Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Hoag Hospital Development Agreement Compliance ReviewCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT April 16, 2008 Agenda Item 1 SUBJECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Development Agreement Compliance Review CONTACT: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 icampbelllCa )city.nevmort- beach.ca.us INTRODUCTION In 1992, the City of Newport Beach certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan and adopted a Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulations (PC Text) for Hoag Hospital. Additionally, the City approved and executed a Development Agreement (DA) with Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian. In 1994, the DA was amended by the City to incorporate revisions requested by the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The revised Development Agreement was recorded on March 23, 1994 after CCC approval. The agreement has a 25 -year term and expires in 2019. Section 5.4 of the Development Agreement requires the City to review the agreement on an annual basis and determine Hoag's good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement. RECOMMENDATION Conduct public hearing and after the action on Agenda Item No. 2 (Master Plan update), determine that Hoag is in good faith substantial compliance with the Development Agreement. DISCUSSION The purpose of the Development Agreement (DA) is to ensure Hoag's ability to develop the hospital property consistent with the provisions of the DA itself, the PC Text and the EIR including its 120 mitigation measures. It also provides public benefits by dedicating Sunset View Park and funds for public improvements "and studies outlined below. Chapter 15.45 of the Municipal Code and Section 5 of the Development Agreement require Hoag to submit an annual report for review by the City Council demonstrating their good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Compliance review hearings were conducted in 1996, 1998 and 1999 and Hoag was found to be in compliance. The City has not conducted a hearing since even though Hoag has continued to submit the required information related to compliance. Staff has continued to implement the Development Agreement, PC text and mitigation measures as required throughout the term of the agreement. Hoag Hoapital Development Agreement Compliance Review April 16, 2008 Page 2 of 12 The following discussion is organized as follows: 1. A report on compliance with the provisions of the Development Agreement. 2. A report on mitigation measure compliance for individual projects. 3. An analysis of visual impacts of actual development compared to the potential impacts evaluated in the 1991 EIR. 4. A review of an off -site wetland mitigation program. The attached project status report prepared by Hoag includes information regarding projects from 1999 to 2008. 1. Development Agreement Provisions Hoag shall, as a condition to the right to develop, do the following: a) Provide an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate (OTD) and grade a proposed linear and consolidated view park above the Lower Campus. The OTD was made, accepted and recorded. The linear park between Villa Balboa and the Hoag Lower Campus known as Sunset View Park has been developed. b) Pay $250,000 to the City to fund the following public improvements: Sidewalk and landscaping along the west side of Newport Boulevard southerly of Hospital Road, and, if funds remain, the study of bringing reclaimed water to West Newport and /or the Hoag Campus. The funds were paid to the City in 1995 and the sidewalk and landscaping were constructed. Funds were not sufficient to study reclaimed water. c) Study possible future improvements in and around the easterly end of Semeniuk Slough to enhance aesthetics, public access, recreational facilities while not impacting the wetlands. The cost was not to exceed $200,000. City Staff and the Parks Beaches Recreation Commission along with Hoag looked at the issue and improvements were not found to be feasible. The City Council accepted this conclusion in 1996. d) Compliance with the Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulations. Four issues have been uncovered during this review: i) Noise — Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) is applicable to the entire Hoag Campus. Noise measurements to determine compliance with Chapter 10.26 are taken at the receptor (i.e. residential patio or interior to a residence). The PC Text contains a provision that noise from rooftop mechanical equipment and utility vaults must be not exceed 55 dBA at the property line. This standard is unique to Hoag Hospital. Noise from mechanical equipment located on top of the Auxiliary Building and within the West Tower exceeds the PC Text limit. Noise from the cogeneration facility is Hoag Hoapital Development Agreement Compliance Review April 16, 2008 Page 3 of 12 also an issue and there has been a debate as to which standard is applicable to it given the nature of the equipment. The cooling towers are the principal noise - generating equipment at the plant and noise levels are very close to the limit established by Chapter 10.26. Noise levels at the western property line between the facility and the unimproved portion of Sunset View Park are approximately 70 dBA. Hoag is requesting an amendment of the PC Text, which is part of the Master Plan Update discussed in the relevant staff report on this agenda. Hoag requests the elimination of the 55 dBA standard that, if approved, would subject Hoag only to the noise standards of Chapter 10.26 In addition to this change, Hoag requests the establishment of a noise standard for the loading dock area where noise from loading activities mechanical noise exceeds both Chapter 10.26 and the PC Text standard. The