HomeMy WebLinkAboutHoag Healthcare Center - 500-540 Superior Ave - PA2006-113CITY,OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: 6
December 7, 2006
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, (949) 644 -3209
imurillo &- citv.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Hoag Healthcare Center
Use Permit No. 2006 -010
Traffic Study No. 2006 -001
Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2006 - 101105)
500 -540 Superior Avenue (PA2006 -113)
APPLICANT: Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and approve Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006 -001 by adopting the
attached draft resolution.
Environmental Review
As stated in the November 16, 2006 Planning Commission staff report, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by Keeton Kreitzer Consulting for the
proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached was Exhibit 3 to the prior staff
report package.
The MND was circulated for public review between October 16 and November 14, 2006.
Comments were received from the California State Department of Transportation,
Rosamond U. Hall, the City of Costa Mesa, Leibold, McClendon & Mann, P.C.,
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Richard Smith and the Southern California
Association of Governments. Responses to these comments have been prepared for
consideration (Exhibit 2). Adoption of the MND by the Planning Commission after public
hearing is required prior to approval of the Use Permit and Traffic Study.
Hoag Healthcare Center (PA 2006 -113)
December 7, 2006
Page 2 of 3
Revised Resolution
Based on comments received on the draft resolution, staff has revised the resolution to
include a number of corrections and clarifications. The following changes were made to
the resolution:
1. Title of resolution now clarifies that the Planning Commision is adopting a MND.
2. The 4th WHERAS was added clarifying that the project is consistent with the
prior Land Use Element designation of General Industry (GI) and variable floor
area limitation.
3. The 7th WHEREAS now identifies from whom comments were received
regarding the MND.
4. The 8k' WHEREAS identifies the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan
(MMRP).
5. The 9th WHEREAS was added to clarify that the applicant is responsible for
bearing the expense of any judicial challenge of the CEQA determination.
6. The 11th WHEREAS, 1st point, corrected a reference to the current General Plan
Land Use Designation of the site as CO -M (old GP designation of General
Industry was accidentally cited).
7. The previous draft resolution included the standard conditions and mitigation
measures of the MMRP as part of the conditions of approval. However, for
clarification and to formally adopt the MMRP as a separate document, the
complete MMRP has now been incorporated into the draft resolution as Exhibit
"A" and the project conditions of approval are now attached as Exhibit'B ".
In addition to the above changes to the text of the draft resolution, the following
conditions were added to the project per the recommendation of the City Attorney's
Office and as stated in the response to comments:
21. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers,
employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands,
obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines,
penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's
fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which
may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of
the Hoag Healthcare Center Project including, but not limited to, the approval of
Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006 -001; and /or the City's
Hoag Healthcare Center (PA 2006 -113)
December 7, 2006
Page 3 of 3
related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and /or the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the Hoag Healthcare Center Expansion Project. This
indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the
City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in
connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether
incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such
proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs,
attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification
provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon
demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification
requirements prescribed in this condition.
22. Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the applicant shall undertake and
complete an asbestos survey and lead -based paint survey to determine the
presence of asbestos and lead -based paint. If it is determined that ACM and /or
LBP exists in the structures to be demolished, abatement of the ACM and LBP
shall occur prior to demolition of the existing structure. All work undertaken by,
the contractor shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1402 related to the .disturbance
of ACM, as well as the storage and disposal of ACM. The contractor's
responsibilities shall include proper notification, removal techniques for ACM,
clean -up procedures, and waste storage and disposal.
23. If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the
proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code,
Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California
Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5).
24. If contaminated soils are encountered during demolition, site preparation, and /or
construction activities associated with project implementation, such activities
shall cease and appropriate health and safety procedures shall be prescribed
and implemented. No further work shall be undertaken until such time as it can
be shown to the responsible regulatory agency that the public would not be
exposed to a potential health hazard.
Prepared by:
Jirime Murillo, Associate Planner
Exhibits
1. Revised Draft Resolution of Approval
2. Response to Public Comments
Submitted by:
a.
via L , Planning Dir r
EXHIBIT 1
Revised Draft Resolution of Approval
q
RESOLUTION NO. _
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ° .
STUDY NO. 2006 -001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 -040
SUPERIOR AVENUE (PA2006 -113).
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC
requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006 -001, with
respect to properties located at 500 -540 Superior Avenue, more specifically located west
of Newport Boulevard, east of Superior Avenue, and north of Dana Road, to allow the
conversion of 97,000 square feet of research and development (R &D) /general office
use to medical office use. The, request also includes the demolition of am existing
building and the construction of an additional parking structure that exceeds the:
maximum building bulk limitation for the site. Additionally, the applicant requests
approval of a traffic study pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing
Ordinance (TPO); and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 7, 2006 in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the meting was given in accordance with the Municipal Cade.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, the proposed medical office use, pursuant to the conditions which it
will be operated and maintained, is consistent with the Medical Commercial Office (CO-
M) land use designation of the 2006 Updated General Plan Land Use Element, which
provides primarily for medical- related offices, other professional offices, retail, short-
term convalescent and long -term care facilities, research labs, and similar uses. The
project site, in particular, is allocated a precise development limitation of 350,000
square feet of floor area. The proposed intensity of development with the demolition of
an existing 89,079 square foot building and the proposed medical office use is
consistent with this designation; and
5
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 2 of 17
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the M -1 -A (Controlled
Manufacturing) zoning district which provides for a wide range of moderate to low intensity
industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. Business
and Professional Office uses are permitted within the M-1 -A zone, with the exception that
medical offices require the approval of a use permit. The proposed project is consistent
with this designation and complies with all development standards with the exception of
building bulk. With the implementation of the new CO -M land use designation, the zoning
of the site will change to one that will facilitate medical office use and the project should
not conflict with future zoning implementation; and
WHEREAS, a traffic study for the proposed project has been prepared and
approved in compliance with Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code for the following reasons:
1. A traffic study, entitled, "City of Newport Beach, Hoag Healthcare Center Traffic
Impact Analysis dated September 27, 2006" was prepared by Kunzman
Associates for the project in compliance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal
Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance).
2. Trip generation rates were developed from two sources. The City of Newport
Beach trip generation rates are derived from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis
Model ( "NBTAM ") and were used for analysis of Newport Beach intersections.
The City of Costa Mesa trip generation rates are derived from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, r Edition (2003) and were used for
evaluation of Costa Mesa intersections. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance ( "TPO ")
analysis was required only for primary intersections in the City of Newport Beach.
For the purposes of studying the cumulative impacts, the traffic study analyzed
intersections in the City of Costa Mesa, utilizing the ITE trip generation rates.
3. The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic on eight of nine
studied primary intersections in the City of Newport Beach by one percent (1 %)
or more during peak hour periods one year after the completion of the project.
4. Utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that the eight primary
intersections identified will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service as
defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and no mitigation is required.
5. The traffic study also performed a cumulative traffic analysis, including an analysis
of seven intersections in the City of Costa Mesa. Reasonably foreseeable projects
and approved projects that are not included in the committed project list were
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 3 of 17
added to project related traffic and evaluated. The conclusion of this analysis also
indicates that there will be a less than significant impact to traffic circulation and that
no mitigation is required.
6. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record,. including the
traffic study, the implementation of the proposed mix of uses will neither cause
nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary
intersection.
7. Construction of the project will be completed within sixty (60) months of this
approval, or the approval of a new traffic study will be required.
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have
been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State
CEQA Guidelines; and, City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public
comment between October 16 and November 14. 2006.
RIP n M The contents of
the environmental document, including comments on the document, have been
considered in the various decisions on this project; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed
project, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no
known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally,
there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project,
nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project The mitigation
measures identified �_ `,�
P "` c` are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than
significant level; and
WHEREAS, the maximum building bulk limitation for the sit is the base floor area
limit (0.5) plus 0.25 for a maximum of 0.75, or 447,295 square feet. The proposed
project consists of a total of three buildings and two 4 -level parking structures, resulting
in a total bulk area of 747,202 square feet. A use permit for the increased building bulk
has been prepared and approved in accordance with Section 20.63.060 (Floor Area
1
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 4 of 17
Ratios and Building Bulk) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the following
reasons:
The increased development will not create abrupt changes in scale with
development in the surrounding area because the proposed parking structure will
not exceed the height of the existing building it replaces and should therefore not
be considered an intrusive element within the area. The location of the new
parking structure backs up to the existing City Yard and is proposed to be
screened from Newport Boulevard with trees and landscaping. The proposed
parking structure is located farthest from the existing residential development to
the south and is separated by abutting streets, existing multi -story buildings,
parking areas and landscaping within the overall campus. The parking structure
has been designed to be open with natural ventilation and one floor located
below, grade. The use of glass and perforated metal panels on the parking
structure will provide a "transparency" that will help break up the visual massing
of the building.
2. The proposed parking structure will be compatible with the surrounding. area
since it is located adjacent to the city corporate yard and separated from nearby
residential uses by abutting streets, parking areas and open space. The project
will substitute a new parking structure in place of the demolished office building
and will not significantly change the existing visual character or quality of the site
or its surroundings. Additionally, the proposed parking structure will support the
increased parking needs of the existing R &D /general offices uses and proposed
medical office use by providing additional parking opportunities.
3. The increased development will not result in significant impairment of public
views as public views do not exist through the site.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development as it is located in a
fully developed and urbanized area, and does not contain any sensitive habitat or
natural resources. The site itself is developed with 4 R &D /office buildings, a large
parking structure, and surface parking. Although the property is devoid of slopes,
the site is bounded by a 25- to 30 -foot descending slope along the eastern
property boundary. However, the proposed parking structure is located
approximately 60 feet from the top of the slope at its nearest point. Therefore, the
potential for gross instability of the slope affecting the parking structure is low,
especially since the existing building is located in the same position and has not
experienced an subsidence issues to date. An initial study has been prepared
which considered all physical aspects of the project including setbacks, site
access, landscaping, open space, building height, available parking, and
available utilities, and determined that no significant environmental impacts
should occur as a result of project implementation.
