HomeMy WebLinkAboutD-1 - Planning Department - CorrespondenceCity Council Meeting October 27, 1986
Agenda Item No.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: A. Use Permit No. 1421 (Revised)
D-1
Request to construct a 50,000 sq.ft. cancer center and covered
walkway system in the Unclassified District. The proposal also
includes: A request to allow a portion of the structure to
exceed the 26 ft. basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height
Limitation District; a request to establish an off-street
parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; a modifi-
cation to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the
required parking to be provided as compact spaces; and the
acceptance of an environmental document.
AND
B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing)
Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow construction
of a 50,000 sq.ft. cancer center.
LOCATION: Portion of Lot 1 of Irvine's Subdivision, at 4000 West Coast
Highway, on the northwesterly corner of Newport Boulevard and
West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach.
ZONE: Unclassified
APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as Applicant
Applications
If approved, the applications under consideration will allow the construction
of a 50,000 sq.ft. cancer center facility with a related covered walkway by
Hoag Memorial Hospital. A use permit is required in order to allow construc-
tion in the Unclassified District, and to allow construction of a 35 foot
building within the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District. Also requested is
the provision of off-street parking based on a demonstrated formula and the
approval of a modification so as to allow a portion of the required parking to
be compact spaces. Acceptance of a Traffic Study and an Environmental Document
are also requested. Use Permit procedures are contained in Chapter 20.80; Mod-
ification procedures are in Chapter 20.81; and Traffic Study procedures are in
Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
TO: City Council - 2.
Suggested Action
If desired, sustain, modify or overrule the decision of the Planning Commis-
sion.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on September 4, 1986, and
voted (All Ayes) to approve the Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 1421(Amended),
and to accept the Environmental Document. The Findings and Conditions of
Approval are listed below:
A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Findings:
1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA
Guidelines, and City policy, and that their contents have been considered
in the decisions on this project.
2. That based on the information contained in the Initial Study, the project
incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially signifi-
cant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in signi-
ficant environmental impacts.
B. TRAFFIC STUDY
Findings:
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the
proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in
accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City
Policy S-1.
2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will
neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any
'major', 'primary -modified', or 'primary' street, so long as the committed
improvement at Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road/Westminster Avenue is
constructed.
Condition:
1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project, the applicant shall
contribute a proportional share as determined by the City, to the
Circulation System Improvements for the intersection of Newport Boulevard
and Hospital Road/Westminster Avenue.
TO: City Council - 3.
C. USE PERMIT NO. 1421 (AMENDED)
Findings:
1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the
adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with
surrounding land uses.
2. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes
and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in
which the proposed project is located, except those items requested in
conjunction with the proposed modifications.
3. The increased building height will result in more public visual open space
and views than is required by the basic height limit, in that the proposed
building is a maximum of 6 feet higher than the existing upper level
elevation.
4. The increased building height will result in a more desirable architec-
tural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual
character of the area than is required by the basic height limit.
5. The increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt
scale relationships being created between the structure and existing
developments or public spaces, in that the proposed structure is similar
in height to the adjacent Villa Balboa development.
6. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved
without the use permit for the building height.
7. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being
provided in conjunction with the proposed development.
8. The proposed number of compact car spaces constitutes 25 percent of the
parking requirements which is within limits generally accepted by the
Planning Commission relative to previous similar applications.
9. The proposed Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended) and modification for compact
parking will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be
detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood
or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modi-
fication is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this
Code.
Conditions:
1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
plot plan, floor plan, and elevations, as modified by the preferred design
alternative one, except as noted below.
2. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by
the Building and Planning Departments.
TO: City Council - 4.
3. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and perm-
anent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt,
debris, and other water pollutants.
4. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access
points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize
impact of haul operations.
5. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be
subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be
forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa
Ana Region.
6. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated
and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design.
7. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a
Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an
engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil
and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of
the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be
furnished to the Building Department.
8. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall
review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project
will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the
project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system.
This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building
Department.
9. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within
thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. Any cut
material stockpiled on the site shall be placed in such a location and
manner as to prevent transport of silt or soil off site.
10. Existing on -site drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the
satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach.
11. Any exposed slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce erosion
potential. No slope established on the site shall exceed 2:1.
12. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent
drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris
and other water pollutants. The existing 42-inch storm drain shall be
extended if necessary.
13. If groundwater seepage is found to occur on the project site, the plan
design should not block the seepage. Blockage could include higher water
pressures which might influence slope stability.
14. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and/or
developer to attend pre -grade meetings and perform inspections during
development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or
halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil
materials.
TO: City Council - 5.
15. Archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the
coastal zone shall be investigated in accordance with acceptable
scientific procedures and appropriate mitigation measures (including
testing, salvage or presentation) shall be adopted on a case -by -case basis
in accordance with regular City policy.
16. Should fossils be recovered, a paleontological report shall be prepared
for the project to satisfy the City of Newport Beach K-5 and K-6
requirements.
17. If resources are recovered, they shall be donated to an appropriate
natural history museum or foundation, such as the Orange County Natural
History Foundation or the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.
18. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a
licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and
phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction
schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed land-
scape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the land-
scaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan.)
19. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches
and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning and Public Works
Department.
20. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the
use of fertilizers and pesticides.
21. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought -
resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to
avoid surface runoff and over -watering.
22. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All
vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition.
23. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the geometrics and
adequacy of the on -site access road for emergency vehicles shall be
evaluated and approved by the Public Works Department.
24. Emergency access from Newport Boulevard or Pacific Coast Highway shall be
provided in a manner acceptable to the Public Works and Fire Departments.
25. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall
review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler
protection.
26. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department.
27. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire
suppression systems approved by the Fire Department.
28. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department.
TO: City Council - 6.
29. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connec-
tions) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments.
30. The project applicant will coordinate with the City of Newport Beach fire
department in relocating the fire main.
31. Parking areas shall be paved early during construction activities.
32. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a method
approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
33. The layout of the surface parking, including compact parking, shall be
subject to further review and approval by the City traffic engineer.
34. All proposed development shall provide for vacuum sweeping of parking
areas.
35. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
36. That the intersection of the private streets and drives be designed to
provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes,
landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight
distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance requirement
may be approximately modified at non -critical locations, subject to
approval of the Traffic Engineer.
37. That drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement
plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer.
38. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and
approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of
water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior
to issuance of any grading permits. Any modifications or extensions to
the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by
the study shall be the responsibility of the developer.
39. County Sanitation District Fees be paid prior to issuance of any Building
Permits.
40. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, a bicycle trail study
shall be conducted in a manner acceptable to the City Public Works Depart-
ment. The study will evaluate the possibility of a bicycle trail connec-
tion from the Villa Balboa blufftop trail to Pacific Coast Highway.
41. That a minimum 10-foot wide bike trail be constructed to connect the Coast
Highway bike trail at Newport Boulevard with the Villa Balboa bike trail/
emergency access road.
42. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of
Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by
the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and
egress.
TO: City Council - 7.
43. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public
streets, alleys and adjoining properties.
44. Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the roof of the structure.
45. That any mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner
as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the property line.
46. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be
screened from view and noise associated with said installations shall be
sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall
be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and
be approved by the Planning Department.
47. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -
saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities.
48. That the lighting system 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; with a letter from the engineer stating
that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met.
49. The structure shall be designed to protect the building from gas accumu-
lation and seepage, based on the recommendations of a geotechnical
engineer.
50. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to
this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this
use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject
of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
51. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the
date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090;A of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
Background
On September 26, 1986, the City Clerk received an appeal of the Planning Com-
mission decision to approve a Traffic Study and amended Use Permit for the Hoag
Memorial Hospital Cancer Center from the Villa Balboa Community Association.
Analysis
The applicant, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, is requesting these
approvals in order to construct a three-story, 45,000 sq.ft. cancer center with
a related 5,000 sq.ft. covered walkway system and open parking areas on the
site commonly known as CalTrans East near the existing Hoag Hospital parking
structure. Attached for the information of the City Council is an excerpt of
the Planning Commission minutes of September 4, 1986, and a copy of the
Planning Commission staff report which describes the applicant's request.
TO: City Council - 8.
In making its appeal to the City Council, the Villa Balboa Community Associa-
tion made a number of statements regarding availability of information, a
judgment and agreement for a bicycle trail and the consistency of a conceptual
land use plan for the entire CalTrans East site with the Newport Beach General
Plan. These issues are addressed in this staff report. Additionally, staff
has become aware of an error made in the original staff report in regards to
the existing land use designation of the subject property in the Land Use
Element of the General Plan. The General Plan designation is discussed and
clarified.
Villa Balboa Community Association Comments
The Homeowners Association alleges in its letter of appeal that copies of the
Negative Declaration were not available when requested by the Association.
This statement is false. Copies of the Negative Declaration with the support-
ing Initial Study were and are available to persons upon request. Planning
Department records indicate that two copies of the Initial Study were given to
Mr. Kim Lombard, who represented himself to City staff as the chairman of a
committee established by the Villa Balboa Homeowners Association to review the
project. A number of persons came to the Planning Department to review the
file and the development plans. Many of these persons requested copies of the
plans. The Planning Department does not receive project plans for distribution
to members of the general public. These people were referred to the developer
to obtain copies of the plans.
The letter submitted by the Homeowners Association discusses an agreement and
recorded judgment pertaining to the development of Versailles -on -the -Bluff and
Villa Balboa which includes the provisions and agreements for the bicycle trail
and access easement which exist on the southerly edge of Villa Balboa adjacent
to the subject property. The Planning Commission, in making the decision on
the approval of the Use Permit, considered the public access easement and
bicycle trail. Specific Conditions of Approval were attached to the approval
of the project which require the applicant to conduct a bicycle trail study to
evaluate the possibility of a connection from the Villa Balboa trail to Coast
Highway. The construction of the bicycle trail connection is required to be
constructed by the applicant. In applying this Condition of Approval, the
Planning Commission is connecting the bicycle trail easement on Villa Balboa to
Coast Highway. This is considered a benefit to the community at large in the
City of Newport Beach.
Discussion is included in regards to a Conceptual Land Use Plan provided by
Hoag Hospital in the submittal package to the City. This plan was provided at
the request of staff in order that overall site circulation could be assessed
in order to assure that the approval of the cancer center project would not
limit future on -site circulation. The conceptual land use plan was approved by
the Planning Commission. The possible future projectis not under considera-
tion at this time, and its conformance with the City's General Plan and Local
Coastal Program is not at question in this application.
Conformance of the Project with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Local
Coastal Program, Land Use Plan
The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission indicates that the prop-
erty in question is designated for "Recreational and Environmental Open Space"
TO: City Council - 9.
in the Newport Beach General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan,
with the provision in the LCP that the site can be used for the expansion of
Hoag Hospital facilities on site. The staff report was in error.
On February 11, 1985, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 85-7, approving
amendments to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan. Concurrent with this action, the City Council approved a series
of General Plan Land Use Element and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan,
amendments to assure internal consistency of the General Plan and LCP elements.
As part of this action, the land use designation of the CalTrans East parcel
was amended from the "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" category to
"Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities." The project in
question is consistent with this designation.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
by
PATRICIA LEE TEMPLE /
Environmental Coordinator
PLT/kk
CC19
Attachments for City Council Only:
1. Excerpt of Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 4,
1986
2. Planning Commission Staff Report of September 4, 1986
3. Correspondence
4. Initial Study (attached separately)
5. Revised Plans and Elevations (attached separately)
COUNCIL AGENDA
NO
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
A ? P Li CATI ON TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Va dance No. Uae Permit No. /4/ 1 Amendment No.
Modification No. Resubdivision No.
NOTE: APPELLANT MUST FURNISH ONE (1) SET ADDRESSED GUMMED LABELS OF
PROPERTY OWNERS TOBENOTIFIED BEFORE APPLICATION CAN BE PROCESSED.
Name2r4 of Appellant &Z2 /T���cci -d-/
``//>>�iGG� »/�PsifiQ�rl�J�. 71k�
Address/? lLie� ,ehree.6 Phone
Appealing Planning Commission decision of (date of meeting)
regarding application of (if same as Appellant, write Same)
for (description of application filed with Planning Commission)
Reasons for Appeal: j"a
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee
received: o ��� � _ . �e$� , 19 a.
is lea Ong ,set for 7:30 P.M.
% , 19g.
