Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Annual Review of Hoag Development Agreement - PA2009-064 o4�Ewr°e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT y PLANNING DIVISION u $ 100 Civic Center Drive, P.O.Box 1768,Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 Fax: (949) 644-3229 c`�LfFOR�,P www.newportbeachca.gov CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Agenda Item No. 1 Annual Review of Hoag Development Agreement SUBJECT: (PA2009-064) 1 Hoag Drive APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian PLANNER: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644-3208, rung@newportbeachca.gov On April 30, 2015, the Zoning Administrator continued the Annual Review of Hoag Development Agreement to the May 14, 2015, Zoning Administrator meeting. Hoag requested a two-week continuance so they could review and provide written responses to the Villa Balboa's April 28, 2015, letter to the Zoning Administrator. Villa Balboa's April 28, 2015, letter is attached as Attachment No. ZA 1. Hoag's May 5, 2015, response letter is attached as Attachment No. ZA 2. The April 30, 2015, Zoning Administrator staff report can be found online at the following link: http://newi)ortbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1547 Prepared by: (a� o alinh Ung As ociate Planner JC/ru Attachments: ZA 1 Villa Balboa's April 28, 2015 Letter ZA 2 Hoag's May 5, 2015 Letter 1 V� QP �P Attachment No. ZA 1 Villa Balboa's April 28, 2015 Letter V� QP �P VILLA BALBO) �twcu April 28,2015 5V COM�^l1N Brenda W isneski,Zoning Administrator RAPP 2 Q Ilj osalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach, Community Development 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 rOp Dear Ms.Wisneski and Ms. Ung, On behalf of the Villa Balboa Community Association we submit the enclosed report to present evidence that Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Hoag) has not demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of Development Agreement No. 5 (DA). Enclosed you will find documentation that demonstrates Hoag has not complied with the terns of the DA as required and set forth in the 2008 Planned Community Development Criteria(PCDC) This is evidenced in its continuing failure to achieve substantive coverage with flowering ivy of the east wall of the cogeneration plant. Photographs in the 2015 report prepared by Hoag again do not accurately depict the extent to which the east wall remains exposed, a problem which has continued for seven years since 2008. Hoag has also failed to conduct all the required and promised sound level tests as shown in its report submitted covering the period March 1, 2014 through March 2, 2015. Further; in the tests that were conducted,Hoag was found to be out of compliance with the interior noise levels prescribed by Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. This Villa Balboa report also calls into question the manner in which lower campus tree height limitations appear to have been modified without proper notice and procedures. Villa Balboa requests The City of Newport Beach provide information regarding the manner in which this change occurred. Villa Balboa also shows evidence that Hoag has been out of compliance with PCDC requirements by virtue of its inappropriate use(non-code) of the area surrounding the Advanced Technology Pavilion during six of the past seven years, complying for a period of one year, 2009. The use of the area has been without proper Newport Beach permits and is in violation of the PCDC prescribed allowable use since the removal of the designated Hydroseed and irrigation. And, finally, Hoag has recently(March 2015)completed the mandated PCDC landscaping requirements on the lower campus parking following five years of noncompliance. Unfortunately, Hoag's description in its report of the reasons for doing so are grossly misleading and fail to acknowledge its noncompliance for a period of five years. In light of the above;Villa Balboa requests a finding that Hoag has not demonstrated good faith compliance with the teens of the DA during this review period. Alternatively, Villa Balboa would accept a continuation of this hearing, to be reconvened in six months, to allow Hoag an opportunity to remedy its continuing compliance failures and amend its report to correctly demonstrate good faith compliance. To continuously find otherwise is to make a mockery of this hearing process. Villa Balboa will amplify the claims made herein at the hearing on April 30, 2015 1Best Regards, Nancy Kniglit�� Vice-President, Villa Balboa Homeowners Association 15 VILLA BALBOA Response to HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ANNUAL REVIEW March 1., 201.4 through March 2, 2015 Prepared for The City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared by Villa Balboa 900 Cagney Lane Newport Beach, CA 92663 HOAG'S SEVEN YEAR FAILURE (2008 . 2015) TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS SET FORTH IN THE 2008 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA: "COVERAGE.OF THE EAST WALL OF THE COGENERATION PLANT WITH FLOWERING IVY" For a period of seven years Hoag has failed to meet this requirement of the Development Agreement(DA) as set forth in the 2008 Planned Community Development Criteria: REQUIREMENT -2008 PCDC, Page 31, Area 3 - Co Gen This directive requires Hoag to "Attach metal green screen lattice structure to cover east building elevation. Plant flowering vines to cover green screen(to) screen/soften specific views of Co Gen Building." Hoag's minimal efforts to fulfill this requirement have failed during the course of the seven year period, 2008 - 2015. Hoag's routine excuse for its failure to perform has been consistent with this year's statement, "...it Mll take another couple of years for the vines to reach full maturity and provide optimal coverage." (Hoag Report, page 6, Cogeneration Plant) Hoag has,recently admitted (2015)that it will NEVER be able to achieve flowering ivy coverage --of the-eastwall-of-the—eogener-ation plant utilizing-the current planting-configuration.