I
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 5 of 17
WHEREAS, the proposed project, pursuant to the conditions under which it will
be operated and maintained, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the
neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements
in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City for the following reasons:
Medical office use is permitted within the
General Plan land use designation, as well as the Controlled Manufacturing (M-
1-A) Zoning District, with the approval of a use permit.
2. The parking structure is located adjacent to the City's Corporate Yard and is
separated from residential uses by abutting streets, parking areas, and open
space within the overall campus.
3. The proposed parking structure has been designed to be consistent and
compatible with the existing development through building height, massing, and
architectural character, and as a result, will remain much the same as the
existing development and will not be perceived as additional bulk on site.
4. The project is proposed to provide a total of 1,985 parking spaces on -site,
exceeding the minimum code requirement by 763 spaces, thereby providing
sufficient parking to accommodate the proposed uses.
5. The Traffic Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed shuttle operation
and has approved a safe route and operation that will avoid travel adjacent to
residences and convalescent homes.
6. The traffic study has determined that the increased traffic generated as a result
of project implementation will not result in significant impacts to intersections or
traffic circulation in the City of Newport Beach, nor affect intersections in the City
of Costa Mesa.
7. An environment review and analysis was performed for the project and was
determined that no environmental impacts would occur as a result of project
implementation.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby
find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The
Planning Commission hereby adopts Mitigated N ative Declaration SCH No. 2006-
101105, 16 t +# 'j _ MIN W
Il
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 6 of 17
The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this
decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission
hereby recommends approval of Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006-
001, all subject to the Conditions of Approval in Of attached hereto and made
hereof.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7h DAY OF DECEMBER, 2006.
BY:
Jeffery Cole, Chairman
M
Robert Hawkins, Secretary
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
)a
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 7 of 17
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hoag Health Center Project
Newport Beach, CA
2 .... ... ... n:
Aesthetics
The site shall not be excessively illuminated
based on the luminance recommendations of the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning
MM-1
Director, the Illumination creates an unacceptable
On-Going
Project Operations
Planning
negative impact on surrounding land uses or
Monitoring
Department
environmental resources. The Planning Director
may order the dimming of light sources or other
remediation upon finding that the site is
excessively illuminated.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
MM -2
applicant shall prepare a photometric stud) n
Plan Check
Prior to Issuance of the
Planning
conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval
Building Permit
Department
by the Planning Department.
Air Quality
The applicant shall employ the following best
available control measures ('BACMs) to reduce
construction- related air quality impacts:
Dust Control
• Water all active construction areas at least
twice daily-
• Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two
feet of freeboard.
• Pave or apply water four times daily to all
unpaved parking or staging areas.
• Sweep or wash any site access points within
two hours of any visible dirt deposition on any
public roadway.
On-Going
• Cover or water twice daily any on -Site
Monitoring
Building
SCA
stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty
Contractor to
During Grading and
Department
material.
Certify Emission
Construction
Contractor
• Suspend all operations on any unpaved
and Off-Site
Impacts
surface I winds exceed 25 mph.
Emissions
• Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off road
equipment.
• Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks
and heavy equipment
Off-Site impacts
• Encourage car pooling for construction
workers.
• Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods.
- Park construction vehicles off traveled
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 8 of 17
Id.
No
kAidgattatrAAeasiire
AA.ethodaf
`' -A
roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site.
• Sweep access points daily.
• Encourage receipt of materials during non-
Peak traffic hours.
• Sandbag construction sites for erosion
control.
Fill Placement
• The number and type of equipment for dirt
pushing will be limited on any day to ensure
that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not
exceeded.
• Maintain and utilize a continuous water
application system during earth placement
and compaction to achieve a 10 percent soil
moisture content in the top six-inch surface
layer. Subject to review/discretion of the
geotechnical engineer-
Cultural Resources
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall provide written evidence to the
Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist
has been retained to observe grading activities
and conduct a Pre-grading conference, shall
establish procedures for archaeological resource
surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation
with the applicant, procedures for temporarily
halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling,
identification and evaluation Of the artifacts as
MM-3
appropriate. If additional or unexpected
Report
Prior to Issuance of the
Planning
archaeological features are discovered, the
Grading Permit
Department
archaeologist shall report such findings to the
applicant and to the Planning Department, If the
archaeological resources are found to be
significant, the archaeological observer shall
determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with
the applicant, for exploration and/or salvage.
These actions, as well as final mitigation and
disposition of the resources, shall be subject to
the a roval of the Planning Director.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall provide written evidence to the
Planning Director that a qualified paleontologist
has been retained to observe grading activities
and -salvage fossils as necessary. The
paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grading
conference, shall establish Procedures for
temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit
MM4
the sampling, identification and evaluation of the
Report
Prior to Issuance of the
Planning
fossils as appropriate. If major paleontological
Grading Permit
Department
resources are discovered that require long-term
baiting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist
shall report such findings to the applicant and the
Planning Department The paleontologist shall
determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with
the applicant, which mitigation and disposition of
the resources shall be Subject to the approval of
the Planning Director.
Id.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 9 of 17
No;
Mtttgadan Measure
Method of ..
.... ....
M . ...... ow
In accordance with the Public Resources Code
5097 94, if human remains are found, the Orange
County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours
of the discovery. If the coroner determines that
the remains are not recent, the coroner shall
Contractor
MM -5
notify the Native American Heritage Commission
Notification
During Grading and
(NAHC) in Sacramento to determine the most
Construction
Building
likely descendent for the area. The designated
Department
Native American representative shall then
determine, in consultation with the property
owner, the disposition of the human remains.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the
applicant shall undertake and complete an
asbestos survey and lead-based paint survey to
determine the presence of asbestos and lead-
based paint- If it is determined that ACM and /or
LBP exists in the structures to be demolished,
abatement of the ACM and LBP shall occur prior
SC-10
to demolition of the. existing structure. All work
Survey
Prior to Issuance of the
Building
undertaken by the contractor shall ,comply with
,
Demolition Permit
Department
SCAQMD Rule 1402 related to the disturbance of
ACM, as well as the storage and disposal of ACM.
The contractors responsibilities shall include
proper notification, removal techniques for ACM,
clean-up procedures, and waste storage and
disposal.
The applicant shall prepare a plan that prescribes
appropriate building management measures to
control vapor intrusion into the buildings at the
MM-6
site. The Building Management Plan shall be
Plan Check
Prior to Issuance of the
Fire [)apartment
submitted to either the RWQCB, the Orange
Building Permit
County Health Care Agency, and/or DTSC for
approval prior to the issuance of the building
permit for the Project.
The applicant shall prepare a soil profile plan that
characterizes the excavated soils that would be
MM-7
reused or removed from the site. This plan shall
Plan Check
Prior to Issuance of the
Fire Department
be submitted to either the RWOCB, the Orange
Building Permit
OCHCA, and/or DTSC for approval prior to the
issuance of the building permit for the Project.
In the event that hazardous waste is discovered
during site preparation or construction, the
applicant shall ensure that the identified
hazardous waste and/or hazardous materials are
handled and disposed of in the manner specified
MM-8
by the State of California Hazardous Substances
On-Site
During Grading and
Fire Department
Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20,
Monitoring
Construction
Chapter 6.5), standards established by the
California Department of Health Services and
office of Statewide Planning and Development,
and according to the requirements of the
California Administrative Code, Title 30.
Hydrolol and Water Quality
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply
with the General Permit for Construction Activities
SC-2
will be prepared, submitted to the State Water
Plan Check
Prior to Issuance of the
Building
Quality Control Board for approval and made part
Grading Permit
Department
of the construction program. The project
applicant will provide the City with a copy of the
13
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 10 of 17
1q
N
M,
J .............
Mp Dk;z
NOI and their application check as proof of filing
with the State Water Quality Control Board. This
plan will detail measures and practices that will be
in effect during construction to minimize the
prolecfs impact on water quality.
A list of 'good house-keeping" practices wig be
incorporated into the long-term post-construction
operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that
pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the
site that could impair water quality. These may
include frequent parking area vacuum truck
sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use
SC-3
of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the
Plan Check
Prior to Issuance of the
Building
diversion of storm water away from potential
Grading Permit
Department
sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and
parking structures). The Stage 2 WOMP shall list
and describe all structural and non-structural
BMPs. In addition, the WOMP must also identify
the entity responsible for the long-term inspection,
maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if
applicable Treatment Control) BMPs.
Noise
Construction activities shall comply with Section
10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
which restricts hours of noise-generating
SC-4
construction activities that produce noise to
On -Site
During Grading and
Building
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.,
Monitoring
Construction
Department
Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. on Saturday. Noise-generating construction
activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays.
Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the
project applicant shall prepare a construction
staging plan that reflect the locations of the
construction and staging areas on the subject
Prior to Issuance of the
PublicWorks
MM -9
property, which shall be located as far away from
Plan Check
Demolition Permit
Department
the nearby residential development as possible to
reduce temporary noise impacts.
Public Services and Facilities
Any elevators shall be gurney accessible in
Prior to Issuance of the
SC-5
accordance with Chapter 30 of the 2001 California
Plan Check
Building Permit
Fire. Department
Ruddina rmda
The Fire Chief may require the submittal for
approval of geological studies, evaluations,
reports, remedial recommendations and/or
similar documentation from a state- licensed and
department approved individual or firm, on any
parcel of land to be developed which:
SC-6
Has, or is adjacent to, or within 1,000 feet
Plan Check
Prior to Issuance of the
Grading Permit
Fire Department
(304.8 m) of a parcel of land that has an
active, inactive, or abandoned oil or gas well
operation, petroleum or chemical refining
facility, petroleum or chemical storage; or
May contain or give off toxic, combustible or
flammable liquids, gases, or vapors.
SC-7
Automatic fire sprinklers and Class I standpipe
Plan Check
Prior to Issuance of the
Fire Deparbrient
required.
Building Permit
rSC-8
I Fires rinkler
system shall be monitored.
Plan Check
Prior to Issuance of the
Fire Department
1q
Planning Commission Resolution No- _
Page 11 of 17
Utilities
sanitary sewer system demand study on the
existing facilities that will serve the portion of the
site impacted by the proposed development. prior to Issuance of the Public Works
SC -9 These studies shall 6e submitted to the City of Plan Check Building Pernik Department
Newport Beach prior to issuance of the demolition
permit. The owner shall bear the costs of all
water and/or sanitary sewer systems
0
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 12 of 17
Conditions of Approval
Use Permit No. 2006 -010 & Traffic Study No. 2006 -001
Planning Department
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans dated November
6, 2006, except as modified by other conditions.
2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards,
unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of
any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use
Permit.
4. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective
date of approval as specked in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach.Municipal
Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in
accordance with applicable regulations.
5. This Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning
Commission should they determine that the use or one or more of the conditions set
forth herein is not being complied with, or the manner in which the project is being
operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or
maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance.
6. The project site may be occupied by no more than 97,000 square feet of medical
office use and 136,000 square feet of general office use. The remaining floor area
(96,414 square feet minimum) shall be occupied by research and development uses.
The Planning Director shall review all building plans, future tenant improvement
plans and/or business plans for all prospective tenants proposed to be classified as
research and development .uses to make a finding that the tenant occupancy is a
use that is consistent with Section 20.20.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
and further as defined in Section 20.05.060 (B), (D), and (F).
7. The applicant may proceed to lease medical office space during the construction of
the parking structure; however, the project site shall maintain the minimum number
of parking spaces required by the Zoning Code for the operating mix of uses during
such time.
8. The final design of the parking structure shall provide all architectural treatments as
proposed and approved.
f�
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 13 of 17
9. No ancillary parking shall be permitted to occur at the project site for the use of Hoag
Hospital, except during a one -year interim period to facilitate the completion of Hoag
Hospital's construction of the Lower Campus (so long as that the minimum parking
to facilitate the operation of the mix of on -site uses is provided).
10. Prior to issuance of building permits for any new construction, the applicant shall
submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or
licensed architect for on -site and any adjacent off -site planting areas. These plans
shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices.
Except for that portion of the landscape plan that is subject to the approval of the
Planning Commission, the landscape plans shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. All planting areas shall be
provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a
design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The
irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an
on -site moisture - sensor, Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be
protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping
shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the
Traffic Engineer.
11. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance
with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a
healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing
and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All
irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements,
repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
12.AII mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and
adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter
10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
13.Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the
applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in Condition Nos.
48 & 49.
14.
notification of costs, the applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all
administrative costs identified by the Planning Department.
15. New landscaping shall incorporate drought- tolerant plant materials and drip irrigation
systems where possible.
11
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 14 of 17
16. Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be minimized.
If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water
Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the location,
investigate, inform the tenant if possible, leave a note, and in some cases shut off
the water.
17. Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours (between 4:00
P.M. and 9:00 A.M.) to minimize evaporation the following morning.
18. All leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and the Applicant shall complete
all required repairs.
19. Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways,
parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards.
20. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically
feasible.
�b
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 15 of 17
Building Department
25.The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check
and inspection fees.
26.The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and
Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City-
adopted version of the California Building Code.
27.The size, layout, path of travel and dispersion of the disabled parking stalls shall be
reviewed and approved by the Building Department prior to the issuance of permits
and shall comply with code requirements.
28.The proposed open parking garage occupancy (S-4) and basement occupancy
separation shall comply with Sections 311.2.2.2 of the California Building Code
(CBC 2001).
29. Compliance with ADA code requirements shall be verified for the existing parking
structure on -site and updated as required by the Building Department.
30. Canopies shall be provided above the disabled parking stalls at the other buildings
within the project site per Section 1109B.2 of the California Building Code, unless
otherwise approved by the Building Department.
19
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 16 of 17
Public Works Department
31. ADA compliant paths shall be provided within the areas identified and affected by
the project's scope of work.
Prior to commencement of demolition and grading of the project, the applicant shall
submit a construction management and delivery plan to be reviewed and approved
by the Public Works Department. The plan shall include discussion of project
phasing; parking arrangements for both sites during construction; anticipated haul
routes and construction mitigation. Upon approval of the plan, the applicant shall be
responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the
approved plan.
33.Traffic control and truck route plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public
Works Department before their implementation. Large construction vehicles shall not
be permitted to travel narrow streets as determined by the Public Works
Department. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by
movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagman.
34. Vehicular traffic on Dana Road and Flagship Road shall not be impacted by private
construction work.
35.A haul route permit shall be required for any large construction related vehicle (i.e.
dirt hauling vehicle).
36. No construction material shall be staged or stored within the public right -of -way.
37. Prior to issuance of building permits for new construction, the on -site parking
(surface and structure), vehicle circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall
be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer.
38. The intersection of the driveways and streets shall be designed to provide adequate
sight distance per City Standard STD - 110 -L. Slopes, landscape, walls and other
obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping
within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The sight distance
requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the
Traffic Engineer.
39. The southerly driveway (adjacent to Dana Road) shall be restricted to right -turn in
and right -turn out. The method to reinforce (i.e. signage, median, etc.) the right -turn
in and right -turn out driveway shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department.
ab
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 17 of 17
40.The van shuttle between Hoag Hospital and the project site shall not use local
streets (i.e. Dana Road and Flagship Road) and residential areas. The shuttle route
shall be restricted to the City's arterial system (i.e. Newport Boulevard, Superior
Avenue, Placentia Avenue, Hospital Road).
41. Prior to the issuance of any medical office tenant improvement permits, the applicant
shall post a 10 -year bond for the traffic signal installation at the main project
driveway (center driveway) and roadway improvements (medians, striping, planting).
Upon acquisition of the required right -of -way needed to accommodate the
improvements, the City will be responsible for completing the traffic signal
installation and street improvements, and the applicant shall reimburse the City for
all costs associated with the improvements.
42. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval
of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The
WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that
no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur.
43. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a water system
and a sanitary sewer system demand study on the existing facilities that will serve
the portion of the. site impacted by the proposed development. These studies shall
be submitted to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of the demolition permit.
The owner shall bear the costs of all water and /or sanitary sewer systems
improvements required by the development.
,�I
EXHIBIT 2
Responses to Public Comments
zA
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
HOAG HEALTH CENTER
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
INTRODUCTION
The 30 -day public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the Hoag
Health Center Project extended from October 16 through November 14, 2006. The City of Newport Beach
received seven (7) comment letters on the Draft MND during the formal public review and comment
period. Responses to the comments in the letters received by the City have been prepared and are
included with the Final MND. The comment letters were received from:
1. California Department of Transportation (November 13, 2006)
2. Rosamond U. Hall (November 7, 2006)
3. City of Costa Mesa (November 14, 2006)
4. Leibold McClendon & Mann (November 14, 2006)
5. Department of Toxic Substances Control (November 13, 2006)
6. Richard Smith (November 13, 2006)
7. Southern California Association of Governments (November 14, 2006)
Responses to these comments have been prepared according to Section 15088 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. The letters received during the public review -period have been reproduced in the section that
follows. The letter has been reviewed and substantive comments have been identified. Responses have
been prepared and follow the letters from the agencies in this "Response to Public Comments" Appendix
to the Final MND. Each comment in each letter for which a response is required has been numbered for
easy reference.
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Public Comments
December 2008
�3
.,..v ucrANIMENT
6 2006
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOV
District A CITY OF NEWPORTAACk1
3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 "
Irvine, CA.92612 -8894 `
Tel: (949) 724 -2267 F%x ymtr r7
Fax: (949) 724 -2592 Be energy effletend
FAX & MAIL
Novemlier•13; 200¢ ,
Jamie Murillo
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92685
Subject: Hoag Heath Center Use Permit
Dear Mr. Murillo,
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH #: 2006101105
Log #: 1790
PCH, SR -55
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Hoag Health Center project. The applicant Newport Beach
Healthcare Center, is requesting the approval of an amendment to the existing use permit to allow
the conversion of a 97,000 square feet office use to medical offices, demolition of one existing
building, construction of a second parking structure, and the project site to exceed the maximum
building bulk limitation. The project site is located on 500 -540 Superior Avenue in the City of
Newport Beach. The nearest State routes to the project site are PCH and SR -55.
Caitraus District
comment:
12 status is a responsible agency on this project and has the following
Caltrans Traffic Operations requests all applicants to use the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) method outlined in the latest version when analyzing traffic impacts on State
Transportation Facilities. The use of HCM is preferred by Caltrans because it is an operational
analysis as opposed to the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method, which is a planning
analysis. In the case of projects that have direct impacts on the state's facilities Caltrans
recommends that the traffic impact analysis be based on HCM method. Should the project
require an encroachment permit, traffic operations may find the Traffic Impact Study based on
ICU methodology inadequate resulting in possible delay or denial of a permit by Caltrans. All
input sheets, assumptions and volumes on State Facilities including tamps and intersection
analysis should be submitted to Caltrans for review and approval.
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could
potentially impact the State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact
us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267.
Sin
Ryan hamberlain, Branch Chief
Local Development/Intergovernmental Review
C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research
"Caltrans improves mobihry across CaWorma"
f'
California Department of Transportation (November 14, 2006)
Response to Comment No. 1
The traffic study was prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance
(TPO) requirements and City of Costa Mesa Traffic Study guidelines. If a discretionary permit is required
by Caltrans in the future, the applicant would be conditioned to prepare a traffic study in accordance with
Caltrans requirements at that time.
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Public Comments
December 2000
g5
ROSAMOND U. HALL
R. E. Hall Family Limited Partnership
P.O. BOX 2450
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8972
November 7, 2006
RECEIVED By
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Nov 0 g 2006
Attn: Planning Commission �� �F �E r►rVRM
City of Newport Beach Planning Department I BEACH
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RE: Application No.: PA2006-113 Applicant Name: Hoag Healthcare Center
Traffic Study No.: 2006 -001 Use Permit No.: 2006 -010
Property Location: 500 -540 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA
Dear Planning Commission members,
As I stated in my letter dated May 17, 2004 regarding:
Application No.: PA2003 -122 Applicant Name: New Superior Group, LLC
Traffic Study No.: 2003 -001 Amendment to: Use Permit No. 3679
Property Location: 500 -540 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA
We would be impacted by the above Use Permit Changes. I would like to inform you that:
We did not support the change in designation from research and development
uses to general office uses and now we definitely do not support the change to
medical offices.
There is already considerable traffic on Superior Avenue that causes congestion, even to the
point of turning onto Superior from as far away as Hospital Road intersection. With the
designation medical offices will come a significantly increased amount of employees, visitors
and clients to and from these offices. There have already been numerous accidents at this
intersection with pedestrians and vehicles without any solutions to existing problems. We
should not be adding traffic as they have not been addressed.
Sincerely,
Rosamond U. Hall
M-
ROSAMOND U. HALL
P.O. BOX 2450
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8972
May 17, 2004
Attn: Jim Campbell
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RE: Application No.:
Applicant Name:
Traffic Study No.:
Amendment to:
Property Location:
Dear Mr. Campbell,
PA2003 -122
New Superior Group, LLC
2003 -001
Use Permit No. 3679
500 -540 Superior Avenue
Newport Beach, CA
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOV 0 9 2006
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
I have received the Notice of Public Hearing to be held 7 :00 PM, May 25, 2004 in
the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall. As we would be impacted
by the above Use Permit Changes I would like to inform you that:
We do not support the change in designation from research and
development uses to general office uses.
There is already considerable traffic on Superior Avenue that causes congestion,
even to the point of turning onto Superior from as far away as Hospital Road
intersection. With the designation general office will come a significantly
increased amount of employees, visitors and clients to and from these offices.
Sincerely,
Rosamond U. Hall
�1
2. Rosamond U. Hall (November 7, 2006)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment (and letter to City staff dated May 17, 2004) expresses general opposition to the proposed
project. The comment does not raise any issues about the project's environmental impacts or the
adequacy of the initial study prepared pursuant to CEQA. This comment is acknowledged and will be
forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission for consideration prior to taking action on the
proposed project.
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Public Comments
December 2006
I
November 14, 2006
CITY OF COSTA MESA
P.O. BOX 1200 - 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92626.1200
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Mr. Jamie Murillo, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOV 16 2006
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
HOAG HEALTH CENTER AT 500 -540 SUPERIOR AVENUE
Dear Mr. Murillo:
The City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration
for Hoag Health Center at 500 -540 Superior Avenue. The proposed project consists of:
(1) the conversion of general office use to medical office use; (2) the completion of a
remodel of the Project site including demolition of one of the existing buildings; (3) the
construction of a second parking structure; and (4) the Project site to exceed the maximum
building bulk limitation for the site. Following are the City's comments on the proposed
project.
• TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION
The City encourages that the Negative Declaration analysis be conducted under the
following assumptions:
(a) It is the City's understanding that the site is not fully occupied.
Therefore, any future analysis should take into account full 1
occupancy of the site as a background condition. (Ref: Page 23 of
the traffic study states that "...the property is fully developed office..."
(b) Table 7 of the Negative Declaration (Page 44) and Table 4 -
Cumulative Project List of Appendix B (Page 34), should include
1901 Newport Boulevard, a 145 -unit residential development, and 2
1640 Newport Boulevard, a 4 -story, 76,650 sq. ft. medical office
building in the vicinity of Newport Boulevard /19" Street. _
The City recommends that all analyses include these assumptions.
Building Division (714) 7545273 • Code Enforcement (714) 7545623 • Planning Division (714) 7545245
FAX (714) 754 -4856 • TDO (714) 7545244 • mmv.ci.costaanesa.ca.us
Mr. Murillo
November 14, 2006
Page 2
The City would also appreciate clarification as to what project is specifically being
referenced in Table 8 (Page 46) of the Negative Declaration under CEQA Impact
Analysis.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Negative Declaration. The City requests
that the above comments be addressed and submitted for review to Peter Naghavi,
Transportation Services Manager for the City of Costa Mesa, prior to further action by
elected officials. We hope to continue to have close communication on this project and an
opportunity to fully understand any significant impacts. If you have any questions or need.
additional information, please contact me at (714) 754 -5609.
Sincerely,
FMIaAEL ROBINSON, AICP
stant Dev. Svs. Director
cc: City Council
Allan Roeder, City Manager
Donald D. Lamm, Deputy City Mgr., Dev. Svs. Director
Kimberly Hall - Barlow, City Attorney
Kimberly Brandt, Principal Planner
Peter Naghavi, Transportation Mgr.
Raja Sethuraman, Assoc. Engineer
Rebecca Robbins, Assistant Planner
3. City of Costa Mesa (November 14, 2006)
Response to Comment No. f
The traffic study takes into account the previous approvals (Newport Technology Center) for the proposed
site as background traffic (refer to Table 4 in the traffic study).
Response to Comment No. 2
Based on previous meeting and correspondence with City of Costa Mesa staff, only the Pacific Medical
Plaza (76,650 Sq. ft.), located at 1626 and 1640 Newport Boulevard, was taken into account as part of the
Hoag Healthcare Center Traffic Study (refer to page 43 and Appendix E of the Traffic Study). The 145 -
unit residential development located at 1901 Newport Boulevard was never mentioned in previous
discussion with City of Costa Mesa staff and was not included in the future projects identified by the City.
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Public Comments
December 2M
31
LB Bom MCCLENDON & MANN
A PitonwONAL CoRPORArRm JOHN G. MCCLWNDON
j+rhnWeQti.com
23422 NhL Cxesa DRIVE, SUM 105
LACUNA Haas, CALtromm 92653
(149) 457-6300
FAX: (949) 4574M
November 14, 2006
Me-MAIL TO: Jmurillo a(t> ity.newport- 6each.ca.us
Honorable Chairperson and Members of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
Re: Hone Healthcare Center [gMgiicant: Neweort Beach Healthcare Center . LLCI
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study
No. 2006- 001(PA2006 -113) – Request to Prepare Draft EIR for Project
Dear Chairperson and Planning Commission Members:
This firm represents a group of citizens who are concerned about the potentially significant
environmental impacts that will likely result from the above - referenced project (the
"Project "). On behalf of these concerned citizens, we submit this letter urging that you not
approve the Project entitlements unless and until a legally adequate environmental impact
report ( "EIR ") is prepared thatadequatelyanalyzes numerous environmental issues that have
been either ignored completely, or perfunctorily dismissed as insignificant, in the mitigated
negative declaration ( "MND') that Keeton Kreitzer Consulting prepared for the Project.
Traffic/Parldng and "Piecemealing" of the Project
Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a "project" under CEQA to mean "the whole
of an action which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment,
directly or ultimately... " (Emphasis added.) In deference to this definition of a "project,"
courts have consistently found that "piecemealing" a project through the CEQA review
process, i.e., breaking a project up into parts, and then incrementally approving each of those
parts without an EIR, violates both the letter and the spirit of CEQA, and Sections 15004,
15051, and 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. As the court noted in Rio Vista Farm Bureau
v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.AppAth 351, 370:
"The requirements of CEQA cannot be avoided by piecemeal
review which results from `chopping a large project into many
little ones — each with a minimal potential impact on the
environment — which cumulatively may have disastrous
consequences.' (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com.
(1975) 13 Ca1.3d 263, 283 -284 [118 Cal.Rptr. 249, 529 P.2d
3a
City of Newport $each Planning Commission.
Hoag Healthcare Center Project
November 14, 2006
Page 2
10171; City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d
1325,1333 [232 Cal.Rptr. 507].)" (See also, Citizens Assn. for
Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County oflnyo (1985)
172 Cal.App.3d 151.)
Although the MND is rather obtuse on the point, it nevertheless reveals that the conversion
of 97,000 square feet of existing floor area to medical office use is simply the first "part" of
the applicant's plan to ultimatelyutilize the entire 329,414 square feet for medical office use.
For example, on page 32 of the MND Checklist Form, the consultant acknowledges that the
replacement of an existing office building with a new parking structure is being proposed in
order "to accommodate existing gncj future use of the site" (Emphasis added.) Then, on
page 49, the MND acknowledges that the site currently has more than enough parking to
accommodate the proposed 97,000 square feet of medical office uses, 136,000 square feet
of general office uses, and 96,414 square feet of research and development uses.
Nevertheless, the applicant proposes to construct additional parking such that the site will
have a total of 1,985 parking spaces — "approximately six parking spaces for each 1,000
square feet of floor area" (City code requires only 3.8 parking spaces for each 1,000 square
feet for floor area). Thus, "[t]he proposed onsite parking, which exceeds the required
r2el
1 dng by 62 percent will be adequate to serve the Project." (Emphasis added.)
