No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 10 - Exhibit 10 - 3-20-08 - Planning Commission ReportExhibit No. 10 Planning Commission staff report dated March 20, 2008 /0./ THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY BLANK SCANNED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 20, 2008 Agenda Item 5 SUBJECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update (PA 2007 -073) One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California ■ Certification of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ■ General Plan Amendment No. 2007 -005 ■ Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001 ■ Development Agreement Amendment No. 2007 -001 APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian CONTACT: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 jcampbelllAcitv.newport- beach.ca.us INTRODUCTION At the March 6, 2008, meeting, the Commission considered several revisions to the Planned Community Text introduced by the applicant. Additionally, an update regarding Hoag's proposal to install a sound wall between the Upper Campus loading dock areas and Villa Balboa was presented. The most current draft development Agreement Amendment was also presented. Although the Commission did not provide specific direction as to the appropriateness of the project, staff has included draft resolutions for project approval. RECOMMENDATION Conduct a public hearing and take the following actions: Adopt the attached draft resolution recommending the City Council certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit #1): Adopt the attached draft resolution recommending the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2007 -005, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001 and Development Agreement Amendment No. 2007 -001 (Exhibit #2). 10-S Hoag Master Plan Update March 20, 2008 Page 2 DISCUSSION Planned Community Text Changes The applicant introduced additional modifications to the Hoag PC text at the last meeting. Those changes have been incorporated within the draft that is attached to Exhibit #2. In the March 6, 2008 staff report, staff noted concerns with the language suggested by Hoag related to vehicle idling and Hoag now accepts staffs suggested language. As with the prior report, the draft amendment of the Hoag PC text is attached in an underline and strikeout format with the recent changes from the prior draft highlighted. A. Soundwall & Associate Landscape Screen During the last meeting, Hoag agreed to replace and maintain for two years any landscaping lost on the Villa Balboa property as a result of the installation of the wall. After concluding the impact analysis of the wall, it is anticipated that no landscaping on the Villa Balboa property will be removed. Staff also had to make reasonable assumptions for tree loss due to the wall construction while also assuming that existing vegetation, which serves as a visual screen, would be retained. These factors led staff to suggest the following changes to the proposed amendment: "Loading Dock The project sponsor shall provide a sound wall along West Hoag Drive as shown in the approximate location on Exhibit 4. Said wall shall be installed within 12 months of prolect approval, subiect to issuance of required permits. To the maximum degree feasible, the sound wall shall be constructed to retain existing vegetation, which serves as a visual screen. Please refer to Section Vlll, D. for additional landscaping requirements related to the sound wall. Mitigation measures to reduce the noise levels in the Loading Dock Area shall be incorporated into the design and operations of the hospital; such mitigation shall include relocation of the trash compactor and baler, limiting the hours of truck deliveries to the loading dock area, and enclosure of the trash compactor. " "Villa Balboa Landscape Zone approved poFm is The area between the Hoag property line and the sound wall will be referred to as the Villa Balboa Landscape Zone. This portion of the Hoag Hospital property will have a specific landscape process to ensure consultation with Villa Balboa on the planting and maintenance of the area. Existing landscaping on Villa Balboa's side of the wall shall be preserved to the extent feasible or replaced with specimen plant material as designated on a plan to be approved by the Planning Director after consultation with the Villa Balboa /O • T Hoag Master Plan Update March 20, 2008 Page 3 Community Association. The plan shall also include sufficient additional To the e.,tent new plant mate" i 44MA -od AR the %ima Balboa I a. dsra.,e earlier. ,9 . •• ...,..e..v, is—a.— ._ 7eee as .a .,, t atia „a 14^-. installation. Any future modifications made to said wall and landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director." These changes will help ensure that the trees that act as a visual screen are maintained to the maximum extent irrespective of the location of the trees in relation to the location of the soundwall. The provisions above also provides for screening of the soundwall, maintenance and installation timing. B. Parking Rates Commissioner Eaton highlighted the changes to the parking rates and questioned their derivation in an email message to staff. Parking ratios for Hoag are contained within Table 2 of the PC text. Hoag is proposing to amend several of the rates based upon an empirical parking rate study (Exhibit #3) prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, a traffic engineering firm that prepared the traffic an parking analysis for the Phase II expansion (Bill & Sue Gross Women's Pavilion). This firm also prepared the traffic study for the SEIR. Mitigation Measure #32 from EIR# 142 requires the preparation of a parking generation study for future phases of construction based upon empirical or survey data. As noted above, just such a study was prepared for Phase II of the hospital expansion. This study identified higher rates for the uses listed