- Hoag's past —- attempts to address this issue have consisted of"more water and more fertilizer" with the realization that this minimal effort could not possibly achieve successful coverage of the south portion of the east wall with flowering ivy vines. Hoag's efforts to conceal its failures have included the use of pictures in the 2014 Annual Review to deceptively distort views of the cogeneration plant. (See pictures 41 and#2 below.) This year in its 2015 Annual Report Hoag has resorted to the use of photo shopped pictures, taken at a point approximately 15 feet below the level of Sunset View Park where there is no public access, strategically placing trees in an attempt to project a hypothetical resolution of this problem. (See pictures 93 and#4 below.) However,this too fails to provide a viable solution and misleads readers of the report. Hoag has been informed that its proposed "solution" offers no meaningftitl cogeneration plant screening potential and does not conform to requirements of the PCDC. There has been,and remains,NO SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE OF GOOD FAITH in Hoag's efforts to meet this requirement. I 1 J 1�` .Y t x Picture#1 - Hoag's 2014 Annual Report picture depicting progress on growth of ivy on the north potion of the east facing wall of the cogen plant. Note the bush on the left which hides the south portion of the wall. ? -f 4 � < � t r ?X 1 6t �. Picture 92 -This is the south portion of the wall (2014)that is hidden by the bush in Hoag's picture. Note the very sparse growth on this much larger wall segment. g l ' t 1• BlmWatlonN"Bm OLO&16: Picture#3 -Hoag's 2015 Annual Report picture showing proposed solution of trees (photo shopped)that would allegedly "hide" the view of the cogen plant wall. Note the light pole in the center of the picture. (Picture taken approximately 15'below level of park-no public access.) ■ 1 Picture#4 -This is a picture of the wall of the cogen plant standing on the Sunset Park grass. Note the light pole to the left. The photo shopped trees are to the LEFT of the light pole and thus provide no solution to "hiding" the cogen plant wall. 9 HOAG'S CONSISTENT FAILURES TO PROPERLY ADMINISTER SOUND LEVEL TESTS TO DETERMINE ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS SET FORTH IN THE 2008 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA During the past seven years residents of the building closest to the cogeneration plant(200 Paris Lane) have requested that sound level tests be conducted at locations which could reasonably be expected to be subject to noise levels that are not within the parameters prescribed by the PCDC and Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Further, when sound level tests have been conducted in the past they have been performed under conditions that are not representative of the maximum noise levels which could reasonably be expected, i.e., all three generators and all four cooling towers running at full capacity. These tests are to be administered both inside and immediately outside of Villa Balboa residential units. There continue to be inadequacies in the sound level tests conducted in 2015. Specifically, additional testing was planned for Unit 214 (see comments which follow), but this testing has not been scheduled by Hoag. Also, close reading of the Newport Beach Noise Code subsequent to the testing on March 24th indicates that interior noise testing be conducted within the window frames of affected units. Testing done on the 24th was conducted 4 feet inside of Unit 308. Further, interior sound level measurements at Unit 308 that were conducted in 2015 indicate violations of noise level thresholds as prescribed by the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. We note that sound level tests conducted for Hoag's Annual Reviews are arranged by Hoag and performed by a firm paid by.Hoag. It is our understanding that the methodology to identify violations-of the noise ordinance include-at-least some subjective judgmmtg-about-how'data samples are analyzed. It would seem far more appropriate for either the City of Newport Beach, or some objective third party,to be designated to conduct the prescribed testing. This would serve the public interest in attempting to ensure that there are no potential conflicts of interest. Also, sound level tests at the cogeneration plant must be conducted while all generators and cooling towers are running at full capacity. The goals of objectivity and transparency could be greatly enhanced with coincident third party verification that all mechanical systems are indeed running at full capacity during the conduct of sound level testing. Hoag was notified at 2014 Annual Review Hearing that it must conduct sound level tests under the conditions,times and locations specified, to which it agreed,. As noted above, not all the required testing has been completed or even scheduled. Further, testing conducted in the interior of Unit 308 shows a violation of the City's noise ordinance. Hoag should not be found to be "in good faith compliance" until all sound level testing has been completed and reviewed and accepted by all parties, and measures adopted to correct violations of the City's noise ordinance. The following narrative sets forth Villa Balboa's observations regarding the sound level tests and the descriptive narrative set forth in Hoag's 2015 Annual Review. -D COMMENTS ON COGENERATION PLANT NOISE TESTING As part of the Annual Development Agreement Review, Hoag Hospital contracted with RAS Acoustics to conduct early morning noise measurements on March 24th at several locations around the 200 Paris Lane building at Villa Balboa,which is adjacent to the cogeneration plant on the hospital lower campus. For the record, we would like to offer the following comments on the noise testing conducted on the exterior balcony and in the interior at Unit 214, and the exterior and in the interior testing at Unit 308 at 200 Paris Lane. With regard to the noise sampling at Unit 214, it was our understanding that additional testing was to be conducted in both the interior and exterior with the cogeneration plant running at frill power with all four cooling tower fans in operation(this was not possible during the first part of the testing period on the morning of March 24t). With regard to the exterior and interior testing at Unit 308, comments are directed specifically to the write up on page 23, Section 2.6.2.A of the Development Agreement Annual Review for the period March 1,2014 through March 2, 2015,prepared for Hoag by Government Solutions, Inc. First, the report acknowledges that interior noise levels at Unit 308 exceeded the levels allowable wider the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. The supporting graph and accompanying text at the bottom of page 34 of the report indicate the 15 minute Leq was 42 dB(A), versus a maximum —allowable-interior level-under-the Ordinance-of-40 dB(A),a 5016-exceedanee.