Experience and common sense tell us that developers do not develop 62 percent more
parking spaces than their projects need for no reason — especially in an excavated parking
structure where the construction cost can easily exceed $20,000 per space! Here, the huge
surplus of parking spaces removes a barrier to the future conversion of the 136,000 square
feet of general office uses (per Code, parked at one space per 250 sq. ft.) and 96,414 square
feet of research and development uses (per Code, parked at one space per 500 sq. ft.) to
medical office uses (per Code, parked at one space per 200 sq. ft.). This foreseeable
expansion of use can only be properly addressed in an EIR As the court noted in City of
Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325,1337-1338:
"[S]ection 15064, subdivision (e), of the [CEQA] Guidelines
and Appendix G thereto, [] indicate that extension of a sewer
deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. [fn.
omitted] appellant also claims that construction of the utilities
requires an EIR... .
In sum, our decision in this case arises out of the realization that
the sole reason to construct the road and sewer project is to
provide a catalYsf% further develonment in the immediate area
35
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission.
Hoag Healthcare Center Project
November 14, 2006
Page 3
... the fact that a particular development which now appears
reasonably foreseeable may, in fact, never occur does not release
it from the EIR process. [ ] Similarly, the fact that future
development may take several forms does not excuse
environmental review....
[ MhilePittsbum need notnredict the nrecisgLorin low ati
amQu I of commercial and residential develotmtent resulting
from oonstwetion ofthe roadwav and utilities, it cannot gmt4md
none will occur: it sin4ly must assume the general form,
location and amount of such development that now seems
reasonable to anticipate, as the developer has doubtless already
dope, and evaluate that development by means of the EIR
ow —ess." (Emphasis added.)
Similarly, the construction ofparking spaces that exceed Parking Code requirements by 62
percent provides a "catalyst" for the Project applicant's future conversion of the entire site
to medical office uses. Moreover, the fact that this additional parking is a centerpiece of the
Project indicates that the developer here — a hospital— has "doubtless already" anticipated
such a conversion. The consultant's failure to base the Project's traffic analysis on this
entirely foreseeable ultimate use ofthe site results in the MND significantly underestimating
the Project's traffic and circulation impacts.
C ; r 1..: 477577,
The MND completely fails to provide any analysis of the Project's potential impacts on
climate change. By doing so, it commits the same error that caused the California Attorney
General to threaten legal action against the Orange County Transportation Authority for its
2006 Long -Range Transportation Plan Draft Program EIR. (See E hi 't 1.) Last summer,
the Attorney and OCTA settled the dispute, with OCTA agreeing to include a discussion of
global warming impacts in its EIR. (ibid.)
The serious consequences of the global warming issue as it pertains to California were
identified this year in the summary report from the California Climate Change Center titled
Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to Cagornia. Ex 'bit .) As noted in the Pall,
2006 edition of Environmental Assessor Qxhffbi pages 11 -12), the global warming issue
is now front- and - center as a concern in the CEQA review process:
"While the state develops its plans and programs, growing public interest in
what can be done locally to address this global concern is also on the rise... .
�A
J�
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission.
Hoag Healthcare Center Project
November 14, 2005
Page 4 .
CEQA comment letters will draw attention to global warning attributes of
proposed development projects... It would seem that the CEQA process is
about to become a little more complex as interested patties grapple with the
global warming contributions of land use development projects."
The South Coast AirQuality Management Districthas set signifcancethresholds for specific
air pollutants, including Volatile Organic Compounds, or "VOC." (Exhibit 4.) Similarly,
the Califomia Air Resources Board uses the term Reactive Organic Gases, or "ROG" for
these types ofpollutants. Qhibit 5.) Notably, excepted from ROG is (among other things)
carbon dioxide — a contributor to global warming. Consequently, since the MND's air
quality analysis addresses only ROG, CO, NOx, SO,,, and PM,a, it fails to address carbon
dioxide as a potential Project impact 'and contributor to global warming,
i., , I V J! !1 e
In what can only be viewed as sleight -of -hand, the MND's discussion of NO, emissions
arbitrarily bifurcates the daily construction- related NO, emissions into (1) impacts related to
the parking structure, and (2) impacts related to soil hauling. By parsing the two and
considering them separately, the MND (p. 11) concludes that daily NO,, emissions will not
exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 100 pounds per day. That the MND does
this is surprising, given that it elsewhere acknowledges (A) that excavation and soil export
will be necessary in constructing the parking structure and (B) that further excavation of an
unknown degree will be necessary in order to remediate the site's known soil contamination.
However, the MND's attempt to avoid triggering a threshold that would require the
preparation ofen EIRdoesn'twash. When 86.4dailypoundso#NO „ emissionsfromparking
structure construction are added to the 53 daily pounds of NO, emissions from soil hauling,
the total is 139.4 pounds per day —which exceeds the SCAQMD's significance threshold by
nearly 40 %.
aek of Analysis of_he Site's Known Toxic I
2
3
According to page 5 of the February 1, 2006 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
("Phase I') prepared for the site by his Environmental, historical aerial photographs show
that Buildings A through D were developed on the site by 1968, and that Buildings A and B 4
were demolished and replacement building constructed in the same locations by 2002.
Consequently, this means the existing Building C and D were constructed prior to the EPA
banning asbestos- containing building materials ( "ACBMs ") in 1973 -197$. E 'bit .)
35
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission.
Hoag Healthcare Center Project
November 14, 2006
Page 5
Iris Environmental claims that its Phase I was conducted in accordance with American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards, However, "If you tell your consultant
you want a Phase I (environmental site assessment] performed by the ASTM standards, they
will not identify potentially asbestos- containing material." Mahihit 7, Part H, A., #17.)
Perhaps this explains why the Iris Environmental's Phase I (p. 11) passes over the asbestos
issue in such a cursory fashion. After acknowledging that a 1999 asbestos survey "identified
asbestos- containing materials (ACMs) in all five former buildings," Iris discounts this by
claiming— in a statement that contradicts its earlier dating ofbuilding construction —that "all
of the current buildings at the Site were either constructed or renovated between 2001 and
2002, and that Iris "did not observe any evidence of asbestos at the Site during the Site visit."
The-IdWacknowledges (and then dismisses as a non - issue) that sensitive, romptors'am
located immediately adjacent to the Project site. In Chapter 4 of its CEQA Air. Quality
Handbook, the SCAQMD notes that certain uses, such as the aerospace use previously
associated with the Project site, carry with them the prospect of toxic emissions. (xbibit g.) y
Moreover, the SCAQMD also instructs public agencies to carefully consider "land use
compatibility issues, particularly in reference to sensitive receptors." (Ibid.) It is important
to note that the EPA is on record as stating that it "work[s] under the assumption that there
is no safe level of asbestos exposure. Asbestos is like a time bomb. Once you've been
exposed, you don't know how your body will respond over time." Et xhibit 9.)
Given the site's previous use, it is reasonably foreseeable that the proposed demolition of
"Building 4" and excavation for the new construction will result in the release of asbestos
and/or toxic emissions into the air in close proximity to sensitive receptors. Therefore, this
issue must be addressed.
In sum, the MND fails to perform its CEQA function of informing the public and decision-
makers of the Project's true potential impacts. The Project requires the preparation of an EIR
that considers a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project — including, perhaps, an
alternative location for the proposed Project that might also be environmentally superior.
Respectfully submitted,
LEtsOLD McCLENDON & MANN, P.C.
Plohn Cle ndon
30
4. Leibold McClendon & Mann (November 14, 2006)
Response to Comment No. 1
The comment suggests that the conversion of the 97,000 square feet to medical office use is simply the
first "part" of a plan to ultimately utilize the entire square footage on the property for medical office and, as
such, this is piecemealing in violation of CEQA. The primary basis for this conclusion that this is part of a
bigger plan is that the parking structure to be built will allow substantially more parking spaces than the
City parking code requires for the property. The comment references the MND as supporting this when it
states that the new parking structure is being proposed in order "to accommodate existing and future use
of the site."
As defined by CEQA, a project means the whole of the action whether it is one action or a series of related
actions. See CEQA section 15378. However, related actions have to be included in the same CEQA
document only when they are reasonably foreseeable, not when they are remote and speculative. See
Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3D 376.
Further, the whole of the action is determined by the facts and circumstances of each case and not by
making conclusions from cases that may not have the same facts as the one at hand. As detailed below,
the facts and circumstances regarding the operation of the hospital support the City's conclusion that the
conversion of the 97,000 square feet to medical uses is the project as a whole and not the catalyst for a
future action.
The commenter concludes that the conversion of the 97,000 square feet of existing floor area to medical
uses is simply the first part of the application's ultimate plan to utilize the entire 329,414 square feet of
medical use. He supports his conclusion based on a statement in the MND and speculation about
common sense and experience. First, he cites page 32 of the MND Checklist Form, which indicates that
a new parking structure is being proposed "to accommodate existing and future uses of the site ". He then
speculates that providing more parking spaces than is required under City regulations means that a future
expansion is in the works.
The statement from the MND was misinterpreted by the commenter and his speculation is not appropriate
as support for additional CEQA review. The word "future uses" as used in the environmental analysis
presented in the initial study refers to the proposed project and not a subsequent phase to ultimately
convert the entire 329,214 square feet for medical use. The terms "future use" or "future users" are used
throughout the MND to refer to the "proposed project" as described in the Project Description (i.e., the
proposed conversion of 97,000 square feet of existing floor area to medical office uses).
