential impacts from the cogeneration plant therefore did not cause the proper supplemental environmental documentation to be prepared with respect to the condensate, rooftop steam, or exhaust plumes from the cogeneration plant. Also, noise related to the cogeneration plant cooling towers should have been assessed prior to approval of the plant. DA Citation — (3)(3) Program EIR (Page 7) rAdN 2. Failure to prohibit/conceaUscreen equipment on roof of cogeneration plant The PCDC states the following with respect to roofs of buildings on the lower campus: "Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the roof 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 roofing materials." The PCDC also states that "all mechanical equipment and trash areas will be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties." The roof of the cogeneration plant is not "clean." Instead it contains a wide range of equipment, including six large exhaust stacks, steam vents, and other related devices. It can be argued that the exhaust stacks in particular violate the provision banning major equipment; they are certainly not screened from view. Steam vents are covered by grill work, but do not "blend into the building roof." Further, both exhaust stacks and steam vents discharge plumes which rise well above the roof of the building, clearly violating the intent of the PCDC. PCDC Citation - (V)(F) Roof Treatment (Page 17) PCDC Citation - (V)(J) Mechanical and Trash Enclosures (Page 18) 3. Failure to prepare a complete and accurate view impact analysis for cogeneration plant The DA contains a requirement that, prior to receiving a building permit, Hoag must prepare a view impact analysis of each proposed building. In order to provide an accurate assessment of the impact of the cogeneration plant on views, any such study should have included an assessment of the impact of the plant's condensate, steam, and exhaust gas plumes. DA Citation — (3)(2)(i) (Page 7) DA Citation, Exhibit C — Item # 48 (Page 9) 4 4. Failure to demonstrate that cogeneration plant would be compliant with SCAOMD Rule 402 (Public Nuisance) The DA contains a requirement that, prior to receiving a building permit, Hoag must submit plans to the City demonstrating compliance with all SCAQMD rules, including Rule 402 (Public Nuisance), which specifically addresses visible plumes (see below). There is no evidence among City application materials related to the cogeneration plant that demonstrates compliance with this requirement. DA Citation, Exhibit C — Item #82 (Page 13) 5. Failure to develop a proper air quality analysis related to plumes from the cogeneration plant The DA contains a requirement that, prior to receiving a building permit, Hoag must conduct an air quality analysis prior to each stage of development, and that "appropriate CEQA" documentation must be prepared if "new emissions, when added to existing project emissions could result in impacts not previously considered..." Since the visible plumes from the cogeneration plant were not considered in the EIR 142, an SEIR should have been generated with relation to the cogeneration plant to evaluate the impact of the plumes from the cooling towers, exhaust stacks, and rooftop steam vents. DA Citation, Exhibit C - Item #36 (Page 7) 6. Failure to enforce maximum height mandates - fence behind cogeneration plant The fence built above and behind the lower campus cogeneration plant clearly violates the height restrictions of the PCDC. PCDC Citation - (V)(C)(4) Maximum Building Height (Page 14) 7. Failure to meet requirement to maintain noise levels below 55 dBA at all property lines. Noise levels near the loading -dock, and other areas of the upper campus, and at the cogeneration plant, have consistently failed to meet the requirement that sound levels not exceed 55 dBA at all property lines. PCDC Citation - (II)(7) General Notes (Page 2) 8. Failure to follow directives in the DA and PCDC requiring noise abatement via enclosure of the loading dock area. Noise standards have been continuously violated at the Hoag loading dock area. Both the DA and PCDC require enclosure ("enclosure shall be required") of the loading dock area if no other noise mitigation measures prove to be effective. PCDC Citation — (V)(L) Loading Dock (Page 19) DA Citation, Exhibit C — Item #120 (Page 18) 9. Failure to consistently restrict construction and related work to the mandated hours of 7am to 6pm during the week, and to 8 am to 6 pm on Saturday. On numerous occasions, construction and related activities on the lower campus have occurred well before the morning thresholds cited in the PCDC and DA. Several of these incidents are documented in writing and/or photographically. PCDC Citation — (V)(K) Internal Circulation (Page 18) DA Citation, Exhibit C — Item #112 (Page 17) 10. Failure to implement landscaping plans as promised during a meeting conducted by Hoag personnel (including landscape architect) and Government Solutions. Inc. On March 14, 2007 Hoag personnel (including landscape