Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/2008Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission February 7, 2008 Special Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 19 file:HY: \Users \PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mn02072008.htm 07/15/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, Hillgren and McDaniel - Il Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Janet Johnson Brown, Assistant Planner Ruby Garciamay, Department Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 1, 2008 HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 UBJECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2007 -073) PA2007 -073 One Hoag Drive Continued to ontinued hearing from January 31, 2008 for a request to reallocate up to 225,000 03/06/2008 ross square feet of permitted buildable area from the Lower Campus to the Upper ampus through the approval of the proposed General Plan and Planned Community Development Plan Amendments. Applicant also requests approval of amendments to development regulations contained within the existing Planned ommunity Development Plan, also known as the Hoag Master Plan or the PC Text. The changes principally relate to the allocation and limit of permitted building area between the Upper and Lower Campus, noise regulations, landscaping requirements and sign standards. Lastly, applicant requests an amendment of the existing Development Agreement to reflect the changes to the Master Plan as summarized above and to provide additional public benefits principally in the form of providing funds for improvements and community projects to public facilities uch as streets, parks, water quality and public safety facilities. Chairperson Hawkins indicated testimony was heard on virtually all aspects of the environmental and redevelopment agreement at the last meeting this item was heard and asked David Lepo, Planning Director, what this hearing and sta presentation will be focused on. file:HY: \Users \PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mn02072008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 I. Lepo indicated that noise issues surrounding the Hoag loading dock was mt concern to the residents at the last meeting. Consultant Fred Greve :stre Greve Associates agreed to prepare an independent analysis for the C :hin a week to present possible structural mitigation measures that could )vided around the Hoag loading dock to mitigate the noise impact, particula 280 and 260 Cagney Lane, two of the adjacent condominium buildings. T iependent analysis would give the Planning Commission, residents and Ho xesentatives the opportunity to hear Mr. Greve's presentation to understa d consider what mitigation measures they believe are feasible, effective a propriate. Also there were a couple of mitigation measures that the Planni immission may want to ultimately hear from the residents as to the acceptabil for example soundwalls. Hoag will be meeting with the residents within the nE Y weeks to get their opinions on some of the potential mitigation measur Dsented by Mr. Greve and hopefully by March 2008 the Commissioners v ow what measures are acceptable to the residents. to Mr. Greve arriving late Chairperson Hawkins asked for other items to essed by Mr. Jim Campbell, Senior Planner. Campbell indicated the items he wanted to discuss: . An update on discussions with Villa Balboa and Hoag regarding Cogeneration facility; . Lighting on the lower campus; . Information on the health risk assessment, particularly related to Legionella. Hawkins asked if the last item was in connection to the Campbell answered that it was connected to the facility. He continued 'ess each item individually. City has hired Fluor Corporation to provide the City with technical expertise Jng with Hoag's engineers to discuss the opportunities for plume and otl ;sion abatement for the cogeneration facility. These issues have be asked with Hoag without a resolution and are still being evaluated. Staff will Ling with Hoag and residents in the near future and will come back to emission with an update. Hawkins asked if staff would be ready sometime in March. Campbell answered that they hoped to be ready and continued with t end item concerning complaints with lighting on the lower campus. Ho Dred other lighting options and came up with a solution to change all of t watt metal halide lights, which were fairly bright, to a 250 watt high press .gym light which is more of a monochromatic light, such as our City strE a. Minimum lighting levels were provided in accordance with Illuminati neering Society of America, IES, a reputable source for this information. It !ved that this issue has been resolved. Other solutions were referenced 1 other locations where lighting would be changed. A motion sensor will �d to a light on cogen road for security purposes and will be similar to t r campus lighting. A timer will be installed on two lights located on the ch facility. Plans are being prepared by Hoag. Staff believes these changes v Ive the lighting issues in accordance with the Planned Community text a Page 2 of 19 file : //Y:1UserslPLNlShared\Planning CommissionlPC Minutes1mn02072008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 concerns. airman Hawkins asked if there will be a study documenting the change out forth in respect to the photo metrics. Campbell indicated there will be documentation per the requirements of lation measures and the Planned Community text. Greve of Mestre Greve