Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaterials received after packet distributionMaterial(s) received after the Planning Commission packets were distributed, or received at the meeting. These material(s) were distributed to staff, Commissioners and made available to the public. SCANNED Varin, Ginger From: Campbell, James Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:30 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: Fw: Planning Commission hearing comments and response to email from Mr. Luehrs For tonight. James Campbell, Senior Planner - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Nancy Knight <nmknight @sbcglobal.net> To: Erik Thurnher <erik @physician- advisors.com>; jeff.cole @cushwake.com <jeff.cole @cushwake.com>; eaton727 @earthlink.net <eaton727 @earthlink.net >; rhawkins @earthlink.net <rhawkins @earthlink.net >; bhillgren @cox.net <bhillgren @cox.net >; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com <scott.peotter @taxfighter.com>; strataland @earthlink.net <strataland @earthlink.net> Cc: Lepo, David; Campbell, James; Rosansky, Steven; Selich, Edward; 'Michele Staples' <MStaples @jdtplaw.com >; Harp, Aaron Sent: Thu Feb 07 13:18:17 2008 Subject: Re: Planning Commission hearing comments and response to email from Mr. Luehrs Erik, as usual, you did an excellent job with this letter. Villa Balboa residents are certainly lucky to have you as a neighbor! Nancy Erik Thurnher <erik @physician - advisors.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Hawkins, We want to thank you and each of the other Planning Commissioners for taking the time last week to listen to so many residents of Villa Balboa and Newport Crest on the various issues surrounding Hoag's proposed entitlement transfer from the lower campus to the upper campus. Ultimately, the open flow of information benefits all parties, including Hoag, and We think it is a credit to the Planning Commission that you patiently gave every the citizen the opportunity to say their piece even though this meant the meeting did not conclude until the late hours of the evening. We think the Commissioners are to be commended for encouraging openness and communication, not criticized. We would also like to take a moment to respond to the comments made by Mr. Luehrs in his recent email to the Planning Commission: 1.) When Mr. Luehrs states that the cogeneration plant is an existing, approved facility and therefore should not be open to discussion, he misses several important points. First, the plant is out of the compliance with the current Development Agreement noise regulations, limiting noise at the property line from mechanical operations to 55 dBA. This was the clear conclusion reached by EQAC, and it was also the stated position of the Planning Department at the meeting with Hoag and the City on January 18th, and on other occasions. Since the current application by Hoag includes removing the current noise limit, the plant is certainly part of that application, and therefore is open to discussion. Second, while the plant was approved, it is widely recognized that the permitting process did not meet several critical requirements of the Development Agreement. The fact that Hoag did not disclose the plumes or noise levels to the Planning Department and Coastal Commission during the permitting process had far reaching consequences. (We would encourage members of the Planning Commission to review the "Advertisement for Bids" we recently provided to Assistant Attorney, Aaron Harp, which shows that the original design of the cogeneration plant did include plume abatement equipment. Sadly, Hoag chose to delete the equipment during construction of the plant.) Most importantly, there was no supplemental environmental impact report prepared even though such documentation is required by the Development Agreement when a new impact exists that was not addressed in the original EIR. Since the cooling tower, steam, and exhaust plumes were not considered, or even anticipated, in the original EIR, supplemental documentation should have been prepared. Further, the View Impact Analysis required by the Development Agreement did not include modeling of any of the three plumes. Lastly, the City Council, which was required by the Development Agreement to monitor view impacts each year, and to hold public 1 'hearings on this subject, was not at that time discharging this duty. It is clear from our conversations with City personnel that, if the Planning Department, Coastal Commission, City Council, and the public had known about the impacts that would be caused by the plant's operation, mitigation measures would certainly have been required. Also, Mr. Luehrs suggests that video of the plume exaggerates its impact. While no one is suggesting that the plume is always as dense as is shown in the video, there are hundreds of residents, who can attest to how severe it can be, particularly during the early morning and evening hours. We deeply regret Mr. Luehrs' attempt to discredit the severity of the plume and our presentation. We will have video of the plume available at tonight's hearing for anyone who wishes to examine it. We have also attached two brief clips to this email. 2.) While we won't attempt to comment on the logic of Mr. Luehrs arguments regarding noise mitigation and property values, we would point out that not a single resident at the Commission hearing raised the issue of the value of their property. Noise is first and foremost a quality of life issue, and the residents are simply asking that a full range of mitigation measures be considered, including those in the PC text and Development Agreement. Since Hoag is now asking to remove noise limits that have been in place for almost 15 years, this request hardly seems unreasonable. (Extending Mr. Luehrs' logic to the construction of the cogeneration plant would suggest that it should not have been built because the Villa Balboa condominiums were constructed first.) 