architect) and representatives of Government Solutions, Inc. conducted a meeting on the premises of Villa Balboa for the purpose of updating Villa Balboa residents on Hoag's development plans. While presenting landscaping plans for the lower campus parking area, Hoag included architectural renderings showing far more planting areas devoted to trees than have actually been implemented. The term expressed by the landscape architect for the quantity of trees to be planted in the parking lot was "a canopy of trees." This has not occurred. At that same meeting Hoag showed architect renderings depicting a promised "lattice framework around the cogeneration plant to be planted with ivy." The audience was told that Hoag had submitted plans for both the "canopy of trees" and the "cogeneration plant lattice work" to the California Coastal Commission. A subsequent call to the Long Beach office of the Coastal Commission revealed that such an application had not been filed. ��5 Residents of Villa Balboa relied on Hoag's statements and architectural renderings with respect to the landscaping issues discussed above, however Hoag has not followed through on it promises and has ceased communicating with residents on this issue. This gives the appearance that Hoag was simply attempting to placate residents to forestall any further organized activities in opposition to Hoag's request to amend the Development Agreement of February 14, 1994. 11. Failure to document to the City prior to construction that cooling tower exhaust fans would be compliant with 55 dBA noise limitation at all property lines. The cooling tower exhaust fans exceed the requirement that noise be less than 55 dBA at all property lines. The DA requires to Hoag demonstrate to the City prior to receiving a building permit that noise from new mechanical equipment will be in compliance with the 55 dBA noise restriction. PCDC Citation - (II)(7) General Notes (Page 2) DA Citation, Appendix A — Item #41 (Page 8) 12. Failure to adhere to Lighting regulations (lower campus lighting systems) — Child Care Center and parking lot north/west of PCH entry to lower campus Various lighting systems on the lower campus do not comply with language in the PCDC and DA which require concealment of light sources and minimization of light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. This includes current lighting on the inner and outer walls of the Child Care Center. Lighting for the new lower campus parking lot was clearly in violation of applicable rules until intervention by the City due to complaints from residents. Prior to installation a report is to be prepared by a lighting engineer certifying that the lighting system complies with the DA and PCDC. (This issue is currently being addressed by the Planning Department, including use of off -hour and photovoltaic cell lighting controls, time clocks and motion detector lighting controls.) PCDC Citation - (V)(E) Lighting (Page 17) DA Citation, Exhibit C — Item #44 (Page 8, 9), Item #88 (Page14) 13. Failure to adhere to limits on construction activities The DA limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, and 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekends. These rules have been violated on numerous occasions, many of which have been documented with Hoag. 1 `4 7 DA Citation, Exhibit C - Item #112 (Page 17) 14. Failure to visually screen mechanical equipment and enclosures Hoag has a long history of leaving equipment and trash receptacles or trash piles in plain view from both nearby roadways, residences, and the Sunset View Park. (Pictures documenting these violations are available.) PCDC Citation - (V)(J) General Notes (Page 18) 15. Failure to screen views from West Coast Highway (Special Landscaped Street) Hoag is required to screen views of equipment, trash enclosures, and parking areas from West Coast Highway. However, this requirement has not been met with respect to the equipment around the cogeneration plant or to the lower campus parking lot. PCDC Citation - (VIII)(C) Special Landscaped Street (Page 25) PCDC Citation - (V)(J) Mechanical and Trash Enclosures (Page 18) CONTINUING INVESTIGATIONS INTO ADDITIONAL POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS 1. Hoag failed to adhere to requirement for good faith and fair dealing as required by the DA. During the approval process for the cogeneration plant, Hoag failed to clearly communicate to the City, the Coastal Commission, or to nearby residents that the plant would emit plumes of condensate, steam, and exhaust gases. This prevented the involved governmental bodies and residents from properly evaluating or understanding the impact of the plant on the community, and breached its good faith requirement to fully disclose potential impacts. During the approval process for the excavation of the lower campus bluff, Hoag submitted to the Coastal Commission an application which grossly understated the amount of vegetation which would be removed. (Documentation supporting this statement is available