Associates, noise consultant for the EIR arrived -nt and discuss his noise mitigation plan. Mr. Greve wanted to clarify th is not set in stone and input from Commissioners and residents has not bei ved. The plan has not been completely engineered in all aspects but feels tl is a detailed plan and addresses the noise issues along the residential area. Greve made a PowerPoint presentation noting the following: • Displayed exhibit indicating where Hoag Road, residential buildings, dock, West Tower and Ancillary Building are located; • Mechanical equipment noise coming from Ancillary and West To% Building mainly at night. There is a 55 dBA criteria at the property line wh is currently being exceeded; . Equipment on roof is fairly old and appeared to Mr. Greve that equipm was probably installed before residents were here with no consideration sound or noise; • Install 7 foot sound wall along edge of Ancillary building rooftop (faci residential buildings). Sound wall will help mitigate the noise from exhaw fans and other equipment on roof. Most of this equipment will be replaced; • Square building in the middle of roof of Ancillary building referred to as "dog house" extends up above the roof about 10 feet. All big fan units be replaced with newer, quieter, slower spinner operating fans. The " house" will be completely rebuilt and soundproofed; . Exhaust fans currently vents out towards the residences and can relocated on the back side of roof; • A lot of large mechanical equipment on second floor of building at Tower will be moved up to roof or stay; . The side of West Tower building (facing residential buildings) is an opi concrete grill. Sound louvers will be placed in the areas where equipment pulling or exhausting air out of and for other parts of the grill that do not ha, equipment pointing through them will be closed off; • Some of the major equipment will be removed from the roof; . Loading Dock is mainly day -time problem. Trucks are limited for hours. Trucks range from small delivery trucks to 18 wheelers; . Noise measurements show noise levels have been generated primarily the trucks consisting of their engines, exhaust, brakes, backup beeps loading and unloading of material, trash compactor, bailer and sterilizer; Page 3 of 19 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn02O72008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 . In order to get any significant noise reduction the truck noise must addressed; . The back wall of the loading dock area be covered with sound abs( wall panels to eliminate noise from bouncing off this back wall and over to the residents. The idea of the sound absorption panel eliminate those reflections towards the residents; . Sterilizer located outside on the dock is proposed to be moved indoors. T would take the noise of the sterilizer engine and activity associated with it; . Waste compaction system proposed to be enclose with walls and roof; . Another source of noise comes from the trucks that haul the waste away to 3 times a week; . Cardboard compaction system, commonly referred to as the bailer, also be enclosed in a structure with a roof. Greve stated that these measures help with th EIR, but not with the truck nois( is looking for a solution that addresses that issue. It was pointed out that )osed soundwall along Hoag Road will be discussed and that some of thes( asures mentioned may not be needed or may need to be reduced a bit if ndwall were to be installed because it would be a redundant noise mitigation Greve continued with PowerPoint presentation: . Displayed exhibit indicating where Hoag Road, curb line near area and loading dock area are located; . One suggestion would be a loading dock enclosure. Hawkins asked if the enclosure would have an exhaust fan. Greve indicated a new noise source would be created based on the following: . A large exhaust fan would probably have to be used for such a big building; . Truck noise generated by engine and truck exhaust running inside; . Trucks backing into the enclosure; . Noise will be directed to residents at dock level; . The main generator of noise in loading dock area is not addressed truck noise is outside of the enclosure for so much of the time. iairperson Hawkins asked if sound attenuation could be placed inside loading dock enclosure to dampen reflective noise. Greve stated if enclosure were lined with absorbent material any n cted from inside loading dock would be muffled but would not stop the en! located outside of dock. Concern was expressed that noise may rased due to trucks taking longer to navigate into the structure. Mr. Gi Page 4 of 19 file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn02072008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 Page 5 of 19 with Power Point presentation: . Displayed aerial photo showing adjacent property owners in relation loading dock; . Residents located on the first and second floor have a clean line of site i the structure and the third floor is just above roof line of dock enclosure; . The enclosure will not help noise issues unless door is closed; . Door enclosure will be fairly quiet utilizing seals and rubber wheels, standard doors. >mmissioner McDaniel questioned what kind and how high greenery is as sho, aerial adjacent residential properties and if it provides sound attenuation. AI there are any suggestions that may be added to assist with the sou Greve indicated greenery to be 18 feet to 32 feet of shrubbery and does not Jide any sound attenuation. Mr. Greve