Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHoag Health Center_500-540 Superior Ave (PA2007-013)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 15, 2007 Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Hoag Health Center (PA 2007 -013) 500 -540 Superior Avenue • Amendment to Use Permit No. 2006 -010 • Traffic Study No. 2007 -002 Certification of Environmental Impact Report (SCH. No. 2006101105) APPLICANT: Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3209, imurillo (&citv.newport- beach.ca.us SUMMARY As result of additional traffic analysis performed in response to comments received from the California Department of Transportation on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), a new significant impact has been identified (see Environmental Review, page 15 of staff report) requiring recirculation of the DEIR for an additional 45- day public review period. The applicant is requesting to amend Use Permit No. 2006 -010 (redevelopment of the former Newport Technology Center) to: (1) convert 232,414 square feet of general office and research and development (R &D) floor area to medical office use; and (2) authorize the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space, for a total of 350,000 gross square feet of medical office floor area. The following are required in order to implement the project as proposed: Certification of Environmental Impact Report; and 2. Amendment to Use Permit No. 2006 -010 to allow the conversion of the balance of general office and R &D space on the site to medical office use; and 3. Approval of traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: Receive staff presentation, receive applicant's presentation, open public hearing, and receive public comments. Require recirculation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for an additional 45 day public review period. 3. Continue public hearing to January 3, 2008. Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 2 3 +q v , Y. na IN; 1 %W w•w, llivut>M Yy7y m VROdK rldl �L 1W n» ,all u„ „u n„ w! Ix• I ». Proiect Location e „N nu Ix, �•J •,� ,or � ,viv Yr b� SIGN r,.. 'wl • •Y ( IN 'p'1 •1V 414 "41 • .1U V,! .11l �.O Y, .Ib .M ,!>0 .)1• I.OI )!. f00 l..l,, V!. N' ,!!) GENE PLAN ZONING . + ... ...... ... .. .: 71bN,. PLAN ZONING CU USE ON -SITE Medical Commercial Controlled Manufacturing General Office and R &D uses Office (CO-M) District (M-1 -A) Governmental, Educational City of Newport Beach Corporate NORTH Public Facilities (PF) and Institutional Facilities Yard GEIF General Old Newport Blvd. Specific EAST Commercial Office Plan (SP -9) /Retail & Service Commercial Uses CO -G Commercial RSC Multi - Family Residential Multiple -Unit Residential (MFR) / Administrative, Multiple- Family Residential and SOUTH (RM) /Private Institutions Professional, Financial Flagship Medical Care Center (PI) APF Harbor Homes Trailer Park and WEST RM / CO -M MFR / M -1 -A Superior Medical Center 3 Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 3 Proiect Description The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to the existing Use Permit to convert the remaining 232,414 square feet of general office and R &D floor area, of the total existing 329,414 square feet of floor area, to medical office use. The applicant is also seeking preliminary approval to construct an additional 20,586 square feet of floor area for a cafe or medically - related retail space. To allow for future flexibility, the future additional square footage is assumed to be medical office use, resulting in total development of 350,000 gross square feet of medical office floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested as part of this amendment is 253,000 square feet (232,414 + 20,586). Although there is currently no precise plan for the additional 20,586 square feet of floor area, the applicant is requesting approval of a building to be located between the two parking structures as shown on the proposed site plan (Exhibit 1) with a height not to exceed the 32 -foot height limitation. The new building will be shielded from view from the residential developments to the west and south, as well as from Newport Boulevard. The applicant is also seeking to expand the previously - permitted shuttle service from two round -trips per hour to four round trips per hour, and to extend the interim one -year parking provision permitting ancillary parking at Hoag Health Center for Hoag Hospital for an additional one year to facilitate completion of Hoag's construction of its Lower Campus. Proiect Setting The project site is located at 500 -540 Superior Avenue, west of Newport Boulevard, east of Superior Avenue, and north of Dana Road. The area in the vicinity of the site is developed with a variety of land uses, including medical facilities, industrial and office uses as well as residential development. The site is approximately 13.7 acres in size and is developed with general office and R &D land uses. The site is currently improved with four buildings totaling 415,493 square feet of floor area and a four - level, above - grade parking structure. Demolition of one of the four buildings (86,079 sq. ft.) is contemplated and would leave a total of 329,414 square feet of useable gross floor of medical office, general office, and R &D uses. Background In early 2001, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and approved Use Permit No. 3679 and a traffic study for the construction of the Newport Technology Center. The project consisted of demolition, reconstruction, and renovation resulting in approximately 415,500 square -feet of R &D space. The Use Permit also allowed the structures to exceed the base height limit. S Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 4 A year after project completion, a use permit amendment and traffic study was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 2004 to change the range of uses allowed to occupy the Newport Technology Center to provide for additional leasing flexibility. The Use Permit authorized 43 percent (178,661 gross square feet) of the project site to be occupied by commercial office uses (except medical or dental office or clinics), with the remaining 57 percent (236,831 gross square feet) occupied by industrial /R &D uses; however, leasing of Newport Technology Center still proved unsuccessful. Hoag Hospital purchased the site in 2006 in order to accommodate its medical office needs in support of the hospital. On December 7, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH. No. 2006 - 101105) authorizing conversion of 97,000 square feet of the R &D /general office use to medical office use. In order to satisfy the increased medical parking requirements, an 86,079 square -foot building was proposed for demolition and a parking structure was proposed to be constructed in its place. Demolition of this building would result in a reduced overall project gross floor area of 329,414 square feet. After the allocation of 97,000 square feet for medical office uses, the remaining floor area allocation was approved as follows: 136,000 square feet for general office use and 96,414 square feet for R &D use. The parking structure was also permitted to exceed the maximum building bulk limitation for the site. On -site parking was increased from 1,332 parking spaces to 1,985 parking spaces, including 697 spaces within the new parking structure. The Use Permit authorized a shuttle service that consists of a 20- passenger van that carries physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The shuttle service was limited to two round -trips per hour between the two facilities and was prohibited from traveling on local roads through the residential areas. No ancillary parking is permitted at Hoag Health Center for Hoag Hospital, except during an interim period (ending in December of 2007) to facilitate completion of Hoag's construction of its Lower Campus. With the exception of the shuttle service and interim ancillary parking, the Use Permit has not been exercised; however, plans to demolish the office building and construct the new parking structure are currently under review by the City and building permits are expected to be issued by the end of the year. DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan The project site is located within the West Newport Mesa area of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is designated as CO -M (Medical Commercial Office). Within the I Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 5 West Newport Mesa area, existing development is characterized by residential, office, retail, industrial, and public uses. The CO -M land use designation is intended to provide 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 development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area (Anomaly No. 74). The General Plan includes goals and policies related to development. A complete consistency analysis of each of the applicable General Plan policies appears within the Draft Environmental Impact Report on pages 4.1 -11 through 4.1 -18 and concludes that the project is consistent with each of the adopted goals and policies. Land Use Goal 6.6 (LU 6.6) promotes medical service uses that support Hoag Hospital and facilitate residential development in the West Newport Mesa area. Policy LU 6.6.1 (Hospital Supporting Uses Integrated with Residential Neighborhoods) states: LU 6.6.1: Prioritize the accommodation of medical- related and supporting facilities on properties abutting the Hoag Hospital complex (areas designated as "CO -M (0.5)" (Figure LU 18, Sub Area A)7 with opportunities for new residential units (areas designated as "RM (18/ac)'7 and supporting general and neighborhood - serving retail services (CG (0.75)" and "CN (0.3)7, respectively. ' This policy is applicable to the proposed project as the project includes the conversion of existing general office and research & development floor area to medical office floor area to support Hoag Hospital. Project implementation is consistent with the policy indicating that future development be compatible within a mixed -use area and that proposed land uses complement and support the major medical activity (Hoag Hospital) in the area. Implementation of the project would not compromise the character and /or integrity of the mixed uses with the West Newport area and is consistent with the Land Use Element. Parking With completion of the second parking structure permitted under the previous use permit, a total of 1,985 parking spaces will be provided onsite: 861 spaces within the existing parking structure; 697 spaces within the new parking structure; and, 427 surface parking spaces. Based on the parking code requirements for medical office uses, a total of 1,750 parking spaces are required and are calculated as follows: Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 6 1. The total parking count is anticipated to vary by 5 -10% pending final resolution of mechanical, electrical, and structural components. As shown, the project will provide parking in excess of the Code requirements Shuttle Operation The previously approved shuttle operation consisted of a 20- passenger van that provides transportation services for physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and the project site between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The shuttle service is was limited to two round -trips per hour between to the two facilities. The shuttle is prohibited from traveling on local roads and through residential areas, and permitted only on the City's arterial system (i.e. Newport Boulevard, Superior Avenue, Placentia Avenue, and Hospital Road). The shuttle is to 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. In order to further reduce the number of personal vehicle trips between Hoag Hospital and the Hoag Health Center sites, the applicant is requesting to increase the frequency of the shuttle trips to four round -trips per hour (i.e., every 15 minutes) and clarify that Hoag staff (in addition to physicians) needing to attend meetings or perform other duties at either Hoag Health Center or Hoag Hospital may also utilize the shuttle. Although this proposal increases the frequency of the shuttle trips, none of the trips would occur on the residential streets and would reduce personal vehicle trips between the hospital and proposed health center facilities. LSA Associates has reviewed the potential effects the proposed increase in shuttle trips may have and concluded that a significant reduction in personal vehicle trips is expected and, therefore, a reduction in traffic- related air quality and noise impacts is expected (Exhibit 2). Ancillary Parking The previously approved interim one -year parking provision permitting ancillary parking to occur at Hoag Health Center for Hoag Hospital to facilitate completion of Hoag's construction of its Lower Campus is scheduled to expire in December of this year. The applicant states that construction of the Lower Campus is still on -going and is requesting to extend the arrangement for an additional year. Staff believes an additional year is appropriate given the fact that the Hoag Health Center site is not yet fully occupied and a parking surplus currently exists. Should the Planning Commission choose to extend this interim provision, staff recommends that the following condition be implemented to insure adequate, on -site parking is provided to serve tenant spaces within the Hoag Health Center development: No ancillary parking shall be permitted to occur at the project site for the use of Hoag Hospital, except during the interim period, which concludes on December 7, 2009, to facilitate the completion of Hoag Hospital's construction of the Lower Campus. Use of the Hoag Health Center parking by Hoag Hospital personnel shall only be allowed so long as the minimum Zoning Code required number of parking spaces to facilitate 00 Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 7 the operation of on -site uses is provided. Traffic Study A traffic study is required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) when a project will generate an excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). A traffic study was prepared by Kunzman Associates under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines. The traffic analysis also included a cumulative impact analysis to assess project- related impacts pursuant to CEQA. Trip generation rates were derived from two sources. The City of Newport Beach trip generation rates are based on 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 (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition (2003) and were used for evaluation of Costa Mesa intersections. The 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. The project will generate 12,743 additional trips per day based on the NBTAM trip generation rates, including 449 additional a.m. peak hour trips and 1,084 p.m. peak hour trips. Based on the ITE trip generation rates utilized to analyze impacts at intersections in the City of Costa Mesa, a total of 8,758 additional trips are anticipated as a result of project implementation, including 297 additional a.m. peak hour trips and 779 trips during the p.m. peak hour. Based on consultation between the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa staff, the following 32 intersections were evaluated: Z Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Pa e8 TPO Analysis- Potential impacts to the 14 intersections in the City of Newport Beach were analyzed using the one percent methodology required by the TPO. The one percent methodology provides that each of the 14 intersections that would experience a peak hour traffic volume increase larger than one percent require additional analysis utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. ICU values are calculated based on the volume of traffic using the intersection compared to the capacity of the intersection. A Level of Service (LOS) rating (A through F) is then assigned to the intersection based on the ICU value. The City of Newport Beach considers LOS A through D to be operating satisfactorily, while LOS E and F are considered unsatisfactory operating conditions. According to the City's established significance threshold criteria, a significant impact would occur if project - generated traffic would cause an intersection to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. Orange Street/West Coast Highway Newport Beach Prospect Street/West Coast Highway Newport Beach Superior Avenue /Project Driveway w /Project Condition Newport Beach Superior Avenue/Hospital Road Newport Beach Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway Newport Beach Placentia Avenue /Su rior Avenue Newport Beach Placentia Avenue/Hospital Road Newport Beach Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road Newport Beach Newport BoulevardMest Coast Highway Newport Beach Ne ort BoulevardNia Lido Newport Beach New ort Boulevard /32nd Street Newport Beach Riverside AvenueNVest Coast Highway Newport Beach Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway Newport Beach Irvine Avenue117th Street Newport Beach /Costa Mesa Dover DriveNVest Coast Highway Newport Beach Placentia Avenue/Victoria Street Costa Mesa Placentia Avenue /19th Street Costa Mesa Placentia Avenue /17th Street Costa Mesa Harbor Boulevard/Victoria Street Costa Mesa Harbor Boulevard /19th Street Costa Mesa Su eriorAvenue /17th Street Costa Mesa Su eriorAvenue /16th Street Costa Mesa Newport Boulevard /19th Street Costa Mesa Newport Boulevard/Broadway Costa Mesa Newport Boulevard /Harbor Boulevard Costa Mesa Newport Boulevard /18th Street - Rochester Street Costa Mesa Newport Boulevard/17th Street Costa Mesa Newport Boulevard/16th Street Costa Mesa Newport Boulevard/industrial Way Costa Mesa Orange Avenue /17th Street Costa Mesa Santa Ana Avenue /17th Street Costa Mesa Tustin Avenue /17th Street Costa Mesa TPO Analysis- Potential impacts to the 14 intersections in the City of Newport Beach were analyzed using the one percent methodology required by the TPO. The one percent methodology provides that each of the 14 intersections that would experience a peak hour traffic volume increase larger than one percent require additional analysis utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. ICU values are calculated based on the volume of traffic using the intersection compared to the capacity of the intersection. A Level of Service (LOS) rating (A through F) is then assigned to the intersection based on the ICU value. The City of Newport Beach considers LOS A through D to be operating satisfactorily, while LOS E and F are considered unsatisfactory operating conditions. According to the City's established significance threshold criteria, a significant impact would occur if project - generated traffic would cause an intersection to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 9 For intersections operating at LOS E or F under existing conditions, a significant impact would occur if project -generated traffic would increase the ICU value by 0.01 or more. Based on the TPO ICU /LOS analysis, all 14 study intersections will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Therefore, pursuant to the TPO, no mitigation is required. Cumulative Traffic Analysis- The cumulative analysis reflects the future (2009) development scenario that includes development of "cumulative" projects identified by the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa as well as the proposed project. Reasonably foreseeable projects and approved projects that are not included in the committed project list were added to project- related traffic and evaluated. The analysis of Newport Beach intersections using NBTAM rates showed that all of the intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. The analysis indicates that 2 intersections in the City of Costa Mesa, using the ITE trip rates, are currently forecast to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E) in the 2009 with approved projects and cumulative projects. The intersections are: -Superior Avenue /17th Street (LOS F during the a.m. and LOS E during p.m. peak hours) -Newport Boulevard /18th Street - Rochester Street (LOS E during the p.m. peak hour) As indicated in the table below, when the project - related traffic is added to the future traffic scenario for 2009, the project -generated traffic results in an ICU value increase of 0.01 or more at the same two intersections forecasted to operate at unacceptable levels without the project. . - Exbdng + Approved Usting.+Approved. projects +cumulative Projects, +Cumulative Prolects pro +project ICU Mwre AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak intersection 'ICU LOS ICU LOS, ICU LOS ICU LOS AM Peck PM M1sk Superior Avenue/t Street - Without Improvements 1.047 F 0.920 E 1.105 F 1.094 F +0.058 +0.134 With MI, anon 0.984 E 0.925 E -0.063 -0.005 Newport Boulevardil8 St- Rochester St - without Improvements 0.793 C 0.927 E 0.803 D 0.941 E +0.010 +0.014 With Mitigation 0.666 B 0.801 D 1 -0.127 -0.126 The degradation of the 2 intersections with the project - related traffic will result in a significant impact at the two intersections. The following mitigation measures prescribed for the proposed project would reduce ICU values to levels that are less than pre - project ICU values, reducing potential project- related traffic impacts at these intersections to a less than significant level: 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 leftithrough lane, through lane, and right turn lane at the Superior Avenue/170 Street intersection. This improvement would require modification to the tragic signal phasing and interconnect with the Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 10 Newport Boulevard/17"' Street intersection. The applicant shall work in conjunction with the City of Costa Mesa to complete this improvement. MM4.2 -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/1e Street - Rochester Street intersection. The southbound improvement would require fight-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). As discussed in more detail within the Environmental Review section of this report, the City of Costa Mesa does not currently have a mechanism for accepting the fair share fee contribution from the project applicant to pay for the Newport Boulevard /1 B`h Street - Rochester St. improvements; therefore, implementation of the mitigation measure to the impact cannot be assured and is considered legally infeasible. The impacts to that intersection will remain significant and unavoidable and will necessitate the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project finding that the benefits of the project outweigh the impact. Traffic Signal As part of the previously approved project, a traffic signal warrant analysis was performed for a potential signalized intersection at Superior Avenue and the main project driveway (central driveway). The analysis indicated that a traffic signal was warranted due to traffic volumes; however, significant traffic impacts or hazards were not anticipated to occur with that project approval and without a traffic signal. Additionally, since there is a lack of available right -of -way precisely where the signal would be located, a condition of approval was implemented requiring the applicant to post a 10 -year bond for the installation of the traffic signal at the main project driveway and for roadway improvements (medians, striping, planting) prior to the issuance of any permit for medical offices at the site to allow the City to acquire the required right -of- way. Project traffic volumes associated with the 350,000 square feet of medical office use does not warrant a signalized intersection at Superior Avenue and the main project driveway, but a signal is actually required in order to avoid potential stacking and circulation problems at the intersection. The City Traffic Engineer has determined that a traffic signal must be in place prior to issuance of a building permit when conversion of medical office floor area exceeds 110,000 square feet. The City will be responsible for completing the traffic signal and street improvements upon acquisition of the right -of- way and the applicant will be required to reimburse the City for all costs associated with the improvements. Staff is recommending the following conditions of approval: The applicant shall be responsible for all costs, expenses and fees associated in any way with the widening of Superior Avenue to the ultimate width of Superior Avenue along the project frontage as identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the installation of the traffic signal at the main project driveway (center driveway), including, but not limited to, all design, Iz Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 11 construction, project management acquisition, relocation assistance and other costs, consultant fees, expert fees, attorney fees, permit fees, and any litigation expenses related in any way thereto. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any new medical office tenant improvement the applicant shall post a new 10 -year performance bond with the City to guarantee payment of all fees, costs and expenses identified in this condition. The City will determine the bond amount by reasonabty estimating the fees, costs and expenses identified in this condition. If at any point it is determined that the bond amount is insufficient to cover the actual or projected fees, costs, and expenses identified in this condition as determined by the City, Hoag shall increase the bond amount accordingly. • Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a medical office tenant improvement permit which would cause the site to exceed 110,000 square feet of medical office floor area, the installation of the traffic signal at the main project driveway and the widening of Superior Avenue shall have first been completed and in operation. Should the City be unable to complete the improvements within a reasonable timeframe, the applicant may elect to complete the improvements per the approval and direction of the Public Work's Department and shall reimburse the City for all costs and expenses associated with such an arrangement. Use Permit Findings Section 20.91.075 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission make certain findings for use permit requests. These findings and facts in support of such findings are listed and discussed below. 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project is located in 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. There are no speck operational criteria for medical office uses in the Zoning Code. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and complies with all development standards. It should be noted that the City is currently in the process of updating the Zoning Code for consistency with the recently adopted General Plan. The proposed zoning designation for the site is OM (Office - Medical), which is intended to provide for medical- related offices, other professional offices, retail, short-term convalescent and long -term care facilities. Medical office uses are anticipated to be permitted by right within this new OM designation; therefore, the project should not conflict with future zoning implementation. 2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; 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. 