upon request.) This prevented the Coastal Commission from properly evaluating Hoag's request, and breached its good faith requirement to fully disclose potential impacts. DA Citation — (11)(7) Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Page 19) 2. Failure to dedicate at least 5% of the new lower campus parking lot to planting. Parking lot landscaping on the lower campus fails to meet the mandates set forth in the PCDC, requiring that a minimum of 5% of the parking area be landscaped. Further, the landscaping that has been implemented is significantly over -committed to the entrance area for the Child Care Center rather than being evenly distributed throughout the entire lower campus parking area to the north/west of the PCH lower campus entrance. PCDC Citation - (VIII)(E) Parking Areas (Page 25) 3. Impact of Lower Campus Bluff Excavation and Retaining Wall Construction The excavation of the lower campus bluff and the construction of the retaining wall have been associated with signs of settling of Villa Balboa structures. These signs include cracking, and jamming of doors and windows. These problems are under investigation by Villa Balboa consultants. The sidewalk which transverses the linear Sunset View Park has experienced increasing cracking and loss of structural integrity. DA Citation — (3)(2)(a)(b) (Page 7) CONCLUSIONS The residents of Villa Balboa are deeply distressed by their experiences of the past 1'/2 years in attempting to negotiate with Hoag to reach acceptable solutions to the issues cited above. What first appeared to be a willingness on Hoag's part to meet and work with representatives of the Villa Balboa Association ultimately became an exercise in futility as Hoag effectively cut off communication abruptly in September of 2007 and failed to agree to retrofit the cogeneration plant or to implement specific promises made to the Association regarding a range of issues such as landscaping and the illegal cogeneration plant fence. Unfortunately, what should have been a "win -win" endeavor between Hoag and its neighbors has turned into a "lose -lose" proposition. Visitors to Sunset View Park as well as visitors to the City of Newport Beach traveling on Pacific Coast Highway (designated by the California Coastal Commission as a "scenic highway") have been misled throughout the ongoing Hoag expansion. \A% In addition to numerous violations of the letter of the Planned Community Development Criteria, Hoag has unfortunately also violated its spirit and intent. This spirit is perhaps best expressed in the section on development "Standards" which can be found in the section on Site Plan Reviews: "Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and the City." Development shall be sited and designed to maximize the aesthetic quality of the project as viewed from surrounding roadways and properties...." PCDC Citation — Standards, (Page 27) Blank 1 5° Exhibit No. 5 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Separate — Volume I & II) Blank \9\ Exhibit No. 6 Responses to Comments received on the SEIR (Separate — Volume III & IV of the SEIR) \53 Blank Varin, Ginger From: Campbell, James Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:30 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: Fw: Planning Commission hearing comments and response to email from Mr. Luehrs For tonight. James Campbell, Senior Planner Original Message From: Nancy Knight <nmknight@sbcglobal.net> To: Erik Thurnher <erik@physician-advisors.com>; jeff.cole@cushwake.com <jeff.cole@cushwake.com>; eaton727@earthlink.net <eaton727@earthlink.net>; rhawkins@earthlink.net <rhawkins@earthlink.net>; bhillgren@cox.net <bhillgren@cox.net>; scott.peotter@taxfighter.com <scott.peotter@taxfighter.com>; strataland@earthlink.net <strataland@earthlink.net> Cc: Lepo, David; Campbell, James; Rosansky, Steven; Selich, Edward; 'Michele Staples' <MStaples@jdtplaw.com>; Harp, Aaron Sent: Thu Feb 07 13:18:17 2008 Subject: Re: Planning Commission hearing comments and response to email from Mr. Luehrs Erik, as usual, you did an excellent job with this letter. Villa Balboa residents are certainly lucky to have you as a neighbor! Nancy Erik Thurnher <erik@physician-advisors.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Hawkins, We want to thank you and each of the other Planning Commissioners for taking the time last week to listen to so many residents of Villa Balboa and Newport Crest on the various issues surrounding Hoag's proposed entitlement transfer from the lower campus to the upper campus. Ultimately, the open flow of information benefits all parties, including Hoag, and We think it is a credit to the Planning Commission that you patiently gave every the citizen the opportunity to say their piece even though this meant the meeting did not conclude until the late hours of the evening. We think the Commissioners are to be commended for encouraging openness and communication, not criticized. We would also like to take a moment to respond to the comments made by Mr. Luehrs in his