proposed standard would be 65 dBA during the day and 55 dBA at night (5 dBA higher than Chapter 10.26) measured at the property line rather than at the receptor. The proposed soundwall, building upgrades to Villa Balboa and the mitigation measures identified in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for the Master Plan program update will actually reduce current noise and either mitigate or avoid future increases in actual noise. Approval of the proposed PC Text amendment and implementation and these mitigation measures will eliminate current and future violations, which would occur perpetually without the change to the noise standard. Nearby residents believe that the cogeneration facility would need to comply with the more restrictive standard contained within the PC Text. The cooling towers are obviously mechanical equipment but they are not on a building rooftop nor is the cooling tower yard a utility vault, although this determination is arguable. If the PC Text amendment is approved, the need for any interpretation is moot as the 55 dBA standard would be eliminated. If the proposed PC Text Amendment were not approved and if the 55 dBA were determined applicable to the cooling towers, compliance might not be achievable given that a roof would be required over the cooling tower yard. Lastly, a fourth cooling tower has been installed and additional testing is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the applicable noise standard. This will be a follow -up enforcement issue to be resolved within the next several months. Although Hoag is presently in violation of noise standards, Hoag's willingness to build the soundwall, implement mitigation measures and upgrade the impacted Villa Balboa units shows Hoag is acting in good faith to alleviate the issue. ii) Lower Campus lighting — Lighting is regulated such that nighttime lighting must not exceed minimum levels needed for security and glare must not adversely effect nearby residents. The initial lighting for the parking lots Hoag Hoapital Development Agreement Compliance Review April 16, 2008 Page 4 of 12 around the new employee childcare center and the lights on the building itself do not comply with both these standards. Hoag is implementing a lighting change from 400 watt metal halide lights to 25 watt high pressure sodium lights for the parking lot and awnings or other shields for the child care center lights to bring the facility into compliance. The improvements should be completed within the next several months and Although a violation presently exists, Hoag's commitment to alleviating violation shows that they are acting in good faith to comply. iii) Modular office structure atop the south parking structure — the height limit in that area is 80 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and the overall height of the structure is 90 feet MSL. It appears that the permit was issued in error and Hoag as agreed to remove the structure within 6 months, again showing Hoag's willingness to comply. iv) Tree height — trees are not to exceed the building height limitations. In the past, Hoag was not diligent in trimming the trees based upon reports received from Villa Balboa residents. Hoag has stepped up the tree trimming program and no apparent violations exist and Hoag has expressed a commitment to staff that they will monitor tree heights and trim accordingly. This is an indication of Hoag's willingness to comply. v) Aesthetics - Complaints have been registered about the concrete industrial look of the facility. Design review is not something the PC Text or Development Agreement requires. Hoag has planted additional landscaping to screen the facility and has agreed to plant additional landscaping along the lower campus to screen the facility. The proposed amendment of the PC Text discussed in the companion agenda item for the Master Plan Update contains additional landscape provisions. vi) Cable rail fence - There is a protective railing on the north side of the facility where it abuts the Sunset View Park that exceeds the height of the bluff and the maximum building height. Residents of Villa Balboa complain that it blocks views and that the barrier should be removed as it exceeds the maximum building height. A protective railing is necessary for protection of park visitors as there is a steep concrete slope down to the back wall of the cogeneration building. This area cannot simply be filled in as the building was not designed for the additional load. One way to lower the height of the protective fence is to lower the grade of the park such that the top of the fence would be the elevation of the current ground surface. This might improve private views but it would impact the public view and create a drainage. issue. Another method might be to provide a 5 -foot -wide, inaccessible buffer with landscaping. Thorny shrubs to discourage instruction might block views and increased liability is a concern. This option is not recommended as it would not provide equivalent safety protection to the existing railing. Clear acrylic panels could substitute, but they tend to loose Hoag Hoapital Development Agreement Compliance Review April 16, 2008 Page 5 of 12 clarity over time and the existing cable rail barrier does not block views. Although the protective railing should not have been proposed or permitted, the railing cannot be eliminated without eliminating the cogeneration building itself. Staff concludes that the existing railing should simply remain. Z Midgation Measure Compliance Hoag has submitted a comprehensive report suggesting that development has progressed in full compliance with mitigation measures. The following major projects have been undertaken since the last review hearing: a) Upper Campus Central Plant — completed in 2001 b) West Tower Renovation Project — completed 2006 c) Hoag Conference Center — completed in 2000 d) Lower Campus Terrace Parking Lot — completed 1999 e) Original Hospital Building Upgrade — completed in 2003 f) Women's Pavilion — completed in 2005 g) East Tower Parking Structure — completed in 2002 h) Cogeneration Plant — completed in 2006 i) James Irvine Surgery Center Addition — completed in 2005 j) Lower Campus Site Development — completed in 2008 k) Employee Child Care Center Relocation — completed 2008 1) Ancillary Building Renovation including the Emergency Care Unit Expansion - continuing Staff has reviewed the materials submitted by Hoag and finds that the projects have been completed in compliance with applicable mitigation measures. Due to the interest in the cogeneration building, the following more detailed discussion has been provided. The City provided an approval in concept in September of 2002, and the Coastal Commission issued a Coastal Development Permit in July of 2003 after a public hearing in late 2002. The City issued a grading permit in July of 2003 and a building permit was issued by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. The facility was largely complete in 2006, and from staffs extensive review of the facility, it is consistent with the approved plans. The plant provides electricity to the hospital campus and has the capacity to produce 4.5 megawatts of power, although only 3 of the anticipated 6 natural gas fired engines are installed at this time. The plant provides chilled water for air conditioning and hot water for the campus. The facility has been operational for over a year and it creates three visible plumes: 1) water vapor plume from the cooling towers where heat is rejected (dissipated) to the environment through evaporation, 2) heat plumes from the engine exhaust ports that create visible distortion when attempting to view through them, and 3) steam venting from the roof of the facility itself periodically creating a small, but dense steam cloud. Hoag Hoapital Development Agreement Compliance Review April 16, 2008 Page 6 of 12 Mitigation Measure #48 requires a study of Lower Campus buildings prior to construction to ensure that the impact of the building is not greater than what was anticipated in the 1991 EIR. Staff conducted an analysis of the cogeneration building based upon its building elevations, setbacks and site elevation above mean sea level and found the building to be below the maximum allowable building height, which was the basis for the 1991 visual analysis. Staff concluded that the cogeneration building would comply with the visual analysis of the 1991 EIR, which was confirmed with a site visit. In conclusion, Mitigation Measure #48 was implemented and the cogeneration building complies. Residents of Villa Balboa believe Hoag misled them and the City by not disclosing the true impacts of the facility especially as it relates to the plumes emanating from the facility. Residents also believe the City provided inadequate review of the facility as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement. Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement reflects the City's ongoing obligation pursuant to CEQA to conduct environmental analysis of specific projects proposed within the scope of the Master Plan. No subsequent environmental document pursuant to CEQA was prepared for the cogeneration facility, but rather mitigation measures from the 1991 EIR were implemented throughout the permitting of the facility. Visible plumes from the plant were not anticipated by staff or disclosed to staff. The visual impact of the plumes could have been addressed in association with the preparation of an environmental document prior to permitting. If the City failed to properly implement CEQA by not preparing a subsequent environmental document for the cogeneration facility, the time limit to challenge the action to approve the facility has long since passed. Therefore, the City cannot legitimately declare Hoag in violation of the Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement based upon today's argument that the City failed to prepare a subsequent environmental document prior to approval of the facility roughly 6 years ago. 3. Visual Impact Analysis Section 5.4 of the development agreement specifically requires an analysis of the actual visual effect of buildings constructed compared to the visual impact analysis contained within the 1991 EIR. The Lower Campus analysis showed public views to the bay and ocean with the various building envelopes "masked" off showing what the resulting view impact would be. The building envelopes were based upon the minimum required setback and maximum building heights. The Upper Campus analysis showed public views from several vantage points within western Newport Heights and only showed a single future tower building within the photographs but did not show the three larger building envelopes that encompassed the entire Upper Campus. Staff has visited the site on numerous occasions and has examined photographs taken in 2006 of both the Upper Campus and Lower Campus and has compared them to photographs presented in the 1991 EIR. Existing buildings on the lower campus all appear lower than the development envelopes shown in 1991. The Bill and Sue Gross Women's Pavilion and the parking structure in the Upper Campus do not appear to be Hoag Hoapital Development Agreement Compliance Review April 16, 2008 Page 7 of 12 within the anticipated building envelope shown in the 1991 EIR; however, these structures comply with setback and building height limits established in the PC Text as determined during the plan check process prior to approval. The discrepancy is attributable to the fact that '1991 visual analysis showed only a single future tower building roughly located south of the west tower rather than the three building envelopes that encompass the entire Upper Campus that were ultimately approved. Hoag directed Richard Mather of Advanced Graphics to prepare a computer visual simulation of the entire campus that will be shown at the hearing. With this tool, he has depicted the maximum building height on current photographs. Staff has previewed the visual simulations and photographs and it demonstrates that the permanent buildings constructed in compliance with setbacks and building height limits are consistent with what should have been shown in the 1991 EIR. This analysis and simulation is a more accurate tool and will be used by staff in the future for this post - building visual analysis for subsequent annual reviews. 