13 Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 12 The proposed medical office use, pursuant to the conditions of approval, is consistent with the Medical Commercial Office (CO -M) land use designation of the 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 proposed overall total gross floor area of the site is consistent with the 350,000 square foot development limitation assigned for the site. Staff believes the project will not be detrimental to the public or properties in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The 232,414 square feet of general office and R &D floor area to be converted to medical office floor area will result from interior remodeling within the existing buildings, with no changes to the exterior appearance. • The future addition of 20,586 square feet of floor area is conditioned to be limited within a building envelope located between the two parking structures as shown on the proposed plans with a height not to exceed the 32 -foot height limitation. Given the location and height limitation of the proposed building envelope in relationship to the existing buildings on -site, the new building will be shielded from view from the residential developments to the west and south, as well as any views from Newport Boulevard. • With the completion of the previously- approved parking structure, the site will provide a total of 1,985 parking spaces on -site, exceeding the minimum code requirement by 235 spaces, thereby providing sufficient parking to accommodate the proposed project. • The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed shuttle operation and has approved a route and operation that will avoid travel on streets adjacent to residences and convalescent homes. • The increased frequency in the number of the shuttle trips per hour will serve to reduce personal vehicle trips between the hospital and proposed health center facilities and the shuttle is prohibited from travelling along the residential streets. The reduction of personal vehicle trips would have the effect of further reducing potential traffic, noise and air quality impacts. • The project has been conditioned to include installation of the traffic signal at the main project driveway and completion of the related roadway improvements (medians, striping, widening, planting) prior to the issuance of any permit that results in the conversion equal to, or in excess of, 110,000 square feet medical office floor area. • The project has been conditioned so as to control and reduce excess lighting and to avoid off -site light spillage. ►y Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 13 • 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, and more specifically, within the vicinity of the project site. • All potential environmental impacts have been analyzed in the Initial Study and DEIR and were found to be less than significant with the incorporation of specific mitigation measures, with the exception of the long -term operational emissions and traffic impact to the intersection of Newport Boulevard /18th Street - Rochester Street in the City of Costa Mesa. As discussed in the Environmental Review section of this report, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels; therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted which finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. • With the approval of the applications with conditions of approval (including all mitigation measures) designed to minimize or avoid areas of concern, the use can be found compatible with and not detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood or City. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The Zoning Code requires the approval of a use permit for medical office uses. The proposed conditions of approval and mitigation measures for this project will ensure that all potential conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the greatest extent possible, or are eliminated. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Prior to taking action on the requested Use Permit amendment and Traffic Study, the Planning Commission must first review, consider and certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City contracted with Keeton Kreitzer Consulting to prepare an Initial Study and EIR for the proposed project (Exhibit No. 3). The Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, the following environmental topics were identified as potentially affected by the implementation of the proposed project: Air Quality, Land Use and Planning, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Traffic/Circulation, and Utilities. These topics were the subject of the EIR analysis, and potential impacts were identified; however, in those instances, specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level, with the exception of two impacts related to air quality and traffic which are discussed in the Unavoidable Adverse Impacts discussion section below. Is Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 14 The Initial Study indicated that impacts related to Aesthetics and Cultural Resources will be less than significant with mitigation. These topics were not discussed further in the EIR. The issue areas identified to be affected at either a no impact or a less than significant level are: Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. These topics were not discussed further in the EIR. Keeton Kreitzer Consulting prepared a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2006101105) that focused upon the environmental issues identified as "potentially affected." The DEIR was completed and circulated for a mandatory 45 -day review period that began on September 11, 2007 and concluded on October 25, 2007, and was previously transmitted to the Planning Commission. Comments were received from several interested parties, including the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, California Department of Transportation and the City of Costa Mesa. The consultant and staff have prepared written responses to each of the comments received on the adequacy of the DEIR (Exhibit No. 4). An Errata was also prepared which provides minor clarifications and correction to the DEIR (Exhibit 5). I_I11 =,, - =1 The document discusses project alternatives as required pursuant to CEQA. These alternatives include a No Project Alternative (slower build -out of the site under the existing General Plan), a No Development Alternative (allowing for redevelopment of the site in accordance with the previous approval of Use Permit No. 2006 -010), Reduced Intensity Alternative (resulting in the conversion of the remaining existing floor area to medical office without the additional 20,586 square feet of floor area requested by the applicant), and Non - Medical Office Alternative (assuming the remaining 232,414 square feet of office and R&D floor area are fully converted to general office use only). Although in some cases the alternatives are considered to have reduced impacts and considered environmentally superior, neither of the alternatives were found to achieve several of the project's objectives related to providing adequate health care services. The project objectives are identified in Section 1.1.4 of the DEIR (page 1 -2). Unavoidable Adverse Impacts As previously stated, all of the potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures, with the exception of the following two impacts: Impact 4.3 -1 Project implementation will result in pollutant emissions from both mobile and stationary sources that would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District significance thresholds for CO, ROC, NO,, and PM10, in both winter and summer months. Because the responsibility for the control of pollutant emissions associated with mobile sources lies with State and federal agencies, no mitigation measures are available to 4 Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 15 reduce the potentially significant mobile- source emissions to a less than significant level. Therefore, these project- related emissions impacts remain a significant unavoidable adverse impact. Impact 4.2 -3 Project implementation will result in significant cumulative impacts to the Newport Boulevard /18th Street - Rochester Street intersection, which is forecast to operate at a LOS E (ICU 0.941) during the p.m. peak hour with addition of project - related traffic. As previously indicated in the Traffic Study discussion, because the City of Costa Mesa does not currently have a mechanism for accepting the fair share fee contribution from the project applicant for the Newport Boulevard/18th 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. If the City of Costa Mesa subsequently establishes a mechanism to accept a fair share fee for the necessary improvements within the time specked by Mitigation Measure No. 4.4 -2, the applicant will be required to pay fees in accordance with the mitigation measure. If the Planning Commission believes the benefits of the project outweigh the two unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the preparation of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in order to approve the project. A draft Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the Planning Commission that identifies a number of economic and social benefits of the project related to the growing demand and need for medical office space and out - patient care facilities in the City of Newport Beach and in the County of Orange (Attached as Exhibit B of Draft Resolution Certifying the EIR; Exhibit 6). Significant New Information Requiring Recirculation During the public comment period for the DEIR, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) made the following comment: Comment No. 2 This project is anticipated to adversely impact intersection turning pockets. It should be noted that demands at turning pockets are at or reaching capacities. Please provide the storage length analysis for left and right tum pockets at the intersections on Newport Boulevard and PCH within the study area. As a result of the comment, a new analysis was performed to determine queuing impacts and the adequacy of the turning pockets within the Caltrans intersections within the study area. Based on the new analysis, the length of the northbound, left -turn pocket at the intersection of Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road was determined to be inadequate with the addition of project- related trips. The existing northbound turn pocket at Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road is approximately 175 feet and currently (without project) provides an average queue length of 6 vehicles (150 feet) during the a.m. peak hour and an average queue of 7 vehicles (175 feet) vehicles in the p.m. peak hour 11 Hoag Health Center November 15, 2007 Page 16 (assuming a queue length of 25 feet per vehicle). The new analysis indicates that with project- related trips, there is an average queue of 8 vehicles (200 feet) in the a.m. peak hour and an average queue of 11 vehicles (275 feet) in the p.m. peak hour, exceeding storage capacity in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Based on this new information, a new mitigation measure (MM 4.2 -3) has been prescribed to require the lengthening of the left turn pocket to provide sufficient vehicle storage length and to ensure this impact can be reduced to a level of less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA, if significant new information is added to the EIR after the close of the public comment period on the DER, but before certification of the Final EIR, the City must provide a second public review period (45 days) and recirculate the DER for comments. SUMMARY Proposed conversion of the site for full medical office use is reasonable use of the site and should provide for medical services and support for Hoag Hospital. The project is consistent with the long -range goals and policies on the General Plan, and will result in no adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, with the exception of two impacts that necessitate the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. However, because significant new information has been added to the EIR, staff recommends that the Planning Commission require recirculation of the DER and continue the public hearing to January _, 2008. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner EXHIBITS 1. Project Plans 2. Shuttle Analysis 3. Draft EIR (distributed separately due to bulk) 4. Final Response to Comments 5. Errata 6. Draft Resolution of Certification 7. Draft Resolution of Approval Submitted by: D. . -.. noing Director F.1USERSIPLNISharedlPA'sIPAS - 200APA2007- 0130anning CommissionlPA2007- 013PCrpd=inal.doc to EXHIBIT 1 Project Plans 19 � a n m z a !D ! J a .. ZD R N V o W u 65 04 Q m g m m .3tl.,..... f¢I� -1f OM A3/�tl ll. f.. tltl003Y n N O1 r J_ M Z Q 0) J W IL in W¢ v> 0 J Q cc H Z m W H Z W V S U -j¢ J W Qm W F S � Q3 Ow S Z ZZ 0 0 z N N O N d w N Q W V 'a d R U V w�iW i a .. a Z� 8 N U s LLI z cc U Q � Mm c W 0 Q Q z Q J a x w 0) fq Q In w 0) O CL O x CL x w z w U z S U 1- Q J W Q in w F S DC 4 O w x z N Q S W S Q 20 Q 8 m g m m 2 a H z 7 O Q 2 Q Q dl z O a J LG W Q. Q 2 W F z W U = 2 V F Q� J Q m W S a3 O w Sz �y i e z m n r a x x x x Im a a w 0 w z Lq $� o z w i a I � o - I O LL r m m = O H op 221 g 00ina O r•% < Q w��N a' vaam i Z 2 o I x x g a a _ O _ a N Q S W S Q 20 Q 8 m g m m 2 a H z 7 O Q 2 Q Q dl z O a J LG W Q. Q 2 W F z W U = 2 V F Q� J Q m W S a3 O w Sz �y • � ` 'i L Qe- A '�. • �' 11�� •,'` 2` � 'r., fog � • ' e� "� '� "` . '� ti"l,a� p% o t • ® °•�� ob Xv •' : �A _ a na M \ �'jj .. �!�. ^ice ' � I.� ~ c ° C1" �� J .. -w*a• To, ... r.. � N.���" tN�'�Ob• /tea • 1 " '�il�, cad; °7' �� :�,, ;\l;�n�,!,> �'ig9 ®14�;`' � ' mPlacentia Ave i� ��p�t �iUl ti 0v� \� ii • 11 !r�(A�� rr iJ� roG /Y' f dv d •.A �rs•�• +a r a i p i pi d p �5 i�, �^ f 3 1 O NI A4 Iu H'i �4 IJI 11 T V � t'; V i HHB t -iii '� y„ � y Y 6 �� E, Y •V✓! L 0 �• SIG .! , N 9 Y C r Wti p �N � 1 is 1/w ; �s '111 Ir iN Y. '•.M �C L ip MIN r�� L-1 > A 0 U) . . . . . . . . . . All 41 LA jy ILI! ip MIN r�� L-1 > A 0 U) . . . . . . . . . . All 41 LA jy MIN r�� L-1 > A 0 U) . . . . . . . . . . All 41 LA jy Alit) f7::] cjk Ow it L a 4 1 Mu 7L AM, "NIA r- w co L fA 0 l 02MM"'mi; rt a FIX- 41, 41 a X, -_-- 0 0 0 w (n 0 to 3 X17 e`r7 ro- ox Ilk I I a, Mu u LU U FIX- 41, 41 a X, -_-- 0 0 0 w (n 0 to 3 X17 e`r7 ro- Ilk I I a, Mu u LU U �lf , >1 /-w Z SSSS W c 0 ca ol FIX- 41, 41 a X, -_-- 0 0 0 w (n 0 to 3 X17 e`r7 ro- Ilk I I a, O i 4 I �I I V " 1 r MO «lao 0 I�JUdDIi� a71I:nB�P 'I}�rnG ' '� � ". r "• ;.9 i y^ S � a(J Jj .� it• , o� c'i• "Ci : St°� W / ^ ' N; • r e Mo1P. 'a °a 9 ° a 3 33k'r l K a. }`aS F F • ° � m _ G o 'cut 0 wrzgy� ;' N s +T > il ,P a .. A, ,` ,, 1- f.� e • °r P •+.r r � . ff-'1 •' .•i��° J �J m ' r m�P a � p 4r. < C rf Z ., c a O a 0 w nd "i•• W A 4 .. Z U .It .s s Ada O CL .or O d O V N W G � N C3 i 0 f 6 m r o f 7 ? 0 vi a yl O o CL 3 1 > 2 4 .. Z U .It .s s Ada O CL .or O d V N W e t s1'1, N j ' • Q!I� it �. p. �1 E ..1 W' b ♦-U■L a �'� IVA D a ;Fir �!p ft U II i +b � I h °a 1•rl.: • art I �• t , I Ur I I oF° _37 ITr ` T Y♦ y - t w ih �h am's i -Ift an iE.i Mi. LI ?,( Ll' u H 5 d «� � e p� �tl �t5iiJA �� S . If,7 r 'J l ry �� ti l� �pjJffr T —' •. { r .r" ' �S=11Wi(ILIRlfl it F d f s r l L � 1 1 C ell• .d EXHIBIT 2 Shuttle Analysis 31 L L9A 0.5SOCS ATP.S.(MC ]O H %6C11T(vg PARK. SbFT6 200 IIIV(NE. CALIPORNIA 91614 November 6, 2007 Mr. Keeton Kretzer Keeton Kretzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, California 92780 BP.RCBLEY PORT COLLINS 969553.0666 YRL CARL]BAO PALM SPRINGS 9495538096 PAX COLMA POINT RICHMOND Subject: Hoag Health Center Shuttle Bus Trip Increase Dear Mr. Kretzer: RIVERSICn ROCXWN SAN LUIS OBISPO LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) has reviewed the potential effects on noise and air quality from the increase in shuttle bus trips from two to four per hour between Hoag Health Center and Hoag Hospital. The following summarizes LSA findings regarding the shuttle bus trip increase. 1. Proposed Change The project proposes a shuttle service that will consist of a 20 passenger van that will provide shuttle service for physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The shuttle shall be used only by physicians who have offices in the Hoag Health Center and patients at Hoag Hospital. The shuttle shall be used 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. Originally the shuttle will be limited to two round trips per hour between the two facilities. It is now proposed to have four shuttle nips per hour. Due to the increase in shuttle trips, the number of private passenger vehicle trips would be reduced. Assuming each shuttle trip would replace 10 private passenger vehicle trips from physicians and/or Patients, the additional two shuttle trips an hour would increase the daily shuttle trips by 24 but reduce the private passenger vehicle trips by 120 trips per day. 2. Air Quality The California Air Resources Board issued the latest emission prediction model, EMFAC2007, which provides the current and projected vehicle emissions in many areas of California. The EMFAC2007 model provides emission factors for criteria pollutants for current and future years. Based on the above assumption, Table A shows that total emissions from the reduced private passenger vehicle trips would be more than offset the increase in the increase associated with the increase in the shuttle trips. There will be a reduction in all criteria pollutants as well as the greenhouse PLANNINO I E"IRONMfi'T.L 5C18NCES 1 O9511.5 3� LSA AYSOCIATE$, INC. gases (CO2) as a result of the increase in shuttle trips and reduction in private passenger vehicle trips between Hoag Health Center and Hoag Hospital, Table A: Emission Change Associated with Shuttle Trips and Private Passenger Vehicle Trips (lbs/day) 2 . ---- _.. --- — � — 1 -„Pb ycr noun oerween / a.m. ana / p.m. Assumes a reduction of 10 vehicle trips per shuttle trip increase. Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 3. Noise Similarly, because of the potential with reduction of private passenger vehicle trips as a result of the increase in shuttle trips between Hoag Health Center and Hoag Hospital, traffic noise associated with Project trips along the roadway segments between these two facilities would be slightly Iower. Similarly, the noise in the parking lot and loading/unloading areas at these two facilities would also change slightly. However, the difference would be small and not discernible by the human ear. No change in the findings identified in the noise impact analysis (LSA, September 2007) would occur. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the above analysis on the shuttle bus trip increase. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. G Ton��ung, P . Principal 11 Change CO ROC NOx SOx PM1a PM25 CO2 in Daily Trips Shuttle/Van 24 2.0 0.10 0.56 0.0027 0.019 0.014 260 Private 24 16 0.10 2.9 0.016 0.15 0.11 1,600 Passenger Vehicle Net Chan -14 -0.60 -1.34 -0.0133 -0.131 -0.096 1,340 e� _�� _ 2 . ---- _.. --- — � — 1 -„Pb ycr noun oerween / a.m. ana / p.m. Assumes a reduction of 10 vehicle trips per shuttle trip increase. Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 3. Noise Similarly, because of the potential with reduction of private passenger vehicle trips as a result of the increase in shuttle trips between Hoag Health Center and Hoag Hospital, traffic noise associated with Project trips along the roadway segments between these two facilities would be slightly Iower. Similarly, the noise in the parking lot and loading/unloading areas at these two facilities would also change slightly. However, the difference would be small and not discernible by the human ear. No change in the findings identified in the noise impact analysis (LSA, September 2007) would occur. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the above analysis on the shuttle bus trip increase. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. G Ton��ung, P . Principal 11 EXHIBIT 3 Draft EIR 91 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2006101115 HOAG HEALTH CENTER USE PERMIT AMENDMENT City Of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17782 East 17th Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92780 -1947 September 2007 I 1 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 20061011.05 �J It HOAG "HEALTH CENTER USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Prepared for. City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3209 Prepared by. Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 309 Tustin, CA 92680 Contact: Keeton K. Kreltzer, Principal (714) 665 -8509 SEPTEMBER 2007 I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment " Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents HOAG HEALTH CENTER USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ............................1 -1 1.1 Description of the Proposed Project .......................................................... ............................1 -1 ' 1.2 1.3 Alternatives ................................................................................................ .............................13 Areas of Controversy ....................:........................................................... .............................13 1.4 Issues to be Resolved ................................................................................ ............................1 -4 1.5 Impact Summary Table .............................................................................. ............................1 -4 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................ ............................2 -1 2.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR ............................................................................ ............................2 -1 2.2 Methodology ............................................................................................... ............................2 -6 2.3 Format of the Draft EIR .............................................................................. ............................2.8 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.1 Project Location .......................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................ ............................3 -1 3.3 History and Evolution of the Existing Development .. ............................... ............................312 3.4 Description of the Proposed Project ......................... ............................... ............................312 3.5 Project Phasing ......................................................................................... ...........................3 -15 3.6 Project Objectives ..................................................... ............................... ............................316 3.7 Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements ............ ............................317 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................. ............................4 -1 4.1 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................. ..........................4.1 -1 4.1.1 Existing Conditions ...................................... ............................... ...........................4.13 4.1.2 Significance Criteria ............................................................ . .................................. 4.1 -7 4.1.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.1 -7 4.1.4 Potential Impacts ....................... :........................................................................... 4.1 -8 4.1.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.1 -20 4.1.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.1 -20 4.2 Traffic and Parking .....................:.............................................................. ..........................4.2 -1 4.2.1 Existing Conditions ...................................... ................................ ...........................4.23 4.2.2 Significance Criteria ...................................... ............................... ..........................4.2 -8 4.2.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.2 -8 4.2.4 Potential Impacts ......................... ............................................... ........................... 4.2 -8. 4.2.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.2 -23 4.2.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ........................................................... : ........ 4.2 -23 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 r [1 Hoag Health Center Use PermH Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Page 4.3 Air Quality ..........................................................................................:....... .................:........4.3 -1 4.3.1 Existing Conditions ....................................... ............................... ..........................4.3 -1 4.3.2 Significance Criteria ..................................... ............................... .........................4.3 -10 4.3.3 Standard Conditions ................................................................... .........................4.3 -12 4.3.4 Potential impacts ........................................................................ .........................4.3 -13 4.3.5 Mitigation, Measures ..................................................... : ...................................... 4.3 -22 4.3.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.3 -23 4.4 Noise .......................................................................... ............................... ..........................4.4 -1 4.4.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.4 -1 4.4.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ....:.....................4.4 -6 4.4.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.4 -6 4.4.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.4 -7 4.4.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.4 -17 4.4.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.4 -17 4.5 Utilities ............................... :................................................................................................. 4.5 -1 4.5.1 Water Service and Facilities ........................................................ ..........................4.5 -1 4.5.2 Sewer Service and Facilities ................. : ............................................................... 4.5 -4 4.6 Public Health and Safety ........................................................................... ..........................4.6 -1 4.6.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.6 -1 4.6.2 Significance Criteria .................................................................... .........................4.6 -10 4.6.3 Standard Conditions .........................4.6 -11 ................................................................... 4.6.4 Potential Impacts ........................................................................ .........................4.6 -11 4.6.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... ..:......................4.6 -14 4.6.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.6 -15 5.0 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ....................................................................... ............................5 -1 5.1 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................. ............................5 -1 5.2 Agriculture .................................................................................................. ............................5 -1 5.3 5.4 Population and Housing ...................................... :.................................................................. Geology and Soils ...................................................................................... ............................5 5 -2 -2 5.5 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................... .............................53 5.6 Traffic and Parking .................................................................................... .............................53 5.7 Air Quality ................................................................................................... ............................5 -4 5.8 Noise .......................................................................................................... ............................5 -4 5.9 Biological Resources .................................................................................. ............................5 -4 5.10 5.11 Aesthetics .................................................................................................... ............................5.4 CulturallScientifc Resources ..................................................................... ............................5 -6 5.12 Recreation .................................................................................................. ..:.........................5 -6 5.13 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................... ............................5 -6 5.14 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................ ............................5 -7 5.15 Public Services ........................................................................................... ............................5 -7 5.16 Utilities ........................................................................................................ ............................5 -7 Draft Environmental impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents 9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................ ............................9 -1 9.1 Page 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ...................................................:.....:........ ............................6 -1 6.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126( b) .......................................................... ............................6 -1 6.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................... ............................6 -1 7.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ..... ............................7 -1 8.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ............................................................................ ............................8.1 8.1 Definition of Growth- Inducing Impacts ............................................................. :..................... 8 -1 8.2 Analysis of Growth- Inducing Impacts ........................................................ ............................8 -1 .8.3 Conclusion ............................................................................:..................... ............................8 -2 9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................ ............................9 -1 9.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... ............................9 -1 9.2 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................... ............................9 -1 9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis .........................................:............................ .............................93 10.0 ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... ............................... ...........................10 -1 10.1 Introduction ................................................................. ............................... ...........................10 -1 10.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ........................................................ ...........................10 -2 10.3 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration ................................... ...........................10 -2 10A Analysis of Alternatives ............................................................................. ...........................10 -3 10.5 Summary of Alternatives ......................................................... : .......................................... 10 -13 11.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 12.0 11 -1 12 -1 13.0 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ................................................ ............................... ...........................13 -1 APPENDICES A. Initial Study and Notice of Preparation B. NOP Comment Letters C. Traffic Impact Analysis D. Air Quality Analysis E Noise Impact Analysis F. Water and Sewer System Demand Studies Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Hoag Heafth Center Use Permit Amendment Draft. Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents HOAG HEALTH CENTER USE PERMIT AMENDMENT LIST OF EXHIBITS Peas 3 -1 Regional Map ........................................................................................................... ............................3 -2 3 -2 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................. .............................33 3 -3 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................................... ............................3 -4 3-4 Newport Mesa Planning Area .................................................................................. ............................3 -7 3 -5 Existing General Plan .............................................................................................. ............................3 -8 3-6 Existing Zoning ........................................................................................................ ............................3 -9 3 -7 . Site Development Plan ........................................................................................... ...........................3 -14 4.2 -1 4.2 -2 4.23 4.2-4 4.2-5 4.2-6 4.2 -7 4.2-8 4.2 -9 Existing Circulation System .................................................................................... ..........................4.2 -2 Roadway Improvements and Intersection Controls ............................................... ..........................4.2 -4 ExistingAM Peak Hour Volumes ........................................................................... ..........................4.2 -5 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................... ..........................4.2 -6 Project - Related Trip Distribution ............................................................................. .........................4.2 -10 Project - Related AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................. ..........................42 -11 Project - Related PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................ .........................4.2 -12 Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Traffic Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................... ............................... Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Traffic Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................... .. .............................. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Heafth Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 iv 1 i _1 [1 I 11 I I ............4.2 -17 1 ..................4.2 -18 I 11 I I 1 I I I 11 I I I 11 I I i I I_I I I I I J I I L I Hoag Health Canter. Use permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents HOAG HEALTH CENTER USE PERMIT AMENDMENT LIST OF TABLES Passe 1 -1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................1 -5 2 -1 List of Potential Responsible Agencies .................................................................. .............................23 2 -2 Summary of NOP Comments .................................................................................. ............................2 -4 3 -1 Statistical Summary — Existing Development ......................................................... ............................3 -5 3 -2 Land Use Summary — Approved Use Permit 2006-010 ........................................ ...........................3 -12 33 Proposed Land Use Summary ................................................ ............................... ...........................3 -15 3-4 Proposed Phasing .................................................................................................. ...........................3 -16 4.1 -1 Existing Development .................................. ................................................... :................................. 4.1 -1 4.1 -2 Proposed Land Use Allocation- 2007 ................................................................... ..........................4.1 -9 4.13 Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Analysis .............................................. .........................4.1 -10 4.1-4 Newport Beach Circulation Element Policy Analysis ............................................ .........................4.1 -13 4.1 -5 Newport Beach Noise Element Policy Analysis .................................................... .........................4.1 -16 4.1-6 Newport Beach Safety Element Policy Analysis ................................................... .........................4.1 -17 4.2-1 Study Area Intersections .......................................................... ............................... ..........................4.2 -1 4.2 -2 Existing (Year 2007) ICU and LOS ....................................................................... ..........................4.2 -7 4.2 -3 Project Traffic Generation ...................................................... ............................... ..........................4.2 -9 4.2-4 TPO Analysis one Percent Threshold ................................................................... .........................4.2 -14 4.2 -5 City of Newport Beach TPO Analysis (ICU and LOS) With Project ...................... .........................4.2 -15 4.2 -6 2009 ICU /LOS Analysis With Project Traffic ........................................................ ..........................42 -16 4.2 -7 Summary of 2009 ICU Analysis Traffic Impacts ................................................... .........................4.2 -19 4.2 -8 Intersection DelaylLOS Analysis With Project ..................................................... ..........................42 -20 4.2 -9 Superior Avenue/Project Central Driveway ICU /LOS Analysis ............................ .........................4.2 -21 4.3 -1 Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants .......................... ..........................4.3 -5 4-3 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ............... ..........................4.3 -7 433 'Ambient Air Quality at the Costa Mesa/Mission Viejo Air Monitoring Stations .. .......:..................4.3 -8 4-3-4 Emissions from Construction Equipment Exhaust ............................................. .........................4.3 -13 43-5 Summary of Construction Emissions Localized Significance ............................ .........................4.3 -15 43-6 Project Operational Emissions ............................................................................. .........................4.3 -16 43 -7 Summary of Operational Localized Significance ................................................ ........................:4.3 -18 43-8 Screening Level Health Risk Assessment for Generator Exhaust .................... .........................4.3 -19 4-3 -9 Existing CO Concentrations without and with the Project .................................. .........................4.3 -20 4-3 -10 .2009 CO Concentrations without and with the Project ...................................... .........................4.3 -21 44 -1 Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise ....................................... ..........................4.4 -1 4-4 -2 City of Newport Beach Noise Standards .............................. ............................... ...........................4.43 4.4-3 Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................................................ ..........................4.4 -4 4.4-4 Existing Traffic - Related Noise Levels ...................................... ............................... ..........................4.4 -5 4.45 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .................... ............................... ...........................4.48 4.4-6 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................... ............................... ..........................4.410 4.47 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ..............:.... ............................... ..........................4.411 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Hoag, Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Page 4.4-8 2009 With Project Traffic Noise Levels ............................................................... .........................4.4 -12 4-4 -9 Measured Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels ....................................................... .........................4.4 -15 44-10 Projected Exterior Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels at Residences ................ .........................4.4 -15 4-4 -11 Projected Interior Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels at Residences .................. .........................4.4 -16 4.6 -1 Results of Database Searches ............................................................................... ..........................4.6 -2 4.6-2 Inventory of USTs ................................................................................................... ..........................4.6 -6 4.6 -3 Maximum Concentrations of COPCs ..................................................................... ..........................4.6 -8 4.6-4 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern ............................................................ ..........................4.6 -9 9 -1 Cumulative Projects List ...................... 10 -1 Potential Traffic Impacts — No Development Alternative .............................. 10 -2 Potential Traffic Impacts — No Development Alternative .............................. 10-3 Potential Traffic Impacts — Non - Medical Office Alternative ........................... 104 Summary of Project Alternatives .................................... ............................... Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Vi NEY ..................105 ..................10-9 ................10 -11 ................10 -14 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0 SECTION 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 Description of the Proposed Project 1.1.1 Project Location The City of Newport Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in western Orange 'County. Newport Beach is bordered by the Cities of Irvine on the north and northeast and by Costa Mesa on the north and northwest. Crystal Cove State Park is located southeast of the City's corporate boundaries. On the west, the Incorporated limits of the City extend to the Santa Ana River; the City of Huntington Beach is located west of the Santa Ana River. The Pacific Ocean comprises the southern boundary of the City. Hoag Health Center, currently known as Newport Technology Center, is located at 500 -540 Superior ' Avenue (the "Property'). The subject property is bounded by Superior Avenue on the northwest and by Dana Road on the southwest; Newport Boulevard abuts the property on the east and southeast. The City of Newport Beach Corporate Yard Is located along the northeastern property boundary; the Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Center is located southeast of the site. Multiple - family residential development and the Flagship Medical Care Center are located southwest of the property and the Harbor. Homes, Trailer Park and Superior Medical Center are located to the northwest, across Superior Avenue. 1.1.2 Project Description Recently (December 2006), the City approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 for the site that allows the demolition of one existing office building (Building 4) and the construction of an additional parking structure (Structure 2). The approval also authorized the conversion of 97,000 square feet of existing general officetresearch and development (R &D) space to medical office space, resulting in a total of 232,414 square feet of office/R &D floor area and 97,000 square feet of medical office floor area. The ' amended Use Permit approved by the City also inciuded.an increase in on -site parking from 1,332 combined parking spaces (i.e., surface and structure parking) to 1,985 combined parking spaces, including 697 spaces in. the new parking structure that replaced Building 4. The Use Permit also provided for a shuttle service that will consist of a 20- passenger van that will provide shuttle service for physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The shuttle service is limited 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 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'.. No ancillary parking wili.be allowed.to occur at Hoag Health Center for Hoag Hospital except during a one -year interim period to facilitate completion of Hoag's construction of its Lower Campus. The applicant, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, Is now requesting the approval of an amendment to the existing Use Permit (UP2006 -010) to allow: (1.} the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet general office and R &D floor area, of the existing 329,414 square feet of existing floor area, to medical office use within the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning. district; and (2) the construction of an. additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space on -site, for a total of 350,000 square feet of ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 . Page 1 -1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Sectlon 1.0 gross floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square. feet. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site as Commercial Medical Office and the precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area. This land use designation is intended to provide primarily medical - related: uses. Additionally, approval of a traffic study is being requested pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). As indicated above, a total of 1,985 parking spaces are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces In two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on -site parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's parking code. The detailed project description is contained within Chapter 3.0 of the Draft EIR. 1:1.3 Project Phasing The applicant is proposing to implement the project over several years based on the following schedule: 1.1.4 Project Objectives Implementation of the proposed project will achieve the following intended specific objectives, which have been identified by the project applicant as well as those articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan. • To provide 350,000 square feet of medical office space that can be utilized to meet the growing demand for outpatient health care services, including imaging, urgent care, rehabilitation and health care education programs. • To provide the highest quality health care available. • To support Hoag Hospital's delivery of patient centered care for those hospitalized as an inpatient and by providing additional outpatient care and services. To recognize that as Orange County's population ages, and expands, so grows the need for increased health care services. • To have medical office space conveniently located near the hospital, and supported by imaging, rehabilitation and educational programs allowing the hospital to attract new physicians to the community. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 1-2 I F i I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 3 Quarter 2007 Building Demolition Garage Construction V Quarter 2008 Conversion of 350,000 sq. ft. to 5 — 7 Years from Approval' Medical Office 20,586 sq. ft. new Medical Office floor 3,000 — 5,000 sq. ft. 3 --:5 ars from Approval areal 1 16,586 to 18,586 sq. ft. 5 — 7 years from Approval 'Anticipated completion. 2New construction. SOURCE: Newport Beach Healthcare Center LLC; 2007. 1.1.4 Project Objectives Implementation of the proposed project will achieve the following intended specific objectives, which have been identified by the project applicant as well as those articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan. • To provide 350,000 square feet of medical office space that can be utilized to meet the growing demand for outpatient health care services, including imaging, urgent care, rehabilitation and health care education programs. • To provide the highest quality health care available. • To support Hoag Hospital's delivery of patient centered care for those hospitalized as an inpatient and by providing additional outpatient care and services. To recognize that as Orange County's population ages, and expands, so grows the need for increased health care services. • To have medical office space conveniently located near the hospital, and supported by imaging, rehabilitation and educational programs allowing the hospital to attract new physicians to the community. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 1-2 I F i I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Emdronmental impact Report Section 1.0 • To provide the much - needed space for physician offices. There is in great need for primary care and specialty physicians. It is Hoag's objective to provide the space for them to practice. 1 1.2 Alternatives 1.2.1 Summary of Alternatives CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and to evaluate the comparative . merits of the alternatives. Chapter 10 sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them as required by CEQA.. Several alternative development scenarios have been identified as a means of reducing potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the proposed ' project. These alternatives include several other potentially feasible development alternatives, including: No Project/No Development (Existing General Plan) • No Development (Approved /Existing Amended Use Permit) Reduced Intensity Non - Medical Offices 1.2.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative Chapter 10 describes the criteria that were used to select those alternatives for detailed analysis and to screen others from Jurther detailed consideration. CEQA also requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the alternatives considered, including the proposed project. The No Development alternative identified and analyzed in Chapter 10.0 will eliminate the potentially significant short -term unavoidable adverse air quality impacts that would occur if the mitigation measures were not implemented. However, CEQA requires that if the "no project' alternative is the environmental superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives shall be identified. Based on the comparative analysis of alternatives provided in Chapter 10, the Non - Medical Office Alternative would be considered to be environmentally superior in that its implementation ' would result in the least adverse environmental impacts. In particular, the significant unavoidable air quality impacts would be avoided with the implementation of this alternative; however, many of the project objectives would not be achieved by the Non - Medical Office alternative. 1.3 Areas of Controversy An Initial Study was prepared, which identified several issues are the focus of the Draft EIR. The areas of controversy are derived from the preliminary analysis presented in the initial study and comments received during the Notice of Preparatiom(NOP) comment period, including: • Potential air quality impacts resulting from demolition and construction activities as well as the potential increase in mobile -source emissions. 1 Potential traffic impacts resulting from the conversion of the existing uses to medical office Boor area. • Potential land use conflicts and conflicts with adopted General Plan policies and 1, programs. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 Page 1 -3 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0 Potential health hazards to future occupants resulting from past use of the site that has resulted in contamination. 1.4 Issues to be Resolved The environmental analysis presented in Chapter 4.0 of the Draft EIR and the analysis included in the initial study, which also evaluates the potential effects of project implementation; indicate that several potential impacts were identified; however, in those instances, specific mitigation measures have been. included to reduce the potential significant adverse effects to a. less than significant Level. Potentially significant traffic, public health, and noise 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. In addition, several recommendations have also been included in this document to address other impacts resulting from project implementation, which have been determined to be less than significant, to eliminate or further reduce those adverse effects. Because mobile- source emissions cannot be reduced to a less than significant level, the Newport Beach Planning Commission must adopt a statement of overriding considerations prior to taking an action to approve the proposed Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment. 1.5 Impact Summary Table Table 1 -1 summarizes the significant adverse impacts of the proposed project. The table also provides a summary of the potential impacts found to be less than significant, and which do not require mitigation. Each environmental resource area covered in the main text is summarized. Also, impacts found to be significant are listed along with the proposed mitigation measures. The residual impact after application of mitigation measures.is also indicated for each significant impact. �I I LJ I 11 I Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 1-4 i 0 F m b O N E � E $ c x� C W1 R O! cam•' i a V f7 C N c E 010 N Cy O 7 m V J � a M R N N ad+ R C V O R R N O!= g o N = C. E 0 R E E 7 N QED m � y Wj w RV E O Z T b�g33 �pp T n .'i E'a m R E E E =Omm �-+6 Z M q a�{5mm`c77bbbaa ycGEOnUW roEro �.` =MOS ma�� nr� Ri € mho O-A- A-2 90.?, 5 =11 m° c -E a �@ 5 1 r o QA2 Z m yaE uimUgrdm� '.ca i c�mn+� avW -c35 am g�ggn 8$E am'$� a nY-2:,3 �ti a`vv��m�$ffiFi qc J 10 L° F N N N N N ��• m m m m m , m ' ° 5 a EpPL 942'. @ m E c 0 M JRZ� WH I, so c Sn?b m Z F mcm .Qg d I �pi y O mm C O n E c m g�E w M S p- 4c OC c 9 1 g g m QED m � y Wj w a d �m 4 m ci zW EN I 1 I I 3 1 a C , 4� WEB �mg m m j Q C z B Z ' E I I K c� fn C $ y J a c � a N we C C m fn Z. U N L fl or a y m O c c O m M 2°�ii 5p°5p1 .�S .S. �a .4.c ff Q.8 N,Hgqq��yNm ;� Sa 94. mps aC cm'$p$c E��ol 5 �'Eo� >y?v s c E E$ a c a�i N@ m •.. a �a1 �0 go .yom 9a $_.2 °�m .g��a 95 m gM.2 c E e' cN '5FL c - °.��o $ N . bO v N ao 0.5 a3flU cN w o 7`T i Q a$'c mU:a �bpo� •$ ''o$m- '$Sm � oc �i m �� i � Tma m>� amS . � SE$a'0.2 fl @s 5 : �hE 2g €N N� m o S 'E 2 m l m S E d ��r' 'a N °oN. — L� rJd. CCU sy3 .s Uy mafl v a 0 0 -0 o EO N0 9 MM '$ a� 8 00 *W °8gi.�` oar 0'c$ g S flE E9 Et"d p oc°•l °a c macmN c7- 66o`��O 'c N K$ri�.d °maac m as DLO .� cg 0c:5'0 4g m.'E. Z 2L T E C C c� dofl .�wS5 Cam Z 2SN¢$.m�Q N.+ Q.G N,ill aaEQS��0ii N& U "26 wCm 6 cNm.t�taa m° ¢ °E85?i3 mRaE�a 'p. $ �oE�°aN c�L�°�!`lj' N °LNE a�5v� m�U Tam�am n�E flEta m 55HE �� ry N N y g i y cyEa� SE$ME c A .cm d. chi OcLd 5a0d cQQ aE " m c °d _ c $ - � fl 9 E - m JY � v� 0 cw E��iuy Exiu� CL�i �1 N E � fn o " ++ N N N E _ I 1 I I 3 1 a C , 4� WEB �mg m m j Q C z B Z ' E I I 11 m y I r' L i i i I i I m E� Q m q � E c� E c m'S xW 1 U d ca 3 ,.zm 0: 1 EEo° m N E�� Qlm h W m V x B x A r 4 E c m �m Elm {ma m P N a m m �.z. ym m a m m c m ma wd.� p 0 EmEa w Wag m�•L -a `�' dms Lm �o7aie FMS �cT ��r )Em 2 '33a°i .`tai a ° m3E O $ 40 ag t�5 La oaM m `o m E gg Ss i Na Co2E:e gum S — ?as w'E V U—;:0 co � O m, mc°c 6 m g N N$ mn E coam E 0 pp na m — st E'- m o da N "S a y g L m g a O € E Yn m 3 •.Qcm E O 'w '��ycm C.) $ j ciO °Ca1 � am i O N �¢Jw E� N�F� ass 3p �ia'� vl m3 rna �mmC I� mmc `o rU W n mU o Ff9K '3 9 f��JJ m d < A m W ra c C� Nm E WmE d 8 E�a �o � QyN m arum 3 o c 'tit Cmm tiaa�FmF a cin.dyag U d ca 3 ,.zm 0: 1 EEo° m N E�� Qlm h W m V x B x A r 4 C Q 4 Em CJ =4 "M .age '• g @r W �ScQ�d� C �g m�pm� ,.E S0 'S N '�' m O V m a mm =��m m C C= 3> 4 m m mm m i U m �n mpmmT 6 'op m m �U :5S, �W m{��1Um° .'cCi$eiS .�.:m m2,�� O 3cW ara mS 09 �$ m0 rN =£2 0 mmn=idyoa j6m me yN �q1 LO >S aC Oa E m$ m j N a�$ E m a m F?6$ b'c - c E W��BE cmN gfo0 m 3 E �°'�mmm$ m E g Y . � OF a Eo —a $ = am m {m E=gg l°52 LO W L 5a $ a m c2 E 34 C ggL 5 > � 0- 9 c m =E ma 3F amiE C Nl0 U EE = d m U S y O m N m O N N em. C U:a UUS C. m a Uam �myy�E 'cd FBc�imsa E'..E, E'm �mE3.E m$'� �8 L� d a v a m W M M M M M C ib T.' 1k u 11 H 1 1 1 11 i Y 8,z � C O �E� m Eem a L r 1 1 I 1 I�l 1 1 o i i dF C x� �q y C F W j =W z 20 a c m N c N C � W (n J 2, an' 6- 'm�iS t��$ � ME 0oE"r' r crn LnM na n ?c mI = ", m 9c `9i jF o.y 5E�v! °!RR 'mEmn a �c c may rgidm "aa H ?w8 rn8a£iH mEa Sr c F m y5 E E a__ c �2'a E Em4 ncE AMRa E 10ma$ �aEi nE 2+ v mE �a� a8 ES a cg�5 nT°m ��� °o��' 80`°0 8 '3 am QE <2 g' �ta E°@ ° NEC:51-5 ° w N m fiL n GCBN�pmmJ�c C{�T�j0 H.a E 5 Enwd � OC t 9T p�, ALC ya a �a J m. R' C y i C LL Wn y c a L L cm O m Lm Ern Z 'o t'ia m -� E �3Fy a 'Gr N eta aF� E a a E EL n °3m'Q Ona�imE �o mm� .mca Z a m"2c cVH Hnc c �Nmm n c c n A . m�m _ N �_ 0:92 d d xg N m N L m C ('a " 3EmC �{�{pp�mE�' Lf C U M C O Z. rna ?`!E c a N C ..�0 . '9LaKH >�01��' ti. a_ •- m E n N Eq ^' aE nya` H La pEl Al maw CL M I' N a a G Cppo� Z gig E �!¢� W " U m 2 m 4 b m �I 4 w 2i I I �j C1 , Y �mn E E c g o m � N W�+ 4� w I I 11 yN J 8 a IO N L15 GO C m a L N' p 3 N N m F LLm p 'p UU r L 4C g � E �$ ° � §1- S$E n8 amaE c0m a,�j- N3 vi E�B'i m m c mg ca m m m N Ip E'87Y m i>3n$ 9 d_ $_- mcNN i y � $ N $3 N� yd oo &:S N {r3�° -E a 3�c,gmfi , i E U �a -0 2. 3ya+10�5 -9Q� mr�° c MC -Fu g3 O Oo i> • . nac M2 coo aE O :5 c a U a $ 4E y ` u�$L� cN .co $mc �H ' -i �3 m �r vcz § c59 cmz N Gm E3 o Gm a$o vEE ' SS S8 '=Ea N"om m `� cE �p 0s3 N m N L 0 / O b m .2 �E 1E W9 ffi e F °wI1 N aE ' mr mL I--- am . aE3 8 C�d cm. mn qL N 3 n •- m � L N p TQ C .IC6 C C C IQ E 11 t x m o 9 'm ^b, s;wM > Hi4m :2 ER-i m 6.2 m Ca �`M _. .. NnmmN'$NN 3 Ecy qqcC CC C y E m m a n 0 INmryppp (((Vyyy��'' me In m Pi g N L H J dmtq E 1d� E I I �j C1 , Y �mn E E c g o m � N W�+ 4� w I I 11 [1 1 D i i 1 I 1 1 1 j I I 1 a E �I w r� m Dt • V ' m N m N I.E m N f mmaa o w mC m � m ° 90 ""'ON�9 r m Opp 90 �JQJ - s �T a ia m c_° d mscm , op>p o��.2E�J ' r m ° s p �:P 'la VVV ��mN a R�nc mry3p7°5 o m� � m c 9 m "OUR a m 0 m m mN' m m o�dN m ri$} y-°a 3uu am ����O�d ao b =u m 'S 12?"0m .c •l?n> Ea mE m ` m mT a ° uu . _ U G]. E nxm E 8 m OO E d �C m'Q-a :S hm �J _.tSt3 a �$a cry'D ma ma E e JN y�cm Smop3� EE E°'Si`v H'o $ 3 OE mid m m 0m5o�m3 . N - m ypc�a!; Em Taaaa 55 ¢r�� E'S; j EVT%O m..