in Table 2 with the exception of medical office and residential care. These uses were not studied as they were not being proposed. Additionally, parking demand for the support uses was assumed to be zero as this function was not distinguishable from the other categories and this function was part of inpatient, outpatient and administration uses that do have parking rates. Parking for the Bill & Sue Gross Women's Pavilion was then tabulated using the adopted fates contained within the PC text and the empirically derived rates. The parking demand using the empirically derived rates identified an increased parking need of 104 spaces above what the parking rates of the PC text would require. Since parking supply exceed this increased prediction, parking was not of concern and ultimately the project was approved. The original parking rates contained in the PC Text were requested by Hoag and since the City did not have parking ratios for all the various component to .S' Hoag Master Plan Update March 20, 2008 Page 4 activities identified by Hoag, an analysis was performed. That analysis was prepared by LSA Associates and is attached as Exhibit #4. Several parking rates in the current PC text have a footnote source being a study prepared by DKS dated May 1987 (this study is within Exhibit #4). The study does not identify specific parking rates, but it does identify peak parking demand for various specific hospital uses. The LSA study also does not specifically identify how the DKS data was used, but since it was attached to the LSA, it was a factor in their conclusion that accepted the parking rates proposed by Hoag in 1991. Based upon the parking analysis performed for the Bill & Sue Gross Women's Pavilion using the proposed empirical parking rates, if they adopted, they will require more parking to be provided than the current parking rates. Since Mitigation Measure #32 will necessitate a new parking rate study in advance of the next phase, these rates will be again compared with current parking demands measured in the field design adjustments can be at that time. Staff recommends that the rates be adjusted as proposed by Hoag and that the DKS source reference be corrected to accurately reflect the 1991 traffic and parking study prepared by LSA Associates. Amended Development Agreement No changes to the draft development agreement are suggested at this time and the most recent draft is attached to the March 6, 2008 staff report. Environmental Review The project has changed with the inclusion of the soundwall as part of the PC text. Bonterra Consulting has prepared an analysis of the impacts. of. the soundwall and landscaping (Exhibit #4). Aside from the beneficial impact of reduced noise for most abutting residents, the analysis concludes that implementation of the wall and landscaping would not result in any new or greater significant effects than have already been addressed in the Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR or whose impacts could not be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant. Staff has prepared a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) in accordance with CEQA for the Commission to consider. It is attached as Exhibit #5. It incorporates mitigation measures from the 1992 Hoag Master Plan EIR to be retained or modified, new mitigation measures and project design features that reduce environmental impacts. /o . L Hoag Master Plan Update March 20, 2008 Page 5 Cogeneration Facility Due to the concerns expressed by the community, the City is consulting with Fluor Enterprises regarding the possibilities of reducing visible plume emissions from the facility. The facility and potential plume reduction is not part of the project. Any condition requiring plume abatement in connection with this project would require analysis pursuant to CEQA and possibly recirculation of the Draft SEIR. The facility generates three plumes that are being evaluated; 1. Cooling tower plume 2. Engine exhaust heat plume 3. Boiler Steam venting plume Fluor's report has not been completed as of the drafting of this report. Staff will transmit the report to Commissioners and make it available to the public prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Due to the fact that the cogeneration facility is not part of the Master Plan Update project, to the extent that the Commission wants to make a recommendation related to the cogeneration facility, it should do so in conjunction with the recommendation on the amendment of the Development Agreement. CONCLUSION If the Planning Commission determines that the SEIR is adequate and finds that a recommendation of project approval is warranted at this time, the attached resolutions may be adopted. Neither resolution contains a recommendation related to the cogeneration facility. ALTERNATIVES If the Commission desires additional analysis, revision of the draft SEIR, changes to the resolutions, modifications to the draft PC Text amendment or draft Development Agreement amendment or the MMRP, those items should be identified at the hearing. If a continuance is necessary to address any unresolved issues, staff recommends a continuance to April 3, 2008, unless a continuance of a longer duration is deemed necessary based upon the issues. Prepared By: VV es Campbell, Senio tanner Submitted by: i w 9 . #Agffmv a'r to .7 Hoag Master Plan Update March 20, 2008 Page 6 EXHIBITS 3. Excerpt of LLG Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study dated October 15, 2001 4. Excerpt of LSA Traffic Impact and Parking Analysis dated September 27, 1991 including the DKS Associates parking needs survey dated < May 15, 1987. 10 g. Exhibit No, 3 Excerpt of LLG Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study dated October 15, 2001 NO k LINSCOTT GREENSPAN TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) STUDY FOR HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN PHASE II Newport Beach, California Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Prepared By. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: (714) 641 -1587 Faz No.: (714) 641 -Q139 Website: www.ligetigineers.com Report Prepared By: Tdssa (de Jesus) Allen, Transportation Engineer III Revised Octofe—M,760f AS APMV -9-4 Y4- June 27, 2001 2- 0021,4MIPLANF LING AIRECM ON fdeto)t 0 As Submiued ® As Modt(Wt Pafq tP: 0 MODIFICATIONS CtildR(MIJ ON 0 As Submitted Q Aa Mud100, ppfer do. U P / LANNING COINMS$10N Oi$ (&ft j/.oS.at * icy As 3uamtW ® A#)4QditC reFee w: a CITY COUNCIL ON (do" ❑ As Submitted D As Mollified, refer to: tact IfIc.J t3D. 1542 /b. M 0— E N G I M E E R 5 PARKING ANALYSIS Existing On -Site Parking Supply Existing Hoag Hospital parking consists of a total of 2,465 on -site spaces in 26 distinct zones, as illustrated on .Exhibit 16. This on -site supply is comprised of outpatient/visitor spaces, stafflemployee spaces, and other specific designations (i.e., handicapped, physician, emergency room, service/delivery parking). Currently, parking lot P -L,007 (325 spaces) is used as a construction staging area, and therefore leaves 2,140 operational spaces at Hoag under existing conditions. At the time this study was prepared, a new 455 -space parking structure was being constructed in the upper campus. Existing Parking Demand Based upon parking surveys conducted by Newport Traffic Studies for Hoag Hospital on Thursday, June 1, 2000, the existing actual parking demand was determined, and summarized in Table 11. As indicated in Table 11, the total existing peak parking demand for the Hoag medical campus is 1,811 spaces, which occurs at 11:30 AM. Derivation of Empirical Parking Ratios The parking survey data was broken down into three categories: (1) inpatient, (2) outpatient, and (3) administration and support, based upon the existing parking locations and designations. Of the total peak parking demand, it was estimated that 1,128 spaces were used by inpatient services, 164 spaces were used for outpatient services, and 534 spaces were used by administration and support- related facilities. The peak parking needs of each category were then divided by the size (in 1,000 SF) of each land use to derive a parking rate specific to inpatient, outpatient, and administration/support. As shown in Table 11, the resultant empirical parking ratios are as follows: • Inpatient: 2.35 spaces per 1,000 SF • Outpatient: 2.31 spaces per 1,000 SF • Administration & Support: 5.30 spaces per 1,000 SF • Hoag Campus Total: 2.78 spaces per 1,000 SF As shown above, the composite empirical/survey-based parking ratio derived for the entire Hoag medical campus is 2.78 spaces per 1,000 SF. 42 JO • /A.— O EXHIBIT 16 PARKING AREA DESIGNATIONS HOAG HOSPITAL PHASE II TPO, NEWPORT BEACH UNDER CONSMUCMN HOSPITAL ii I WAR" ROAD 10 13 SMOMWAM ., X11 ovinwrAm- a �y.ma , ,.,. ` ■ , �j nr ovwwmvxm is r7Jc COAST RIG AY KQGVM fflomapAm EXHIBIT 16 PARKING AREA DESIGNATIONS HOAG HOSPITAL PHASE II TPO, NEWPORT BEACH E N G I N E E. R S Parking Requirements for Phase II Table 12 presents a summary of parking requirements for the existing development at Hoag, and the incremental parking needs for the development of Phase H. Table 12 also shows a comparison of the parking requirements based upon the direct application of the parking ratios contained in the traffic study for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR (prepared by LSA Associates in October 1991), and the empirically derived parking ratios in this study. The empirically derived parking rates in this study are greater than the ratios specified in the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. The other main difference is that the "administration' category, was combined with the "support" category under this analysis. Similar to what was assumed in estimating traffic generation for the project, the support services category is believed to generate parking demand that is already accounted for in one or more of the three other uses (inpatient, outpatient, and administration). Based upon the application of survey -based ratios, the incremental parking needs for Phase II corresponds to 582 spaces. Parking Supply versus Demand Assessment Table 13 outlines the steps taken to evaluate the parking supply versus demand relationships at Hoag. The existing 1,826 -space peak parking demand at Hoag was increased by 10% for parking contingency and circulation allowance (183 spaces); and then added to the net parking requirement of 582 spaces for Phase II that was also adjusted to allow for a 10% contingency (58 spaces), to determine the overall parking needs at the Hoag medical campus, totaling 2,649 spaces. The existing parking supply was adjusted to account for the 325 -space lot currently used as a staging area, the 98 spaces to be removed due to the development of Phase II, and the 455 spaces added by the new parking structure. The future 2;649 -space parking demand was then compared against the future parking supply of 2,822 spaces. As Table 13 indicates, the development of Phase II results in.a parking surplus of 173 spaces. As Exhibit 16 illustrates, the new parking structure in the upper campus will be primarily designated for the use of visitors, while the existing parking structure located just south of the Main Hospital doorways will primarily serve the parking needs of Hoag employees (P -U -012, - 013, -014, -015, and —016). In the upper campus, most visitors /patients at the James Irvine Surgery Center park in the lot adjacent to the building (this P -U- 003 /004 lot is reserved for visitors/patients), with Surgery Center employees parking in the existing parking structure. Parking for patients and ambulances at the Emergency Department is provided at the adjacent parking lots reserved for .Emergency Room use (P -U -001 and —002). Additional staff, delivery, and valet parking are provided in P- U -009, -010; and —011. As indicated previously, The construction of Phase 11 will. require