-Thewrite-up-mr-- - page 23 farther explains that the interior noise measure was conducted four feet inside the unit with the sliding glass door fully open, which it states is "consistent with the measurement protocols provided by the municipal code." While the report acknowledges the conduct of the test was consistent with the Noise Ordinance, the write up also calls into question the results of the interior test in Unit 308. It does this primarily on the basis of a general observation that the typical differential between interior and exterior noise testing is about 8 dB(A) to 10 dB(A). That is, interior noise measurements tend to be below exterior measurements of the same noise source by this amount"when measured through an open window or typical entrance door." According to the write up, since the noise measured on the exterior balcony was 47 dB(A), the interior noise levels were expected to have been in the range of 37 dB(A)to 39 dB(A). Because the interior measurement did not follow this pattern, a conclusion is drawn that the results may not be valid. We disagree with this assertion. The primary reason offered for why the actual interior test results varied from the "typical' pattern is that background noise from traffic on nearby PCH may have been higher than during the interior test sampling period, which was conducted starting around 4:00 AM,just after the completion of the test sample period on the exterior balcony. 1� We do not believe this argument is correct for two reasons. First, as a part of the testing protocol,the sound measuring equipment was turned off by the acoustical engineer as soon as any vehicle could be even faintly heard to be approaching the test area on PCH. This should have eliminated the impact of any background traffic during all phases of both the exterior balcony and interior testing periods. Also, we estimate that the mid-point of the noise sampling periods for the exterior balcony and the interior were approximately 3:15 AM and 4:15 AM respectively. The level of traffic at these two time points is unlikely in our view to have been substantially different. However, even if it were, the fact that the sound equipment was turned off whenever a vehicle approached should have eliminated the impact of any modest difference in noise levels. While an 8 dB(A) to 10 dB(A) reduction in interior versus exterior noise levels may not be "typical," this does not invalidate the test. As one would expect with any type of test involving sampling, a range of outcomes is likely, with the average or typical pattern being the most common, but not the only valid outcome. We would also like to point out that Part B of Section 10.26.055 (Noise Ordinance) suggests that a microphone for noise testing can be placed"within the frame of the window opening." The microphone for the interior tests at Unit 308 was located four feet from the open sliding glass door. Had it been placed in the slider window frame, it is likely that it would have caused the amount of noise measured to be higher than it was during the test conducted on March 24'', and therefore further out of compliance. We request that future interior testing include a measurement within the window frame in units 308 and 214. Lastly,the write up of the interior testing results concludes by noting that if the exceedance of -the-interior-noise limits-were-attributable to-offsite-traffic-on PCH,their"thcconstroctiori — elements of the building exterior wall would become suspect in their ability to reduce exterior noise levels per the minimal requirements of the building code." Since noise testing is to be conducted"with windows in an open position" (Noise Level Measurement 10.26.055),the building code and the sound mitigation of the exterior walls of the building are not at issue here, and this statement has no bearing on the test results or compliance with City code. 12 DISAPPEARANCE OF THE TREE HEIGHT LIMITATION IN THE 2008 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA A matter of serious concern to Villa Balboa is the height of trees on the lower campus. Section VIII A of the Planning Community Development Criteria(PCDC), originally approved by the City in 1992,provided that "all landscaping shall conform to the building height limits established in this text." That requirement was apparently deleted from the text of the PCDC in 2008 but we find no evidence that the deletion was ever disclosed to the public or approved by the City. When the City adopted the amendments to the PCDC in 2008,the staff report included a strike out/underline version of the PCDC showing the revisions but the removal of the limitation on tree height was not included. In fact,the City aelmowledged in its 2008 staff reports that tree height was a key concern for Villa Balboa residents. Hoag also represented in 2008 that it would maintain tree heights in compliance with the PCDC restriction during the timeframe that the PCDC amendments were being considered. See City Planning Staff Report dated 1/31/08 at page 12, noting that 20 trees were removed and 50 trees trimmed to comply with the required height limits of the lower campus. See also the City Council Staff Report dated 4/16/08,p. 4,noting the trees are not to exceed the building heights and that Hoag had not been diligent in the past but stepped up the tree trimming program and expressed a commitment to staff that they will monitor heights and trim accordingly. - Without-notice-to-V-illa-Balboa-or-the-general-public-regardingthe-removal-ofthe-condition- - - - limiting tree height and with no evidence that the removal was approved by the City or the Coastal Commission, there appears to be no valid reason for the City not to require Hoag to meet the height limit requirements which affect not only the views of Villa Balboa residents but also of the members of the public using Sunset View Park. Villa Balboa respectfully requests that the City of Newport Beach provide a detailed and fully documented description of the process, including dates, times, procedures and the parties involved, by which the tree height limitation was removed from the 2008 Planned Community Development Criteria. 13 HOAG'S MULTI YEAR FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS SET FORTH IN THE 2008 PLANNED COMMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRTITERIA: HYDROSEED WITH NATIVE GROUND COVER PLANTING, WILD FLOWERS, GRASS,AND IRRIGATION, IN AREA ADJACENT TO THE ATP BUILDING (Hoag has stated that it did Hydroseed as directed the area adjacent to the ATP Building for a period of approximately one year at which time it removed the seeding and irrigation to arrange for a large stone gravel driveway leading to the rear of the ATP Building which was and remains utilized for storage and trash purposes. This was done without any permitting by the City of Newport Beach while also in violation of the provisions of the Development Agreement as set forth in the 2008 PCDC.) REQUIREMENT -2008 PCDC, PAGE 31,AREA 13 This directive requires Hoag to Hydroseed the area adjacent to the ATP Building utilizing Hydroseed native ground cover planting with coastal wildflower and grass and irrigation. The purpose of this directive was to provide erosion/dust control and enhanced visual quality. Hoag has finally (2015) admitted that it acted improperly and has proposed a plan to address its failed compliance. The picture presented in its annual report (See picture 45 below,) shows grading that has been completed with approximately the previous six weeks. However,the picture is both deceptive