City Clerk
cc: Appellant
Planning
File
Complete and distribute after public hearing)
v0GtJ �yrcc i! r d 4 r
46atur4e of Appellant
COUNCIL ACTION
at�
BY THE C€TY COUNCIL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OCT 13 1986
cr Appellant
Planning
City Clerk Date
FEES: (As of 7-1-84)
USE PERMIT APPEAL(Municipal Code) Sec. 20.80.070A VARIANCE �� $258.00
ZONING AMND II II Sec. 20.82.060A $258.00
MODIFICATION �� Sec. 20.84.050 $258.00
*RESUBD II If Sec. 20.81.070E $258.00
Sec. 19.12.040(J)1 $258.00
*Note: When a Resubdivision is appealed along with any of the foregoing,
there will be a charge for each appeal.
BALBOKIL
AGENDA
VILLA BALBOA'''. 7!/ (4 )
CPYY OF 's
NEV! BEACH,
SEP 2519866'v
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884
Dear City Council:
Clara M. Laidlaw, Pres.
Villa Balboa Community Assoc.
240 Nice Lane, #306
Newport Beach, CA 92663
September 24, 1986
Re: Use Permit #1421; Applicant:
Hoag Hospital -Cancer Center,
4000 W. Coast Hwy., Np. Bch.
I am the president of Villa Balboa Community Association,
representing approximately Two Hundred, Seventy -Five homeowners,
adjacent to Hoag Hospital. The Association appeals the action of the
Planning Commission granting the above numbered use permit, on the
following grounds:
1. The planning commission refused to grant
a short continuance requested, in order
that the Association might prepare its
presentation. The Applicant stated that it
had been discussing its plans with the city
for six months, while the Association had
only approximately three weeks notice.
Also, the Notice of Public Hearing stated
that a negative declaration had been
prepared, and that copies of it and
supporting documents were available for
public review and inspection at the
planning department. However, said
documents were not available when
requested by this Association.
2. The original developers of Versailles on
the Bluffs and Villa Balboa entered into an
agreement and recorded Judgment for
various purposes. e.g. "Reduction in
2-
Page 2 Use Permit #1421
density of development in the west
Newport area", and "Augmentation and
expansion of the city's view park and
bicycle path facilities."
As a result of said agreement, and
Judgment, an easement for pedistrian
access way and bicycle trail was granted
to the city along the entire southerly
boundary of Villa Balboa for approximately
1,800 feet. Said agreement and Judgment
further provides, "that the city shall take
no action which is inconsistant with the
spirit and intent of this agreement", and
". ..the city will use its best efforts to
assist in completing the project as a
pleasant, comfortable place for its citizens
to live within the Newport Beach
community."
The granting of Applicants Use Permit
violates the spirit and intent of said
agreement and Judgment.
3. Applicants proposed development is
contrary to The Land Use Element of the
Newport General Plan, and Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan, which designates
Applicant's property for "Recreational and
Environmental Open Space."
Petitioner's Conceptual Land Use Plan
submitted to the Planning Commission's
staff for purpose of on -site circulation,
shows major entry on PCH and Superior
contrary to Applicant's Deed from the state
of California, stating that Applicant has no
abutter's rights of vehicular access.
Applicant advised the association that the
new service road at the top of the bluff,
and covered pedistrian access way will
eventually continue to other buildings.
Also, said Conceptual Land Use Plan
indicates tentative plans for twelve
buildings of over 600, 000 sq. ft.
3
Page 3 Use Permit #1421
Such a development was not contemplated
in the Development Policies and Land Use
Plan certified by the California Coastal
Commission May 19, 1982, stating:
"The area between Newport Blvd.
and Superior Avenue northerly of
coast highway is for "Recreational
and Environmental Open Space" for
parking, public recreational, and
visual/environmental purposes.
Expansion of Hoag Hospital facility
may also be accomodated on the
site."
Said Coastal Commission report also states,
"The scenic and visual resources of
Newport Beach are spectacular. The city
has historically been sensative to the
needs to preserve these resources."
Patricia Temple, Environmental
Coordinator, stated that the staff did not
do any specific analysis of the view impact
related to the service road, and parking
on the bluff; also, James Hewicker,
Planning Director, advised the
Commissioners that he was aware that
there would be view obstruction from the
bicycle trail.
4. The finding of the Planning Commission
that the approval of the Applicant's Permit
will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort or general
welfare of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood, or the general welfare
of the city is arbitrary and untrue.
However, each and every finding for
denial of Use Permit #1421, contained in
Exhibit B, attached to the staff report,
are demonstrably true:
1. That the proposed use is
inconsistant with the General
Plan.
2. That approval of the project
will prejudice ability of the
city to consider a Master Site
Development Plan for the site.
T
Page 4 Use Permit #1421
3. That the proposed structure
will have a significant adverse
effect on planning for public
bike trails and the proposed
view park.
4. That the structure could be
designed to avoid impairment
of public views.
5. That the height of the
structure will result in
undesirable and abrupt scale
relationships with structures in
the area.
6. That environmental documents
are not required for projects
which are denied.
7. That these findings are based
upon facts contained in the
public record.
The Association believes Applicant's property should be
developed with Tess density, and could easily be developed without
any adverse effect on Villa Balboa, or to the public pedestrian
access way and bicycle trail.
VILLA BALBOA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION requests the
further additional conditions to Use Permit #1421:
(a) That no portion of the development on Applicant's
property exceed the height of the bluff.
(b) That the top of the bluff be landscaped with low
vegetation, to preserve the view of the public from
the pedrestrian access way and bicycle trail.
(c) Applicant be required to use the existing service road
to the bottom of the bluff, rather than a new service
road and parking near the top of bluff.
(d) That Applicant's representations that there will be no
overnight patients, also be made a condition.
Respectfully submitted,
/7,7
Clara M. Laidlaw, Pres.
VILLA BALBO
"/INTED:" -r--r—lcrtdGEt-!*)
—I
t
N
cj. (M OF
BEACH,
OW 71986"
!OWED
CITY CLERK
Co
City Council
Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Attn: Irene Butler
Asst. City Clerk'
Dear Ms. Butler:
October 7, 1986
Re: Use Permit #1421 Appeal
On September 25, 1986, when I filed the above refer-
enced appeal on behalf of the Villa Balboa Community As-
sociation, I explained to you that I could not be avail-
able on October 27, 1986. You acknowledged this fact
and set the hearing on the appeal for November 10, 1986.
On Oct. 1, 1986, I received a letter from you changing
the hearing date for the Association's appeal from November
10, 1986, to October 27, 1986, which you already knew was
unsatisfactory.