the 45 �o •�y�5 E N C. i N E E R 5 TABLE 12 PARKING REQUIREMENT SUMMARY Hoag Hospital Phase II TPO, Newport Beach - - ' -t HOAG HOSPITAL PHASE II TPO MASTER PLAN E1R (1991 ) DERIVED PARKING RATES RATIOS SPACES .REQUIRED RATIOS SPACES REQUIRED Description S11-1E (Gros > S F) EXISTING UPPER CAMPUS Inpatient (414 licensed beds, 2,924 employees daily at Hoag) 480,000 1.25 per KSF 600 2.35 per KSF 1,128 Outpatient 6,044 2.00 per KSF 12 2.31 per KSF t4 Administration 0 4.00 per KSF 0 5.30 per KSF 0 Support 5,335 1.00 per KSF 5 5.30 per KSF 28 LOWER CAMPUS Inpatient 0 1.25 per KSF 0 2.35 per KSF 0 Outpatient 65,000 2.00 per KSF 130 2.31 per KSF 150 Administration 53,082 4.00 per KSF 212 5.30 per KSF 281 Support 42,274 1.00 per KSF 42 5.30 per KSF 224 1,002 1,826 TOTAL CAMPUS PHASF.IIPROJECT UPPER CAMPUS New Construction Inpatient (East Tower) 198,567 1.25 per KSF 248 2.35 per KSF 467 Inpatient (Heart Institute) 0 1.25 per KSF 0 2.35 per KSF 0 Outpatient (East Tower) 13,575 2.00 per KSF 27 2.31 per KSF 31 Support (East Tower) 96,166 1.00 per KSF 96 5.30 per KSF [a] Administration (East Tower) 7,269 4.00 per KSF 29 5.30 per KSF 41 Demolition Inpatient (Conference Center) (12,034) 1.25 per KSF (15) 2.35 per KSF (28) Inpatient (Original Building) (10,789) 1.25 per KSF (13) 2.35 per KSF (25) Inpatient (Respiratory Services) (9,338) 1.25 per KSF (12) 2.35 per KSF (22) Inpatient (Admitting Building) (8,422) 1.25 per KSF (11) 2.35 per KSF (20) LOWER CAMPUS New Construction Inpatient 0 1.25 per KSF 0 2.35 per KSF 0 Outpatient (Cancer Center Addition) 60,000 2.00 per KSF 120 2.31 per KSF 139 Outpatient 0 2.00 per KSF 0 2.31 per KSF 0 Support (Child Care Addition) 3,000 I.00 per KSF 3 5.30 per KSF [a] Support (Central Plant) 5,000 1.00 per KSF 5 5.30 per KSF (a] Administration 0 4.00 per KSF 0 5.30 per KSF 0 478 582 Note: [a] The ancillary uses under the "Support" category are not expected to generate additional parking demand. Parking- Final.xls 46 101152001 " �0(D E N G I N E r R 5 TABLE 12 PARKING REQUIREMENT SUMMARY Hoag Hospital Phase II TPO, Newport Beach - - - - HOAG HOSPITAL ^' PIIASE II TPO' - MASTER PLAN EJR(1991) DERIVED PARKING RATES Sl,1E SPACES SPACES Descri tlon (Cron SF ) RATIOS REQUIRED RATIOS REQUIRED EXISTING UPPER CAMPUS Inpatient (414 licensed beds, 480,000 1.25 per KSF 600 2.35 per KSF 1,128 2,924 employees daily at Hoag) Outpatient 6,044 2.00 per KSF 12 2.31 per KSF 14 Administration 0 4.00 per KSF 0 5.30 per KSF 0 Support 5,335 1.00 per KSF 5 5.30 per KSF 28 LOWER CAMPUS Inpatient 0 1.25 per KSF 0 2.35 per KSF 0 Outpatient 65,000 2.00 per KSF 130 2.31 per KSF 150 Administration 53,082 4.00 per KSF 212 5.30 per KSF 281 Support 42,274 1.00 per KSF 42 5.30 per KSF 224 1,002 11826 TOTAL CAMPUS PHASE II PROJECT UPPER CAMPUS New Construction Inpatient (East Tower) 198,567 1.25 per KSF 248 2.35 per KSF 467 Inpatient (Heart Institute) 0 1.25 per KSF 0 2.35 per KSF 0 Outpatient (East Tower) 13,575 2.00 per KSF 27 2.31 per KSF 31 Support (East Tower) 96,166 1.00 per KSF 96 5.30 per KSF [a] Administration (East Tower) 7,269 4.00 per KSF 29 5.30 per KSF 41 Demolition Inpatient (Conference Center) (12,034) 1.25 per KSF (15) 2.35 per KSF (28) Inpatient (Original Building) (10,789) 1.25 per KSF (13) 2.35 per KSF (25) Inpatient (Respiratory Services) (9,338) 1.25 per KSF (12) 2.35 per KSF (22) Inpatient (Admitting Building) (8,422) 1.25 per KSF (11) 2.35 per KSF (20) LOWER CAMPUS New Construction Inpatient 0 1.25 per KSF 0 2.35 per KSF 0 Outpatient (Cancer Center Addition) 60,000 2.00 per KSF 120 2.31 per KSF 139 Outpatient 0 2.00 per KSF 0 2.31 per KSF 0 Support (Child Care Addition) 3,000 1.00 per KSF 3 5.30 per KSF [a] Support (Central Plant) 5,000 1.00 per KSF 5 5.30 per KSF [a] Administration 0 4.00 per KSF 0 5.30 per KSF 0 478 582 Note: [a] The ancillary uses under the "Support" category are not expected to generate additional parking demand. Parking- finul.xts 46 10115/2001 10'16' �0(L E% G I N E E R 5 Parking- Finat.sls TABLE 13 PARKING SUPPLY vs. DEMAND ASSESSMENT Hoag Hospital Phase 11 TPO, Newport Beach i:l] 4. 31f c ;?�' � / )�� .•�' Y t x�� � ¢GS �4. 1LYi,N..iY� ,. � i. EXISTING PARKING DEMAND & NEEDED SUPPLY a. Peak Demand (per Phase II TPO derivation; see -fable 12) 1,826 b. Add 10% Parking Contingency /Circulation Allowance 183 2,009 c. Total Existing Parking Demand and Parking Supply Needed to Support Existing Development PARKING SUPPLY d. Existing Parking Supply 2,140 c. Plus P -I, 007 Lot (currently used for construction staging) 325 f. Less Spaces Lost due to Phase II Project (P -U- 005,007,008) -98 g. Plus Spaces in New Parking Structure 455 2,822 h. Future Parking Supply FUTURE DEMOLITION & CONSTRUCTION i. Net Parking Requirement for Phase 11 Project 582 (per Phase I1 TPO estimation; see Table 12) j. Add 10% Parking Contingency /Circulation Allowance 58 640 k. Additional Spaces Needed to Support Phase 11 PARKING SURPLUS 1. Total Spaces Needed (Item c. + Item k.) 2,649 m. Future Parking Supply (Item h.) 2,822 n. Parking Surplus (2,822 spaces minus 2,649 spaces) 173 47 tonsnom E N G I N E E R S removal of three parking lots: P -U -005 (reserved for doctors), P -IJ -007 and —008 (reserved for ER/loading/unloading/patients). In the lower campus, all Cancer Center patients/visitors and employees park in the three lots surrounding the building (P -L- 002,' -003, and —004). P -L-005 is designated for the use of Child Care Center visitors and staff. ? The existing parking structure fronting West Coast Highway primarily serves the parking needs of the adjacent Support Services building, accommodating visitor, employee, carpool, and delivery parking demands. P -L-006 located between the parking structure and the Support Services building serves as a delivery zone. P -L-001 and —004, which are also known as the "upper terrace" parking at Hoag, are used for employee parking. Hoag currently has a shuttle program that provides connections between these lots and the various facilities within the campus. As mentioned previously, parking lot P -L -007 is currently used as a construction staging area. However, upon completion of Phase II, spaces from lot P-L-007 will be incrementally added to support Phase II parking needs, and will be included as part ofHoag's on -site shuttle program to provide accessibility to/from facilities in the upper and lower campus. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) As part of the mitigation measures originally developed for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan, and in accordance with the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, the following TDM measures have been outlined (already provided as part of Phase I): L A minimum of 5% of the parking provided at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These carpool spaces shall be located near the employee entrance, or at other preferential locations. A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employees shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided at such time as demand warrants. 3. A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. 4. Information on transportation alternatives shall be provided to all employees. 5. A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated in the parking area. 6. The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. 7. Bus stop improvements shall be required for developments located along arterials where public transit exists or is anticipated to exist within five years. M fie, TABLE l i PARKING UTILIZATION SURVEY RESULTS [a] Haag HoAplul Pba15 It TPO, Newport Beach Holm — — —_ (al Parking eui ya p uAa t by hcw Tn11ic Sudin Im IftaR limpial on Thfi ], 1— I, 2. ro [b]Aaumm wiriaAaMn.f5w lartin8 sawu5e Im isa(olloas:JSR'mpalie00 cale8ary(La., main MspiuV6R.'igilon. 4xbr% nurses. aml mWiaclinicalAcc fcalM R),a M25! 4 "atlmlmMlion&svHron'c4¢8pry(i.e, AAlMM0Ma.faff.&ynre. 6e0 —,.. ai,ireew, am mainlm4nce) 44 INTATIRNT OUTPATIP.W "WNIFIl1AT10N & SUPPORT I'mrUnA Arta :uPpIY (nlacn)m> TIME 10 15 19 P -0-007 ! RU-00.S 71 P V d P-F-0tl IS NUA110 3 P4"12 00 P 013 180 P-U -013 176 b P -U41S W P 1416 144 R640J 14 P41{N4 30 P-1,001 V P.I.404 37 P. A 39 P -Llpl 36 Pi 13 40 h P-V-01] 60 IN FWl1 59 Bit Pau D RL006 10] hW0! 77 P -1:509 73 I P -6.010 69 1` -IAII fd RL01S SI 6:00 AM 2 12 1 1 13 2 2 1 i 31 106 139 76 lQm9zljI 4 5 I 1 0 1 1 1 1 101 361 3 1 11 1 0 2 4 1 6130m 3 12 1 2 24 2 2 1 2 109 1% 119 77 5 e 1 0 1 2 1 36 14 3 39 1 0 0 6 1 7.WA 3 16 4 2 31 3 6 1 30 168 106 139 84 3 7 1 2 0 2 J 17 56 36 5 57 1 0 i IS 1 7:30 AM 0 14 8 2 42 4 J 1 61 1" 104 U9 101 7 U 3 4 / I7 31 S7 JO f 60 6 0 II 10 7 5:00 AM 0 19 14 4 71 4 7 1 119 199 106 110 154 1 7 12 19 N 18 18 40 60 36 15 AD D 15 63 S4 1 16 A:30 AM 0 19 14 d 71 4 7 2 119 179 106 141 198 ' J18R II 32 25 11 32 IS 1 49 60 36 IJ 39 25 35 69 61 41 9:00 AM 2 21 18 7 60 4 8 2 172 V9 106 142 2M 3" 32 36 22 39 1 :. % +� 60 36 Ii 60 41 47 69 65 AS 9:30AM 2 23 IS t 4 7 2 174 199 169 200 220 - 9 32 38 24 39 17 59 5A 69 57 17 9 92 SD 69 N 1090 AM 4 i3 IS 6 59 4 8 2 177 1N 171 204 144' 331 I1 l0 19 D 39 17 6'01 5'I (9 57 19 59 M 52 69 W 50 1030 AM 4 17 is 6 39 { B 2 17] 179 171 207 244 li 29 4p D 39 18 59 60 fl Ib 61 M 52 69 65 n 9 II:OO AM 5 IS 19 7 60 { 10 a I7 1>9 171 2117 344 II 33 40 35 19 16 SY 69 60 St 18 61' 40 54 b9 66 45 1390 PM 4 D 19 4 62 d d i 178 178 173 239 34d 11 Jl )S 19 39 15 60 58 D 59 38 30 6J fl 43 $ i9 _1290 P61 4 )A 19 6 6 4 3 2 176 178 1]3 327 244 $y. 10 M 34 17 38 16 40 59 58 ]0 37 )S - A 69 N 45 1UO PM I 20 19 7 65 4 1 1b 170 I>3 337 241 1]. 38 39 IS 33 IJ 59 59 58 D 55 39 45 69 63 46 at I "Em 1 19 19 5 66 4 9 2 IA 76 17) 228 2N " 12 27 37 16 39 IJ t 57 (.0 SA 73 A l6 46 69 b) 43 200 PM 3 18 19 1 47 4 10 J 166 178 173 229 2M A 11 31 33 15 39 IB M1: 55 60 58 21 ab 3N- 69 58 43 2:30 PM 0 24 19 8 48 4 10 3 161 Its 163 234 m 12 32 37 22 39 IB 55 53 A 17 l6 3 N 60 44 6 3:00 PM 2 25 19 8 M 4 13 3 IW 175 163 D4 244 30 37 24 39 19 55 58 5/ 16 32 3 69 61 41 3:10 PM 2 N Ib 5 N 4 11 1 146 IR 150 213 244 1! A II 39 14 49 47 30 I7 32 3 65 AS 40 ' 4W PM 3 23 IJ 7 37 4 II 2 142 N2 150 212 222 L 35 If 39 15 ` 6R 46 47 50 15 14 2 57 56 p 6 4:30 PM 3 23 17 4 37 4 11 3 90 104 133 199 212 M 34 10 33 16 30 35 45 Ifi 14 1 30 39 31 590 PM 2 D 19 6 39 4 8 2 SS 91 113 ITI 206 31 )l 5 D 12 T 29 31 IS IS 6 1 18 390 PM 4 2) 19 3 30 3 J 2 19 73 105 181 200 [14 31 11 2 12 11 17 23 35 N 6 1 11 6-9l D 12 5 !O 4 3 473 104 111 191 D 6 1 5 7 Ifi 24 35 I3 3 5 490 PM 1 L I6 4 62 ) ) 7 I 61 92 169 1% D 4 0 J 4 11 0 31 7 3 3 7:00M 1 25 18 8 61 2 3 2 31 61 92 157 19'1 32 1 0 I 3 10 30 31 6 3 1 2 7:39 PM t 23 IS 8 61 D 0 Z 25 43 82 147 20'2 31 0 0 1 1 9 I4 IS 4 3 I 2 g.oxopm I If 16 5 W 0 0 2 25 JS a) 141 114 36 0 0 I 1 9 1 ZJ 5 I I 2 29 I 4S, PIAK DP2r5AND: 5 35 19 8 71 4 11 3 178 179 175 234 144 1,118 14 34 41 25 39 19 164 60 60 59 D 61 41 54 69 M1S 50 S)4 1,B11 VX (G. KSF): no 71 101 65] PARKR4G RATF: 295 231 Holm — — —_ (al Parking eui ya p uAa t by hcw Tn11ic Sudin Im IftaR limpial on Thfi ], 1— I, 2. ro [b]Aaumm wiriaAaMn.f5w lartin8 sawu5e Im isa(olloas:JSR'mpalie00 cale8ary(La., main MspiuV6R.'igilon. 4xbr% nurses. aml mWiaclinicalAcc fcalM R),a M25! 4 "atlmlmMlion&svHron'c4¢8pry(i.e, AAlMM0Ma.faff.