3.) In reference to remarks made by residents, Mr. Luehrs said that he was surprised by "all the negativity." First, we would point out that, almost without exception, the residents who spoke prefaced their comments by acknowledging the benefits that Hoag brings to our community. Many related stories of their own personal connection to the hospital, and these were uniformly positive. Second, perhaps Mr. Luehrs should consider that the possibility that his "surprise" is more the result of his lack of experience with what life is like living next to the cogeneration plant, or to the loading dock, rather than to some flaw in the residents. The hospital is somewhat unusual for Newport Beach in that it is a "24/7/365" operation. It is has undergone tremendous growth in the last twenty years, something the residents strongly support. Accordingly, residents accept that some impacts are unavoidable. We only ask that, as is required in the Development Agreement and PC Text, and by good neighborliness, those impacts be mitigated as much as possible. Lastly, some background is in order regarding the organized discussions that having been going on between Hoag and its neighbors for almost two years. When those discussions began, our Committee told Hoag that our aim was to achieve a "Win - Win" outcome. If Hoag would help restore the quality of life of nearby residents and of those who use and enjoy Sunset View Park, then we would "go to bat" for them with respect to shifting square footage from the lower to upper campus. As a sign of our good faith, we promised not to go to the press, or to retain counsel while discussions were underway. We were pleased when Hoag hired Government Solutions to interface with us, as the quality and quantity of contact increased, and we were able to make progress on certain issues, such as landscaping. However, the most difficult problems, including the cogeneration plant, remained unresolved. Then, in late Summer, Hoag abruptly ended regular communication with us. The meetings that had been occurring on almost a monthly basis were halted, and Hoag stopped responding to our correspondence. We were particularly surprised that Dr. Afable did not did not respond to our letter thanking him for the progress made to date, and expressing our hope that Hoag would continue to work with us toward resolution of the remaining issues (see attached). When we approached Carol McDermott at Government Solutions, she said that she was no longer authorized to speak with us and that if we had concerns with this change, we should put them in writing. In any case, it is important to understand that the current situation was preceded by a prolonged effort by residents to engage Hoag in a neighborly discussion of some of the impacts its operations were having on those living nearby. With those efforts having largely failed to bear fruit, we now look forward to the participation of the Planning Commission and the City Council in the process. With their involvement, we are hopeful that a resolution can soon be reached which includes both Hoag achieving the entitlement transfer it is seeking, as well as the restoration of the quality of life for those who live near the hospital or who use and enjoy Sunset View Park. This would represent the "Win - Win" outcome we were hoping for when our Committee first approached Hoag almost two years ago. Sincerely, Erik W. Thurnher, MD Richard Runyon Co- Chairman Co- Chairman 2 '• 'Villa Balboa -Hoag Liaison Committee �CANNED September 10, 2007 Rk aadAWkMD,WH President & CEO HOMB Hospital OnsHosgDdve POHc,c6100 Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 Dear Dr. ABble, It has now been almost sic months since our committee met with you and selected members of your staffon April 4, 2007. In the isI i 1, time have been many developments related to the issues discussed at that meeting. Als% witb the meeting scheduled for Se:pterabw 24* between as common and various Hoag gym, we are approaching an ispOrps*Juncdare W our relationship. For these rasook We thongbtthis would be a good time to tondtbase with you agar, and to shoe ourthdxgMs. First, we would Mm to thank Hoag for steps that have been Woes in addressing a number of concerns of Villa Balbos residents. This includes the removal of certain trees on the lower carpus, whicdt has restored views frm the SameatView Part and Willa Balboa, and brougbt lower campus landscaping into compliance with the Planned Community Development Criteria on this madtex. We were also pleased to we the odnganeration Plant bang painted, as an interim step, print to the promised landscaping wbM we bave been assured will be put in plan along Pacific Cast i igbwmy and along the eastern side ofthe oogaamlum plmt (m the form of a vino - severed lattice wofk). These will be Welcome improvements to the appearance ofthe plant structure. lastly, we Welcome HOWIF Off0s to limit Ho,B employees fiem using oar property sod the Sua nt View Park fior smoldrtg All ofthese sup pa are appreciated by our residents and by those wbo visit the Sunset View Park. Looting froward, we are now sdlveduled to meet with Hoag per=ned, inchu�ng eogineering staff mesobaa, on September 24e to discuss several dartial items. While a number of imum fusels umeaoived, of particular' kV ftaaoe, in our view, are the "Dwing With the Habit series of meetings now appnxwhisg, and with so much at stabs, we hope that upcoming discossions between Hoag and Vila BaAwa will provide lasting solo ion to the problems noted above. Certainly, an aggressive and cove effort by Hoag to definitively address these prabkms world hells set a vary construchve i me fior our telstions* m the months and years ahead, while dearly demonstrating Hoses sensitivity and good neighborliness w the Siesto NewportDcat comet unky. As we stored to point Opt at our meetutg with yon, this k � kind of Win-Wi A outoome has ahvays been the goal of our committee. On this hopefid now we very much look forward Wthe solution and timetable Hoeg will be ptopoong in the next several wedcs on the remaining issuesbefure ua L. R Runyon Co-Chair Hoag SospiW Liaison Committee h: