HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 8EXHIBIT 8
Errata
1��
ERRATA — DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH No. 2006101105
HOAG HEALTH CENTER USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
Draft EIR Cover
Revise the SCH No. on the cover of the Draft EIR to read:
SCH No. 2006101105
2. Page 1-4 (Areas of Controversy)
Add the following "bullets" following the final bullet on page 1-4 in Section 1.3 (Areas of Controversy):
Potential increases in mobile- and stationary -source noise associated in the
project could adversely affect the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project.
Existing sewer and water facilities in the project area may not have adequate
capacity to accommodate the increase in development proposed by the
applicant.
3. Page 1-4 (Issues to be Resolved)
Delete the second sentence in Section 1.4 and replace it with the following sentence:
"Potentially significant traffic, public health and safety, noise, cultural resources, and
aesthetic impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation
of the mitigation measures prescribed in Chapter 4.0 of this document and the analysis
included in the initial study (Appendix A)."
4. Page 1-4 (Issues to be Resolved)
Add the following sentence to the end of paragraph 1.4:
"Because the City of Costa Mesa, at this time, does not have a mechanism for accepting
the fair share fee contribution from the project applicant intended to pay for the Newport
Boulevard /18"' Street - Rochester Street improvements, implementation of the requisite
mitigation measure to address that impact cannot be assured and is, therefore, considered
legally infeasible. As a result, the project- related cumulative impact identified for the
Newport Boulevard /18th Street - Rochester Street intersection will remain significant and
unavoidable and will also necessitate the adoption of a statement of overriding
consideration."
5. Page 1-6 (Table 1 -1)
Revise the MM 4.2 -1 to read:
"Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a medical office tenant improvement
permit which would cause the site to exceed 155,000 square feet of medical office floor
area, the project applicant shall be required to restripe to provide a westbound left turn lane,
shared leftfthrough lane, through lane, and right turn lane at the Superior Avenue/17th Street
Errata — Draft EIR
Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project
January 2008
Page 1
intersection. This improvement would require modification to the traffic signal phasing and
interconnect with the Newport Boulevard/17'h Street intersection. The applicant shall work in
conjunction with the City of Costa Mesa to complete this improvement"
6. Page 1-6 (Table 1 -1)
Revised MM 4.2 -2 to read:
"Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a medical office tenant improvement
permit which would cause the site to exceed 285,000 square feet of medical office floor
area, the project applicant shall pay a fair share fee to the City of Costa Mesa through the
City's established fee program, provided that the City has established a mechanism to
accept a fair share fee, to provide a southbound through /right turn lane at'the Newport
Boulevard/1eh Street - Rochester Street intersection. The southbound improvement would
require right -of -way acquisition. The applicant shall not be subject to the fair share fee if the
City of Costa Mesa has not adopted a mechanism for collecting the fair share fee prior to
buildout of the project (i.e., 350,000 square feet)."
Page 1-6 (Table 1 -1)
Add the following entries after the entries for Impact 4.2 -2:
Potential Impact Column: Impact 4.2 -3 Project implementation will result in inadequate
northbound left -tum vehicle stacking capacity at the Newport Boulevard /Hospital Way
intersection.
Mitigation Measures Column: MM 4.2 -3 Prior to the issuance of any medical office
tenant improvement permits causing the site to exceed 97,000 square feet of medical
office floor area, the applicant shall post a bond, letter of credit, or other security
instrument satisfactory to the City Attorney guaranteeing payment of the obligation and
requirement of the applicant to construct the lengthening of the northbound left -turn lane
on Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road to provide a sufficient storage length and to
addr4ess project - related impacts at this intersection per the direction and approval of the
Public Works Department. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs, expenses
and fees associated in any way with these improvements and project oversight.