will explain the sound wall perspective �r he concludes his discussion of safety issues with the loading dock. • Trucks will be located on Hoag Road longer; • Issue of trucks backing up into the facility and not hitting a post or wall; • Cost. Greve addressing soundwall perspective: . Displayed exhibit showing loading dock area, southerly building of 280 Cagney Lane and northerly building of 280 Cagney Lane and proposed location of soundwall; . The soundwall concept addresses all noise sources generated from loading dock; . Soundwall height would start at 18.5 feet (northerly building), 23 feet t towards the middle (southerly building) and back down to a 17 feet tall at other and away from the loading dock; . There will be a vertical break and not a gradual incline at the 17 foot of the soundwall; . The main area of wall at the southerly building would be 23 feet high; . The height of the wall at 23 feet is high enough to protect all of the soy building at first, second and third floor and would bring the noise levels to the noise ordinance limits. . The Northerly building is set up higher on a pad and foundation that is higher. The 18.5 foot portion of soundwall would only protect the first and brings the noise levels down to the noise ordinance limits; file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC MinuteAran020720081tm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 . The second and third floor levels of the northerly building are not and would require a 35.5 foot high wall; . Soundwall would be adjacent to the roadway, set in about 3 feet to 5 from where the curb is right now; . Yellow line referenced on exhibit is a property line and wall would not sit property line; . The soundwall is made of an exterior perforated plastic or resin mesh acoustic absorptive solid insulation type material in the middle; . Traditional Soundwall would consist of concrete masonry block wall and tl height of Soundwall would require a huge footing to support such a wall. would be very expensive because it would need to be heavily reinforced; . The advantages of proposed sound wall is it could be built very high having a huge footing; . Vegetation and utilities would not be disturbed; . The soundwall comes in an assortment of colors. Green may be a c color choice to blend in with the vegetation and be less apparent to residences; • Soundwall absorbs noise where concrete does not. on Hawkins asked how tall is vegetation behind wall, will wall and who is the manufacturer of wall. Campbell answered vegetation adjacent to wall ranges between 25 feet and feet high with a small portion at 18 feet. The majority of vegetation would N it the height of the proposed wall. Proposed wall would be screened an( letation will be preserved. Greve indicated the product is called Sound Fighter and is a new product. - iufacturer provided credible test data. Also soundwall has been approved rrans for use of their projects. Hawkins asked if Mr. Greve knew where CalTrans has installed Greve indicated he did not and continued with his presentation addressing )nd and third floors of the northerly building not being protected by idwall. iirperson Hawkins asked for confirmation of how many units are involved sound attenuation for the northerly building. Greve indicated there are 12 units which includes the first, second and thi and continued: . Proposing two sound proofing measures and sometimes a third measure; Page 6 of 19 file : //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning COmmission\PC Minutes\m102072008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 . First mitigation measure would be to extend existing outside balconies tempered glass to an estimated 5 feet or 6 feet height and 3/8" thick; . Noise exposure measured from this building is 63.4 from the loading area. They are only about 3.5 DB above daytime ordinance criteria; . The second mitigation measure would be to upgrade windows with do pane, high - performance windows. Windows are specifically acoustic windows which will provide more of a benefit from the standard double window; . Existing windows and sliding glass doors would not have to be upgraded balcony barriers installed; . Looking at an improvement by 3.5 dBA inside with the windows closed. Th is not huge increase but should be noticeable by residents; . The 3.5 dBA is equivalent to what would happen if the loading dock brought down to compliance with the noise ordinance; . Sometimes a third mitigation measure would be used. Half of the units cedar siding and the other half have stucco siding; . Units with exterior cedar siding walls have to be upgraded. Hoag need to add an extra layer of "special" gypsum board to the i specifically designed to stop sound from going through the wall. Quiet and Suppress are names of such products. Hawkins asked where are wall improvements located. Greve indicated that that it involves every other unit beginning with corner unit. imissioner Toerge asked if similar window treatments would be done in the southerly building and why wouldn't the same height wall be used in this area. Greve indicated window treatments would not be required because dwall would be high enough to protect those units and due to the g •ence a 35.5 foot wall would be required to protect all three stories. Mr. G !d the correct wall measurement is 27 feet. missioner Toerge questioned if residents have viewed these measures and wanted a wall in front of their balconies or not. Greve indicated he has not addressed