The commenter further states that "experience and common sense tell us that developers do not develop
62 percent more parking spaces than their projects need for no reason," which is unreasonably
speculative for the reasons that follow. First, it is important to understand that Hoag is not a developer;
rather Hoag is a non - profit organization whose primary purpose is to provide higher quality service to its
patients. Additionally, based on its "experience and common sense" in operating a medical facility, Hoag
believes that the City's parking code requirements established for medical office uses and/or the existing
number of parking spaces on site may not adequately meet its goals. This is evidenced by the fact that
Hoag's main hospital campus currently provides more parking spaces than required. Hoag parking
exceeds City regulations by 10 percent. Providing more parking spaces is required is not an uncommon
practice. There are numerous service- oriented businesses that have found it in their best interests to
exceed City parking requirements to provide better service to their constituents based on facts and
circumstances related to the operation of their facilities.
The commenter cites the City of Antioch case as supportive of his conclusions. In that case, the court
held that the construction of a road and installation of a sewer line would provide a catalyst for further
development. The analogy to the provision of additional parking spaces is misplaced. The construction of
the road and sewer line was done to eventually serve a developer's property that abutted the street. In
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Public Comments
December 2006
31
that case the city did not disagree that future development could actually be served by the street and
sewer line. In this case, the proposed parking spaces are not being constructed to serve an, as yet,
undefined "future project," but rather to provide better service to its patients, including the proposed project
as described in the initial study.
The reality and primary reason the applicant requested the conversion of 97,000 square feet of medical
office use, was to remain consistent with the amended 1988 Land Use Element of the City's General Plan
(previously in effect until November 8, 2006). The 1988 Land Use Element limited development of the site
to a variable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 /0.75. The first number before the slash is the base FAR and
the second number is the Maximum FAR. When variable designations for a site are identified, the
permitted gross floor area of the site is prorated according to type of use. Chapter 20.63 (Floor Area
Ratios and Building Bulk) of the Municipal Code establishes the procedures to implement a variable floor
area ratio and categorizes land uses as Reduced, Base, or Maximum FAR uses. The Chapter also
identifies weighting factors for each type of use and indicates that the base development allocation (0.5
FAR) shall not be exceeded. The R &D uses are included under the category of "Industry, Research and
Development" and are classified as Maximum FAR uses. As such, they are applied a weighting factor of
0.50. Both general office and medical office uses are included under the category of "Office, Business and
Professional" uses and are classed as a Base FAR use with an applied weighting factor of 1.0. Since the
site is 596,393 square feet in area, the base 0.50 FAR resulted in a limitation of 298,196.5 square feet.
The resulting total weighted FAR of the proposed project is 0.47, consistent with the Base 0.50 FAR
limitation, and is calculated as follows:
Use
Use 1&2
Gross Floor
Areas . ft.
Weighting
Factor .
Weighted Area '
s . ft.
Welghtel
FAR
R &D
Maximum FAR
96,414
0.5
48,207
08
General Office
Base FAR
136,000
1.0
136,000
.23
Medical Office
Base FAR
97,000
1.0
97,000
.16
Totals
329,414
281,207
0.47
However, should the applicant have requested full build out of the site as medical office, the project would
have resulted in 329,414 square feet of a Base FAR type use (or a total weighted FAR of 0.55), which is
inconsistent with the Base 0.50 FAR limitation of the 1988 amended Land Use Element. To obtain project
approval under the old Land Use Element, a use permit request to exceed the Base FAR limitation of the
site would have been necessary and most likely denied due to the inability to make specific findings
required for such a request. Alternatively, the applicant would have been required to pursue an
amendment to the General Plan to increase the Base FAR limitation from 0.5 to 0.55 to accommodate the
increased intensification.
Under Charter Section 423 (Greenlight 1), a general plan amendment of this type would have required a
city wide vote which is very costly, time consuming and, based on recent history, likely to be turned down.
Given that option, Hoag decided to pursue the project as proposed, that would address its current needs
and stood a reasonable chance of approval. As a result, any plans for future development of the property
could not be proposed until such time as more was known about the future needs of the hospital, the
outcomes of proposed initiatives [i.e. Measure V (General, Plan Update) and Measure Xj, and
management decisions by the hospital. In the event the applicant submits such a comprehensive, long -
range plan in the future for possible additional medical use, it would be subject to further environmental
review by the City of Newport Beach, which may include the preparation of a project specific EIR, to
address a variety of issues, including traffic and other issues identified in an initial study that would be
undertaken as part of the development review process.
It is also worth noting that the City has already prepared and certified a Program Environmental Impact
Report (the "PEIR ") for the recently adopted general plan update (the "General Plan Update "). The PEIR
analyzed all land use changes proposed under the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update
changed the land use designation for the Hoag property at issue here to one that permits the entire site to
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Public Comments
December 2006
3�
be used for medical offices. Thus, even if the provision of extra parking spaces could be construed as a
catalyst for future development, such future development has already been analyzed under the PEIR and
determined to be consistent with City policy. Any such future use would be subject to the terms and
mitigation measures contained in the PEIR and would likely require a project specific EIR that tiers off the
PEIR.
Finally, it is important to note that the applicant had originally proposed a total of 138,000 square feet of
medical office uses (i.e., maximum conversion area permissible under the 1988 Land Use Element).
However, the cursory air quality assessment conducted for the proposed floor area indicated that a
significant, unavoidable adverse air quality impact would occur. As a result, the project was revised to
include only 97,000 square feet of medical office uses in order to mitigate the potentially significant air
quality impacts identified with the original project application. The reduction in medical office floor area
effectively reduced the potentially significant air quality impacts to a less than significant level. However,
should the applicant propose a project in the future that would result in the conversion of the remaining
non - medical office floor area to medical office uses, as suggested in this comment, the project would be
subject to additional environmental analysis in the form of an environmental impact report
Given all of the above, the City believes that the MND prepared for the Hoag Health Center project
adequately addressed the potential environmental impacts of the "entirety of the proposed action" and that
the applicant has not engaged in any improper piecemealing or segmentation as suggested in this
comment.
Response to Comment No. 2
The comment suggests that the MND is deficient because it did not address the possible global warming
or climate impacts of the project. The South Coast AQMD, as the Responsible Agency for air quality
under CEQA in this region, establishes air quality significance thresholds for CEQA projects. Currently,
there are thresholds for both construction activities (short -term emissions) and operational emissions (on-
going). The thresholds established are for criteria pollutant emissions including: NOx, SOx, PM, CO and
VOCs /ROGs. The terms volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and reactive organic gases (ROGs) are
generally used interchangeably, As the comment correctly points out, there are currently no CEQA
standards for greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases include, among others, carbon dioxide
(CO2) and methane. SCAQMD specifically excludes CO2 and methane from the definition of VOCs
(SCAQMD Rule 102 — Definition of Terms). When and if, the release of CO2 from development projects
is determined to be a potential environmental impact by those with appropriate expertise and methods are
developed to determine appropriate thresholds of significance than failure to address the issue may
become a valid comment. However, given the current state of knowledge in this area and the lack of any
scientifically based standards the commenter is asking the City to engage in speculation which is.
prohibited under CEQA.
Response to Comment No. 3
The comment suggests that the MND's discussion of NOx emissions incorrectly bifurcated the daily
emissions into impacts related to construction of the parking structure and emissions related to soil
hauling. The basis of this argument is the assumption that these two activities would go on
simultaneously and thus, their air quality impacts should be added together.
The problem with this comment is that the basic assumption is wrong. With respect to construction
emissions, all pollutants, including NOx were analyzed for the worst -case scenario (i. e., total number of
construction equipment devices on -site at any one time). The project description for this project calls for
two distinct construction phases: dirt hauling which will occur after building demolition and then parking
structure construction. Since these two phases will occur one following the other the impacts were
analyzed separately as per CEQA requirements. SCAQMD's CEQA handbook requires applicants to,
"... analyze the impact of emissions during each identified phase (emphasis added) of project development
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Public Comments
necember 2006
3"t,
and build out year. As part of the impact analysis, emissions need to be compared to the thresholds of
significance." (SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, page 7 -2).
Response to Comment No. 4
The comment suggests that it is reasonably foreseeable that the proposed demolition of "Building 4" and
excavation for the new construction will result in the release of asbestos and /or toxic emissions into the air
in close proximity to sensitive receptors and that this issue was not properly addressed in the MND. This
issue was clearly addressed in the MND. Page 21 of the Initial Study acknowledges the existence of
asbestos - containing materials (ACM) and lead -based paint (LBP) in the existing structures. Further, the
discussion of those materials in that analysis also identifies the requirement of the applicant to conduct
ACM and LBP abatement in accordance with current regulatory requirements prescribed by the Orange
County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and /or South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
As indicated in that discussion, the abatement of these materials would occur prior to demolition of the
existing structure in question and would, therefore, avoid any significant emissions associated with either
substance. The requirement to abate the AGM and LBP will be included as a condition of approval and
will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure that the abatement
procedures have been completed prior to issuance of the demolition permit. As a result, potential impacts
associated with project implementation are determined to be less than significant because the abatement
of the ACM and LBP prior to demolition will effectively eliminate any significant exposure to nearby
sensitive receptors.
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Pubfic Comments
December 2006
qb
.a
Linda S. Adams
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
Department of Toxic Substances Control
November 13, 2006
Mr. Jaime Murillo
Maureen F. Gorsen, Director
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92658
RECEIVED BY Arnold Schwarzenegger
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Governor
NOV 16 2006
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE HOAG HEALTH CENTER USE PERMIT (SCH# 2006101105)
Dear Mr. Murillo:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted
Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND) for the above- mentioned
project. Your document states the Project Description as: "Newport Beach Healthcare
Center, LLC is requesting the approval of an amendment to the existing use permit to
allow: 1) the conversion of 97,000 square feet of research and development
(R &D) /general office use to medical office use within the M-1 -A zoning district; 2) the
completion of a remodel of the Project site that includes the demolition of one of the
existing buildings; 3) the construction of a second parking structure; and 4) the Project
site to exceed the maximum building bulk limitation for the site. Project implementation
will result in a reduction in the overall building area with the demolition of one of the
existing buildings located at 530 Superior Avenue. Demolition of this 86,079 square
foot building would leave a total gross floor area of 329,414 square feet on the Project
site, including the proposed 97,000 square feet of medical office use. The remaining
floor area would be divided into general office totaling 146,000 square feet and research
and development totaling 96,414 square feet. The Project will comply with the
maximum permitted floor area ratio applicable to the General industrial land use
designation and the M-1 -A zoning district." Based on the review of the submitted
document DTSC has comments as follows:
1) The ND should identify the current or historic uses at the project site that may
have resulted in a release of hazardous wastes /substances.