and misleading in that it fails to depict the condition of the area behind the ATP--Building for the-past several-years-following-removal of-the-required irrigated Hydroseed. (See pictures 96 and#7 below.) Hoag's failure to follow the directives of the 2008 PCDC resulted in conditions diametrically opposed to those that were to occur utilizing the required Hydroseed. The area around the ATP Building was unattractive and unpleasant, demonstrating the appearance of an ongoing fenced construction zone. It was unsightly, partially covered with black plastic sheeting. The large gravel rock surface and vast areas of raw dirt created constant dusty conditions, blowing dirt into adjacent residential areas. Substantially elevated noise levels as trucks proceeded daily over the large gravel stone roadway that led to the area adjacent to and behind the ATP Building have been a constant source of irritation to residents of Villa Balboa and visitors to Sunset View Park. In the spirit of cooperation Villa Balboa has worked with Hoag to accommodate Hoag's request to utilize the area behind the AT.P Building,immediately adjacent to the retaining wall, for storage purposes utilizing fully enclosed self-contained storage units. Hoag has agreed to blacktop a path leading to the storage area and the area adjacent to the proposed storage area. IIoag has also presented an acceptable landscape plan to Villa Balboa. Villa Balboa has agreed to this arrangement pending approval of appropriate permits from the City of Newport Beach, assuming final plans are as those shown to Villa Balboa. Villa Balboa is pleased to be able to assist Hoag in accommodating the facilitation of.Hoag's ease of operations. A Picture#5 - Hoag's 2015 Annual Report picture showing "progress" (grading) as it awaits approval of plans submitted to the City of Newport Beach to resolve compliance failures during the past approximately five years. (The grading was performed approximately six weeks ago.) Picture#6 -This is a picture that shows the appearance of the area above during the past approximately five years. Note the black plastic tarp paper that is in disarray,as well as the large areas of dirt, large gravel rocks and wood chips. 15 l W p ,4i r Picture#7 -This picture shows the area to the left of the previous two pictures. This shows the vast areas of no landscaping,multiple levels of construction-like fencing the surrounding the entire site with vast areas of large gravel work over which construction trucks drove resulting in noisy, dirty conditions for the adjacent residents immediately behind this area. 10 THE HOAG REPORT IS INACCURATE AND MISLEADING IN ITS STATEMENTS REGARDING LOWER CAMPUS PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING -AREA 7a See - Hoag 2015 Development Agreement Annual Review,page 5, "Area 7a" (Hoag's statements wrongly narrow the scope of this issue to Area 7a, rather than including Area 7 and Area 2, as well as Area 7a, all of which are within the lower campus parking area to the west of the new Child Care Center. This parking area encompasses approximately 117,000 square feet.) The Hoag Report states, "Parking Lot Islands were complete by May, 2010" This statement is false. While some parking lot islands were in place there were too few islands to accommodate the required number of trees and the islands that were installed were too small to provide space for the specified amount of plantings required(5% of the 117,000 square feet) by the PCDC. The Hoag Report also states: "Parking lot islands and the parking area had major improvements made this year as follows:" The attempt to convey benevolence is deceptive and misleading. Hoag's lower campus parking area actions were necessary to become compliant with the requirements of the -.)'CDC-and-to-address-its-noncompliance-during-the-previous-five-year-period,2010--z2014----- ---. —— - as shown below. REFERENCE: Area 7,Area 7a and Area 2 tree requirements (2008 PCDC, p. 31, 32) Number of Trees Required,Area 7, 12 flowering trees,Area 7a, 23 flowering trees, Area 2, 3 trees,total required=38 flowering trees, within islands, on lower campus west parking area During the period 2010 through 2014 the total number of in island trees in this area= 27 For the five year period Hoag was out of compliance with this PCDC requirement. Further, the PCDC (A6,p.24)requires that trees should be allowed to "grow and maintain their mature size without restriction. Many of the trees during the period 2010 through 2014 died and had to be replaced due to the failure to provide adequately sized surface cut-outs for the trees. For the five year period Hoag was out of compliance with this PCDC maintenance requirement(PCDC, p. 24,A6). 1� The Hoag Report also states: "6 additional 36" box trees were planted" (p. 5) False statement-the six trees were replacement trees, not additional trees. The existing trees were previously placed in cut outs that were too small to "grow and maintain their mature size without restriction," were not fit to survive transplanting, and thus were removed and subsequently replaced. Hoag was out of compliance with PCDC requirement for a period of five years. REFERENCE: Parking areas,(2008 PCDC,page 26,E.) Required: "A minimum of 5% of the surface parking area shall be devoted to planting areas." The Hoag Report also fails to set forth the fact that the amount of plantings required in the lower campus panting area(4% of the 117,000 square feet) was significantly less than that established in the PCDC (5%) thus necessitating the addition of approximately 1,200 square feet of additional plantings or a required increase of 25%. Both Hoag and Villa Balboa consultant,Beams Landscape, Inc. measurements were in agreement that the planting areas within the 117,000 square foot lower campus west parking area comprised approximately 4% of the area, requiring a 25% increase to reach the minimum requirement for an adequate level of plantings as specified in the PCDC. --Eoc-the-five year-per-iod,-2010---2014,-Hoag-was-out of-compliance-with-this-PCDC--------- requirement. Hoag's portrayal of its new construction activities in the lower campus parking area as a gracious act of installing "major improvements" is deceptive and non transparent as it fails to fully disclose that it was required to do so by virtue of the PCDC and that it had previously been noncompliant. Preceding the implementation of the required expansion of the number of trees, additional plantings and larger out outs in the lower campus parking areas Villa Balboa, with its landscape consultant, Bemus Landscape, Inc., met with Hoag and its landscape consultant, Bill Rabben, to explore plans for the remediation of the 117,000 square foot lower campus parking area. During the course of several meetings Villa .Balboa and Hoag were able to reach an agreement in a mostly harmonious maturer that.resulted