the residents with these measures. irperson Hawkins asked Mr. Campbell if vegetation is currently higher than located near the northerly building. Campbell confirmed the 18 foot segment of the wall would be lower then ti station and closer to the northerly building. The proximity of this location is tight and raising the wall to 27 feet would be fairly costly for one more flo too close. This is why 18.5 feet is suggested with the upgrade of the intedoi g has agreed to do these improvements and residents still have to agree ;pt these improvements. Page 7 of 19 file: / /Y: \Users \PLMShared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \nm02O72008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 person Hawkins asked if the enclosure of the bailer and trash compactor sound attenuation inside the building. Greve confirmed there would be. irperson Hawkins asked about the noise issue of idling trucks along the g area referenced in the environmental document. The grease trap cle is a couple of hours and the engines are running before that time. Also if a requirement to limit the idling to the actual functioning of the cleanout + attenuate some of the sound? Greve indicated the grease trap area is located next to the Ancillary bulk ;ks are idling and revving their engines to run the pumps and pump out ise trap. Mr. Greve agreed that limiting the idling and shortening the dura Id help. Lepo asked for an overview of increased and decreased decibel the following measures: . Potential loading dock cover; . Soundwall effect for 280 Cagney Lane, southerly building; . Upgrade to balconies and exterior walls for 260 Cagney Lane, building. Greve stated: . For the southerly building there would only be a fraction of a decibel i reduction if the loading dock enclosure was used. The residences at th southerly building are impacted the most due to trucks constantly bein outside and located so close to the residences; . There would be a 3 decibel reduction for the northerly building if was used; . The loading dock noise that was measured for the southerly building was dBA higher than the noise ordinance criteria. Noise levels exceeded tt LEQ noise criteria by more than what the LMAX criteria was exceed by; . The proposed soundwall would get more than 8 dBA. The soundwall designed for 10 dBA; . The balconies barriers at northerly building would get at least a 5 reduction where only 3.5 is needed; . The windows and wall upgrades to the northerly building would indoor noise by 3.5 dBA. arson Hawkins asked if all four potential sound attenuation mitiga' es would be provided together or separately for the northerly building locations Greve answered that all of the following would be installed together: Page 8 of 19 file: / /Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn02O72008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 . Soundwall; . Balcony barriers; . Acoustic double -pane windows; . Wall upgrades (if required), also referred as the "magic wall ". r. Greve also indicated that the trash compactor is currently planned on being iclosed structure. This would be a fairly expensive structure and Hoag has ast constructing a wall around the compactor instead of an enclosed structure wo considered. The walls would be sound attenuated and would probably be ma `the same material as the Sound Fighter. Mr. Greve also commented that Hoe iquest seemed very reasonable because the soundwall on the property line s ie other proposed measures would stop the noise from the trash compactor. person Hawkins asked how much noise, if any, would spill over through the open enclosure. Greve answered he did not have specific numbers because it would vary lion and noise levels that come over the top of that barrier will be stopped Cher barrier. Also, trash compactor is not that loud. mmissioner Toerge asked if enclosure for trash compactor and sterilizer - natives or do they go with the wall ave answered that Hoag is committed to moving the sterilizer inside and posed the trash compactor would either be completely enclosed or surrouni a soundwall. . Campbell added to the discussion of the enclosure to the loading dock. T and attenuation was not the only factor looked into. There was almost gligible benefit to the southerly building and a very modest benefit to t rtherly building of under three decibels. Based on Greve's analysis staff h me to the conclusion that this was an extremely expensive building on the on: ten million dollars and would provide negligible acoustic benefit. This being iHPD facility it would have to go through their review, withstand a seismic eve d buildings would have to be upgraded. Staff is not recommending tl insure. Hoag engineers would be able to assist with additional questions a Cline the details as to why this building would cost so much. Campbell added one other factor to the discussion of the enclosure to th ing dock. Another option noted in the EIR was a full enclosure across We: g Road with large doors on each end. West Hoag Road would have to remai i as a fire lane all day and all the noise will pour out at each end not providin h mitigation in those areas. This would be a much larger facility and mor msive then the ten million dollar enclosure. Staff is not recommending thi m Hawkins asked what was the noise reduction with the loading for the northerly and southerly building. Greve answered less then half of a decibel noise reduction for the Ling and about 3 decibel for the northerly building. Hawkins asked Mr. Campbell