Level of Significance After Mitigation Column: Less than Significant
8. Page 1 -13 (Table 1 -1 — Aesthetics)
Add the following entry to the Aesthetics section of the Executive Summary:
Potential Impact Column: Project implementation will result in the conversion of 232,000
square feet of R & D and office floor area to medical office floor area and the additional
development of 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area within the limits of the
13.7 -acre property. The introduction of a new building on the site could introduce a new
source of light and glare, which could affect the surrounding area.
Mitigation Measures Column: MM -1 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 Director, the illumination creates an
unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources, the
Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon
finding that the site is excessively illuminated.
Errata — Draft OR
Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project
January 2008 -
Page 2
MM -2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare a photometric
study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director.
Level of Significance After Mitigation Column: Less than Significant
9. Pages 1 -13 and 1 -14 (Table 1 -1 — Cultural Resources)
Add "MM -3" before the first mitigation measure for cultural resources.
Add "MM-4" before the second mitigation measure for cultural resources.
Add "MM -5" before the third mitigation measure for cultural resources.
These mitigation measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
prepared for the project.
10. Page 2 -7 (Section 2.2.6)
Add the following sentences at the end of the paragraph:
"Because the City of Costa Mesa does not have a means of accepting a fair share
contribution at the Newport Boulevard/18th Street intersection, the significant impact
identified at that intersection cannot be mitigated. The Statement of Overriding
Considerations adopted by the Newport Beach Planning Commission will also address
this unavoidable, significant impact."
11. Page 4. 1.1 (Land Use and Planning)
Add the following introduction immediately following the chapter title (4.1 Land Use and Planning):
Although no significant impacts were identified in the initial study prepared for the
proposed project, due to the sensitivity of the proposed project and potential controversy
that could result from the intensification of the 13.7 -acre property with additional medical
office space, a comprehensive land use analysis has been undertaken and is presented
in the Draft EIR to document the consistency of the proposed project with the relevant
long -range land use plans and goals and objectives of the Newport Beach General
Plan."
12. Page 4.2 -15 (Traffic and Circulation)
Revise Footnote 2 in Table 4.2 -5 to read:
,,2 Approved projects in the City of Newport Beach identified in Table 5 of the Traffic
Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix C)."
13. Page 4.2 -20 (Caltrans Highway Capacity Manual Analysis)
Revise the paragraph following Table 4.2 -8 to read:
"Although these intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E and F in the future based
on the Delay Methodology, each the intersections would operate at LOS D or better as
indicated in Table 4.2-6 based on the ICU methodology with the addition of project -
related traffic and the mitigation proposed in Section 4.2.5. Therefore, with the
exception of the Newport Boulevard/18 Street - Rochester Street intersection, which will
require the payment of fair share fees to the City for improvements to that intersection,
no significant impacts are anticipated at the remaining two intersections and mitigation
measures are not required."
Errata — Draft EIR
Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project
January 2008
Page
1
14. Page 4.2 -21 (Traffic and Circulation)
Revise the first sentence in the third paragraph to read:
"Based on the City of Costa Mesa General Plan (adopted January 22, 2002), the Costa
Mesa City Council policy direction is to delete the 19th Street Bridge over the Santa Ana
River from the MPAH."
15. Pages 4.2 -22 and 4.2 -23 (Shuttle Service):
The proposed Hoag Health Center project includes the use of a shuttle that was previously approved
when Use Permit 2006 -010 was approved in December 2006. That Use Permit approval provided for a
shuttle service consisting of a 20- passenger van that will transport physicians and patients between the
Hoag Hospital campus and the approved Hoag Health Center during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
The Use Permit limits shuttle service to two round trips per hour between the two facilities. The shuttle
route is prohibited from traveling on local roads (i.e. Dana Road and Flagship Road) and through
residential areas, and is permitted on the City's arterial system (i.e. Newport Boulevard, Superior Avenue,
Placentia Avenue, and Hospital Road). The shuttle will be used by physicians who have offices both at
the hospital and in Hoag Health Center, as well as by patients visiting physicians at Hoag Health Center
who require further medical services such as lab work, x -rays, and medical tests to be provided at Hoag
Hospital, and by Hoag staff needing to attend meetings or perform other duties at either Hoag Health
Center or Hoag Hospital.
Since the preparation and circulation of the Draft EIR, the applicant has revised the proposal to utilize the
shuttle service. As currently proposed, the shuttle is now proposed to operate four times per hour (i.e.,
every 15 minutes) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., in order to further reduce the number of
personal vehicle trips between Hoag Hospital and the Hoag Health Center sites. Although this proposal
increases the number and, therefore, the frequency of the shuttle trips, none of the shuttle trips would
occur along the residential streets (i.e., Dana Road and Flagship Road) and would serve to reduce
personal vehicle trips between the hospital and proposed health center facilities. It is anticipated that the
potential reduction of those personal vehicle trips would have the effect of further reducing potential
traffic, noise and air quality impacts, and would not result in any potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts. As a result of this change, the last paragraph on page 4.2 -22 and the first
sentence of the first paragraph on page 4.2 -23 will be revised to read:
"The shuttle van presently operating between Hoag Hospital and the proposed project
site will continue to operate. The shuttle service will consistent of a 20- passenger van
that will provide service for physicians, Hoag staff, and patients between Hoag Hospital
and Hoag Health Center during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The shuttle service
will be limited to four round trips per hour between the two facilities. The shuttle route is
prohibited from traveling on local roads (i.e., Dana Road and Flagship Road) and
through residential areas, and is permitted on the City's arterial system (i.e., Newport
Boulevard, Superior Avenue, Placentia Avenue, and Hospital Road).
The shuttle will be used by physicians who have offices in Hoag Health Center, as well
as by patients visiting physicians at Hoag Health Center who require further medical
services such as lab work, x -rays, and medical tests to be provided at Hoag Hospital,
and by Hoag staff needing to attend meetings or perform other duties at either Hoag
Health Center or Hoag Hospital."
Errata — Draft EIR
Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project
January 2008
Page 4 ` -Ll
t1✓
16. Page 4.2 -23 (Traffic and Circulation)
Revise MM 4.2 -1 to read:
MM 4.2 -1 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a medical office
tenant improvement permit which would cause the site to exceed 155,000
square feet of medical office floor area, the project applicant shall be
required to restripe to provide a westbound left turn lane, shared
leftlthrough lane, through lane, and right turn lane at the Superior
Avenue /17'h Street intersection. This improvement would require
modification to the traffic signal phasing and interconnect with the Newport
Boulevard/17th Street intersection. The applicant shall work in conjunction
with the City of Costa Mesa to complete this improvement.
17. Page 4.2 -23 (Traffic and Circulation)
Revise MM 4.2 -2 to read:
MM 4.2 -2 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a medical office
tenant improvement permit which would cause the site to exceed 285,000
square feet of medical office floor area, the project applicant shall pay a fair
share fee to the City of Costa Mesa through the City's established fee
program, provided that the City has established a mechanism to accept a
fair share fee, to provide a southbound through /right turn lane at the
Newport Boulevard/18i' Street - Rochester Street intersection. The
southbound improvement would require right- of-way acquisition. The
applicant shall not be subject to the fair share fee if the City of Costa Mesa
has not adopted a mechanism for collecting the fair share fee prior to
buiklout of the project (i.e., 350,000 square feet).
18. Page 4.2 -23 (Traffic and Circulation)
Add the following impact and mitigation measure in Section 4.2.5 (Mitigation Measures).
lmpact4.2 -3 Project implementation will result in inadequate northbound left-
turn vehicle stacking capacity at the Newport Boulevard/Hospital
Way intersection.