4. Off -site Wetland Mitigation The lower campus west of the existing child care center once contained a little over an acre of wetlands. As a condition of development, Hoag was required to provide off -site mitigation for the loss of the habitat. In conjunction with the Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers, Hoag restored a 6.08 acre freshwater marsh in Irvine adjacent to the San Diego Creek just south of the intersection of Campus Drive and University Drive. Three years into the project, the Army Corps and the Department of Fish and Game, who both oversaw the project, discontinued monitoring due to the success of the project. The Development Agreement requires a the preparation of a follow -up monitoring report 5 years after the initial 5 -year monitoring period. Glenn Lukos Associates, the biological consulting firm that implemented and monitored the project from the beginning, conducted a site reconnaissance in 2005 and concludes "the success of the site has exceeded expectations." Therefore, Hoag has fulfilled their obligations under the Development Agreement and environmental mitigation measures related to wetland mitigation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This compliance review is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15321 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. This section exempts actions by regulatory agencies to enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use issued, adopted, or prescribed by the regulatory agency or enforcement of a law, general rule, standard, or objective, administered or adopted by the regulatory agency. Construction activities undertaken would not qualify for this exemption. Hoag Hoapital Development Agreement Compliance Review April 16, 2008 Page 8 of 12 CONCLUSION Hoag is not in compliance with noise standards. Other issues such as Lower Campus lighting and the modular trailer will be abated within the coming months. Based upon the information in the record, it appears that Hoag is in compliance with the majority of Development Agreement requirements and they are acting in good faith to abate other issues. A determination of good faith substantial compliance cannot be made until after the Council acts on the Master Plan program update. If the City Council approves modifying noise standards after the public hearing on the proposed Master Plan update project, and should the Council concur with the analysis contained within this report, a letter will be sent to Hoag indicating the Council's finding that Hoag is in good faith substantial compliance with the Development Agreement. MITIGATING COGENERATION FACILITY PLUMES As noted in the previous discussions, enforcement actions for violations of the Development Agreement or CEQA are not viable and the cogeneration facility is not a part of the Master Plan Update Project, the companion item on this agenda. Significant debate has occurred over what should or could have been done prior to the plant being permitted, but more importantly, what might be done now? Villa Balboa Residents, Hoag, including their consulting engineers and contractors who are familiar with the plant, and Fluor Enterprises, who was hired by the City as an independent and objective consultant, have been investigating methods to reduce or eliminate the plumes. Fluor's report and additional information provided by Hoag's consulting engineers are attached as Exhibits #3, #4 and #5. Hoag has prepared and submitted a document titled, "Cogeneration Facility Facts," that is attached as Exhibit #6. Please note that the correspondence attached to the staff report for the Master Plan Update and comments on the SEIR prepared for that project contains comments related to the cogeneration facility and it is not attached to this report, but they should be considered in conjunction with this addenda item. 1. Cooling tower plume Eliminating the cooling tower plume (the most visible of the three plumes) entirely is not possible given local climatic conditions (temperature and humidity). Three options present themselves based upon the review to date: a) Hoag can implement operational changes that shift heat rejection needs over the 4 cooling tower cells when the operation of fewer cooling tower cells would suffice. Other mechanical and operational modifications would be included. These changes are identified in the Fluor report and other reports as Option 1 and Option 2. Implementing these options would potentially reduce plume density by approximately 15% - 20 %. This reduction would only be noticeable in approximately 17% of events we have data for and occasionally, light plumes might be eliminated. When a heavy plume is created due to higher demand for Hoag Hoapital Development Agreement Compliance Review April 16, 2008 Page 9 of 12 heat rejection and atmospheric conditions, the reduction will not be very noticeable. Additionally, these options are only effective when there is unused capacity in the system and as heat rejection needs increase with future construction, these options' effectiveness will diminish. These options might have a capital cost of approximately $500,000 and they also increase energy consumption as additional pumps and fans are operated to reduce the plume when they would otherwise not be needed to efficiently operate the plant. Hoag's consultants prepared this capital cost estimate and they also believe the added energy cost would be approximately $24,000 per year. Fluor has not been able to validate this cost as a sufficiently detailed scope of work for estimating purposes is not available. These operational changes to the existing facility, if implemented, would likely be exempt from CEQA and not require the preparation of a subsequent environmental document. b) Fluor has identified what is referred to as Option 3A, which is an alternative system that utilizes an air heat exchanger that would be used when conditions are ripe for plume creation (low temperatures and high humidity). This system would not use evaporation to reject heat to the atmosphere, but would rely upon a large radiator, similar to those in automobiles, and several fans to increase air flow. The net effect is to reduce the temperature of the water before it goes to the cooling towers. With less heat to reject at the cooling towers, less evaporation occurs and plumes will either not develop or their density will be reduced. This system is not efficient during the summer months, but it is more effective during the winter when plumes are likely to form. The cooling tower manufacturer believes that the density of the plume can be reduced by as much as 50% over a wide range of atmospheric conditions and operating conditions. Based upon the cooling tower manufacturer modeling, Fluor believes that current winter heat rejection demands can be accommodated with this option avoiding a plume altogether. During the summer, higher heat rejection demands are present, but atmospheric conditions for plume creation are less common. Therefore, Option 3A will substantially mitigate the plume the plume. When future demands on the plant require it to be used more consistently at its design capacity, plumes will be noticeably reduced. If a light plume would otherwise be created without Option 3A, no plume will be created if Option 3A is implemented. When moderate to heavy plumes would otherwise be created without Option 3A, plume density and size will be noticeably reduced with implementation of Option 3A. Fluor's rough order of magnitude estimate of Option 3A is $5.99 million dollars and Hoag's consultants are estimates higher. A rough order of magnitude estimate may be off by as much as 30% and overestimating the cost at this stage is industry practice. More accurate estimates can only be prepared with more a more detailed scope of work based upon a more detailed schematic plan, which Hoag Hoapital Development Agreement Compliance Review April 16, 2008 Page 10 of 12 is not available. The system would only be operated when conditions for plume creation are present and the system will require additional energy consumption, the cost of which has been estimated by Hoag's consultants to be approximately $62,500 per year. This energy cost has not been validated by Fluor. Physically, we would see an enlargement of the existing cooling tower yard by extending it toward Coast Highway by 40 feet. The enclosure would be 50 feet wide and 25 feet high. Noise would be an issue as additional fans and pumps are necessary and the estimated cost includes noise mitigation features. Landscaping would be necessary to screen the facility and the structure would not comply with the minimum 45 -foot front yard setback. Other locations on the site are not possible given the existing methane collection system and flare system. Environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA of this potential option has not been conducted. If this option were provided within the Development Agreement or required as a provision of the PC Text, this potential change to the project description, and an analysis of the potential impact to the environment, would be necessary leading to the recirculation of the SEIR. c) Replacement of the existing cooling towers with towers that incorporate plume abatement technology is referred to as Option 3 -1 within the Fluor report. Fluor looked into an alternative to total replacement of the cooling towers that would be the installation of plume abatement technology above the existing cooling towers. This alternative was considered infeasible given seismic and space constraints. Implementing Option 3 -1 will necessitate plant shutdown and the reconstruction of the cooling tower yard to increase its height by approximately 10 feet as the cooling towers that have plume abatement technology incorporated are taller than the existing towers. Plume reduction will be approximately 75% or more and A represents the highest level of plume mitigation. Again, noise would be an issue due to the increased height of the cooling tower altering the noise environment and mitigation would be necessary. The rough order of magnitude cost of such a system is as much as $9.3 million dollars. This estimate was provided by McCarthy, the contractor that constructed the cogeneration plant. Syska Hennessey's estimates are as low as $7.9 million dollars. Fluor was not able to validate either of these estimates as a sufficiently detailed scope of work for estimating purposes is not available; however, Fluor believes several components that make up the McCarthy estimate are inflated. Increased energy consumption would also be a result and the cost of which has been estimated by Hoag's consultants to be approximately $84,300 per year. Again, this energy cost has not been validated by Fluor. As with Option 3A above, environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA of this potential option has not been conducted. If this option