recent email to the Planning Commission: 1.) When Mr. Luehrs states that the cogeneration plant is an existing, approved facility and therefore should not be open to discussion, he misses several important points. First, the plant is out of the compliance with the current Development Agreement noise regulations, limiting noise at the property line from mechanical operations to 55 dBA. This was the clear conclusion reached by EQAC, and it was also the stated position of the Planning Department at the meeting with Hoag and the City on January 18th, and on other occasions. Since the current application by Hoag includes removing the current noise limit, the plant is certainly part of that application, and therefore is open to discussion. Second, while the plant was approved, it is widely recognized that the permitting process did not meet several critical requirements of the Development Agreement. The fact that Hoag did not disclose the plumes or noise levels to the Planning Department and Coastal Commission during the permitting process had far reaching consequences. (We would encourage members of the Planning Commission to review the "Advertisement for Bids" we recently provided to Assistant Attorney, Aaron Harp, which shows that the original design of the cogeneration plant did include plume abatement equipment. Sadly, Hoag chose to delete the equipment during construction of the plant.) Most importantly, there was no supplemental environmental impact report prepared even though such documentation is required by the Development Agreement when a new impact exists that was not addressed in the original EIR. Since the cooling tower, steam, and exhaust plumes were not considered, or even anticipated, in the original EIR, supplemental documentation should have been prepared. Further, the View Impact Analysis required by the Development Agreement did not include modeling of any of the three plumes. Lastly, the City Council, which was required by the Development Agreement to monitor view impacts each year, and to hold public 1 `hearings on this subject, was not at that time discharging this duty. It is clear from our conversations with City personnel that, if the Planning Department, Coastal Commission, City Council, and the public had known about the impacts that would be caused by the plant's operation, mitigation measures would certainly have been required. Also, Mr. Luehrs suggests that video of the plume exaggerates its impact. While no one is suggesting that the plume is always as dense as is shown in the video, there are hundreds of residents, who can attest to how severe it can be, particularly during the early morning and evening hours. We deeply regret Mr. Luehrs' attempt to discredit the severity of the plume and our presentation. We will have video of the plume available at tonight's hearing for anyone who wishes to examine it. We have also attached two brief clips to this email. 2.) While we won't attempt to comment on the logic of Mr. Luehrs arguments regarding noise mitigation and property values, we would point out that not a single resident at the Commission hearing raised the issue of the value of their property. Noise is first and foremost a quality of life issue, and the residents are simply asking that a full range of mitigation measures be considered, including those in the PC text and Development Agreement. Since Hoag is now asking to remove noise limits that have been in place for almost 15 years, this request hardly seems unreasonable. (Extending Mr. Luehrs' logic to the construction of the cogeneration plant would suggest that it should not have been built because the Villa Balboa condominiums were constructed first.) 3.) In reference to remarks made by residents, Mr. Luehrs said that he was surprised by "all the negativity." First, we would point out that, almost without exception, the residents who spoke prefaced their comments by acknowledging the benefits that Hoag brings to our community. Many related stories of their own personal connection to the hospital, and these were uniformly positive. Second, perhaps Mr. Luehrs should consider that the possibility that his "surprise" is more the result of his lack of experience with what life is like living next to the cogeneration plant, or to the loading dock, rather than to some flaw in the residents. The hospital is somewhat unusual for Newport Beach in that it is a "24/7/365" operation. It is has undergone tremendous growth in the last twenty years, something the residents strongly support. Accordingly, residents accept that some impacts are unavoidable. We only ask that, as is required in the Development Agreement and PC Text, and by good neighborliness, those impacts be mitigated as much as possible. Lastly, some background is in order regarding the organized discussions that having been going on between Hoag and its neighbors for almost two years. When those discussions began, our Committee told Hoag that our aim was to achieve a "Win - Win" outcome. If Hoag would help restore the quality of life