MM 4.2 -3 Prior to the issuance of any medical office tenant improvement permits
causing the site to exceed 97,000 square feet of medical office floor
area, the applicant shall post a bond, letter of credit, or other security
instrument satisfactory to the City Attorney guaranteeing payment of the
obligation and requirement of the applicant to construction the
lengthening of the northbound left -turn lane on Newport Boulevard at
Hospital Road to provide a sufficient storage length and to address
project - related impacts at this intersection per the direction and approval
of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall reimburse the City
for all costs, expenses and fees associated in any way with these
improvements and project oversight.
Errata — Draft E!R
Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project
January 2008
Page 5
10
19. Page 4.3 -16 (Air Quality)
Delete the following paragraph on page 4.3 -16 below Table 4.3-6.
"Based on the preceding discussion, the potential for an individual project to significantly
deteriorate regional air quality or contribute to significant health risk is small, even if the
emission thresholds are exceeded by the project. Because of the overall improvement
trend on air quality in the air basin, it is unlikely the regional air quality or health risk
would worsen from the current condition due to emissions from an individual project, and
the project is not expected to lead to a violation or to contribute substantially to a
violation of federal or state air quality standards to result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase if any pollutant for which the SCAB is in non - attainment."
20. Page 4.3 -18 (Air Quality)
Revise the first paragraph under "Screening Level Health Risk Assessment" to read as follows:
"The proposed project would potentially emit toxic air pollutants associated with the
periodic testing of a diesel - powered emergency generator. There are no schools located
within 500 feet of the proposed project. The nearest sensitive receptors are located
across Dana Road no closer than 100 feet from the nearest possible location of the
generator on site. The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) has been revised to use the 0.15
gm /hp -hr emission factor and 50 hours per year for testing. Additionally, the engine
parameters identified by SCAQMD have also been implemented. The resulting values
are a carcinogenic risk of 2.3 in 1 million and a chronic hazard index of 0.0015, both less
than their respective thresholds of 10 in 1 million and 1.0. Therefore, the impact would
remain less than significant."
21. Page 4.3 -19 (Air Quality)
Revise Table 4.3-8 on page 4.3 -19 as follows:
Table 4.3-8
Screening Level Health Risk Assessment for Generator Exhaust
Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment
SOURCE: LSA
The Revised Screening Level Health Risk Assessment portion of the Air Quality Analysis has been
attached with this Errata.
22. Page 4.3 -23 (Air Quality)
Revise the paragraph following Impact 4.3-2 to read:
'Responsibility for the control of pollutant emissions associated with mobile sources lies
with State and federal agencies. As a result, no mitigation measures are available to
Errata - Draft E!R
Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project
January 2008
page 6 ^
reduce the potentially significant mobile- source emissions to a less than significant level.
Therefore, the project - related CO, ROC, NO, and PMie emissions will be unavoidable and
significant"
23. Page 4.6 -1 (Public Health and Safety)
This section of the Draft EIR corresponds to "Hazards and Hazardous Materials" identified in the initial
study (refer to Section VII of the initial study contained in Appendix A of the Draft EIR). Although the title
has been changed, the issues identified as "potentially significant" in Section VII of the initial study are
evaluated in Section 4.6, entitled "Public Health and Safety."
24. Page 4.6 -1 (Public Health and Safety)
Add the following introduction immediately following the Chapter title (4.6 Public Health and Safety)
"Although the initial study concluded that no significant impacts would occur as a result
of project implementation, the Department of Toxic Substances Control submitted a
comment letter requesting a thorough evaluation of the potential hazards and hazards
conditions that may exist as a result of the historic use of the site. Therefore, the scope
of the Draft EIR was expanded to include a comprehensive assessment of the potential
public health and safety impacts associated with the proposed project based on
environmental site assessments that have been prepared for the proposed project."