&ynre. 6e0 —,.. ai,ireew, am mainlm4nce) 44 Exhibit No. 4 Excerpt of LSA Traffic Impact and Parking Analysis dated September 27, 1991 including the DKS Associates parking needs survey dated May 15, 1987 /0 -it q THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY BLANK /d.P6�k HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN MASTER PLAN TRAFFIC IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS September 27, 1991 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: ISAAssociates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92714 (714) 553 -0666 LX4 Project #00803 i i. �,a rst Armdat#A I= for the Phase I development. Pbase 1 Trip Budget Allocation E Since no adverse impacts are identified with the Phase 1 development, the Hoag development trip budget should be equivalent to that identified as trips generated by the existing and entitled uses plus the trip generation for the Phase 1 project. Based on 1990 traffic counts provided by Hoag Hospital, the existing PM peak hour inbound and outbound volume is 665 trips. As these counts were conducted prior to the opening of the Haag Cancer Center, the trip genera - tion for the approved Cancer Center was added to this base. The existing plus entitled Hoag Cancer Center PM peak hour trip generation is 784 PM peak hour trips. Added to this 784 PM peak hour trips are the 554 PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed Master Plan Phase 1 project. There - fore, the total Hoag Phase 1 trip budget, based on the PM peak hour trip making activity, Is 1,338 trips. Pbase 1- Parking Amilysk Parking rates for the proposed Master Plan project are identified In the PCDP and District Regulations and are evaluated below: Proposed parking rates for the Master Plan project are based on City of Newport Beach requirements, as well as other adjacent City requirements. Parking rases for the more specialized uses, such as outpatient or support services, are based on other similar existing Hoag Hospital uses. A detailed listing of the parking rates proposed, as well as the source or justification for the rate sources, is provid- ed below. Also the approMmate number of spaces to be provided with Phase I development is provided. Outpatient - the outpatient parking rate of 2.00 spaces per thousand square feet (TSF) Is an increase from the 1.5 spaces per TSF parking rate approved for the Hoag Cancer Center. Phase I development would provide 280 parking spaces for outpatient services. Inpatient - the inpatient rate of 1.25 spaces per TSF corresponds to the City of Newport Beach requirement of 1.00 space per bed plus one space for each resident doctor and one parking space for each employee. Phase I development would provide 144 parking spaces for Inpatient Services. Support Services • the rate of 1.00 space per TSF Is.based on the results of a study prepared by DIGS Associates in May 1987, a copy of which is an attachment to this Appendix. Phase I development would provide 55 parking spaces for support services. 09f27p91(1ACNBW5\TWtsC.awri . 19 rtt Au dat*4 Inc Administrative - the administrative rate of 4.00 spaces per TSF is based on the City of Newport Beach requirement for office uses. Phase I development would provide 120 parking spaces for Adminis- trative Services. Residential Care - the City of Newport Beach does not have a com- parable rate for this use. Therefore, the City of Irvine Code require- ment of 1.00 space per TSF is proposed. Medical Office the rate of 4.00 spaces per TSP corresponds to the City of Newport Beads requirement for a medical office land use. In order to substantiate these rates, a comparison of City parking codes for the adjacent Cities of Irvine and Huntington Beach and rates proposed in the Hoag Memorial Hospital Parking and Trip Generation Survey 1985 study prepared by Newport Tragic Studies (N S) were examined. Due to the unique parking characteristics of the proposed land uses, parking rates were identified for each land use. Similar to the trip generation rates presented previously, barking generation rates are presented for the follow- ing land uses: outpatient, inpatient, support services, administrative, residen- tial care, and medical office. Table E presents a comparison of these parking rates for each land use, based on five sources of parking generation informa- tion. The following sections present a discussion of the proposed rates for each source: N7S Study These parking rates are based on a tr-.rH% and parking survey conducted by Newport Traffic Studies, Inc. in September, 1985, for the current Hoag.Hos- pital. The results of the survey identified the daily peak parking demand for employees and patients. Based on the patient/employee splits presented Prcvioualy+ Parking demand rates for the primary land uses were generated. ITB Parking Generation Report The second edition of the TIE parking generation report presents parking generation rates based on surveys of similar hospital and medical office facilities located regionally in the United States. Although these rates are useful for comparison purposes, due to the limited number of surveys and general rtatuJr! of the surveys these rates are not directly applicable at the Hoag Hospital facility. 09M/91p:WxBet \M Mrtc.aPn 20 /v- 2 n 6 SSA AMOMW a, Ix Table E - Parking Generation Comparison PROPOSED Ms ITE CITY OF HR CITY OF IRVINE CITY OF NR TAND USE PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING RATE (1) RATE (2) RATE (3) RATE RATE RATE Outpatient 2.00 /TSP 0.63 /75F - - - Inpatient 1.25 /TSF 1.68 /TSP - - 1.00 /BED(4) Support Services 1.00/TSF 1.73 /7SP - - Adminlatradve 4.00 / IS8 1.73/'MP 2.79 / TSF 333 / 13F 4.00 / TSF - Residential Care 1.00 / TSP - 030 / RM. 1.00 / BED 1.00 / TSF Medial Office 4.00 /TSP - 4.11 11W 5.70 /TSF 5.561W 4;00 11SF ),Indicates that no parking generation rues are available. (1) SOURCE: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian correspondence, August 15, 1991. (2) SOURCE: Newport Traffic Studies "Hoag Memarlal Hospial Parking and Trip Generation Survey 1985 ", Sopteober1995. (3) SOURCE: Institute of Tiansporratkm Engineers *Parking Genetatkm", 2nd Munn. (4) In addition in the one parking space per bed, one parking space for each resident doctor and one parking space for each employee is recitiired. 06SOP91 (CNBWAPARKGEK WQQ �0.