I explained to you on September 25, 1986, that I
will be attending a convention out of state wnd will not
be available on the October date.
Please set the hearing on the appeal for November
10, 1986, as originally scheduled, or if that is incon-
venient for the Council, a later date.
COPES
I ➢N 1 TO:
AJ}�Zf ��i�...4J f.�1e
o � aV.r
0 C'.Gr ci!rnen
iat alter
O Attorney
CJ B. Dir.
to GaMi`° v Dir.
O t R Dir.
laming Dir.
D Police Chief
d P.W. Dir
0 Other
Very truly yours,
Z.
Cifk27!,' !'7
Clara M. Laidlaw
Pres. Board of Directors
Villa Balboa Community Assoc.
s
5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
(714) 644-3005
September 30, 1986
Clara M. Laidlaw, President
Villa Balboa Community Association
240 Nice Lane, #306
Newport Beach, CA 92663
•
Subject: Use Permit#1421 Appeal
Please be advised that the date to hear your appeal application has
been changed from November 10, 1986 to October 27, 1986. Enclosed is
a copy of the application for your record.
The City Council agenda for October 13, 1986 will contain the
scheduling of your appeal under the Consent Calendar, Item F-10(a) for
pub lic hearing on October 27. If you have circumstances that will
conflict with this hearing date, please be present at the October 13
City Council (evening) meeting for discussion before the City Council.
:Sincerely,
s,-
Irene Butler
Assistant City Clerk
Encl.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
VILLA BALBO? "/ NDA
CITY OF
DEV4NRT BEACH,
CALIF.
OCI 201986
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
October 17, 1986
City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884
Re: Use Permit #1421 Appeal
Villa Balboa Community Assoc.
Dear City Council:
I am the president of the Villa Balboa Community
Associaiton, representing approximately 275 homeowners.
As you know, the Association appealed the Planning Com-
mission's action granting the above Use Permit.
The date of hearing for the Appeal was set by the
Clerk for November 10, 1986, and subsequently changed
by the Council to October 27, 1986, knowing I cannot be
present on said date.
The Council was informed of the circumstances re-
quiring the November 10th date rather than October 27th,
and still voted to change the date to the 27th. The reason
given for the change was that Hoag Hospital requested it.
We fail to understand why Hoag's request was granted in-
stead of the Homeowner's Association's. Our appeal was
properly filed within the City's established procedure
and we were given the date of November 10, 1986, when I would
be able to attend the meeting, and represent our concerns
to the Council.
At the City Council meeting on October 13, 1986,
where the above action took place, Hoag Hospital rep-
resented to the Council that our Association had had
months to prepare for the hearing.
COKES SENT TO:
❑ Mayor
Q cojlkiCiltitefl
m-Minager
❑ Attorney
❑ Bldg. Dir.
p GenSery Dir.
❑ F-RDir.
anning Dir.
❑ Police Chief
❑ P.W. Dir
0Other 0izz.,
FACT: Hoag, admittedly has been working
with the City staff for at least
eight months.
FACT: The Association was first aware of
the proposed development on Aug. 4, 1986.
The Hospital also represented to the Council that
Hoag had already made "many concessions" to the As-
sociation.
FACT: The walk -way and elevator shaft
were lowered a few feet. This
one adjustment hardly represents
"many concessions".
As the Council is aware, we are an Association of
homeowner's, and are somewhat restricted in how quickly
we can respond to, or take an action against any pro-
posed development which we feel will have a negative
impact on our property. We are, at least, constrained
by our C C & R's, and must follow certain time consuming
procedures before any action may be taken.
We believe that Hoag Hospital is also aware of
these constraints, and has thus deliberately maneuvered
so as to allow the homeowner's the least amount of time
possible to respond to their proposed development.
Both the Planning Commission and the City Council
have been unwilling to extend the Association additional
time to respond to this development, which we feel will
have substantial impact on the community and surrounding
area.
As I cannot be present on the 27th, we ask that
you read the attachment to our Application for Appeal
dated September 25, 1986, and carefully consider each
of the four points.
I would also like to point out the following ad-
ditional difficulties which will be created by the de-
velopment:
1. Increased threat to the Security of
the Villa Balboa Homeowners,
2. Increase in passenger traffic both
vehicular and pedestrian on the pro-
posed access roadway and service
road immediately adjacent to Villa
Balboa's property,
3. Increase in commercial traffic on
the access way and service road
immediately adjacent to Villa
Balboa,
4. Increase in noise and pollution
levels throughout the complex
at Villa Balboa.
The Association requests that you require of the
Applicant the additional conditions listed in our
Appeal attachment as Conditions to the Use Permit #1421.
We feel that these conditions are very reasonable
and would not be burdensom on or prevent the Hospital
from building the proposed Cancer Treatment Center.
Thank you for your consideration of the afore-
mentioned items.
Very truly yours,
Clara M. Laidlaw
President
Villa Balboa Community Assoc.
00
)
CWJNCUL Maim
NO. -'- /
0 I—
pc�ac
CA ' tJ 2 �L' -c 6 o
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN
301 NEWPORT BOULEVARD • BOX Y • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 • PHONE (714) 645-8600
October 17, 1986
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
City Hall
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884
Re: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian --Cancer Center
Use Permit No. 1421 Appeal
Dear Mayor Maurer and Members
of the City Council:
On September 25, 1986, the president of the Villa Balboa
Community Association appealed the unanimous vote of the Newport
Beach Planning Commission approving Use Permit No. 1421 relating
to the application of Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian to
construct a cancer treatment center on the property purchased
from the State known as "Caltrans East." The Villa Balboa Com-
munity Association filed a statement of reasons for the appeal
along with their appeal application.
On behalf of Hoag Hospital, I would like to submit this
response to the points raised by Villa Balboa for your consider-
ation. The issues raised by the Villa Balboa Community Associa-
tion are highlighted below and the hospital's responses follow:
1. The Villa Balboa Community Association expressed concern
that it did not have an adequate amount of time to prepare
its presentation to the Planning Commission.