for the acronyms in connection with Page 9 of 19 file: / /Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn02O72008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 review and if the soundwall would have to go through the same review I loading dock, such as withstanding seismic events and so forth. _angston Trigg, Vice President for Facilities, Design and Construction at f ndicated OSHPD stands for The Office of Statewide Health Planning Campbell indicated the soundwall would not be an OSHPD facility and reviewed by the Building Department. Eaton asked about the location of the soundwall • How close will it have to be to the curb; • Will there be any room left for landscaping between the curb and wall; • Per the aerial photograph a portion at the northerly end, where the Ic height soundwall is located, appeared to not have much room between soundwall and the curb; . Would soundwall be able to withstand the possibility of trucks running into as they try to back in and out of the loading dock. Ir. Campbell's response: • Soundwall would be placed several feet away from curb on Hoag for landscaping; • Utilities would not be relocated; • Several feet would be provided for landscaping and buffering on the side; . Majority of landscaping can be preserved; • Trimming of landscaping in some areas would be necessary to clearance for all the new material; • Existing landscaping is taller then the soundwall; . Landscaping would provide the visual softening on the back side of the wall; . Staff will discuss with Hoag to consider replanting trees or vines for trees lost; . Staff will confirm with all parties that the design of the soundwall appropriate; . Sound Fighter system will be bolted to the ground in concrete, rebar and beams and acoustic Panels will slide in place; • The northerly portion of the soundwall, closest to the curb, would be feet off of the property line and several feet away from West Hoag leaving enough room for landscaping on the Villa Balboa side and i Page 10 of 19 file : //Y:1UserslPLN\Shared\Planning CommissionlPC Minutes\mn02072008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 little bit of room on Hoag's property. Staff and Hoag have surveys to measurements. Greve stepped in with the following: • Mr. Greve noted that the structure uses a panel system and can be fairly easily by replacing a damaged panel. ;inner Hawkins asked for confirmation from Mr. Greve that Call subject soundwall and noted that CalTrans builds structures that last. Greve answered that CalTrans does use such structures and tures that last is one of their prime considerations. sioner Eaton asked for clarification as to how far the curb was from line at the northerly end. Campbell indicated that surveys are available and handed out a Prelimin, roachment Sketch to the Commissioners for their review and proceeded ver Commissioner Eaton's question based on preliminary sketch: • 4.7" from curb to property line and 16.9" from property line to the corner of the northern building; • 5.5" from curb to property line and 34.4" from property line to the corner of the northern building. iissioner Toerge asked, in reference to an aerial photo, which side of wall would trees be located on and commented that it would make n to landscape the Villa Balboa side for he did not see what purpose it we to landscape the Hoag side of the soundwall. Campbell indicated there is an existing chain link fence on the Hoag { from his walk- throughs of the site he believes that the majority Iscapinq is on the Villa Balboa side. Brooks, Project Manager for Hoag Hospital and registered lands, eat, made the following comments on issues concerning the soundwall massing: • Plant massing on Hoag's side is not an issue and should be for homeowners; . Hoag's intent would be to place the soundwall in a manner that appropriate to maintain the plant material; • Hoag can add plant material or some massing to enhance the areas that missing vegetation; • Distances allow for mature substantial planting appropriate for area; • Soundwall can accommodate vines on the Villa Balboa side but not on Hoag side; e Vines would soften the element of the structure even more so; Page 11 of 19 file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn02O72008.httn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 Page 12 of 19 . 14 foot trees in 48" boxes could be planted such as evergreens; . Subject to approval of soundwall Hoag is proposing to stake and stor the entire length of the proposed structure. This is scheduled to be within the next two weeks. immissioner Toerge commented on the pending discussion by Hoag Engineers discuss the merits and non - merits of the cost and effectiveness of the enclosec iding dock. From his standpoint he requested that this matter not be hearc cause it did not appear to be a viable solution. missioner Hillgren questioned the dashed line that appeared to run below tt ominium buildings, as shown on the Preliminary Encroachment sketch, and were built over an easement. Campbell confirmed that the blue dashed line indicated a 30 -foot wide ac -lment granted to Hoag Hospital in 1948 for roadway purposes and that )oa buildings do encroach within that area. imissioner Cole noted that the original PC text required a noise level not and 55 decibels on all property lines of Hoag and that there have bel Sequent noise ordinance standards that the City has instigated. h arstanding is that the proposed language would read that noise levels I -lased in certain times of the day for the areas outside of the loading doc ad on the determination of the loading dock enclosure being negligible and measure were taken out, what would the net maximum decibel level be for tl ing dock and mechanical equipment area? Mr. Campbell was requested ,ess the standards and Mr. Greve to address the numbers. r. Campbell answered there is only one standard in the Planned Community >plicable to mechanical equipment which is 55 decibels at the property line. irrent noise ordinance was adopted subsequent to the PC Text. Greve stepped in with the following in reference to noise levels for the loadinf k and all peripheral areas: . Criteria for loading dock noise would be the City's noise ordinance standard; . This would be the daytime limit for mixed residential uses; . 60 LEQ or 60 averaged over a 15 minute period; . 80 maximum sound level (Instantaneous maximum sound level could exceed 80). sioner Cole asked with all the proposed mitigation measures (soundwall barriers, acoustic double pane windows and wall grades, if required) wha e maximum numbers be? :ve answered they are trying to bring the noise levels down below the curr uirements of 55 decibels for mechanical noise and down below 60 LEQ and IAX for the loading dock. soner Cole asked if the proposed loading dock enclosure was would the other mitigation measures accomplish this? file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn02O72008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 answered yes Hawkins asked if applicant wanted to come forward to comment. I McDermott of Government Solutions representing Hoag Hospital, sta agree with presented information and are please to have opportunity to w residents on a solution. They have requested to meet with the residents .nary 19, 2008, and have scheduled the story-poles to be set up prior to son Hawkins encouraged residents to address their availability to with the applicant. blic comment was opened: resa Klongie, Villa Balboa resident, stated she was not affected by n( ause she is in the middle of the property but supports the residents. Dec •mation obtained from the internet and based on Environmental Protec ncy levels was referenced. A comment was made on the input she gave at meeting for the Hoag traffic signal at Placentia and Hospital Road. son Hawkins informed the resident that currently the City did not have n to approve this project and there will be another public hearing this issue. Hart, 49 Balboa Coves, is not impacted by the noise that Villa Balboa :ncing. She expressed that the cogen plant is a safety factor for the City a it was built she had concerns of methane gas coming from facility. A Chen, 280 Cagney building and representing two of his tenants in the Iney building, expressed his concern about Hoag noise and the decibels le being reduced enough with proposed mitigation measures. He also questio r Hoag will address noise impacts related to the continuing expansion of er campus. )n Hawkins asked if Mr. Chen would be in favor of the measures and would he be comfortable with the soundwall. Chen would be in favor of real mitigation measures that would not harm tyles or affect the health of the residents. He also stated that it would not m ae to spend fifteen million on a solution that is not viable. The agreement u ingent on the fact of sound reduction occurring after the soundwall would Hawkins asked if he would accept the other sound Chen said they would be reasonable measures if they are effective; HOA rules sound paneling may not be placed on the exterior of the out modifying the building. person Hawkins asked Mr. Greve to clarify that this would be for the and the exterior walls will remain the same. Hacker, 260 building, second -story tenant indicated she did not hear 8 years ago that she is now experiencing. Her main complaint is the Page 13 of 19 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn02072008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 :up beeping noise and feels that the upgraded wall would not help the sea third levels. She suggested other alternative measures for the loading dock ed into such as awnings, soundproof canvas, tent structure or tunnel area. person Hawkins asked for her opinion of the soundwall and if she was i of the other mitigation measures. Hacker answered she was in approval of the soundwall if it worked; howev didn't feel the other measures would work because sound would spill over tl ony and the noise does not go through her walls but only when her window i and she does not want to keep it closed. than Askari, 210 Lido Lane, questioned the validity of the soundwall. He di k CalTrans would use such a wall and requested the CalTrans locations. jested review of data calculated by Mr. Greve in order to respond to it. dy Kaiser, 270 building, concerned with soundwall noise absorption an( ested other cost effective options for sound deadening material be explored. expressed her concern about Hoag noise standard not reduced. in Hawkins indicated that per Mr. Greve's independent study, soundwall material would absorb the noise. irgreta Klassen, 230 Lido Lane, Unit 212, indicated she has experienced a construction noise. Her specialty is stress management and wanted to point it noise causes stress. Sherman, 280 Building, expressed his opposition to the design of the cog( it. It was requested that the liaison for Villa Balboa be contacted before at struction begins to give their input. He asked that a written agreement t sidered indicating that square footage not be increased at the lower campus are footage is transferred to the upper campus. He also had a complaint wi lights were at the child care center shining into his residence. Car alarms at is was his main concern with noise. Steinburker, expressed her concern of future expansion not and that the noise mitigation measures address only the current ,erson Hawkins noted that this was a good point and will ask the ress this issue. -Ile Ribaudo, 260 Cagney building, indicated she is not effected by noise but support of all her neighbors. She did not like the design of the cogen plant al is concerned with the emissions coming from it. Pfershy, 260 Building, is against the soundwall. Hawkins asked her what her current view was from her unit. Pfershy answered she could see vegetation from her living room and anything when outside. and Runyon, co -chair with Eric Thurner of the Villa Balboa /Hoag Liai: imittee made reference to lighting at the lower parking campus. The lights child care center shine outward into neighboring residences and he s Page 14 of 19 file:HY: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mn02O72008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 imented on sound issues. He suggested that Hoag provide samples o ndwall material at the meeting for the homeowners to look at and to have the alts of the study for their sound engineers to review. He also commented tha length of the soundwall ends midway at the 260 building and does not provide 3ation measures from the truck noise on other portions of West Hospital Road. hele Staples, Law firm of Jackson Demarco, representing Villa Balboa, following comments: • Hoag's failure to comply with previously imposed conditions and measures; . The City's failure to carry out previously approved and required and enforcement; • Request that any proposed noise mitigation include clear performar standards, enforcement provisions and a procedure that will be followed the event that the noise standards are exceeded; • Request for information on the infeasibility of enclosing the loading area included in the public record and be made available for additional anall because that was a measure that was committed to by Hoag and impo: by the City; . Supported the comment made by previous speaker that other materials methods be looked at for enclosing the loading dock. istina Andres, 950 Cagney Lane, wanted to know why the cogen plant nds off and what does it mean. Hawkins indicated that a Hoag representative will address this Thurner, Co -chair of Villa Balboa Hoag /Liaison committee commented t oe was the main issue and expressed the importance of notifying all prope iers in a timely manner to insure their availability to participate in the upcom ig presentation. He asked if a summary of all the different mitigatic asures be provided before the meeting. He expressed his concern of ndwall and the consideration of looking into other sound absorbing measur > requested story poles to be left in place for a couple of days. He added t Villa Balboa residents are not against Hoag's proposed expansion and supp r growth but wants to insure that all possible mitigations measures are taken both residents and Hoag benefit overtime. rperson Hawkins answered there is a proposal to make the st Ilation for the suggested soundwall a multi -day event. Chairman d the Villa Balboa representatives when they were going to have a Hoag Hospital. is comment was closed. Hawkins addressed some of the questions asked during the . EPA noise levels for both for residential and hospitals; Page 15 of 19 file : / /Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn02O72008.htrn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 . What were the current noise standards and what will the standards be proposed noise mitigation. Greve answered with the following: . The EPA document is an advisory. City noise levels are mandatory limits are not supposed to be exceeded as opposed to ideal goals; . Current standards are 55 dBA at the property line for mechanical noise; . 60 dBA for the loading dock noise; . Loading dock noise has a maximum level of 80 dBA, applies residents; . Proposing to bring mechanical levels below 55 dBA; . Proposing to bring loading dock noise below 60 dBAfor outdoor areas Villa Balboa. mmissioner Eaton noted that both Mr. Campbell and Mr. Greve referred to the DB limit as applying only to mechanical equipment. The actual sentence state; ise shall not exceed 55 dBA at all property lines." Although it is within the agraph that talks about mechanical appurtenances both before or after. mmissioner Eaton also noted that he had not heard this interpretation befon t that 55 dBA is strictly limited to only mechanical appurtenances and asked i was an official City interpretation. m Harp, Assistant City Attorney, answered that this interpretation is that the 55 dBA standard applies only to mechanical equipment. missioner Hawkins referenced the concern of the lights at the child c ar and noted that Mr. Campbell indicated the lighting would come down on r level and asked if these issues addressed the child care center. Also if tt anyway to shield the lights. Campbell answered yes and at this time, Hoag proposes to have the lights childcare center shut off at 8:00 pm. He has discussed the light shields v g and can continue with more discussions but indicated the lights assary to provide lighting for a child's play area and are necessary to prov quate lighting for walkways and