25. Page 5-6 (Aesthetics)
Add the following paragraph after the first paragraph:
"The existing development is characterized by lighting that illuminates the surface
parking lot and existing parking structure. In addition, lighting is also associated with
building security. Project implementation will result in the conversion of 232,000 square
feet of R & D and office floor area to medical office floor area and the additional
development of 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area within the limits of the
13.7 -acre property. Lighting will be provided for the same purpose as that which
currently exists (i.e., security and parking structure illumination). Although the
introduction of a new building on the site could introduce a new source of light and glare,
lighting on the site must comply with standards established by the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. The same mitigation measures previously required for UP 2006 -010,
which include the preparation of a photometric study and compliance with the
recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, would also
be required to ensure that any potential impacts of new lighting associated with the new
construction would be adequately mitigated. Therefore, project implementation (i.e.,
conversion of the existing floor area and addition of 20,586 square feet of medical office
floor area) will not result in significant lighting and glare impacts."
26. Page 5-6 (Cultural Resources)
Add the following paragraph to the discussion of Cultural Resources:
Delete the last sentence in Section 5.11 (Cultural /Scientific Resources) and add the following text to the
end of the paragraph:
"Nonetheless, the City requires that projects resulting in soil disturbance must include
both paleontological and archaeological monitoring to ensure that if such resources are
encountered during grading and /or construction, activities may be diverted to assess
and, if necessary, collect the resources. Three mitigation measures have been
Errata — Draft EIR
Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project
January 2008
Page 7
`1
prescribed by the City (refer to Table 1 -1 in the Executive Summary) that require such
monitoring and related procedures intended to protect important resources.
Implementation of these measures will ensure that no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts to cultural and paleontological resources occur."
Errata — Draft E1R
Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project
January 2006
Page a
1�
NIFAMM
0
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
HOAG HEALTH CENTER
L S A
November 2007
l��
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER 2007 HOAO HEALTH CENTER
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
The emissions from vehicle exhaust are controlled by the State and federal governments and are
outside the control of this project. Emissions from building heating systems will be minimized by
compliance with State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency.
5.2.2 Localized Significance Analysis
Table K shows the calculated emissions for the proposed operational activities compared with the
appropriate localized significance thresholds. The emissions shown include all stationary and
1 percent of the mobile sources, which is an estimate of the amount of project - related vehicle traffic
that will occur on site. The localized significance analysis only includes on -site sources; however,
there is no way to separate these two in the UR13EMIS model output.
Table K: Summary of Operational Localized Significance
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007.
Note: PM: .5 is calculated from PM1O by assuming that they are the same for the area sources;
for the mobile sources, however, the fraction ofPMIO that is PM2.5 is 0.71.
Table K shows that all operational emission rates are below the LST thresholds at 25 m. Therefore,
the proposed operational activity will not cause any localized significant air quality impacts.
5.2.3 Screening Level Health Risk Assessment
The proposed project would potentially emit toxic air pollutants associated with the periodic testing
of a diesel - powered emergency generator. The nearest sensitive receptors are across Dana Road no
closer than 100 feet from the nearest possible location of the generator on site. Typically, emergency
generators are regularly tested during daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday. The generator is tested for approximately 30 minutes, including 5 minutes of warm -
up time and 10 minutes of cool -down time.
SCAQMD Rule 1470 covers the requirements for operating these generators. The rule includes a
schedule of emission control improvements that limits diesel particulate emissions to 0.15 grams per
horsepower -hour (g/hp -hr) and 50 hours per year for testing. This assessment is based on the actual
test schedule of one test per week for 30 minutes each.
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA) technique for estimating
potential health risks, as described in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines
(OEHHA, August 2003), Appendix I, was used in this analysis to determine the carcinogenic and
chronic health risks from diesel exhaust to individuals living in the proposed houses. (See
Appendix D for details.) Table L shows that both the Cancer Risk and Chronic Risk are significantly
P:ItcxcO70MAiLd« 08 /07107o 30
Emission Rates lbs /da
CO
NOx
PMIO
PMr.s
Proposed Project
23
5.0
2.8
0.54
Localized Significance Threshold
%4
345
4
2
Exceed Significance?