Hoag Hospital conducted two fully noticed meetings with the
Villa Balboa residents on August 12th and 14th to review
and discuss the current hospital's plans for the proposed
Cancer Center. All those present at these information -
sharing meetings were taken step-by-step through the design
of the proposed project using a slide presentation and full
A NON-PROFIT" COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HOSPITALS
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
October 17, 1986
Page 2
scale graphics followed by a thorough question and answer
period. In addition to these noticed meetings, the members
of the hospital staff held numerous informal meeting with
individual Villa Balboa residents and homeowners' associa-
tion representatives as well as sales agents and prospec-
tive buyers of the Villa Balboa condominiums. The hospital
staff received and responded to all comments and sugges-
tions made by those expressing concern and interest in the
proposed Cancer Center. These responses were by letter and
in many instances by telephone communication. Further, in
follow-up to the concerns raised by the residents of Villa
Balboa, Hoag Hospital requested its architectural and
planning consultants to modify the design plans for the
Cancer Center in order to mitigate view impairment to the
maximum degree possible. These changes were made in the
project prior to the Planning Commission hearing on this
matter and specifically included:
lowering of the elevator tower by eleven feet overall
elimination of the elevator access to the building
rooftop
... lowering of the pedestrian walkway fourteen feet
These modifications in the design plans will result in
substantial additional costs to the hospital due to the
necessity of relocating the existing storm, water and sewer
lines and facilities located in the access road beneath the
pedestrian walkway. The hospital accepted this additional
financial burden in the spirit of wanting to cooperate with
our neighbors.
2. A settlement agreement was reached in a lawsuit between
the original developers of the Versailles and Villa Balboa
projects, which provided that the City would not take any
future actions that would be inconsistent with the spirit
and intent of the settlement agreement and in particular be
inconsistent with the provisions relating to an easement
for pedestrian access and a bicycle trail along the bluff
top. The granting of the Use Permit violates the intent of
that agreement.
The proposed plan for the Hoag Cancer Center identifies the
responsibility of the Villa Balboa developers to complete a
bicycle path along an easement on the southerly boundary of
the Villa Balboa property. The design of the proposed
Cancer Center does not violate ocean and turning basin
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
October 17, 1986
Page 3
views and in fact increases view potential by removing the
forward most edge of the existing slope which is two to
four feet above the current bicycle trail elevation. The
hospital is involved in ongoing dialogue with the City
Public Works Department staff in an effort to develop and
provide appropriate connections to the bicycle trail from
its current terminus at the Villa Balboa easement. The
hospital's legal counsel has reviewed the settlement agree-
ment and has advised that the actions being taken by the
hospital are totally consistent with the terms and condi-
tions as well as the spirit and intent of that agreement.
3. The proposed Hoag Cancer Center is inconsistent with
allowable uses under the Newport Beach Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan and the Land Use Element of the
Newport Beach General Plan.
The City planning staff report for Use Permit No. 1421
analyzes the land use designations set forth in the City's
General Plan and LCP for the Cancer Center site. The
report concludes:
Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal
Program, Land Use Plan
The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan
designates the site for "Recreational and Environ-
mental Open Space" to be used for parking, public,
recreational and visual -environmental purposes. The
Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan carries a similar
designation for the site and specifically accommodates
the expansion for Hoag Hospital facilities on the
site. The proposed Cancer Center project will occupy
approximately 5% of the site, with the balance remain-
ing undeveloped at this time. The project has been
found by the City staff and Planning Commission to be
consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal
Program.
The Conceptual Land Use Plan for the development of the
remainder of the hospital's property shows major entry
points on Pacific Coast Highway and Superior contrary to
the reservation of abutter's rights in the deed transfer-
ring the property from the State of California to Hoag
Hospital.
The Conceputal Land Use Plan was prepared and submitted at
the request of the planning staff in order to evaluate
overall traffic circulation impacts. The Cancer Center
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
October 17, 1986
Page 4
plans show access to the site only through the existing
hospital campus and any concerns with regards to other
ingress or egress points on portions of the property con-
stituting the remainder of the Caltrans East site are not
pertinent to Use Permit No. 1421 and would be more appro-
priately considered at such time as the balance of the
property is developed.
The Hoag Hospital representatives told the Villa Balboa
residents that the new service road at the top of the bluff
and the covered pedestrian accessway will continue to
future buildings and that the Conceptual Land Use Plan
indicates twelve buildings with 600,000 square feet of
space. This type of development was not contemplated in
the Development Policies and Land Use Plan certified by the
California Coastal Commission on May 19, 1982.
Representatives of Hoag Hospital advised the Villa Balboa
Community Association members that a service road located
at a minimum of ten feet below the current top of the slope
may connect to future buildings developed on the hospital
property. A partially enclosed pedestrian walkway also
located below the current top of the slope may service
future buildings. Both the service road and pedestrian
walkway are shown on the Conceptual Land Use Plan but as
previously mentioned are not a part of Use Permit No. 1421
which relates solely to the proposed Cancer Center. Again,
the Conceptual Land Use Plan was prepared to address over-
all site circulation issues and it should not be considered
as the future development square footages for the remainder
of the site.
The Coastal Plan states that scenic and visual resources
in the City should be preserved.
The visual impacts of the proposed Cancer Center as stated
above are extremely sensitive to view preservation consis-
tent with the Coastal Plan. The concern of the Villa
Balboa residents relating to protection of private views
must take into consideration and recognize the hospital's
property rights to develop this most needed health care
facility for the community.
4. The findings for denial of Use Permit No. 1421 attached to
the staff report are true:
1. The the proposed use is inconsistent with the General
Plan.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
October 17, 1986
Page 5
At the public hearing for the Hoag Cancer Center on
September 4, 1986, the Planning Commission unanimously
found the project to be consistent with the General
Plan. In approving Use Permit No. 1421, the Planning
Commission rejected all of the findings for denial.
2. That approval of the project will prejudice the ability
of the City to consider a master site development
plan.
The Conceptual Land Use Plan was prepared at the
request of the City so as not to prejudice the ability
of the City to consider a master site development plan
at a later date.
3. The proposed Cancer Center will have a significant
adverse effect on planning for public bike trails and
the proposed view park.
As stated above under Item No. 2, the design of the
proposed Cancer Center does not violate ocean and
turning basin views and, in fact, increases view
potential by removing the forward edge of the existing
slope which is two to four feet above the current bike
trail elevation. Further, the hospital has expressed
a willingness to work with City staff to enhance the
existing bike trail system.
4. The structure could be designed to avoid impairment to
public views.