security. missioner Hawkins asked if the same type of lighting used on the could be utilized at the child care center. Campbell answered the intent was not to ing on the child care facility is a completely Dnt lighting is better for security. change the style of lighting. different type of lighting and imissioner Peotter asked if the Sound Fighter System would be evaluate :ilevered type position as a way to increase the effectiveness of the wall H allowing light to come down to that first and second floor, particularly for hedy building. A report was requested for next meeting. Pehrson, of CDM, prepared the health risk assessment for the EIR gave Page 16 of 19 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn02072008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 and distributed a Legionella handout: . Legionella is a commonly found bacteria; . Concern was cooling tower systems and water systems; . Cooling towers systems are treated to prevent the growth of Legionella; . Experts indicate it may not be cooling tower plumes that cause most of cases of Legionella; . Hoag currently treating cooling tower water with three different guidelines. . Guidelines developed by a firm specializing in water treatment and control contaminates; . County of Orange Health Care Agency list indicates there have not be any cases of Legionellosis cases in Orange County for the past three year. Hawkins asked if Mr. Pehrson was familiar with the Pehrson answered with the following: . Indicated he is the consultant who prepared the health risk assessment air toxins; . Analyzed facility for air toxin contaminates; • Looked at all of the sources that produced the air toxins that are listed by State of California which are primarily the combustion sources; . Analyzed the impacts of both the carcinogenic compounds that come out the combustion sources as well as the other toxin compounds; . Analyzed both proposed future expansion and the entire cogen facility utility plans and compared the health risk results of those sources to South Coast Air Quality Management District's threshold; . The proposed units were below the ten in a million threshold for projects; . Entire facility was below the twenty -five and a million threshold; . Handout lists all the contaminates for each of the sources that analyzed. er Hawkins asked for Mr. Pehrson's opinion on the concerns of emitted from one of the facilities. Pehrson answered there are known carcinogenic substances emitted from bustion of natural gas in various units on the campus and also emitted f emobiles and anything else that combusts fuel. All of the compounds that d by the State of California as being emitted from combustion of ei Page 17 of 19 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn02072008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 gency diesel engines, cogen engines, or boilers; all of those units have zed following the guidance from the EPA on how to address health risk compounds. Hawkins asked if the current operations were below the Pehrson answered that it is below thresholds set by SCAQMD carci chronic risk for non - carcinogens and the acute risk for all of the con itted. ssioner Eaton asked if the analysis was based on six internal gas powered engines. Pehrson answered yes. issioner Peotter asked what does Hoag do with the methane and noted th is not getting their natural gas from underneath the ground but having Hawkins asked if methane gas could be burned r. Pehrson answered yes. Brooks, Project Manager for Hoag Hospital, indicated: Methane is accumulated and piped to both plants and used to run boilers this time; . There is a small flare at the lower campus enclosed in a structure; . The waste is burnt off. ier Cole noted the comment made by a resident that methane Balboa Coves and other areas. Brooks was not privy to methane leaking through sidewalks. Curre lane is gathered at the lower campus and then taken to the upper campus. lston Trigg, Vice President for Facilities, Design and Construction at led out that Hoag does gather methane, not only from their site but from st Highway. They received an engineering award for gathering the me reducing the danger to the neighborhood. Hawkins asked how is methane gathered. Trigg answered it was gathered by a perforated pipe system. ssioner McDaniel expressed his disappointment that many "conci its that gave public comment are gone. The City is trying to resolve for everyone involved. immissioner Peotter commented his appreciation with Hoag's willingness wt with the residents outside of the hearing process and encourages reside get involved. Page 18 of 19 file:HY: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn02O72008.htrn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/07/2008 Page 19 of 19 Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissione Cole to continue this hearin to March 6, 2008. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - None b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairman Hawkins noted he was not able to attend the meeting of the executive session C. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee - None d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - None a. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - None Project status - None g. Requests for excused absences - None ADJOURNMENT: 8:59 p.m. [ADJOURNMENT BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file:HY: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn02072008.htm 07/15/2008