No
No
No
No
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007.
Note: PM: .5 is calculated from PM1O by assuming that they are the same for the area sources;
for the mobile sources, however, the fraction ofPMIO that is PM2.5 is 0.71.
Table K shows that all operational emission rates are below the LST thresholds at 25 m. Therefore,
the proposed operational activity will not cause any localized significant air quality impacts.
5.2.3 Screening Level Health Risk Assessment
The proposed project would potentially emit toxic air pollutants associated with the periodic testing
of a diesel - powered emergency generator. The nearest sensitive receptors are across Dana Road no
closer than 100 feet from the nearest possible location of the generator on site. Typically, emergency
generators are regularly tested during daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday. The generator is tested for approximately 30 minutes, including 5 minutes of warm -
up time and 10 minutes of cool -down time.
SCAQMD Rule 1470 covers the requirements for operating these generators. The rule includes a
schedule of emission control improvements that limits diesel particulate emissions to 0.15 grams per
horsepower -hour (g/hp -hr) and 50 hours per year for testing. This assessment is based on the actual
test schedule of one test per week for 30 minutes each.
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA) technique for estimating
potential health risks, as described in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines
(OEHHA, August 2003), Appendix I, was used in this analysis to determine the carcinogenic and
chronic health risks from diesel exhaust to individuals living in the proposed houses. (See
Appendix D for details.) Table L shows that both the Cancer Risk and Chronic Risk are significantly
P:ItcxcO70MAiLd« 08 /07107o 30
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER 3007 HOAG HEALTH CENTER
NEWPORT REACH. CALIFORNIA
less than their respective thresholds. No significant health risk impacts would occur to the residents as
a result of the emergency generator exhaust.
Table L: Screening Level Health Risk Assessment for Generator Exhaust
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., November 2007.
5.3 LONG -TERM MICROSCALE ANALYSIS
5.3.1 Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analysis
Vehicular trips associated with the proposed project would contribute to the congestion at
intersections and along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Localized air quality effects would
occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase in local areas as a result of the proposed project.
The primary mobile source pollutant of local concern is CO, which is a direct function of vehicle
idling time and, thus, traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely limited; it disperses rapidly
with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain
extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations proximate to a congested roadway or
intersection may reach unhealthful levels affecting local sensitive receptors (residents, school
children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with
roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic
volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentration, modeling is recommended to
determine a project's effect on local CO levels.
The intersection vehicle turn volumes were used in Caltrans CALINE4 model to evaluate local CO
concentrations at intersections most affected by project traffic. As suggested by the EPA, the higher
of the second - highest CO concentrations monitored at the Costa Mesa station (4.9 ppm for the one-
hour period and 3.1 ppm for the eight -hour period) in the past three years were used as the
background levels for the existing conditions. The proposed project would contribute to increased CO
concentrations at intersections in the project vicinity.
The existing CO levels were calculated for intersections in the project vicinity. Table M lists the
existing CO concentrations at the 10 most affected intersections. This table shows that, under existing
conditions (with or without the project traffic), none of the 10 intersections analyzed has one -hour or
eight -hour CO concentrations exceeding federal and State standards. The one -hour CO concentrations
at these intersections are below the State standard of 20 ppm and below the federal standard of 35
ppm. The eight -hour CO concentrations at these intersections are below the State and federal standard
of 9 ppm.
Although it is anticipated that higher traffic volumes are anticipated in the future, lower future
vehicular emissions from advanced technology and lower future ambient CO levels will more than
offset the growth in future traffic in the project vicinity. Table N lists 2009 CO concentrations at the
PAKKC0701\Air.dm 49/07107.
31
lO
Cancer Risk
# in 1,000,000)
Chronic Risk
I
Nearest Residence
2.3
0.0015
Threshold
10
1
Significant Impact?
No
No
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., November 2007.