in the completion of the landscaping project to the reasonable satisfaction of Villa Balboa and Hoag. Villa Balboa was pleased to be able to work with Hoag on this project resulting in a significant upgrade of the landscaped lower campus parking area. 1g Attachment No. ZA 2 Hoag's May 5, 2015 Letter 1J° V� QP �P �o n � HOAG PIEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRE88YTERIAN One Hoag Dave,PO Box 6100 Newport Beach,CA 92658-678-61 00 a��v;NEe �r May 5, 2015 upp%AUNITY �ay o 3 205 Ms. Brenda Wisneski, Zoning Administrator Ms. Rosalidh Ung, Associate planner rr_veLo�MENr �� City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Villa Balboa Homeowners Association April 281h,2015 Correspondence Annual Review of Hoag Development Agreement(PA2009-064) Zoning Administrator Public Hearing—Scheduled for April 30, 2015 Dear Ms. Wisneski and Ms. Ung: As you are aware, based on receipt of Villa Balboa's April 28, 2015, letter to the Zoning Administrator,Hoag Memorial Hospital requested a two-week continuance from our scheduled hearing of April 30, 2015. We requested this continuance so that a response could be placed in the record. Based on the tremendous effort made by Hoag over the last year to meet and confer with the Villa Balboa Liaison Committee, the Villa Balboa Board of Directors, and its designated landscape contractor(Bemus), we believe the tone of V illy Balboa's comments lack acknowledgement of these extensive efforts. Additionally, the letter unfortunately misconstrues the facts and the context of Hoag's willingness to work collaboratively with Villa Balboa. We strongly believe Hoag to be in good faith compliance with the Development Agreement and wish to proceed with the Zoning Administrator's hearing as currently scheduled for May 14, 2015. Our responses to the specific issues noted in Villa Balboa's letter are as follows: Lower Campus Landscaping: Coverage on the CoGen Green Screen Together with "more water and fertilizer" Hoag's past attempts include container pots installed at the base/bottom of the east portion of the CoGen building wall. These pots provide additional planting area including needed space for additional vines. Hoag also added additional vines and drip irrigation within the limited planting area available adjacent and on the slope area at the retaining wall south of the CoGen service road. While this may not be meeting the expectations of some of the residents, we have and continue to use our best efforts to encourage the plant material growth. We will continue to monitor these plants to assure their long term viability. Ultimately, we believe time will allow the plants to spread across the green screen. Hoag Hospital Newport Beach Hoag Hospital Irvine One Hoag Dave 16200 Hand Canyon Avenue Newport Beach,CA 92663 Irvine,CA 92018 1.2Iog.urg I� HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN One Hoag u u Ho Drive,FO Box Newport Beach,CA 9 2 658-6 1 00 Area A13 - ATP Site Improvements Page 5 of the DA Update Report describes the improvement proposed for this area. We worked closely with residents of Villa Balboa and their landscape contractor to arrive at a nmtually acceptable plan, which the association approved earlier this year. Pre-grading began in March with the site survey slated for completion this week. Landscape construction documents will be submitted to the City for review by the end of this month. We will begin construction immediately upon plan approval and issuance of a permit. Area 7, 7A, A2 - Parking Lot Planting It is inaccurate to state that the parking lot islands (cut outs for the trees) were too small. They are the standard size required by the city parking code and can be seen installed in parking areas throughout the city. The fact that the trees struggled in the parking lot cutouts and had to be replaced was a result of several site specific factors that were investigated overtime including; pool- drainage oordrainage in the existing sub soils, a high water table site condition, high compaction, native methane gas in some of the existing soil layers. We suspect that all of these factors to one degree or another had an impact on the health and rate of growth of the trees. To mitigate these conditions, the new parking lot planting areas were further enlarged to provide greater growth potential for the trees, they also included the complete removal of existing site soils in these areas and replacement with new import top soil. We will continue to monitor these plants to assure their long term viability. The PCDC called for 38 trees in all three areas. Prior to installing the new tree plan there were 34 existing trees within the sunset lot. With the new installation, of 19 trees (13 additional 48"box and 6 additional 30" box) there are now 53 trees far exceeding the requirements in the PCDC. Acoustical Analysis: CoGen Plant Operations—March 2,2015, DA Report, RS Acoustics, Inc. - 2015 Acoustical Test Report (pages 20-24) clearly notes that all four Cooling Towers were in operation at the time of testing. 200 Paris Lane—Unit 308- For clarification to the issues identified in the Villa Balboa's letter regarding noise testing for Unit 308. (See attached: RS Acoustics, Inc. May 4, 2015,Memorandum). Hoag Hospital Newport Beach Hoag l lospilal Irvine One Hoag Drive 16200 Sand Canyun.Avenue Newport Beach,CA 92663 Irvine,CA 92678 v22ag.org HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN hoag One Hoag Dave,PO Boz 61008-61 Newport Beach,CA 92658-6100 Finally,we believe it is important to put these matters into context. Since the adoption of the Development Agreement on April 22,2008, Hoag has been working in good faith to meet its obligations and be a good neighbor. To date, Hoag has spent in excess of $12.7M (see attached). Given the magnitude of the dollars and improvements that have been completed by Hoag over the last seven years and the extra efforts we have spent to meet with and inform the Villa Balboa community, we sincerely hope that the City will find us in good faith compliance with both the spirit and mandates of the Development Agreement at this time. Sincerely, HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Mr. Sanford Smith Senior Vice President Real Estate, Engineering, Facilities, Construction,and Operations Enclosures: RS Acoustics Memorandum of May 4,2015 Partial List of Mitigation Measures and Associated Acquirements of the DA cc: Cary Brooks—Hoag Hospital Coralee Newman—Government Solutions Bill Rabben—Rabben/Herman design office, Ltd. Robert Schmidt—RS Acoustics Inc. Hoag Hospital Newport Beach Hoag Hospital Irvine One Hoag Drive 16200 Sand Canyon Avenue -" Newport Beach,CA 92663 Irvine,CA 92618 veag org Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian - Newport Beach Partial List - Mitigation Measures and Associated Requirements of the DA Project Name Description -Amount Upper Campus Sound Wall Design and install 742 LF of sound wall along the WeWrelocate 2,038,240utilities re lace sidewalk re air road and landsca inSound Isolation Improvements Acoustic study of Ancillary Building and relocation an969,703kitchen exhaust fansWest Tower Sound Louvers Install sound louvers on West Tower 2nd floor mecha210 000Loadin Dock Sound Absor tion Panel Install sound anels on exterior wall of loadin dock 30 000No Idlin Si ns New Si ns installed at loadin dock1 000Grease Trap Cleaning Hours of Operation Agreed Upon(was early morning, Saturday only, usually once a month CoGen Lattice Installation of lattice and ivy along East facing wall of Cogen 98,432 Landscaping at PCH,lower parking lots,upper retaining wall,with cable rail Lower Campus PCH Green Screen fencing at CoGen and retaining wall area in association with the City of $ 1,036,613 Newport Beach Entitlement process. City required installation of 100 LF of sound wall;reduced to 45 LF(Nov CoGen Sound Wall Enclosure 2009);scope increased to cover legal fees,City permits,Coastal $ 268,914 Commission Noise Study Annual Study 5,800 Lower Campus Parking Lot Lighting Upgrade lighting; Replace metal halide with high pressure sodium $ 40,000 Window Replacement Reimbursement to Villa Balboa $ 499,142 City of NB Fees Reimbursement to Ci $ 3,000,000 Ancillary Sound Wall/Duct Silencers Install exterior sound wall along West Hoag Drive;duct silencers on all $ 830,297 HVAC related stems UC Clean and Soiled Dock Enclosed Sani- ak and box compactor $ 811,085 CoGen Plant Modifications City required installation of a weather station to allow for load shifting $ 129,454 Truck Deliveries to Loading Dock Installed secured gates Fire Alarm Upgrades Campus wide; Installed zone based alarms to reduce frequency of testing $ 2,226,053 alarms and noise Replaced 10-12 Air Handlers and Exhaust Fans at the. Noise reduction,energy efficiency $ 100,000 Central Plan[ Landscape Upgrades 2014 Bluff and Lower Campus parking area $ 75,000 Letter to Business Partners regarding hours of operation $ Ma 2014 Light Covers Replaced lReplace light covers at the Child Care Center and Lower Campus Trailers $ 3,500 Lower Campus Trailer Removal Early 2013 20,000 South Parking Structure Trailer Removal Removal of permitted trailers to improve neighbor views $ 30,000 Replaced 10-12 Air Handlers and Exhaust Fans at the Noise reduction,energy efficiency $ 180,000 Cancer Center Sunset View Park Improvement Park Contribution $ 150 000 24 RS ACOUSTICS INC 25031 Avenue Stanford, Suite 80 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 P: (661) 251-3965 F: (661) 310-3783 4 May 2015 Cary Brooks, Senior Project Manager Real Estate Facilities Construction Operations Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 510 Superior Avenue, Suite 290 Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: RSA Inc. Response to Villa Balboa Letter Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian RSA Project No. 1770215 Dear Cary: We are in receipt and have reviewed the letter of concerns prepared by the Villa Balboa Homeowners Association dated 28 April 2015 regarding the acoustical tests conducted by our office and presented in our report of 30 March 2015. Our comments are as follows: Reference to RSA testing procedures: We understand that the testing procedures utilized in the tests at the 200 Paris condominium units may be somewhat confusing to the homeowners. To help mitigate the concerns of the homeowners, we suggest retesting the interior noise levels in Unit 308 and exterior noise levels on the balcony of Unit 308. Acoustical testing and determination of compliance will be conducted explicitly in conformance with Section 10.26.025 Exterior Noise Standards, and Section 10.26.030 Interior Noise Standards of the Noise Ordinance. Reference to interior noise level measurement location: Acoustical tests were conducted in the living room of Unit 308, at a location 4' from the centerline of the X-Y axis of the open sliding glass door facing towards the Hoag Hospital central plant. This is the industry and professional standard for testing interior noise level conditions. The rationale for testing at least 4' from any interior surface (per Section 10.26.055.6 of the Newport Beach ordinance), and 5' from any surface outdoors (per Section 10.26.055.A of the Newport Beach ordinance), and in fact all other ordinances we're aware of, is that a doubling of Consultants in Architectural Acoustics & Noise Control 25 Cary Brooks, Senior Project Manager Real Estate Facilities Construction Operations Page 2 sound pressure occurs near reflective surfaces such as the exterior or interior walls resulting in inaccurate noise levels 2 to 3 dB higher than what actually occurs. To simplify this, consider the following example: • Sound from mechanical equipment propagates towards a residence and is measured at a location immediately adjacent to an exterior wall; • The same sound pressure then reflects off the acoustically reflective building and back towards the measuring microphone where it is measured again; • The resultant measured sound pressure level due to measuring it twice does not represent the actual noise level, but is 2 to 3 dB higher due to the additive effects of the direct sound + the reflected sound. To accurately determine interior noise levels, testing must occur within the unit with the measuring microphone at least 4' from any surface. Measuring the noise levels directly in the plane of an open door or window would result in the exterior noise levels at the plane of the door...not at the interior of the unit. RSA will retest the interior levels in Unit 308 as before, with the microphone at least 4' from any surface. We hope that our comments and retesting of the cooling tower/cogeneration facility noise will help appease the concerns of the Villa Balboa Homeowners Association with regards to acoustical testing. Please do feel free to call with any questions or comments. Sincerely yours, RS Acoustics Inc Robert Schmidt, Principal Consultant Encl: RSA Terms and Conditions, Resume, Company Description C:\Users\Public\Documents\Projects\Hoag Hospital\2015 Annual test\150504 VBltr RSAresp.doa 20 Zoning Administrator- May 14, 2015 Item No. 1a: Additional Materials Received Annual Review of Development A reement for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2009-064) VILLA BALBO- A Q�. May 11,2015 C041411_ga17.1, Brenda WisneAi,Zoning Administrator R`ay .X 21 Rosalinh Ung,Associate Planner a 0,-VC.- City of Newport Beach, Community Development Cop°���r 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 Response to Hong's letter of May 5,2015 following its request for hearing continuance Dear Ms.Wisneski and Ms.Ung, On behalf of the Villa Balboa Community Association we submit this letter in response to Hoag's letter of May 5,2015. Herein we present additional evidence that Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian(Hoag)has not demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of Development Agreement No. 5 (DA) as required and set forth in the 2008 Planned Community Development Criteria(PCDC)not only during the current review period but also for a period of approximately the past five years. This letter is supplemental to the documentation we submitted April 28,2015. We submit the following for inclusion on the record of the now rescheduled hearing on May 14, 2015. There Met significan areas in which Hoag is currently out of compliance�Can has been out of compliance for approximately five years: 1- Noise Level Testing at, and in,the 200 Paris Lane Building to Determine Compliance with Newport Beach Code Requirements 2. Coverage of the East Facing Wall of the Cogen Plant with Flowering Ivy 3. Ongoing Non Compliant Use and Non Permitted use of Area A 13, Adjacent to the ATP Building, Hoag Lower Campus Evidence regarding each of the above non compliance issues is sufficiently compelling in and of itself to demonstrate that Hoag SHOULD NOT be found in good faith compliance with the DA and the PCDC. Below we present evidence of Hoag's willful continuing violations of the performance requirements of the DA and the PCDC. During the course of the past seven years following the 2008 signing of the PCDC Hoag has had more than ample time to complete and maintain all requirements. Hoag presents no reasonable credible evidence that it has acted in a manner that demonstrates its good faith effort. To find otherwise is to make a continuing mockery of the annual review process. Zoning Administrator— May 14, 2015 Item No. 1a: Additional Materials Received Annual Review of Development Agreement for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2009-064) I. Noise Level Testing at,and in,the 200 Paris Lane Building to Determine Compliance with Newport Beach Code Requirements For a number of years Hoag refused to conduct noise level testing at,and in,the units in the 200 Paris Lane building that are most impacted by noise from the cogen plant. Specifically,residents of the building requested that sound testing be done at third floor units facing the plant. Such requests must be satisfied per the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance (10.26.055)which mandates testing be conducted at locations "...identified by the owner of the affected property as suspected of exceeding the noise level standard." Following refusal to do so in 2014, Hoag was instructed to conduct such tests in preparation of the annual review of April,2015. The PCDC (page 18,M.) requires Hoag to comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Annual testing to determine compliance was conducted in March, 2015. Hoag failed to properly conduct the required testing in units#308 and#214. Tests that were performed demonstrated that the Hoag cogen plant exceeds maximum acceptable noise levels in unit 9308. The homeowners of Villa Balboa do not find "the testing procedures utilized in the tests at the 200 Paris condominiums to be somewhat confusing." (RS Acoustics Inc., letter of May 4,2015, page 1) To the contrary, Section 10.26.055,B. of the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance regarding the testing of interior noise levels clearly states: "The measurements shall be made at a point at least four feet from the wall. ceiling,or floor,or within the frame of a window opening nearest the noise source The measurements shall be made with windows in an open position." THERE IS NO STIPULATION THAT TESTS BE CONDUCTED AT FOUR FEET WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF A RESIDENCE AS STATED BY RS ACOUSTICS,INC. (See RS Acoustics,Inc.letter of May 4,2015,page 2.) The required tests were not conducted as described above and no tests were conducted in unit #214 with four cooling towers frilly deployed. The erroneous test conducted in unit#308 was not conducted in conformance with the specified guidelines "within the frame ofa window opening.' The residents of Villa Balboa are not, "appease(d)" by the proclamations of RSA Acoustics Inc., letter of May 4,2015 (page 2). Further,the sub jectivity of applying standards that are not stated in the City of Newport:Beach Noise Ordinance mandates that further sound testing should be conducted by a firm that is willing to abide by the established code as set forth by the City. Villa Balboa urges contracting by the City of Newport Beach with a noise level testing firm NOT employed by Hoag to assure impartiality and transparency. (With Hoag reimbursing the City) For the reasons cited above Hoag cannot be found to be in "good faith compliance" with the DA as set forth in the PCDC. Sufficient and proper tests were not conducted and tests that were conducted demonstrated that Hoag is not in compliance. Zoning Administrator—May 14, 2015 Item No. 1a: Additional Materials Received Annual Review of Development Agreement for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2009-064) 2. Coverage of the East Facing Wall of the Cogen Plant with Flowering Ivy For approximately five years Hoag has maintained that the flowering ivy will eventually cover the southern portion of the east facing wall. For five years there has been no meaningful improvement.And there has been no demonstrable evidence of steps taken that offer any credible evidence that there will ever be reasonable coverage of the wall. For the two most recent annual review reporting periods Hoag has submitted documentation that purports to show plant coverage and/or attempts to "hide"views of the southern portion of the east wall of the cogen plant. (See Villa Balboa Report of April 28, 2015.) In both reports Hoag claims,incorrectly,that "in a couple of years," or"we believe time will allow the plants to spread across the green screen." It has now been five years since the initial plantings and there is no significant coverage of the wall with the required flowering ivy. There is no excuse for continuing to allow Hoag to promise meaningless ploys to defer recognition of the reality that it has not pursued reasonable credible alternatives to address its non compliance. Approximately six months ago in a meeting with Villa Balboa,Hoag attendees stated that additional plantings had been put in place with additional specially prepared soil. Hoag asserted that this action was destined to address the problem. At the following meeting Villa Balboa presented pictures of the area Hoag claimed had been rehabilitated. The pictures showed no additional or new plantings. Hoag proclaimed its surprise and promised to investigate but has not offered any evidence that any meaningful action was taken to enhance ivy growth on the southern portion of the east facing wall. During a recent Villa Balboa-Hoag meeting when this issue was again