were provided within the Development Agreement or required as a provision of the PC Text, this potential Hoag Hoapital Development Agreement Compliance Review April 16, 2008 Page 11 of 12 change to the project description, and an analysis of the potential impact to the environment, would be necessary leading to the recirculation of the SEIR. Hoag continues to consider implementing effective operational changes that mitigate the cooling tower plume. Hoag has not limited their consideration to Options 1 and 2 as other operational alternatives may present themselves. Hoag has not embraced the more costly options (Option 3A and Option 3 -1) due to cost and disruption of hospital operations. It is important to note that the all of the options outlined above are based upon pre- design schematics and should any of them be implemented, there may likely be alterations in system designs as additional engineering is completed. Alterations in systems designs would be accepted provided they achieve an equivalent level of mitigation without significantly greater impact. 2. Engine exhaust plume The engine exhaust heat plume has been looked at, but not to the extent the cooling tower plume has been examined. Significantly reducing the visible distortion of the heat plume or eliminating it entirely is technically feasible. There are several possible solutions identified in the reports and the most effective method is to mix cooler air with the exhaust to quickly reduce its temperature before the mixture is visible. The exhaust ports are behind architectural screening features on the face of the cogeneration building; however, the termination of the exhaust port is visible from Sunset View Park as they are at the top of the building parapet. It may be possible to lower the ports a few feet to provide an area below the parapet of the building to cool the exhaust before it rises above the building where it would otherwise become visible. Another option is to create small "doghouses" atop the building below the building height limit to provide an area to cool the exhaust before it is released. Architectural modifications to the exterior of the cogeneration building would be necessary and additional fans might be employed to increase the effectiveness of the system, which would be another noise source to address. The cost and efficacy of these potential system modifications are not known at this time; however, costs are expected to be much less than the cost of mitigating the cooling tower plumes. Hoag has participated in the evaluation of mitigating the exhaust plume, but Hoag has not expressed a position as to whether they would be willing to mitigate it. 3. The third plume is steam venting from the roof of the building. Within the cogeneration building, a boiler exists and manual steam venting is a necessary and a normal part of the commissioning of the plant. Manual venting will only occur for annual system testing. This venting could also occur during an emergency if there were to be a malfunction. The system is designed to vent in this fashion to avoid a catastrophe. Venting since the plant's startup and testing has ceased as predicted by Hoag and the engineers and as reported by residents. Staff does not consider this plume to be an issue even though the vents can be modified to eliminate visible steam venting. Hoag Hoapital Development Agreement Compliance Review April 16, 2008 Page 12 of 12 Summary The Villa Balboa community as well as other community groups have expressed a desire to have the plumes mitigated. The cooling tower plume is more visible to a wider area and is viewed by travelers on Coast Highway and visitors to Sunset View Park and it will be visible from Sunset Ridge Park when it is completed. The heat plumes affect views from Sunset View Park and Villa Balboa and they are not visible from a wider area. The cogeneration facility is a contentious issue that will require cooperation from all concerned if an equitable solution is to be found. The City Council will need to determine how best to proceed with potential plume mitigation. In regards to the cooling tower plumes, Hoag may be willing to implement. operational modifications or the Council can request those operational changes if Hoag does not propose them. If a higher level of mitigation is warranted, either Option 3A or Option 3 -1 can be requested. In regards to the exhaust heat plume, the Council can request mitigation if it is warranted. Should Hoag offer some form of mitigation and should it be deemed acceptable by the City Council, Hoag could implement that mitigation pursuant to completion of any necessary CEQA analysis and securing any required permits. Hoag and the staff can report on the implementation of the mitigation during future annual reviews; however, such a report would be informational only as enforcement would not be possible as Hoag's commitment would not be part of the Development Agreement. In other words, it would be voluntary on Hoag's part based upon what commitment is expressed during the hearing. If the City Council desires an enforceable agreement, mitigation could be included as part of the proposed Development Agreement only after an analysis pursuant to CEQA is completed. Should the City Council request mitigation in a form that Hoag does not readily accept, the City Council could re -open negotiations of the proposed Development Agreement or deny Hoag's request. Prepared By: Submitted by: es Campbell, Senior P14KMr David Lepo, Plannin irector EXHIBITS 1. 1994 Development Agreement 2. Hoag Hoapital Development Agreement Annual Review dated April 2, 2008 (separate binder) 3. Fluor Report dated March 19, 2008 4. Syska Hennessy response to Fluor report dated March 20, 2008 5. Fluor report dated April 9, 2008 6. "Cogeneration Facility Facts" submitted by Hoag on April 8, 2008