5.3 LONG -TERM MICROSCALE ANALYSIS
5.3.1 Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analysis
Vehicular trips associated with the proposed project would contribute to the congestion at
intersections and along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Localized air quality effects would
occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase in local areas as a result of the proposed project.
The primary mobile source pollutant of local concern is CO, which is a direct function of vehicle
idling time and, thus, traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely limited; it disperses rapidly
with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain
extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations proximate to a congested roadway or
intersection may reach unhealthful levels affecting local sensitive receptors (residents, school
children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with
roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic
volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentration, modeling is recommended to
determine a project's effect on local CO levels.
The intersection vehicle turn volumes were used in Caltrans CALINE4 model to evaluate local CO
concentrations at intersections most affected by project traffic. As suggested by the EPA, the higher
of the second - highest CO concentrations monitored at the Costa Mesa station (4.9 ppm for the one-
hour period and 3.1 ppm for the eight -hour period) in the past three years were used as the
background levels for the existing conditions. The proposed project would contribute to increased CO
concentrations at intersections in the project vicinity.
The existing CO levels were calculated for intersections in the project vicinity. Table M lists the
existing CO concentrations at the 10 most affected intersections. This table shows that, under existing
conditions (with or without the project traffic), none of the 10 intersections analyzed has one -hour or
eight -hour CO concentrations exceeding federal and State standards. The one -hour CO concentrations
at these intersections are below the State standard of 20 ppm and below the federal standard of 35
ppm. The eight -hour CO concentrations at these intersections are below the State and federal standard
of 9 ppm.
Although it is anticipated that higher traffic volumes are anticipated in the future, lower future
vehicular emissions from advanced technology and lower future ambient CO levels will more than
offset the growth in future traffic in the project vicinity. Table N lists 2009 CO concentrations at the
PAKKC0701\Air.dm 49/07107.
31
lO
LEA ASSOCIATES, INC.
NOVEMBER 3001
Screening Health Risk Assessment of Diesel Exhaust
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
HOAG HEALTH CENTER
RT BEACH. CALIFORNIA
According to the California Air Resources Board (ARB),' when conducting a health risk assessment
(HRA), the potential cancer risk from inhalation exposure to diesel particulate matter (PM) will
outweigh the potential noncancer health impacts from diesel PM. Therefore, inhalation cancer risk is
required for every HRA. When comparing whole diesel exhaust to speciated diesel exhaust (e.g.,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [FAHs], metals), the potential cancer risk from inhalation exposure
to whole diesel exhaust will outweigh the multipathway cancer risk from the speciated components.
For this reason, there will be few situations where an analysis of multipathway risk is necessary.2 To
estimate the potential cancer risk associated with project- related diesel engine exhaust, a dispersion
model is used to translate an emission rate from a source location to a concentration at a receptor
location of interest. Dispersion modeling varies from the simpler, more conservative screening -level
analysis to the more complex and refined detailed analysis. This calculation was performed using the
EPA, ARB and SCAQMD- approved SCREEN3 computer model. This model provides conservative
estimates of concentrations considering site and source geometry, source strength, distance to the
receptor, and building wake effects on plume distribution. The SCREENS model was developed to
provide an easy -to -use method of obtaining pollutant concentration estimates where upper -bound
estimates are required or where meteorological data is unavailable. It is a useful tool in proving that
an impact is not significant (i.e., if a screening -level analysis demonstrates an impact is not
significant, its conservative nature provides confidence in this conclusion). Screening -level modeling
is less useful in concluding that an impact is significant. When a screening -level analysis indicates a
significant impact, this conclusion normally points to the need for a more sophisticated (and less
conservative) method of analysis using a model such as AERMOD.
This worksheet contains a screening - level, single - pathway analysis of diesel exhaust from an
emergency generator operating as part of the project, analyzing only the inhalation pathway.