9 Printed on Recycled Paper 41
Mr. Jaime Murillo
November 13, 2006
Page 2
2) The ND should identify the known or potentially contaminated sites within the
proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND should evaluate whether
conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment.
Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies:
• National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
• Envirostor (formerly CalSites): A Database primarily used by the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website
(see below).
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database
of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. I 2
• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained
by U.S.EPA.
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California
Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as
closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations.
• Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Leaks, Investigations and
Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control
Boards.
• Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites
and leaking underground storage tanks. .
• The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452 -3908, maintains a list of Formerly
Used Defense.Sites (FUDS).
3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and /or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. DTSC could require an 3
oversight agreement in order to review such documents. Please see comment
No. 17 below for more information.
Mr. Jaime Murillo
November 13, 2006
Page 3
4) Your document states: "A subsequent Phase Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) for the Newport Technology Center was conducted by Iris Environmental
(February 1, 2006). Based on the findings presented in that ESA, soil and
groundwater contamination at the site has resulted from operations conducted by 4
former site occupants. The RWQCB continues to provide active oversight for
site investigation and remediation activities. As indicated above and confirmed in
the most recent ESA, the primary contaminants at the site are VOCs." DTSC
understands that the RWQCB will be overseeing remediation of the groundwater.
Please ensure that any contaminated soils are also remediated to appropriate
health -based standards.
5) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by a regulatory
agency, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new
development or any construction. All closure, certification or remediation
approval reports by these agencies should be included in the ND.
6) If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous
chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated
site, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a b
Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to
construction if the proposed project is within a Border Zone Property.
7) Your document states that: "Asbestos- containing materials (ACM) and lead -
based paint (LBP) will be removed prior to demolition of the existing office
building." Since buildings or other structures, asphalt or concrete -paved surface
areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted
for the presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or
products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (AGMs). If other
hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are
identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities.
Additionally, any contaminants should be remediated in compliance with
California environmental regulations and policies.
8) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil.
If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another
location. Land Disposal Restrictions may be applicable to these soils. Also, if
the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper
sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of
contamination.
4'
Mr. Jaime Murillo
November 13, 2006
Page 4
9) Your document states: "The assessment and management of indoor air quality is
currently under the oversite of the RWQCB." Human health and the environment
of sensitive receptors should also be protected during the construction and
demolition activities.
10) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the
proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the 10
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code,
Division 20, chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations
(California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5).
11) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes
are (a) stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days, (b) treated onsite,
or (c) disposed of onsite, then a permit from DTSC may be required. If so, the
facility should contact DTSC at (714) 484 -5423 to initiate pre application
discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility.
12) If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should t 2
obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by
contacting (800) 618 -6942.
13) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from
the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the 3
requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA.
14) If the project plans include discharging wastewater to a storm drain, you may be
required to obtain a NPDES permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality y
Control Board (RWQCB).
15) If during construction /demolition of the project, the soil and /or groundwater it
contamination is suspected, construction /demolition in the area should cease
and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented.
16) DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental
Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies, or a Voluntary Cleanup
Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA 16
please see www.dtsc. ca.gov /SiteCleanur)/Brownfields, or contact Maryam Tasnif-
Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484- 5489.or the VCP,
41
Mr. Jaime Murillo
November 13, 2006
Page 5
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms.Teresa Hom, Project
Manager, at (714) 484 -5477 or email at thom @dtsc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
FAINAV
Greg Holmes
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office
cc: Govemor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812 -3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812 -0806
CEQA# 1575
�( 5
5. Department of Toxic Substances Control (November 13, 2006)
Response to Comment No. 1
As indicated on page 23 of the Initial Study, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the
Newport Technology Center (i.e., current use) was conducted by Iris Environmental. The results of this
ESA are summarized in the initial study and the document is included in the source list on page 55 of the
Initial Study. The ESA prepared by Iris Environmental, dated February 1, 2006, was prepared in
conjunction with the acquisition of the subject property (Phase 1) and provides a listing of historical uses of
the property and discussions of past chemical releases at the site. The Phase I ESA is on file with the
Newport Beach Planning Department.
Response to Comment No. 2
As part of the Phase I ESA process, surrounding sites and their potential to degrade environmental
conditions on the subject property were evaluated and discussed in the Phase I report, which was made
available to the City of Newport Beach and to the environmental regulatory agency overseeing the
environmental remedial efforts underway at the site. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board (SARWQCB) is overseeing all environmental investigation and remediation efforts at the site.
Raytheon Company is the responsible party conducting site investigation and remediation activities, which
are being overseen by the SARWQCB.
Response to Comment No. 3
At the present time, the only subsequent investigation that must be conducted is that prescribed by the
City of Newport Beach. As indicated on page 21 of the initial study, the applicant will be required to
undertake a ACM /LBP survey to confirm the presence or absence of those materials in the structure
proposed for demolition. The City has included the following condition, which will be included in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) for implementation.
SC -10 Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the applicant shall undertake and complete
an asbestos survey and lead -based paint survey to determine the presence of asbestos
and lead -based paint. If it is determined that ACM and/or LBP exists in the structures to
be demolished, abatement of the ACM and LBP shall occur prior to demolition of the
existing structure. All work undertaken by the contractor shall comply with SCAQMD Rule
1402 related to the disturbance of ACM, as well as the storage and disposal of ACM. The
contractor's responsibilities shall include proper notification, removal techniques for ACM,
clean -up procedures, and waste storage and disposal.
Mitigation Measures 6, 7, and 8 on page 23 of the initial study identify the requirements imposed on the
application to ensure that the existing site contamination will be addressed in accordance with applicable
regulatory agency requirements.
Although this comment makes reference to "Comment No. 17," no such comment is included in the letter
from DTSC.
Response to Comment No. 4
As suggested in this comment by DTSC, all contamination soils and other hazardous conditions (e.g.,
ACM and LBP, etc.) will be abated and/or mitigated in accordance with all required health -based
standards prescribed by the responsible regulatory agency.
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Public Comments
December 2006
ql�
Response to Comment No, 5
Refer to Response to Comment No. 3. The remediation program is actively underway at the site and the
SARWQCB continues to provide ongoing oversight for the entire investigation and remediation program
currently being implemented.
Response to Comment No. B
The subject property is not located within 2,000 feet of a "Border Zone of a contaminated Property."
Further, the environmental assessments conducted for the subject property have identified the nature and
extent of contamination on the site and in the project environs. That information has been summarized in
the initial study and appropriate mitigation measures have been prescribed to ensure that future
development and /or sensitive receptors are not exposed to hazardous conditions.
Response to Comment No. 7
Refer to Response to Comment No. 3, which reflects the "standard condition" imposed on the project
applicant. As indicated in the City's condition, the applicant will be required to abate any ACM/LBP that
may be found in the existing structure prior to demolition of that structure. In addition, any other
hazardous materials that may be encountered during that survey will also be identified and appropriate
precautions, including remediation of the hazardous condition(s) consistent with current regulatory
requirements will be taken prior to or during demolition activities as determined necessary by the
responsible regulatory agency.
Response to Comment No. 8
This comment is acknowledged. Any soil that is excavated and either removed from the site or used as fill
will be tested to ensure that it is not contaminated (refer to MM -7 on page 23 of the initial study). If found
to be contaminated, the soil will be removed and disposed at a landfill certified to accept the contaminated
soil. Although it is not anticipated that additional soil would be imported for use on the site, such imported
materials, if required, would also be tested to ensure that they are free of contamination, as suggested in
this comment.
Response to Comment No. 9
This comment is acknowledged. MM-6 on page 23 of the initial study outlines the program for vapor
intrusion into the proposed buildings that will accommodate the proposed medical office uses. As
previously indicated, all activities associated with project implementation, including demolition, site
preparation, construction and operation, will ensure that the health and safety of the nearby sensitive
receptors will be protected. Several mitigation measures and standard conditions have been prescribed
and will be overseen by the Orange County Health Care Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board
and /or the Department of Toxic Substances Control to ensure such protection is achieved.
Response to Comment No. 10
This comment is acknowledged. A condition will be included if the project is approved that requires the
applicant to comply with the applicable section of the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, as
recommended in this comment.
Response to Comment No. 11
This comment is acknowledged. If a permit from DTSC is required, the applicant will comply with the
application requirements outlined by the agency.
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Public Comments
December 2006
11
Response to Comment No. 12
This comment is acknowledged. If hazardous wastes will be generated by the proposed project, the
applicant will comply with the requirement to obtain a permit number from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Response to Comment No. 13
This comment is acknowledged. The applicant will contact the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)
if necessary to ensure compliance with current applicable regulatory requirements.
Response to Comment No. 14
As indicated on page 20, the proposed project will be subject to a NPDES permit from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. As required by the City and the NPDES permit, the applicant will be required to
prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plant (SWPPP) that includes appropriate Best Management
Practices (BMPs). In addition, the applicant will also prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP),
which also prescribes BMPs to ensure that water quality is not adversely affected by stormwater
discharges resulting from project implementation.