��5 tsA,wue+an; IM City of Irvine Parking Code Parking rates for hospital uses are not in sufficient detail to reflect the dil%rr ent facilities that form the proposed Hoag project. As a result, administra- tive, residential care and medical office land uses are included for compari- son purposes. City of Huntington Beacb Parking Code Similar to the City of Irvine parking code, parking rates for hospital type facilities are not readily available. However, parking rates used by the City of Huntington Beach In their planning efforts for administrative,: residential dare and medical office land uses are included. City of Newport Beacb Parking Code The City of Newport Beach parking code, similar to the City of Irvine parking code, does not have parking rates that are directly relevant to rite proposed Hoag Hospital project. However, the City of Newport Beach does have rates for inpatient and medical office uses, and these are Included In the table for comparison purposes. Inpatient rates are based art. the City's requirement for hospital use and include one space per doctor and employee in excess of the one parking space per bed. The medial office rams are taken directly from the parking code. Based on the comparison presented in Table E; the rates proposed by Hoag . were.determined to be consistent with the other sources of empirical and parking generation Information. Table F presents the required parking for Phase I of the proposed project. The number of parking spaces is deter- mined by application of the parking rate for each land use to the size of the facility or land use type. The total parking requirement of 599 spaces re- flects the peak parking demand that may occur during the day. Given that the peak parking demand will not persist throughout. the day, the parking de- mand for the majority of the day is likely to be less than the proposed park- ing supply. HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN BUILD OUT ANALYSIS In the evaluation of Master Plan build out (Phases I through III) condition, the future General Plan land use and traffic base utilizes tmffic data supplied by the City's General Plan traffic consultant, Austin -Foust Associates, dated August 1991. This data reflects the current proposal for the build out of the City of Newport Beach's General Plan, Based on this General Plan land use Inventory, the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) is used to forecast peak hour traffic volumes for this analysis. 09/27/91 (MCNIMMITAvAtc.ttrrl 22 ©KS Associates 411 Wom Fd1h Sweet Sane 500 Las A»ge n_ CA 90013 0131 G27 0919 May 15. 1987 Peri Muretta Phillips.. Brandt and Reddick 18012 Skypark Circle Irvine. CA 92714 RE: Hoag Hospital Master Plan P87054x1 Dear Peri: Enclosed you will find our work to date on the parking needs for the proposed Hoag Hospital Master Plan. Included in this transmittal are: o Individual descriptions outlining demand and function assumptions by proposed use. o A table that summarizes the important factors that dictate both employee and visitor parking demand. and the actual visitor and employee parking demand by use. o Individual tables that summarize all of the assumptions used to calculate the parking demand for the visitor and employee cate- gories. These tables and descriptions incorporate the data and discussions we had during our meeting of May 1. 1987 with Dubby Evins and Peter Faulk of Hoag Hospital. I would like to emphasize that these are our preliminary find- ings. Please review this information with the representatives from Hoag Hospital. We can then answer any questions and make corrections that you may have before submittal to the City for their review. Sincerely. OKS Associates J. Mich 1 Bates Senior Transportation Planner aca 5697.pO54pm.ltr DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE Use: Cancer Center Functional Description: The Cancer Center will provide outpatient treat- ment. In most cases. the patient will be driven, dropped off. and then later picked up after treatment is complete. A small percentage will drive themselves or be attended throughout the visit by a driver. Gross Square Footage: 65.000 Operating Hours: 12 hours (Extended Day - shift) lEmployees On -site (Peak Period Shift): 71 Beds: 0 Visits (Rate Per Bed): N/A I%ily Outpatient Visits: 110 Total External Visits: 110 Highest Hour Parking Demand: 92 Note: ISource: Hoag Hospital DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE Use :, Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Functional Description: This portion of the expansion will provide inpa- tient physical therapy for the Hospital Campus. The 99 beds will Primarily serve patients moved from other Hospital wings and who are going through rehabilitation programs prior to release. Gross Square Footage: 60.000 Operating Hours: 24 hours lEmployees On -site (Peak Period Shift): 31 Beds: 99 2Visits (Rate Per Bed): .5 Daily Outpatient Visits: N/A Total External Visits: 50 Highest Hour Parking Demand: 35 Note: 1Source: Hoag Hospital 2Parkinq for Institutions and Special Events. Edmund M. Whitlock. P.E.. 1982. Eno Foundation for Transportation. Inc. /0 • 24 DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE Use: Employee Child Care Center Functional Description: The Child Care Center will provide on- campus care for the children of day -shift employees. As such. the only parking required is for Child Care employees Gross Square Footage: 10.000 Operating Hours: 12 hours (Extended Day- shift) lEmployees On -site (Peak Period Shift): 11 Beds: 100 Visits (Rate Per Bed): N/A Daily outpatient Visits: N/A Total External Visits: NIA Highest Hour Parking Demand: 9 Note: ISource: Hoag Hospital /0•�9 C. a DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE, Use: Health Education Center Functional Description: During the day the Health Education Center is to be used exclusively for on -site Hospital staff seminars and classes. Gross Square Footage: 20.000 Operating Hours: 18 hours (Employees On -site (Peak Period Shift): 8 Beds: N/A Visits (Rate Per Bed): N/A Daily Outpatient Visits: N/A Total External Visits: N/A Highest Hour Parking Demand: 6 Note: ISource: Hoag Hospital �O•�1 �1 DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE Use: Administration Functional Description: This area will be set aside for the typical admin- istrative functions including accounting, personnel, and Hospital opera- tions. Gross Square Footage: 30,000 Operating Hours: 9 hours lEmployees On -site (Peak Period Shift): 124 Beds: N/A Visits (Rate Per Bed): N/A Daily Outpatient Visits: NIA Total External Visits: 0 Highest Hour Parkins Demand: 98 Note: ISource: Hoag Hospital 10- 31 Ca oZ, DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE Use: Cancer Center (Addition) Functional Description: The Cancer Center (Addition) will have the same outpatient functional characteristics as the first phase Cancer facility. Gross Square Footage: 50.000 Operating Hours: .12 hours (Extended Day - shift) lEmpl oyees On -site (Peak Period Shift): 55 Beds: 0. Visits (Rate Per Bed.): N/A IDaily Outpatient Visits: 85 Total External Visits: 85 Highest Hour Parking Demand: 72 Note: ISource: Hoag Hospital to .3;0.- DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE Use: Mechanical Systems Functional Description: This area will provide mechanical support and storage for the expanded Hospital Campus. Gross Square Footage: 15,000 Operating Hours: 24 hours lEmplorees On -site (Peak Period Shift): 9 Beds: N/A Visits (Rate Per Bed): N/A Daily Outpatient Visits: N/A Total External Visits: 60 Highest Hour Parking Demand: 16 Note: lSource: Hoag Hospital /0.3 DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE Use: Substance Abuse Functional Description: The substance abuse wing will serve as an inpatient facility. Due to the nature of the patients and treatment. day time visits will not be allowed. Gross Square Footage: 70.000 Operating Hours: 24 hours lEmployees On -site (Peak Period Shift): 14 Beds: 90 Visits (Rate Per .Bed): N/A Daily Outpatient Visits: N/A Total External Visits: 0 Highest Hour Parking Demand: 11 Note: ISource: Hoag Hospital DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE Use: Conditioning and Rehabilitation Center Functional Description: This wing will provide outpatient physical therapy and will also be open for employees to use while on- campus. Approximately 60S of the visits will be external. Gross Square Footage: 40.000 Operating Hours: 18 hours lEmployees On -site (Peak Period Shift): 14 Beds: NIA Visits (Rate Per Bed): NIA IDail.y Outpatient.Visits: 240 Total External Visits: 240 Highest Hour Parking Demand: 54 Note: ISource: Hoag Hospital /40. c D� DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE Use: Food Services Functional Description: Food services will prepare the meals for all inpatient facilities on the new portion of the Campus and provide an employee lounge. Gross Square Footage: 15.000 Operating Hours: 18 hours ].Employees On-site (Peak Period Shift): 5 Beds: N/A Visits (Rate Per Bed): N/A Daily Outpatient Visits: N/A Total External Visits: 0 Highest Hour Parking Demand: 26 Note: ].Source: Hoag Hospital DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE Use: Outpatient Clinical /Surgery Functional Description: As the name implies. the Outpatient Clinical /Sur- gery portion of the expansion will provide urgent care services on a "walk - in" basis. Gross Square Footage: 65.000 Operating Hours: 12 hours (Extended Day - shift) lEmployees On -site (Peak Period Shift): 71 Seds.: 25 Visits (Rate Per Bed): N/A lDaily Outpatient Visits: 110 Total External Visits: 110 Highest Hour Parking Demand: 78 Note: lSource: Hoag Hospital !o•3` DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE Use: Medical Support Offices Functional Description: The medical support offices will provide non- critical outpatient care and diagnostic services, . Gross Square Footage: 50,000 Operating Hours: 9 hours (Employees On -site (Peak Period Shift): 110 Beds: N/A Visits (Rate Per Bed): N/A Daily Outpatient Visits; N/A Total External Visits: 1,100 Highest Hour Parking Demand: 252 Note: ISource: Trip Generation Manual, Institute of Transporation Engineers, 1982 Edition. /o • 38' 4 _l DKS Associates HOAG HOSPITAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS BY USE Use: Residential Care Functional Description: This facility will provide extended inpatient convalescent care Which typically has a much lower daily visitor rate per bed than a hospital or medical center. Gross Square Footage: 125.000 Operating Hours: 24 lEmployees On -site (Peak Period Shift): 14 Beds: 140 2Visits (Rate Per Bed): 0.5 Daily Outpatient Visits: 70 Total External Visits: 70 Highest Hour Parking Demand: 25 Note: ISource: Hoag Hospital 2Par9g for Institiotutions and Special Events. Edmund M. Whitlock. P.E.. 1982. Eno Foundan for Transportation. Inc. l0.3% DKSASSOCIATES 05/15/97 FAOAO HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN . PRELIMINARY 991I14ATE DAYTIME PEAK PARKING DEMAND SL""Y (LAx IMIM ON-SITE) D � b 0 OPERATING EMPLOYEES EXTERNAL X HIGHEST EMPLOYEE VISITOR TOTAL USE L FUNCTION KSF BEDS HOURS ON SITE VISITS- 'HOUR - DEMAND- DEMAND DEMAND CANCER CENTER -- OUTPATIENT 65 0 - - - -I2 Y 71 ILO -3 56 25 36 i0 92 35 SKILLED NURSING L REHAB 60 99 24 31 50 20 9 0 9 EMPLOYEE CHILD CARE CENTER 10 100 12 11 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 HEALTH EDUCATION CENTER 20 0 1a 8 0 98 0 98 ADMINISTRATION 30 0 9 124 55 O 85 33 4' 29 CANCER CENTER ADDITION 50 0 12 9 60 15 16 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS 15 0 24 0 0 11 SUBSTANCE ABUSE 70 90 24 14 14 240 20 48 59 CONDITIONING i REHAB CENTER 40 0 0 2b 0 26 FOOD SERVICES '1s 0 18 to 71 0 110 20 56 22 78 OUTPATIENT CLINIC /SURGERY 65 25 12 9 110 1100 t5 87 214 223 MEDICAL SUPPORT 50 0 14 70 20 11 I! RESIDENTIAL CARE 125 140 24 20 MISC. DELIVERY i SERVICE FUNC.• -- -- -- -- ..w . rw®........ w........ w. w...... w........ ri.+.. wr... wr.......... w. +. .w.�.....447.....ww....�.w..�.� 332 799 .ww TOTAL 615 TOTAL D � b 0 | k k | ) / B | § .. f/� (�rk:•!k «aaarlm ! |mm�ka2tR ■ «�a§ s 2 r!%% � $ §t ƒ \7l��( p n 0, ) \� 2ƒ� \ §§ �`)�'`| ` f!; ¥�k2§,§ ,§k §k■■ 2 �( 16. \� I ( @ 2 2 � / t | |R|a�R � l ;�. k« a � � k u`§ wwkuu ® |` :i "Ew |-§2 §.\&! |;!2■27k;§ @ § K [Si |/ � ' \