SCAQMD Rule 1470 covers the requirements for operating these generators. The rule includes a
schedule of emission control improvements that limits diesel particulate emissions to 0.15 grams per
horsepower -hour (g/hp -hr) and 50 hours per year for testing. This assessment is based on the actual
test schedule of one test per week for 30 minutes each. Table A shows the derivation of an averaged
PMIB emission rate.
Table A: Emeraencv Generator Averaged Emission Rate
Emission
Operating
Operating
Average PMIB
Factor
Generator
days per
hours per
Emission Rate
hr
Rated HP
year
day
(gm/day)
0.15
800
52
0.5
8.5
Source: LNA Associates, Inc., November 2007,
HARP Model Documentation, Appendix K, Risk Assessment Procedures to Evaluate Particulate
Emissions from Diesel - Fueled Engines, ARB,
http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /toxics/ harp /docs /userguide /appendixK.pdf, February 2005.
2 OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, August 2003, Appendix D,
Risk Assessment Procedures to Evaluate Particulate Emissions from Diesel - Fueled Vehicles,
Section B.
PAKKC0701Wicdoc 48/07/07»
� %A
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER 3007 HOAG HEALTH CENTER
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
The diesel exhaust was modeled as a point source. The SCREEN3 model input parameters are shown
in Table B. Stack height and diameter were based on the specifications of many generators and
approximating typical dimensions. Exhaust temperature and velocity were taken from ARB
guidance'.
Simple Terrain Inputs:
Concentration of PMIQ in air
Source Type
= Point
Emission Rate (G /S)
= 1.0
Stack Height (M)
= 3.0
Stk Inside Diam (M)
= 0.30
Stk Exit Velocity (M/S)
= 8.0
Stk Gas Exit Temp (K)
= 600
Ambient Air Temp (K)
= 293
Receptor Height (M)
= 0
Urban/Rural Option
= Urban
Following OEHHA methodology and using the following equation:
Inhalation Cancer Risk = ((Cair * DBR * A * EF * ES * I x10 "A) / AT * Inhalation Cancer Potency
Factor
Cair
Concentration of PMIQ in air
DBR
303
Daily breathing rate
(L/kg -day)
A
1
Inhalation absorption factor
EF
350
Exposure frequency
(days /yr)
ED
70
Exposure duration
(years)
AT
25,550
Avg. time period of exposure
(days)
Diesel PMIQ
1.1
Inhalation cancer potency factor
(mg/kg -d)''
Diesel PM,.
5.0
Inhalation chronic REL
(He /m3)
Table C shows the results of the screening modeling, both in terms of ground -level concentrations
and health risk. Even with the conservative modeling technique used, the risk to which a person who
stood at the nearest residential area (100 feet [30 meters) away), for 70 years (the MICR) would be
exposed is 2.3 in 1,000,000, less than the 10 in 1,000,000 threshold recommended by OEHHA and
SCAQMD. The Hazard Index would be 0.00 15, less than the threshold of 1.0. This is a less than
significant impact.
' Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel - Fueled Engines and
Vehicles, Appendix VII, ARB, October 2000.
PAKKC070IWiLdm #08/07 /07»
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER 3007 HOAG HEALTH CENTER
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Table C: SCREEN3 Modeling Results & HRA Results
Dist m
PMIQ
Concentrations
1 -Hr Annual
m3 m3
Inhalation
Cancer Risk
# in 1,000,000
Chronic
Hazard
Index
30
0.091
0.0073
2.3
0.0015
40
0.082
0.0065
2.1
0.0013
50
0.075
0.0060
1.9
0.0012
60
0.067
0.0054
1.7
0.0011
70
0.061
0.0049
1.6
0.0010
80
0.056
0.0045
1.4
0.0009
90
0.051
0.0041
1.3
0.0008
100
0.048
0.0038
1.2
0.0008
110
0.044
0.0036
1.1
0.0007
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., November 2007
P:WC007011Air.dw 48/07/07u
`�6