of nearby residents and of those who use and enjoy Sunset View Park, then we would "go to bat" for them with respect to shifting square footage from the lower to upper campus. As a sign of our good faith, we promised not to go to the press, or to retain counsel while discussions were underway. We were pleased when Hoag hired Government Solutions to interface with us, as the quality and quantity of contact increased, and we were able to make progress on certain issues, such as landscaping. However, the most difficult problems, including the cogeneration plant, remained unresolved. Then, in late Summer, Hoag abruptly ended regular communication with us. The meetings that had been occurring on almost a monthly basis were halted, and Hoag stopped responding to our correspondence. We were particularly surprised that Dr. Afable did not did not respond to our letter thanking him for the progress made to date, and expressing our hope that Hoag would continue to work with us toward resolution of the remaining issues (see attached). When we approached Carol McDermott at Government Solutions, she said that she was no longer authorized to speak with us and that if we had concerns with this change, we should put them in writing. In any case, it is important to understand that the current situation was preceded by a prolonged effort by residents to engage Hoag in a neighborly discussion of some of the impacts its operations were having on those living nearby. With those efforts having largely failed to bear fruit, we now look forward to the participation of the Planning Commission and the City Council in the process. With their involvement, we are hopeful that a resolution can soon be reached which includes both Hoag achieving the entitlement transfer it is seeking, as well as the restoration of the quality of life for those who live near the hospital or who use and enjoy Sunset View Park. This would represent the "Win - Win" outcome we were hoping for when our Committee first approached Hoag almost two years ago. Sincerely, Erik W. Thurnher, MD Richard Runyon Co -Chairman Co -Chairman 2 Villa Balboa -Hoag Liaison Committee 3 VILLA BALBOA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HOAG HOSPITAL LIAISON COMMTITEE September 10, 2007 Richard Afable, MD, MPH President& CEO Hoag Hospital One Hoag Drive POBox6100 Newport Beach, CA. 92658-6100 Dear Dr. Afable, It has now been almost six months since our committee met with you and selected members of your staff on April 4, 2007. In the interim, there have been many developments related to the issues discussed at that meeting. Also, with the upcoming meeting scheduled for September 24th between our committee and various Hoag representatives, we are approaching hing an important juncture in our relationship. For these reasons, we thought this would be a good time to touch base with you again, and to share our thoughts. First, we would bike to thank Hoag for steps that have been taken in addressing a number of concerns of Villa Balboa residents. This includes the removal of certain trees on the lower campus, which has restored views from the Sunset View Park and Villa Balboa, and brought lower campus landscaping into compliance with the Planned Community Development Criteria on this matter. We were also pleased to see the cogeneration plant being painted, as an interim step, prior to the promised landscaping which we have been assured will be put in place along Pacific Coast Highway and along the eastern side ofthe cogeneration plant (in the form of a vine -covered lattice work). These will be welcome improvements to the appearance of the plant structure. Lastly, we welcome Hoag's efforts to limit Hoag employees from using our property and the Sunset View Park for smoking. MI of these steps are appreciated by our residents and by those who visit the Sunset View Park. Looking forward, we are now scheduled to meet with Hoag personnel, including engineering staff members, on September 24th to discuss several critical items. While a number of issues remain unresolved, of particular importance, in our view, are the following: With the next series of meetings now approaching, sad with so Duch at stake, we hope that upcoming discussions between Hoag and Villa Balboa will provide lasting solutions to the problems noted above. Certainly, an aggressive and comprehensive effort by Hoag to definitively address these problems would help set a very constructive tone for our relationship in the months and years ahead, while clearly demonstrating Hoag's sensitivity and good neighborliness to the greater Newport Beach community. As we strived to point out at our meeting with you, this kind of "Wm -Wm" outcome has always been the goal of our committee. On this hopeful note, we very much look forward to the solutions and timetable Hoag will be proposing in the next several weeks on the remaining issues before us. Sincey, L.R. Runyon Co -Chair' Hoag Hospital Liaison Committee cc: Debra Legan, Vice President Carol McDermott, Government Solutions, Inc