The Hoag Cancer Center was designed to avoid impair-
ment to public views by:
... building the structure into the slope
... reducing the elevator tower height
... reducing the pedestrian walkway eight
..8 lowering the service road a minimum of ten feet
(10') below the Villa Balboa bike trail
... developing a landscape plan containing vegetation
and landscaping that will not block views
5. The height of the structure will result in undesirable
and abrupt scale relationships with structures in the
area.
The height of the proposed Hoag Cancer Center will not
result in undesirable and abrupt scale relationships
with structures in the area. The roofline of the Hoag
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
October 17, 1986
Page 6
Cancer Center will be 1.5 feet below the finished
floor of the first floor of Building 5 of Villa
Balboa. The Cancer Center will contain approximately
50,000 square feet, while Villa Balboa Building 6 has
84,942 square feet (excluding underground parking).
Villa Balboa Building 5 is almost twice as big as the
proposed Cancer Center, with 99,316 square feet.
The president of the Villa Balboa Community Association
concludes with a request that four additional conditions be
added to Use Permit No. 1421. These suggested conditions are:
1. That no portion of the proposed Cancer Center exceed the
height of the slope;
2. That the top of the slope be landscaped in a manner so as
to preserve views;
3. That a new service road to serve the Cancer Center not be
allowed; and
4. That there be no overnight patients at the proposed Hoag
Cancer Center.
With regards to the Villa Balboa Community Association's
recommended new conditions, I would like to offer the follow-
ing. First, as already mentioned, the hospital has extensively
modified the design of its original project to respond to the
concerns of the Villa Balboa residents, in particular, those
sensitivities relating to views. The elevator tower, pedestrian
walkway, and service road have been lowered to mitigate view
impairment to the greatest degree possible resulting in consider-
able increased constructions costs to the hospital. The struc-
ture is set back into the slope further reducing any view
obstructions.
A landscape corridor will be provided between the bicycle
trail and the Cancer Center service road utilizing low level
plantings and vegetation. The hospital has entered into discus-
sions with the principals at Villa Balboa in order to insure
that the remainder of the Villa Balboa project landscaping will
be compatible with the Cancer Center landscaping.
Placement of the service road behind the proposed Cancer
Center is necessary for the proper functioning of the Center's
activities and to minimize any conflicts with other hospital -
generated vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Depression of the
roadway ten feet below the existing slope and inclusion of the
landscaped buffer area will result in no adverse impacts to the
Villa Balboa residents above.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
October 17, 1986
Page 7
Finally, there will be no overnight patients staying at the
Hoag Cancer Center.
I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the concerns of
the Villa Balboa Community Association. Members of the hospital
staff, our professional consultants, and I will be present at
the hearing on October 27th. We will be prepared and most
willing to answer any questions or clarify any points you may
have regarding this project.
Respectfully submitted,
--Y14.4444.4a.
Michael D. Stephens, President
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
City Council of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
October 20, 1986
L cl
CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIF.
','4 OCT 201986w
-` t$ECRVED
b"; CITY CLERK
We are concerned citizens and residents of Newport Beach.
COUP. AGENDA
NO...
We believe you
would be making a big mistake if you should allow Hoag Hospital to expand and
surround Villa Balboa as they plan to do. They claim to be good neighbors,
yet don't care if they endanger our neighborhood.
We are not opposed to Hoag's building additions onto their present property,
where they could erect another eleven (11) story facility if they wished to do
so on higher and safer ground. However, we are opposed to their cutting away
170 feet of the natural bluff and building right in front of us, making it
unsafe when the earthquake occurs.
According to the highly regarded Cal Tech scientists, there will be an earth-
quake of great magnitude within the next two to three years here in Southern
California. This is further confirmed by the Sheldon Consulting Services in
their report to Hoag that one of the reasons for the increased pressure and
volume of the hazardous gas flow from this gas field below the bluff is be-
cause of an impending earthquake. As you know, the soil in our area is mostly
sand and clay. When the earthquake comes - as it surely will - if Hoag is
allowed to cut away 170 feet of our bluff, the likelihood of the Villa Balboa
condominiums sliding down the hill is greatly increased with the result of
the loss of life and property.
The earthquake hazard in our area is much worse than you might suppose. In
geological reports given to the city, it was pointed out that the Newport -
Inglewood fault runs right under the Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue
and that it is one of the most active faults in Southern California with a
near -term potential of a 7.0+ Richter scale quake. In addition, in a study
done by Woodward -McNeill and Associates, the areas below the blufflines could
suffer sudden and severe settling due to liquefaction. Further, they recom-
mended that the city take steps to limit construction of critical community
facilities such as hospitals and schools in these areas. Are you going to
ignore the recommendations of the experts? Please don't be foolish!
In addition to the reasons stated above, you should also consider this: Your
own Development Policies and Land Use Plan certified by the California Coastal
Commission, dated May 19, 1982, states that the bluff areas represent a signi-
ficant scenic and environmental resource and should be preserved. According
to the definition of a bluff, it is any landform having a vertical rise of
twenty-five (25) feet or more and an average slope of 26.6°. Our bluff is
City Council of Newport Beach
October 20, 1986 Page Two
approximately sixty (60) feet in height and any Planning Commission staff that
says differently should have their heads examined.
Also, if Hoag is allowed to build all these additions, there will be at least
725 additional vehicle trips per day at our doorstep. And, please consider
the noise, smog and lights of cars flashing in our windows, all destroying
our peace and privacy!
Please DO NOT approve Hoag's application on this hazardous oil and gas field!!
Sincerely yours,
(2—
Cordelia Ramsey Butler
rat,j frC- 2.-6A--/
Paul R. Butler
280 Cagney Lane #110
Newport Beach, CA 92663
October 20, 1986
i ��/ CITY OF
/ /y NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIF.
Jc! OC? 2
� U 1986 � -�
`CjVED
6), MY cLEAK ,�s
ly
City Council of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Gentlemen:
i'4��1t yy
[6 did Yc■
NO,
AGENDA
We are citizens of Newport Beach and reside in the Villa Balboa condominiums --
in the 280 Cagney Lane building to be specific. We pay a premium to live in
this building and we pay that premium because of the view available. As
matters now stand, it is Hoag Hospital's plan to build a multi -level struc-
ture, a cancer center, as close as possible to our residential building. We
feel this planning is nearsighted, dangerous and foolish.
Aside from our concern for the negative esthetic effects upon the area, we
are gravely concerned because of the dangers involved in the construction of
a building which will require the removal of a great portion of the bluff
upon which our residential building sits.