Response to Comment No. 15
As recommended in this comment, the following condition will be included to ensure that potential health
hazards are adequate addressed:
"If contaminated soils are encountered during demolition, site preparation, and/or construction
activities associated with project implementation, such activities shall cease and appropriate
health and safety procedures shall be prescribed and implemented. No further work shall be
undertaken until such time as it can be shown to the responsible regulatory agency that the public
would not be exposed to a potential health hazard."
Response to Comment No. 16
This comment is acknowledged. The applicant will contact DTSC, as recommended in this comment, if it
is determined that the applicant requires guidance for cleanup activities conducted on the subject
property.
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Public Comments
December 2006
q
Rlohe l Smith
450 earero way
Newport Bewh, CA 9288:1
November 13,2W6
City of Newport Beach
Attention: Planning Commission
Regarding: Hoag Healthcare Center PA2006 -113 Punic Hearing
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beady.
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOV 16 2006
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FILE COPY
Beyond the altruism of expanding the healthcare services in the vicinity of Hoag Hospital, everybody
knows why Newport Beach Center, LLC at 500 Superior Avenue has applied to convert R&Meneral
Use zoned property to Medical Office use and has also applied to expand the bulk building limitation for
the site. Newport Beach LLC will realize significantly more revenue by approval of their proposal.
Without the City of Newport Beach acting on behalf of residents and the environment to ask Newport
Beach Center, LLC to fulfil certain requirements in exchange, the increased revenue of the property
owner will be at the cost of the surrounding residents and at the cost of the surrounding environment.
As a dose neighbor residing in the structure next to the project site, at the 450 address along Superior
Avenue, I observe that Newport Beach Carter, LLC is not currently a good neighbor of Newport Beach
residents, and therefore I strongly urge the City to be firm- handed in dealing with the bad neighbor
requesting the community s goodwill towards its efforts to earn further financial gain. Increasintg the
capacity and approving a change of use of the 500 Superior Avenue commercial property will give a
bad neighbor license to further deteriorate the quality of fife in the residential Community where the
Property resides. This contradicts the goals of the Update to the City of Newport Beach General Plan
which was just approved. Namely, the Update to the General Plan recognizes the importance of
Newport Beach's residential neighborhoods and seeks to enhance these residential neighborhoods.
If the City of Newport Beach approves re- zoning the site for change of use as well as exceeding the
Capacity of the site, the City should expect the site to give some things in return in order to better the
surrounding neighborhoods. First, I recommend a small park be donated to the city from the site's land
in exchange for approving the site's requests, preferably for a skate park, as unfortunately teenagers on
skateboards are not welcome at this site or other nearby business complexes and there is no park in
the neighborhood for such use. There are a lot of teenagers who like to ride skateboards who I think
the city should value more highly as neighbors in this area than Newport Beach Carrier, LLC at 500
SuperiorAvenue. Youth are, after ag, our future.
Second, require the site to give up enough land along Dana Road to add a right turn lane going onto
Superior. The additional traffic in the area wig warrant this road improvement A traffic signal at Dana
Road and Superior Avenue will also probably be necessary.
Third, require the site to provide pubic parking hours for its parking structure or structures, during
evenings and on holidays. There is nothing worse than living next door to a parking structure to which
one has no access, especially on Fourth of July when one has to park one mile away from one's home
in order to find a parking space. The fact is, people use parting places along Dana Road and along
Superior who should be using the current parking structure on the site, people who prefer these spots
rather than walking to the Parting structure Lure on site or at Hoag Hospital.
Fourth, eliminate the use of the Newport Beach Carter, LLC as an off-site parking area for Hoag
Hospital staff. The parting shuttles constantly drdirg the block, corning from Hospital Road onto
Superior and then onto the site, are a constant nuisance and impact on the traffic. They worsen traffic
0
0 Page 2 November 13, 2008
flow of cars turning left onto Superior Avenue from Dana Road. I believe the site plans to continue its
use as ofishie parking for Hoag Hospital, and I do not think another paridrig structure would be needed
If the site were not used as off -site parking for hospital employees.
Fifth, perhaps a site of this scope needs an aitemafive entry and exit point rather than from Superior
Avenue. If the site wishes to use 500 Superior Avenue as off -site parking with shuttle service to Hoag
Hospital, perhaps parking shuttles should not route along a residential neighborhood, alai Hospital
Road and onto Superior Avenue. Maybe the site needs to have an entry and exit directly from Newport
Boulevard. Another concern of the site increasing traffic on Superior Avenue is additional traffic at
Newport Boulevard /Superior /17" Street. If the site expands as it wishes, it will further burden the
intersection at Newport Boulevard and 17"' Street, already recognized as the worst in the City for traffic
congestion.
Please do not squander the resources of the City of Newport Beach so that Newport Beach Center
LLC can increase Its revenue. Please consider asking for the above concessions by the 500 Superior
Avenue site if it expects the City to make the concessions of approving increasing the site capadty as
well as approving the change of use for the site. —
Sincerely,
Richard Smith
Resident of Newport Beach
50
6. Richard Smith (November 13, 2006)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment expresses general opposition to the proposed project. The comment does not raise any
issues about the project's environmental impacts or the adequacy of the initial study prepared pursuant to
CEQA. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning
Commission for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed project.
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Public Comments
December 2006
5(
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
Main Office
818 West Seventh Street
12th Floor
Los Angeles, California
90017 -3435
t (213) 2361800
1(213)2.36 -1825
www.scag.ca.gov
OHleers: Preside m: Vromw B. Broke, Lm
Angeles (Maly • First Are Resident: Gary Mitt,
San Bemdrdhl0 County- Second Vice Pmident
Richard and, lake ruess , loo t<Nak past
Resident: Toni young, Pon Hueneme
Imperial County: Victor Carrillo, Imperial
County• don Edney, Bl Centre
Lus hngeks County: Warne B. Burke, Los
Angeles County • 2ev hro ly.ky, Las Angeles
County -Am Aldingec Manhattan Beach • Harty
Baldwjn, San Gabbed. Pool BowNr, Cermw, -
TOM Compbek, Burbank • Tony Cardenas, Los
Angeles - Stan Carroll, is Habra Heights
Margaret CMrk, Rosemead • Gene Dmdehs
Paramount Afire Dispema, Pabndale •Judy
Dunlap, Inglewood• Rae 6abeyrch, Long Beach
David Gain, Downey• Eric Uncut LOS Angeles
Wyndy Geuel, Los Angeles • Frank Gssmle,
Cvdakry Janke HaYm,lm audit- hadaeHZN,
Company • Keith W. Hanks, Musa • Jose Hutac
Los Angeles - Gran LaBUAge,, Las Angeles• Puma
Leon, Pomona • piuiPowaks, lonance • your
PCwnoc Santa Monica • Alex Padilla, Los
Angeles• Removal Parks, LOS Angeles ban Peny,
Las Angeles • Ed Reyes, Los Angeles • Sm
Rusendahl, Los Angeles ' Goig Smith, Los
Angeles - Tom Sykes, Walnut • Paul Talbot
A burns • Mike Ten, South Pasadena • Tama
Reyes traitor, Long Beach . Antonio
y1waigosa, Los Angeles - Dennis Washburn,
GnIals u •Jack Webs. Los Angeles • Herd 1.
Wesson, D. Los Angeles - Dennis Zinc, Los
MPH,
Orange County; Chile Rome, Orange courty-
(hrisline Barre; La Palma - John Beauman,
Bras • Lou Bone, Tustin • Art Brown, Boom Pan
Richard Chavez, Anaheon • Debbie Cook,
Huntington Beach Leslie.Daigle, Newport
Beach • Rithard Damn, Lake Erml -Paul Glatt,
Laguna Niguel- Marilynn Bra. Los AMmims
Riverside County. kh Stone, Riverside County
• Thomas Buckley, Lake Elumre - Bonnie
LlicAmges, Mauro Valley • Ran Lovesldge.
Riverside - Greg Penis Cathedral City • Ran
Roberts, lemecula
San Bernardino County: Gary Ovin,, San
Bernardino County • Lawrence Dale, Barstow
Paul Eaton, Mann • Ere, Ann Garcia, Grand
Tenaee • Tm laspn, Town of Apple VA" - Lany
Mc(alm, Highland- Deborah Robertson, Rand
Alto Wapnm, Ontario
Ventura(aunn:luoy MIkNS Ventura County
Glen Becena, Simi yalleY • Curl Morelmme, San
Buenaventura • Goal Young, Pon Hueneme
Orange County Tramporratlan Authority:
LOU(on o, tpuncy m Orange
Renewed. Camty Transportation
(omminioo: Robin Law, Hemet
Ventura County Tranryortation
(oamnkMOw: Ranh Muddies Moor park
a.wm
November 14, 2006
Mr. Jaime Murillo
RECEIVED BY
PANNING DEPARTMENT
NOV 16 2006
Associate Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City of Newport Beach
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120060703 Hoag Health Center
Dear Mr. Murillo:
Thank you for submitting the Hoag Health Center for review and comment. As
areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the
consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This
activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization
pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by
these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take
actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies.
We have reviewed the Hoag Health Center, and have determined that the
proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review
(IGR) Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
(Section 15206). Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at
this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we
would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time.
A description of the proposed Project will be published in SCAG's October 131,
2006 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and
comment.
The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all
correspondence with SCAG. concerning this Project. Correspondence should be
sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions,
please contact Laverne Jones at (213) 236 -1857. Thank you.
Sincerely,
SY IA PATSAOURAS
Manager, Environmental Division
Doc #128638
5,?-
Southern California Association of Governments (November 14, 2006)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment, which indicates that SCAG has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it is not
regionally significant, is acknowledged. No response is necessary; however, as requested, the City of
Newport Beach will notify SCAG if there is a change in the scope of the project.
Hoag Health Center
Responses to Public Comments
December 2006
53