HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 5 - Exhibit 5 - 1-31-08 Planning Commission ReportExhibit No. 5
Planning Commission staff report dated January 31, 2008
s. (
THIS PAGE
LEFT BLANK
INTENTIONALLY
BLANK
T. Al
Memo SCANNED
To: Planning Commission
From: James Campbell, Senior Planne W C"
Date: January 25, 2008
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 315t, 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 7t'. Staff will provide a progress report at the hearing.
S.3
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 jcampbellIO-citv.newport- beach.ca.us
PROJECT SUMMARY
The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to implement
the proposed project:
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. 2007405 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.
5-V
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).
S S
(I
t
t
(
1
I
t
Hoag Master Plan Update
January 31, 2008
Page 3
VICINITY MAP
v.
ff, Hqa O
- �_ISTHSTIN
i BLUEFIN CT
QO I r
�p\D Sty HALYARD MEDICALLN \?
DNS P Y Sa `�
4
j)
co( Ubgt_ °�O'°i HOSPITAL R ' -
r m rf r
o O
_ yy qI
t .r
TURNINGaASIN
c�
t °
a
0
i
32ND 57 _....
t
LI
S•L
Upper'
cq
Campus
Lower Ca mpus
I_
o PP,�. ;
CLIFF DR
� �
�P'o
°b p,N -
COST mwy
t
- P•yONS
-�
o O
_ yy qI
t .r
TURNINGaASIN
c�
t °
a
0
i
32ND 57 _....
t
LI
S•L
Haag Master Plan Update
January 31, 2008
Page 4
GENERAL PLAN and ZONING
Nvp 4P EtwarumA JavgrylLb
honing uwswas nnuirons o sco. two
Fee:
t� ur+rp_ &rAanmrE .ga�.vY�P
S./
Hoag Master Plan Update
January 31, 2008
Page 5
LOCATION
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
CURRENT USE
PROJECT
SITE
Private Institutions (PI)
Planned Community
Hospital
Multiple Residential (RM)
PC Versailles on the
Residential condominiums
Bluff Planned
Community
NORTH
Medical Commercial Office (CO -M)
Administrative
Medical office
Professional Office
Private Institutions (PI)
Residential'care facility
Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
RSC (Retail and
Neighborhood shopping
Service Commercial)
center
Multiple Residential (RM)
MFR (Multi - Family
Multi- family residential
Residential)
SOUTH
Single Unit Residential Detached
R -1 (Single Family
Single family residential
(RS -D)
Residential)
General Commercial (CG)
RSC (Retail and
Vehicle rental /sales
Service Commercial)
Restaurant
General Commercial Office (CO -G)
SP -9 (Old Newport
Business, medical and
Boulevard Specific
professional offices
EAST
Plan
Two Unit Residential (RT)
R -2 (Two family
Residential
residential)
Multiple Unit Residential (RM)
PC - Versailles on
Residential condominiums
the Bluff Planned
Community
WEST
Parks and Recreation (PR)
OS -A (Open Space
Open space — Sunset Ridge
Active
Park planned
OS (Open Space)
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).
S• S,
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.
5.9
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).
Prolect 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
,• to
Remaining
Proppsed
Remathirig
After.
Location.
Approved.tsij,.^
Constructed (sry.
Approved (s)
Reallocation (sf).:
Reallocation'(000
",
Upper Campus
765,349
698,121
67,228
+225,000"
292,228
Lower Campus
577,889
188,149
389,740
- 225,000"
164,740
Total Approved (sf) 1,343,236
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
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
,• to
Hoag Master Plan Update
January 31, 2008
Page 8
the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 at. 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 at.
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 2.25,000 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:
2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of
delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards.
S fI
7,'AM - l0 PM
70 IRM — . ,AM
bayYime
Nlghttilr►ie . .,
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.
S fI
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.
S. /.'L
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
541
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 waft metal halide fixtures with 250 waft 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;
$•+f (
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) Wom 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
S t't-
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 °How 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).
S-66
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 Elementl7he change would be as follows:
Table
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 primarily a residential community.
Anomaly,SiiitistIca
l
.Land,use
Development.
business districts, and harbor that together identify
reputation as a leading medical facility. Continued development
Number
Area
Desi andtion
umu 1A
Development Limit (Other)
Addhional Information
LU 1.5: Encourage a local economy that provides
The City identifies Hoag is the largest employee (2,700) in the
adequate commercial, office, industrial and marine-
City (Newport Beach 2007). The proposed Master Plan Update
oriented opportunities that provide employment and
In no event shall the gross
56
A3
PI
1,343,238
990,349 sf Upper Campus
floor area exceed the upper
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 fife.
LU 2.1: Accommodate uses that support the needs
765,349
577,889 sf Lower Campus
Campus, lower campus or
retail, services, employment, recreation, education,
residents. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would
culture, entertainment, civic engagement, and
allow for the continued compliance with this policy.
social and spiritual activity that are in balance with
total development limit
6;
A3
P4
57789
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 primarily a residential community.
LU 1 A: Maintain and enhance the beneficial and
Hoag is a prominent feature in the West Newport area of the
unique character of the different neighborhoods,
City because of its visibility from West Coast Highway and its
business districts, and harbor that together identify
reputation as a leading medical facility. Continued development
Newport Beach. Locate and design development to
of Hoag with medical uses would not detract from the character
reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural
of the area. Buildings would be constructed in conformance
diversity, and view sheds. (Imp 1.1)
with the standards established in the PC text.
LU 1.5: Encourage a local economy that provides
The City identifies Hoag is the largest employee (2,700) in the
adequate commercial, office, industrial and marine-
City (Newport Beach 2007). The proposed Master Plan Update
oriented opportunities that provide employment and
Project would provide for additional medical - related facilities in
revenue to support high quality community services.
support of the needs of the local community and region.
(Imp 1. 1, 24.1).
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 fife.
LU 2.1: Accommodate uses that support the needs
The first hospital opened in September 1952 at Hoag and was
of Newport Beach's residents including housing,
initiated to sere the needs of coastal Orange County
retail, services, employment, recreation, education,
residents. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would
culture, entertainment, civic engagement, and
allow for the continued compliance with this policy.
social and spiritual activity that are in balance with
community natural resources and open spaces.
(Imp 1. 1, 2.1)
.S• t %
Hoag Master Plan Update
January 31, 2008
Page 15
Goals�bd.`po11Ci$'s '
S• !y
COP lli —4,00w uation
LU 2.4: Accommodate uses that maintain or
As noted above, the City has identified Hoag as the largest
enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and
employee in the City. Additional facilities would be constructed
account for market demands, while maintaining and
based on the medical needs of the local community and region
improving the quality of life for current and future
so that the quality of life for local residents will continue to be
residents. (Imp 1.1, 24.1)
enhanced.
LU 2.8: Accommodate the types, densities, and
The purpose of this Supplement to Final EIR No. 142 is to
mix of land uses that can be adequately supported
assess any potential significant environmental effects
by transportation and utility infrastructure (water,
associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. As
sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and
identified in this SEIR, the Project would not result in any new
public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors,
significant impacts to transportation, utility Infrastructure, or
youth, police, fire, and so on). (Imp 1. 1, 10. 2, 11.1)
1 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
The proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for the
residential neighborhoods, business and
reallocation of previously approved development for Hoag
employment districts, commercial centers,
within the existing site boundaries and within the same
corridors, and harbor and ocean districts. (Imp 1.1)
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,
As previously stated, the objective of the proposed Master Plan
and corridors, allowing for re-use and infill with
Update Project is to allow greater flexibility within the Hoag
uses that are complementary in type, form, scale,
Hospital Master Plan in an effort to allow Hoag to respond to
and character. Changes in use and/or
changes in the health care industry while maintaining an overall
densityi'intensity should be considered only in those
development cap. The proposed potential intensification on the
areas that are economically underperforming, are
Upper Campus with a corresponding potential reduction in
necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share
square footage on the Lower Campus is proposed to respond
of projected regional population growth, improve
to the changing needs of Hoag and how medical services are
the relationship and reduce commuting distance
provided to the residents of Newport Beach and the region.
between.home and jobs, or enhance the values
that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place
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, 2.12 5.12 10.2, 16.2,
16.32 17.12 18.12 19.12 22.12 23.12 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 correlated with supporting infrastructure
and public services, and sustain Newport Beach's natural setting.
LU 4.1: Accommodate land use development
The proposed Master Plan Update Project is consistent with
consistent with the Land Use Plan [Figures LU1
the underlying land use definitions for Hoag provided in the
through LU15 of the General Plan]. (Imp 2.1, 5.1,
General Plan.
10.2)
Goal LU 6.1: A diversity of governmental service, institutional, 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
The remaining square footage at Hoag represents approved
administrative and operational facilities, fire stations
but not constructed development. The proposed Master Plan
and police facilities, religious facilities, schools,
Update Project would permit the reallocation of this overall
cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers,
allowable development from the Lower Campus to the Upper
and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport
Campus.
Beach's residents and businesses. (Imp 1. 12 2.1)
S• !y
Hoag Master Plan Update
January 31, 2008
Page 16
G;oals�nd"t?oirciee ' :
CohsrsfencyExalualier
LU 6.1.5: Support Hoag Hospital in its mission to
The proposed Master Plan Update Project evaluates its
provide adequate facilities to meet the needs of
relationship to adjacent land uses. With mitigation, the
area residents. Work with the Hospital to ensure
reallocation of approved but not constructed square footage
that future development plans consider . its
may result in improved noise attenuation and a reduction in
relationship to and assure compatibility with
traffic volumes. The City's Implementation Program 24.1 states
adjoining residential neighbors and mitigate
that "The Economic Development Committee should complete
impacts on local and regional transportation
the Strategic Plan for Economic Sustainability for City Council
systems. (Imp 24.1)
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 butldout
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.
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 dose to their jobs and reducing
commutes to outlying areas.
LU 6.6.1: Prioritize the accommodation of
Hoag is an existing medical facility that has been located in the
medical- related and supporting facilities on
City since 1952. No Hoag development is proposed outside the
properties abutting the Hoag Hospital complex
existing boundaries of the project site. The proposed Master
[areas designated as "CO -M (0.5)" (Figure LU18,
Plan Update Project would not preclude future off -site medical,
Sub -Area A)] with opportunities for new residential
retail, or residential uses adjacent to Hoag.
units [areas designated as "RM (18 /ac)l and
supporting general and neighborhood retail
services ["CG (0.75)" and "CN (0.3)] respectively.
(Imp 2.1)
Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP)
Coastal Land Use Plan
2.1.2 -1: Land uses and new development in the
The Lower Campus In its entirety and 0.21 acre of the Upper
coastal zone shall be consistent with the Coastal
Campus are within the coastal zone. The LCP Land Use Plan
Land Use Plan Map and all applicable LCP policies
designates these areas as "Public Facilities." The Public
and regulations.
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 at 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.
2.2.2 -1 Continue to allow redevelopment and
As previously addressed, no additional square footage is
infiil development within and adjacent to the
requested as a part of the Project, only the ability to transfer
existing development areas in the coastal zone
currently approved but not constructed square footage from the
subject to the density and intensity limits and
Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. As noted above, only
resource protection policies of the Coastal Land
0.21 acre of the Upper Campus is in the coastal zone.
Use Plan.
2.2.2 -2 Require new development, to be located
The Project is not expected to have impacts to public facilities
with adequate public services or in areas that are
or to utility service; no significant impacts were identified in
capable of having public services extended or
Final EIR No. 142. No additional square footage is proposed as
expanded without significant adverse effects on
a part of the Project.
coastal resources.
S. t•9
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 -1.8 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:
"9. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag property line adjacent to the loading
docks shall be as follows:
S. AV
Hoag Master Plan Update
January 31, 2008
Page 18
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
Le 15 min)
1 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.
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 VX - Internal Circulation
Section VX (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:
S AI
7AM -10 PM
Da ime
10 PM -7AM
Nighttime
Le 15 min
60 dBA
1 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 VX - Internal Circulation
Section VX (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:
S AI
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.
S� 2�
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.
g) 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:
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.
S-13
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.
g) Maintenance, Section VI11.B.1 is proposed to be amended to require cultivation of
landscape areas.
h) Maintenance, Section VI11.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 VI11.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.
j) Maintenance, Section VI11.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 VI11.B.5 regarding planting supports is proposed to be
amended to provide better clarification with no diminishment of requirements.
1) 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.
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
S---W
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 a'§ 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
5.OLS'
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
S•"
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 `BuildouY' 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 - speck 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.
s•A7
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 Qualify 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.
5 at
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 projects 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 sig nificant, 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
s•19
Hoag Master Plan Update
January 31, 2008
Page 27 't
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 rdinance
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.
s30
Hoag Master Plan Update
January 31, 2008
Page 29
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 Iandform 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 Iandform 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.
=w 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.
�T -3f
Hoag Master Plan Update
January 31, 2008 3
Page29' a 1
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:
11-W) C
(Ynes Campbe I, Senior Planner
Submitted by:
David Lepo, Planning Director
EXHIBITS (in the order they are referenced within the report)
4. List of Violations alleged by Villa Balboa
tke 66114)
's. 3;1--
Exhibit No. 4
List of Violations alleged by Villa Balboa
5 , 350
THIS PAGE
LEFT BLANK
INTENTIONALLY
Blank
.,V. 3s, ) fib
LIST OF VIOLATIONS
OF
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
(May 26,1992)
0011
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(February 14,1994)
The Development Agreement ovens 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 analvsis of the view impacts..."
s s!r 1Al
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 Dotential 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)
2. Failure to prohibit /conceal/screen equipment on roof of cogeneratio"lant
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)(.1) 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)
S • 3% �A5
4. Failure to demonstrate that cogeneration plant would be comDhant with
SCAQMD 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 SCAQMM 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 482 (Page 13)
5. Failure to develop a Drover 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.
Dom. 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 heigbt
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
aroperty 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 - (11)(7) General Notes (Page 2)
s•3g
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 nlans as promised during a meeting conducted
by Hoag personnel (including landscape architect) and Government Solutions
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.
s- 37 �A5
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, Aunendix A — Item #41 (Page 8)
12.
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 (Pagel 4)
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.
S. yo 0
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 Highwav (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)
S., It `A�
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 northwest 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%
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.
5- VA- 0
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)
S.. Ys lAol