A more logical approach would seem to be to build the center beyond the
bluff, nearer to the Pacific Coast Highway, the area which has been used in
the past as a paved parking lot. Rooftop parking could be eliminated in
favor of ground level parking and the building could have a "footprint" of
greater area, allowing a building not so tall and spreading the weight over
a greater area. The concern that the cutting away of the bluff under the
present plan would cause the bluff to collapse in the event of a major, or
minor, earthquake would then be minimized.
A recent article pointed out that the Villa Balboa project is the most in-
tensely populated area in Newport Beach. Is it really worth endangering that
much property and that many lives when alternative building plans are
possible? Why expose the City of Newport Beach to the possibility of
millions, or even billions, of dollars in liability lawsuits should such
damage and injuries or deaths occur in the future?
Please vote to ask Hoag Hospital to return to the drawing board.
Yours very truly,.
2-7-7
w �
Tom Richards
280 Cagney Lane #314
Newport Beach, CA 92663
,.Judith Richards
CM OF
tiEWPORT 6EAC�'
CA1.Ir
J OCT 2 01886 w
RECEIVED
CITY tag
City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884
Dear City Council:
viLLA BALB0A.;„-0,iinti_E:1 ,`�� t
uC e i runt
16.
h C. c21986
vrtr/it
. 'cam
October
17, 1986
Re: Use Permit #1421 Appeal
Villa Balboa Community Assoc.
I am the president of the Villa Balboa Community
Associaiton, representing approximately 275 homeowners.
As you know, the Association appealed the Planning Com-
mission's action granting the above Use Permit.
The date of hearing for the Appeal was set by the
Clerk for November 10, 1986, and subsequently changed
by the Council to October 27, 1986, knowing I cannot be
present on said date.
The Council was informed of the circumstances re-
quiring the November 10th date rather than October 27th,
and still voted to change the date to the 27th. The reason
given for the change was that Hoag Hospital requested it.
We fail to understand why Hoag's request was granted in-
stead of the Homeowner's Association's. Our appeal was
properly filed within the City's established procedure
and we were given the date of November 10, 1986, when I would
be able to attend the meeting, and represent our concerns
to the Council.
At the City Council meeting on October 13, 1986,
where the above action took place, Hoag Hospital rep-
resented to the Council that our Association had had
months to prepare for the hearing.
Gate /-2('";C6
CO ,MS SENT TO:
o Mayor
0 Coyuncilmen
m-? anager
❑ Attorney
❑ Bldg. Dir.
o GenSery Dir.
oP RDir.
anning Dir.
❑ Police Chief
❑ P.W. Dir
0 Other
FACT: Hoag, admittedly has been working
with the City staff for at least
eight months.
FACT: The Association was first aware of
the proposed development on Aug. 4, 1986.
Page 2/Use Permit #1421 Appeal
The Hospital also represented to the Council that
Hoag had already made "many concessions" to the As-
sociation.
FACT: The walk -way and elevator shaft
were lowered a few feet. This
one adjustment hardly represents
"many concessions".
As the Council is aware, we are an Association of
homeowner's, and are somewhat restricted in how quickly
we can respond to, or take an action against any pro-
posed development which we feel will have a negative
impact on our property. We are, at least, constrained
by our C C & R's, and must follow certain time consuming
procedures before any action may be taken.
We believe that Hoag Hospital is also aware of
these constraints, and has thus deliberately maneuvered
so as to allow the homeowner's the least amount of time
possible to respond to their proposed development.
Both the Planning Commission and the City Council
have been unwilling to extend the Association additional
time to respond to this development, which we feel will
have substantial impact on the community and surrounding
area.
As I cannot be present on the 27th, we ask that
you read the attachment to our Application for Appeal
dated September 25, 1986, and carefully consider each
of the four points.
I would also like to point out the following ad-
ditional difficulties which will be created by the de-
velopment:
1. Increased threat to the Security of
the Villa Balboa Homeowners,
2. Increase in passenger traffic both
vehicular and pedestrian on the pro-
posed access roadway and service
road immediately adjacent to Villa
Balboa's property,
3. Increase in commercial traffic on
the access way and service road
immediately adjacent to Villa
Balboa,
4. Increase in noise and pollution
levels throughout the complex
at Villa Balboa.
Page 3/Use Permit #1421 Appeal
The Association requests that you require of the
Applicant the additional conditions listed in our
Appeal attachment as Conditions to the Use Permit #1421.
We feel that these conditions are very reasonable
and would not be burdensom on or prevent the Hospital
from building the proposed Cancer Treatment Center.
Thank you for your consideration of the afore-
mentioned items.
Very truly yours,
aea
Clara M. Laidlaw
President
Villa Balboa Community Assoc.
VILLA BALBO
•
C'Y OF
NEV! BEACH,
+!_ti•.
SEP 251986
RECEIvED
C1TY CLERK
City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884
Dear City Council:
Clara M. Laidlaw, Pres.
Villa Balboa Community Assoc.
240 Nice Lane, #306
Newport Beach, CA 92663
September 24, 1986
Re: Use Permit #1421; Applicant:
Hoag Hospital -Cancer Center,
4000 W. Coast Hwy., Np. Bch.
'i:91986
am the president of Villa Balboa Community Association,
representing approximately Two Hundred, Seventy -Five homeowners,
adjacent to Hoag Hospital. The Association appeals the action of the
Planning Commission granting the above numbered use permit, on the
following grounds:
1. The planning commission refused to grant
a short continuance requested, in order
that the Association might prepare its
presentation. The Applicant stated that it
had been discussing its plans with the city
for six months, while the Association had
only approximately three weeks notice.
Also, the Notice of Public Hearing stated
that a negative declaration had been
prepared, and that copies of it and
supporting documents were available for
public review and inspection at the
planning department. However, said
documents were not available when
requested by this Association.
2. The original developers of Versailles on
the Bluffs and Villa Balboa entered into an
agreement and recorded Judgment for
various purposes. e.g. "Reduction in
Page 2 Use Permit #1421
density of development in the west
Newport area", and "Augmentation and
expansion of the city's view park and
bicycle path facilities."
As a result of said agreement, and
Judgment, an easement for pedistrian
access way and bicycle trail was granted
to the city along the entire southerly
boundary of Villa Balboa for approximately
1,800 feet. Said agreement and Judgment
further provides, "that the city shall take
no action which is inconsistant with the
spirit and intent of this agreement", and
"....the city will use its best efforts to
assist in completing the project as a
pleasant, comfortable place for its citizens
to live within the Newport Beach
community."