raised Hoag admitted that _ -the meage�eing u zed use tie plants at t ie base of the wall would nevev r enable coverage of the wall with ivy. Villa Balboa has offered several suggestions for achieving the required coverage, all of which have been rejected by Hoag. It is unimaginable that Hoag in good faith could have possibly expected the heretofore offered solutions to meet the requirements set forth in the PCDC. Until Hoag puts into place a reasonable credible plan acceptable to landscaping professionals for near term coverage of the wall,of ivy Hoag cannot be found to be in "good faith compliance"with the PCDC. Failing to meet this mandate of the PCDC for a period of seven years is simply unacceptable. Zoning Administrator— May 14, 2015 Item No. 1a: Additional Materials Received Annual Review of Development Agreement for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2009-064) 3. Ongoing Non Compliant Use and Non Permitted use of Area A 13,Adjacent to the ATP Building Since the conclusion of the annual hearing of 2014 Villa Balboa has met a number of times with Hoag staff members in an attempt to resolve a number of PCDC related issues with which Hoag has been non compliant in order to attempt to assist Hoag to become compliant. The process has been reasonably successful but very tedious with little sense of urgency. Villa Balboa has been extremely accommodating in attempting to allow Hoag to meet its objectives which go well beyond the dictates of the PCDC by accepting Hoag's desire to utilize a portion of this area to meet its storage needs. Multiple timelines have not been met,including the time indicated by Hoag for submission of plans to the City,leading to frustrations with the pace of the process. Even after being advised that it was non compliant with the PCDC and conducting operations without City permits Hoag continues through this date with its non compliant and non permitted uses and has been doing so during approximately the past five years. Villa Balboa residents continue to be plagued by the noisy,dusty,dirty and unsightly conditions even as Hoag recognizes its compliance failures. Villa Balboa was informed several weeks ago that plans had been submitted to the Planning Department. This apparently was not the case. Following the removal of the Hydro seeded area and the required irrigation adjacent to the ATP approximately five years ago Hoag unilaterally chose to convert the area to a storage and parking facility with a large stone gravel service road leading into the area. Not only has this been a willful violation of the PCDC but it has led to a constant source of multiple irritants to Villa Balboa residents. Further,Hoag has not discontinued its illegal uses of this area while pursuing plans to adopt its desired utilization for the area. the ev ence a ove indicates Hoag has been,and remains,out of compliance with the PCDC and continues to operate in a non permitted manner in the area adjacent to the ATP Building. Until this conversion has been satisfactorily completed consistent with the tentative agreement with Villa Balboa,Hoag cannot be found to be in "good faith compliance" with the DA as set forth in the PCDC. The above three major failures to achieve compliance with the PCDC, both currently and during approximately the past five years, demonstrate the absence of Hoag's "good faith compliance"with the DA. This must be the ruling resulting from this year's performance by Hoag. Villa Balboa requests that the reports submitted in the 2015 Annual Review demonstrate that Hoag was,and is not,in good faith compliance with the terms of the DA as set forth in the PCDC. An acceptable alternative to the above would be to allow Hoag a second continuance for a period of six months to October 2015, to become compliant.To do otherwise serves to reinforce the "rubber stamp of approval" of Hoag's compliance failures rendering the review process as trivial and thus reinforcing and rewarding the ongoing violations. Zoning Administrator— May 14, 2015 Item No. 1a: Additional Materials Received Annual Review of Development Agreement for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2009-064) Hoag's Letter of May 5,2015 re Area 7, 7a,A2 Hoag raises the issue regarding the size of cut outs for the trees planted in the areas cited above stating(page 2), "They are the standard size required by the city parking code and can be seen installed in parking areas throughout the city." Villa Balboa reminds Hoag that the language in the PCDC supersedes city codes. The PCDC states(Hoag Hospital Landscape Regulations,page 24,#6): "Care should be exercised to allow plants to grow and maintain their mature size without restriction." Landscape professionals cited the small size of the cut outs as being restrictive to the point of not allowing the trees to grow and reach their mature size. Further,the Hoag letter states that the PCDC calls for 38 trees in the combined three areas. This is correct but incomplete. The 38 trees must be planted in islands within the designated Area 7, 7a,and A2 parking areas. (See PCDC page 31.) Prior to the pursuit of corrective action to meet Hoag's non compliance with the PCDC there were 27 trees within islands in the prescribed areas,not 34 as claimed by Hoag. There are now 39 trees in the prescribed area, not 53 as claimed by Hoag. Villa Balboa will be happy to meet with Mr. Smith on site in the parking areas cited to allocate tree counts to their proper areas as prescribed by the PCDC and to show the placement schematics of the former 27 trees,a shortfall of 11 trees that were in place prior to the onset of corrective remedial procedures to reach compliance. (Hoag also fails to cite the vast under planting of the amount of landscaped vegetation required in the PCDC to react}the 5%mandated coverage in this parking area. Hoag's former coverage prior to 2015 was approximately 4°/",thus requiring an additional 25%of plantings) Hoag's Letter of May 5,pages 3 and 4 In Hoag's concluding remarks it cites the$12.7 million it has spent since 2008 meeting the requirements of the DA. Villa Balboa's analysis shows that approximately$8.1 million or 64"/0 of the expenditures occurred in the 2008-2009 period,mandated to address various noise related issues. Another portion of expenditures was committed prior to the onset of the agreement in 2008, $3.15 million, or 25%in development fees to the City of Newport Beach. Of the total $12.7 million a mere$75,000 was spent in 2014 addressing lower campus landscaping issues. This amounts to a negligible 0.59%of the total l This appears to be Hoag's testament to its emphasis on the importance of becoming compliant with lower campus landscaping issues. Villa Balboa will amplify the claims made herein at the hearing rescheduled for May 14,2015. Best-R-Ag -Xj, OF Nancy Knight,Vice-President,Villa Balboa Homeowners Association