The granting of Applicants Use Permit
violates the spirit and intent of said
agreement and Judgment.
3. Applicants proposed development is
contrary to The Land Use Element of the
Newport General Plan, and Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan, which designates
Applicant's property for "Recreational and
Environmental Open Space."
Petitioner's Conceptual Land Use Plan
submitted to the Planning Commission's
staff for purpose of on -site circulation,
shows major entry on PCH and Superior
contrary to Applicant's Deed from the state
of California, stating that Applicant has no
abutter's rights of vehicular access.
Applicant advised the association that the
new service road at the top of the bluff,
and covered pedistrian access way will
eventually continue to other buildings.
Also, said Conceptual Land Use Plan
indicates tentative plans for twelve
buildings of over 600,000 sq. ft.
Page 3 Use Permit #1421
Such a development was not contemplated
in the Development Policies and Land Use
Plan certified by the California Coastal
Commission May 19, 1982, stating:
"The area between Newport Blvd.
and Superior Avenue northerly of
coast highway is for "Recreational
and Environmental Open Space" for
parking, public recreational, and
visual/environmental purposes.
Expansion of Hoag Hospital facility
may also be accomodated on the
site."
Said Coastal Commission report also states,
"The scenic and visual resources of
Newport Beach are spectacular. The city
has historically been sensative to the
needs to preserve these resources."
Patricia Temple, Environmental
Coordinator, stated that the staff did not
do an-y specific analysis of the view impact
related to the service road, and parking
on the bluff; also, James Hewicker,
Planning Director, advised the
Commissioners that he was aware that
there would be view obstruction from the
bicycle trail.
4. The finding of the Planning Commission
that the approval of the Applicant's Permit
will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort or general
welfare of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood, or the general welfare
of the city is arbitrary and untrue.
However, each and every finding for
denial of Use Permit #1421, contained in
Exhibit B, attached to the staff report,
are demonstrably true:
1. That the proposed use is
inconsistant with the General
Plan.
2. That approval of the project
will prejudice ability of the
city to consider a Master Site
Development Plan for the site.
Page 4 Use Permit #1421
3. That the proposed structure
will have a significant adverse
effect on planning for public
bike trails and the proposed
view park.
4. That the structure could be
designed to avoid impairment
of public views.
5. That the height of the
structure will result in
undesirable and abrupt scale
relationships with structures in
the area.
6. That environmental documents
are not required for projects
which are denied.
7. That these findings are based
upon facts contained in the
public record.
The Association believes Applicant's property should be
developed with Tess density, and could easily be developed without
any adverse effect `on Villa Balboa, or to the public pedestrian
access way and bicycle trail.
VILLA BALBOA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION requests the
further additional conditions to Use Permit #1421:
(a) That no portion of the development on Applicant's
property exceed the height of the bluff.
(b) That the top of the bluff be landscaped with low
vegetation, to preserve the view of the public from
the pedrestrian access way and bicycle trail.
(c) Applicant be required to use the existing service road
to the bottom of the bluff, rather than a new service
road and parking near the top of bluff.
(d) That Applicant's representations that there will be no
overnight patients, also be made a condition.
Respectfully submitted,
Clara M. Laidlaw, Pres.
CARLTON BROWNE AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED
BUILDERS • DEVELOPERS
Mr. Clarence J. Turner
August 28, 1986
Page 2
Although my residence will not be directly affected by this
center, my family's experience with this dreaded disease would
far outweigh any inconvenience that I may or would suffer from
the proposed center. Additionally, I only hope that the people
who will oppose the new center take time to appreciate the more
overriding benefits to our community and mankind in general.
Very truly yours,
CARLTON BROWNE AND COMPANY, INC.
,dag;‘
bert L. Harris,
resident
RLH:mk
II
cc: George Hoag, II
1-.11-e--1.--
/ .
1-:t1-7-72
C-C,
}2
/4 •e_.-6e-‘ /th-IL-e-4--
-95 SY" c7;ii
Ec E
; ...,
cg D 2 1986 .''--
,,:...., ril!
\-c---1,
, , r.....,,
I-- 1
)0... tjpt,',,r,... p.i...A'„ -
•""--. i I I
) I i
---- rt
& T 7 71 zZ
,'eL,L,-v1
cL, )
>a
•
piAY
EEC,_„;.
1986
s4 ----`
Li fj
August 28, 1986
Memo from
BILL KERN
Mr. Clarence J. Turner,
Chairman, Planning Commission,
City of Newport Beach,
Planning Department,
P. 0. Box 1768,
Newport Beach, Ca 92658-8915
Dear Mr. Turner,
A letter dated August 15th
to 552 Club Members has been
received. It outlines. the Hoag
Cancer Center project, which is
to be discussed on September 4th
City Council Meeting at 7:00 PM.
I'm sure you are fully aware
of the facts and figures present-
ed in that letter.
The need for the new and
expanded facilities seem clearly
proven.
ope your full support to
roject will be given.
RECE1V'EE'-
SEP2 1966
Ciri or
NEWPOR BEACH,
CAI ! P- Ab., %
W. Kern
226 Poinsettia Ave.2
Corona Del Mar, Call
/
//�Y7-') -I�—/
67,
/j/�/ x„_
A y
92625
-5 g
f
Gf�rL-�l�fi GC4�G-2
tic c. ; ��,
f\ 1 •
To:
29 Aggust 1986
William G. Thrash
21 Carmel Bay Drive
Corona Del Mar, CA., (92625)
Mr. Clarence J. Turner
Chairman, Planning Commission
Newport Beach, CA., (92658-8915)
Subj: Hoag Cancer Center Project
Dear Mr, Turner:
This correspondence is to advise the Planning
Commission that I fully support The Hoag Cancer Center
Project, and recommend its approval by the planning
commission without reservation.
I have been closely associated with the Hoag Hospital
for a number of years, and fully understand the urgent
need for the construction of the cancer center. Its
construction would add immeasurably to the improvement of
medical services for cancer patients in this area, and
would be fully supported by the residents of Newport Beach.
WILLIAM G. THRASH
C
L. 1- 1901a
VV
Aiv2)1:1,
hegfeertels
1649 Oaystde Grive
orona del War, @al if arm° 92625
Z1ia7L,-Ce9-14._71-"/