`E.ms.�-.0 m_�E E moats °NE OC Nmo W- .- oa E E o o m E a '_ 9 N L v yom m�'a o$ c m E m C L L_ J y` Co's ..m'n O m c" m �'O' ° sEyyS4$��c m E J c m y 9 J m ma y�!R r� c m a a o E d m m d o �i n m g a =m �i c E U W m C y o m g. E iS �ynac`cEC m me E Na csa.$ KmL ppi_'�a. =,n3mc m4 m r A S m G - amm p c o co J a> "Er.y Yi c'$om _ mm m m m a d u °� o= m �Emm '-+_ ' -'p a° N ami a TTEii n o E B °ar E J m `'aacm m'E'�`Sa ac °a�arpi E;2 m� °m 60 - >:o0 'mE °mdmm 7m m e FHffitS Fr�oE = .E:4m' mats OJ d N U) t7 ab _N N N v a v o v pic m m°Nam opt `a..8g.p1c �'E `Ea pa nnnco� aQEa�m amm r`$p>i �•BE� G Ei� ammp' Wr�6 O 5 m g MID 2E EEmc v�+ a 8 8 ! 2 0 9 - a L� m yyy O . a r_C EE �m c N{ E Jm } U ZS� % c m ° N 9 m$�m m _� c m°CCgh m C @ 'a `p �SN ' N5� am >°9E -6 m'ti 'pJ 2S.V N m CO m �a. $ L C ��N O V p E E 'ASKS U d m 2 a I' N A& y L5 U i 4 0 0 d E Q r N I 1 I I a L m $ J m E Z U E Z .. Sacim a m Ia c C � m P 1 ELI E E C ?$q .o o �jq Cyp S1 .5.. C C c m a m a �J�� EE. a m a m fFaJ ^, °1 O F C m FF m � [O W c m m m i o P3 m � c33yy M. 12 E $ E •� M E Z m Z m Eg m$ N N a N O � s m m m S �'�o ,: 5 3. mE�2pm mmoE m M. m ym °_L°go q1E b Q O m m �' V I S N N$Ery m -nm$ arS$�cgm �.. °1 `g °m 'S, .E2f' :9 .21Mcan $'d'm'°$yy '°$i2A SS m c c m E i5 10 m E 9 EgT�aS�yH,._$g�gra 1! 1 mmt�dc L. o g m nE a. .L°a?UtJ S. '°a�i�omm Sa S_jJ2 m j g8� q3 mc� pp�imu� �' aw E—M w°210 d m,yTcl�r c� ua�Z aE� .2 $' qc� mYp 'perN q 3832"R O�m`o c &t+gmv3aY j 0p �H Np S R5 Q4$ J 8magj 94 U^5 �.A a W `o N g D 9yy C �° & N m i/.:. m�Qpp t=oF, ommii t' 6 `�m.n��y3� Ut ` aav aai. N p ='°b co d.iii m'v �m_�em c$S °mE 0 M.88 �.m mN C9� n3 z: ..;1.• Nm a m— SaE O9 C cr�rc W$$c m e m c C OcmcW m� L^mbag�k -olum gqc��p��s mm� NT�J MR, m' m�acm"J eco10NppJaoimm $� FcSJr `3 a3.SmE$5mam mSoL 3LL a I 1 I I I Ili i 11 U 6� roZ Ia c C � Eg P 1 €g Wjm C I Ili i 11 I I 1 I I 1 I b z z m I G U U C $z a � tp 'b hop E N l m¢ E le Wa' c� o U x. w x M r 4 n E ° z n E z° H 9 t c a .� 2J'-9'w as ayy 13� �8� a aqN m� c c Q� o o N � O � 9� Li C 9 � m d TA _ M o'w 'cE ai =on 8m° ncac -4�n �.' M -N d c e m m ffi mS v a R H Hat a Q m G L 6 ¢ N N` S O � C S Y m y NN O R mm U �+ 3 ... M 5 1 .5 vJv� a_ N n p_� p N O G O c v m_ppa W�_ JN {EN *a �m R 6 ac OR zm ••t ((m]] c y8 F8' c aim cpap rd0 Lm y�39T app mLw �o'c alc r%i ,N�j r0Lp.CBM NO NN N6mmN C nR N},Qm c.i4 ?JtSmNL�8 N�gzaap r SmE OgWOSEW ��.����a =madaBW�og S o$2z€ 0 G N m C` N ®~ N E CA > O tiBj w N Q1 W,5 � N °'Q�S E r�Q/gj� •O pyygn INIg O4.6 f4a {pn N T a G� S.N FWi � G N y N Man R_mOJN a Eojje m N` �' �� a- 202 m�N d N n s O P N a�'5RS60 e' O u�$ o i;�sbbc c >r�,,v.9 ary"o T1— m('$OT' N� � N L N W N O J a, pm N m Z J V O ff 6-5i c 0E$ c-0 SJN A m w O G �JN fA a 10 2 ic vO N mn ` yO esT9 Em Sn�A az i LS M E} tp! � m •.fi: � a Rm i« a�m sN—h °' a NmF�OpcT N 5n �M n � HUM cEmE 3 NG Na8SoNNn�c.�$ m"d +ro g$a .a$nav N''ie > >p vTi� 10'CS -9 . 121 Ty °c�c 0.E3E�'NO''�5'�LE�v� ac�nGNB p 8 $ GNrL"m a $ e & a o � TY r i C L C R 2 NN r AN '50 aS a p C OS n O N �N G mm 1 m _` �c . J S n N yJt N 9 S Q S m 2r. U U C $z a � tp 'b hop E N l m¢ E le Wa' c� o U x. w x M r 4 0 JL 0 x I I I 6 , m Q� C E LU 'J O` I 11 W $ J W £ J E — O Z E — o Z EK"c > gym. m .yayaa a�ymv� EEmC �' o'�a =y—s nc E.c L'E:SE IEmE� '`m$d�.Q� > gm m ','m a5 — 02 wmmaac Ta `,oE c8m ayy `acCC BE E oc E o N,�: =mcL Q.•ggdwn o E Z:3Z9 NS °f�2 m m Oa, = 8 2 • E�`tm° c m �@C i5,Fo om SffiS 'a2 9ME mn°m C4 $8 m O=N 8tLVmp E c m c m am: n S YS y € L iy j LJ O p L 90 '+ S nc $ N S � i0= Em n n 06 �mZ$� � c E a m� # y 8 = U da o c ma b 12 N2z @E 2a aO ��dmm § • ••`,St $e2eep m$d�—'o'aac mS ycZ��:a o pp� o yea' mN yc $ MM c� 3LJ °�'°�'Lmrnac $ L,Q �.wLm =o�.1c r5 a um� is •'lm a'imsJi cc Ncm m —� aimL6 N� Ev m E Ec7 c m c .'g N..�m RS c$ iia mN$maE5� mmaaSQrdc D cNC0 m 5'm i9 Tm 'ym 'yL :� c �� m. N�SOa�B.N..:::? m Edma:m °— ��m�°EQE mg �&cma L v= Q��N��3�2 9ID m L -� oL Zm oL c O C T$ m C S Zs O 2 O p S Ed pZm .� mC m 79$m ,N sm 0 $gW 5 =>pO t N yy c L t = ` m o m m a�gm, S cm am F—= o�m °a 8Lcmn 3 a $gW� o � RD EN M B t%. 8 ag ia O �p a �om m �Ecm g9 .L am V =E � Q='m —m E aC7 E fym m8m a c Lmm Nlp c�p m mLmUm a'fa';v�e 3 F9=s Z @E$ a3gj: �{ � E�mbg = mrnc �cc w8'$m c`ai m c m= a>im.OE aC mQ $� E%i ?gg ..cm �i gj #4p ottl �'b 'c �a mZ • mQ'GLaQgg �EmrnQ— E E E 8 g �3 �o�=gppm�� e c m clM c .02 3 Z: 5'g 52$.9� 'G 1p1pmpp Y E U N'!s,. y °`rd�m m ='�ia .� C CDC m w _ m aCC �(po�da_ $aI1 mm m 8 N$ m1_ cc$g'� mQ'a mnma t�c N ( E �i1 —m a$$�F5 =mw yZa °N a5mcc+��o at d8 'Gm mE'3 �E =gym mmE �i ac m n�c }ac',mm'mmL �E o�_"?d Vim.. c3 ammgE �g °mr�aZ Al Q 355�aci o5._ E5 u�bE a0 I I I 6 , m Q� C E LU 'J O` I 11 i 1 1 I J i I I ' m Q 1 m ' U m x m :d S c of fA 5 !E c of fA $ m s E w � E O z° . a E z° o W 9 o m 'mE E $ uz° > > >p NNr�pCg '9 :EJ m e E E t E �rsm Em„aEa m ,@ 2' � E p.m c ry keA U a m a m a E E E gy�6B0 o m o 0 0 oamm c a N O$ 2 1 m U m o m m m m p c m E CL 0 a� 0 -WL E2 s m� m3E v E E E m m =tam C _ Gc.- E�� d ' < �5�'+�°o�v'H W C.) .4? asp n�' me 2' m� ,EmvL�m U ma zm z 6 m Z M m 222 E am�m� { co m- ._Lmr6 m= $ m c M cmr, m p m p m m tP _ S o� � 2 r z m bra =5- 3 To � my ,12 o c 9 m $�10rc 2O%Sa b "o n m� m m z a - -,m c ' >"-�i$ E 0 �1 2 n mag+'Gmm- a c m 2 3 m m@ c =° 2 v o 2 3 C a? a K °o o m 3 E o ' '3° o o g m E r 3 R r> m m c m E c Plm m E °`z �ic OEM >a m "E ... 3:46 a9m wmr�c m m m =m m2 c'z> c8cpm 28 m oc U r : sm 5�a E�mE'.E rp F9 . -ma o '..iM, m;a h $ b c ,,yyy� E' mom. -'p ° .3 �� 0 no> �� m a o 3 � . -6- s �En�y'Lm3E ag m c n 2 N m> E �- .� =Q c m E.4c `�m'ra m HOC �p p LL .) C" p V N U m c m S c n d �'. •�. a 2. ,oc ._E om>,E°�'E LD c'mvo v,En WE oa$ c s8 m'acm °c'5 2mEy.._g2.c maog cn' >Eam =. ,6>w a310m5.R.2.2 maw ma �> mp cm ;m�` PBX m 0 �� m n3 a_3 m = ap,aEAma E cc �y9,C' �c g 3 9 +s v°m mC�ryw=�� �c >i88> sc we 10 �a-co %s 'im+c3$a mVOE� oW �3b� °= m�& m c$Ea $ m2b �$� 82'h -m c m LL p a -S.. B c c0 m m N� Z O -B$a _ c;_ m pp a, 0 2.8 t �c C am m� m '6 E?w3cm E �p >mjm C y b'ZS .13 D m_'L°�y°- - 6 m m� o cE a o2gr `o o m ,m cr EmE9m aEl nm_m §m m �mmm mcm 2 ca- �, c E� E o c m r., E m �'S 3 c. ,& co 0 .:. E3 &c wQamoc E m- ,?'cmi `ai a�v'Ev'3Q g m:5 c Qwm E'w z 8'w a2>i cm�mammKEmmamma m$>�ma U cs $2 n E�$ e�m s h W C ` Q� Z x 0 b e r w J e 11 1 0 r 3 c2 , a� Egg m J o� w I 1 I I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 SECTION 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a2.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR I 11 I I I 2.1.1 Authority This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 at seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 at seq.). This EIR assesses the potential impacts associated with the proposed Hoag Health Center development project. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and the Amendment to the Use Permit. An EIR is an informational document prepared pursuant to CEQA. It provides decision - makers, public agencies, and the public in general with detailed information about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project. It also lists the ways in which the significant' effects of a project might be minimized and addresses alternatives to the project. CEQA requires that an EIR contain at a minimum, certain specific information, including but not limited to a clear, concise project description; environmental settings; discussion of environmental impacts; effects found not to be significant, and cumulative impacts. This information is required pursuant to Sections 15120 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2.1.2 Incorporation by Reference As permitted by Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Draft EIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, and reports. Information from the documents that has been incorporated by reference has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s) that follow and the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the Draft EIR has been described. The documents and other sources, which have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR, are identified in Chapter 12.0 (Bibliography). In accordance with Section 15150(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the location where the public may obtain and review these referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation of the Draft EIR is also identified in Chapter 12.0. Several Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan have been used extensively in the preparation of the Draft EIR. Where appropriate and necessary, one or more of those elements have been incorporated by reference as permitted by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, environmental analysis contained in the Final EIR prepared for the General Plan Update has also been incorporated into this Draft EIR. The information and analysis incorporated by reference have been summarized in the appropriate sections of this document. 2.1.3 Intended Uses of the Draft EIR Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Draft EIR is intended to provide information regarding the environmental consequences of; mitigation measures for, and alternatives to, the proposed Hoag Health Center development project and Use Permit. It, is also meant to facilitate discussions with other agencies regarding implementation of mitigation measures. CEQA is specific about providing disclosure where "[t]he EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action ... " (Guidelines Section 15300 [d]). CEQA also requires consideration of the whole or entirety of an action. With these guiding principles in mind, the intended uses of this EIR are to: ' Inform the decision- makers, public, and agencies about the project; Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 2 -1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 Analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed Hoag Health Center project; Provide notice to Responsiblefrrustee Agencies regarding required permits; Incorporate analysis related to the requirements of these laws to allow responsible agences to make findings pursuant to this EIR Although this Draft EIR will also be necessarily specific in the depth of analysis (i.e., project -level analysis), this document, along with the supporting existing setting and General Plan and related long - range planning documents, provides environmental documentation for the implementation of each of the elements proposed by the project applicant for use of the existing and proposed development. It provides project level environmental documentation for individual project elements that are consistent with the goals, concepts, and strategies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. A discretionary approval is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve or how to carry out a project. For this project, the government agency is the Newport Beach Planning Commission. To approve and implement the proposed Hoag Health Center project, the following specific discretionary approvals by the Newport Beach City Council are needed: Certification of the EIR (DEIR and FEIR together) /Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Approval of a Revised and Amended Use Permit Approval of a Traffic Study pursuant to the City s Traffic Phasing Ordinance In accordance with Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this document is intended to serve as a "project" EIR that examines the environmental impacts of the speck development project. In this case, several discretionary actions are requested to implement the proposed Hoag Health Center project. The analysis contained in this document will focus on the changes in the environment that will result from the development of the proposed improvements identified by the applicant, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC. This EIR will be used in the review of the proposed improvements and the adoption of and approval of any of the following project implementation activities that may be necessary: 1 1 1 I 1. Approval of development plans, including zoning and other related permits; , 2. Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the proposed , project. ' 2.1.4 Related Approvals , This EIR may be used by the following public agencies in the adoption of the proposed Hoag Health , Center improvements and approval of implementation activities there under (refer to Table 2 -1); 1. City Council of the City of Newport Beach; ' 2. Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach; Draft Environmental impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA , " September2007 Page 2 -2 , 1 11 1 F7 L u Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 3. Departments of the City of Newport Beach that must approve implementation activities undertaken in accordance with the Use Permit Amendment and related discretionary actions; 4. California Regional Water Quality Control Board; 5. All other public agencies that may approve implementation activities undertaken in accordance with the General Plan Amendment and the Use Permit Amendment. 2.1.5 Agencies Having Jurisdiction The principal agency having jurisdiction over the proposed project is the City of Newport Beach because the project site is located in the City.' Nonetheless, the proposed project includes a series of possible actions over which a number of agencies may have authority. Table 2 -1 lists potential 'state, regional, and local approvals that may occur during the course of Implementation of the proposed project and identifies the agencies with potential jurisdiction over these permits and /or approvals. Table 2 -1 List.of Potential Responsible Agencies /Project Approvals Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment 2.1.6 Notice of Preparation The City of Newport Beach has complied with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines by preparing and issuing a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR and an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed Hoag Health Center project on March 23, 2007 for a 30-day review period. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 2 -3 Local A encles City of Newport Beach Use Permit (Amendment) Traffic Study (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) Building, Grading and Ancillary Permits Water Supply and Distribution Sewer Facilities Draina elFlood Control Facilities Regional Agencies Orange County Sanitation District Sewage Collection and Treatment Connection Permit Orange County Health Care Agency Asbestos Remediation Soils and Vapor Remediation State Agencies State Water Resources Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit for Construction Activities 2.1.6 Notice of Preparation The City of Newport Beach has complied with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines by preparing and issuing a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR and an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed Hoag Health Center project on March 23, 2007 for a 30-day review period. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 2 -3 I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment 1 !raft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 Research, public agencies, utility and service providers, Orange County Clerk/Recorder, and homeowners' associations in the project area. Copies of the NOP (and IS) and the distribution list are provided in Appendix 1 A of this EIR. The City received nine (9) written responses to the NOP (refer to Appendix B): Table 2 -2 summarizes those 1 responses and. indicates where in the IS and/or the EIR each specific environmental topic raised in these comment letters is located. The initial study responses and NOP comments were used to' establish the scope of the issues addressed in this Draft EIR. Appendix B contains a copy of the NOP comment letters that were received during each NOP comment period. 1 Table 2 -2 Summary of NOP Comments Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pemnt Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 . Page 2.4 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 11 1 1 - Identify potential adverse air quality impacts from all phases of the project and all sources. South Coast Air Quality Management - Quantify and evaluate PMa.semissbns. Section 4.3 District _ Calculate localized air quality impacts and compare to Air Quality LSTs. - Mobile-source health risk assessment - Identify mitigation measures. Southern California Association of _ project is not regionally significant Section 4.1 Governments Land Use and Planning - Does not support the change in the land use Section 4.1 Rosamond U. Hall designation. Land Use and Planning - General comments on traffic, congestion, and Section 4.2 accidents in the area. Traffic and Circulation Southern California Gas Company - Ability oft e Gas Company to provide service to the N/A osprojecIL - Provide summary of known or potentially contaminated sites In the project area. - Identify mechanism to initiate required investigation and/or remediation. Department of Toxic Substances Control - Summarize hazardous substances found on the site Section 4.6 that are above health risk levels. Public Health and Safety - Remediate contaminants In accordance with regulatory requirements. - Identify potential release of hazardous materials. - Discussion of prescribed regulatory requirements. California Department of Transportation - Utilize HCM methodology for all Caltrans facilities and Section 4.2 Intersections. Traffic and Circulation - Costa Mesa intersections to be evaluated in TIA - TIA should evaluate existing'conditions, project City of Costa Mesa opening year, and 2025 scenarios. Section 4.2 - Evaluate 2025 with two assumptions related to Traffic and Circulation roadway improvements. - Identify appropriate feasible mitigation measures. -Land use oonsistencywith General Plan policies. Section 4.1 - Pedestrian, bicycle and jogging facilities. Land Use and Planning Richard Smith - Park and skateboard facilities - Commercial vehicle parking Is a hazard to traffic Section 4.2 - Significantincreaseinvehiculartraficgeneratedatthe Traffic and Circulation subject property. Native American Heritage Commission - Evaluate potential impacts to culturalthistoric Appendix A resources Initial Stud Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pemnt Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 . Page 2.4 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 11 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 2.1.8 Availability of the Draft EIR The Draft EIR has been distributed directly to numerous public agencies and to interested organizations for review and comment. The Draft EIR and all related technical studies are also available for review and copying at the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. These documents and materials are also available for inspection at the Newport Beach Public Library located at 1000 Avocado in the City of Newport Beach. In addition, copies of the Draft EIR are also available for review at the two branch libraries listen below. Mariners Branch Balboa Branch 2005 Dover Drive 100 East Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agencies, organizations and individuals are invited to comment on the information presented in the Draft EIR during the public review period. Specifically, comments are requested on the scope and adequacy of the environmental analysis. Respondents are also asked to provide or identify additional environmental Information that is germane but which they feel may not have been used In the analysis. Following the public review period, a response to all substantive public review comments will be prepared and compiled into a Final EIR. The Final EIR will be considered by the Newport Beach City Council for certification. In addition to the locations identified above, copies of the Draft EIR for the Hoag Health Center Amendment to the Use Permit are also available for review at: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact Person: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3209 2.1.9 Opportunities for Public Input and the EIR Process If comments on the Draft EIR are submitted, they will be addressed in the Responses to Comments Report. The Responses to Comment Report will be part of the Final EIR and will be presented to the Newport Beach Planning Commission for their consideration of the EIR and the proposed Hoag Health Center project. The Response to Comments Appendix will be available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department located at 3300 Newport Boulevard. 2.1.10 Certification of the EIR After the circulation of the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach will prepare responses to all written comments received on the environmental analysis presented in that document and will prepare the Final EIR. The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, revised as appropriate based on comments received during the public comment period, the EIR Appendices and the Responses to Comments Appendix. The Newport Beach Planning Commission will review the Final EIR and will consider the information and analysis contained in that document prior to its certification, should the Planning Commission find the environmental analysis to be adequate. The Planning Commission will be required to certify the EIR in order to implement the improvements proposed for the Hoag Health Center project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Haag Health Center Use Pemut Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 2-5 I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Emamnmental Impact Report Section 20 ' 2.2. Methodology , September 2007 1 2.2.1 Existing Conditions , This introductory section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each issue analyzed in the Draft EIR. In accordance with Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and , regional settings are discussed as they exist prior to implementation of the Proposed Project. 2.2.2 Impact Significance Criteria ' Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR "identify and focus on the significant environmental effects" of a proposed project. "Effects" and "impacts" mean the same under CEQA and are used interchangeably within this Draft EIR. A "significant effect" or "significant impact" on the ' environment means "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project" (Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines). "significant' , In determining whether an impact is within CEQA's definition, emphasis has been given to the basic policies of CEQA with respect to a particular subject matter, as well as to specific criteria for significance found in the CEQA Guidelines (refer to Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines). An effort has been made to avoid overly subjective significance criteria that are not based in specific CEQA policies , and/or generally accepted thresholds upon which significance can be determined. For each subject area addressed within this Draft EIR, significance criteria are identified that have been applied in analyzing the potential effects of the Proposed Project. ' 2.2.3 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes The Proposed Project will incorporate, where necessary or required, standard conditions and uniform ' codes as required by the City and /or other responsible agencies. For analytical purposes, compliance with these regulatory requirements is not considered mitigation. Where an otherwise significant impact is avoided, in whole or in part, due to the application of standard regulatory requirements or project features, ' the text will note that an issue of environmental concern exists and that it is addressed by a standard regulatory requirement. The requirement has been identified and the manner in which it addresses the environmental issue is also identified. This precludes the use of mitigation measures that are mere repetitions of common practice, City planning/approval procedures, or laws that are applicable to the , Proposed Project. 2.2.4 Impact Analysis , The impact analysis presented in the Draft EIR identifies specific project - related impacts. As described above, the significance criteria provide the basis for distinguishing between impacts that are determined to be significant (i.e., impact exceeds the threshold of significance) and those that are less than ' significant. The existing environmental setting (i.e., existing conditions) is the basis for documenting the nature and extent of impacts anticipated to result from project implementation. Potential impacts presented in the Draft EIR will be based on a "worst case analysis," which assumes future development , within the subject property based on a maximum buildout of the site proposed by the project applicant (i.e., 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area). In assessing the Impacts of the Proposed Projectand the various CEQA alternatives, the City of Newport Beach has conducted the following analysis: Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach. CA , September 2007 Page 2 -6 , I 1 1. 11 I 1 1 7 F_ L Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2. 0 "Potential effects of the project have been identified. Initially,. these potential effects are identified on a cursory level. No determination is made that they truly are "significant," "adverse; or "substantial." This process merely identifies issues and Impacts, which, on a cursory level, may seem possible. 'Potential effects" include issues identified in the initial study /environmental assessment as well as those raised by the public, the landowners, the City, and other public agencies. With respect to each potential effect, an analysis has been conducted to determine if, in fact: The project produces the identified "effect; and The effect produces a substantial, or potentially substantial, change in the physical conditions within the area affected by the project (i.e., "significant"); and The changed conditions are "adverse." Where the investigation of a potential effect concludes the effect is too speculative for evaluation, that conclusion is noted and the discussion of that effect is ended. Where the investigation demonstrates "e potential effect does or may (without undue speculation) occur, but is beneficial, that conclusion is noted. Where the investigation demonstrates a potential effect is not significant or not adverse, that conclusion is noted. 2.2.5 Mitigation Measures Where the analysis described in Section 2.2.4 above demonstrates that a potential effect does or may (without undue speculation) occur and is found to have a substantial or potentially substantial and adverse impact on physical conditions within the area affected by the project, that conclusion is noted and: Mitigation measures are provided which will minimize or avoid the significant effects and, in most cases, reduce them to less than significant levels; and /or Where feasible mitigation measures are not identified which can reduce or avoid the significant effect(s) to less than significant levels, the significant effect will be identified as one that will result in "significant unavoidable adverse impacts 2.2.6 Unavoidable Significant Impacts Unavoidable significant adverse impacts (i.e., those effects that either cannot be mitigated or they remain significant even after mitigation) will be identified in this section the Draft EIR if the mitigation measures prescribed cannot reduce the significant impacts to a less than significant level (or the mitigation measures are infeasible, or their implementation cannot be guaranteed because they are: the responsibility of another public. agency). Prior to approval of the Proposed Project, the Newport Beach Planning Commission will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that identifies and describes the public benefit(s) associated with project implementation that offset the potentially significant short -term, construction - related air quality impacts identified in the event the air quality mitigation measures are not implemented as prescribed (refer to Section 4.3.6). Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 2 -7 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.3 Format of the Draft EIR I Section 2.0 ' As noted above, this EIR focuses on the analysis of those environmental parameters that may experience significant adverse impacts as a result of the proposed Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment. This Analysis is documented in this Draft EIR as follows: Section 1.0 — Executive Summary. This section includes the executive summary, which summarizes the proposed project and the project altematives. In addition, a table is included in this section that summarizes the potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures and level of significance after mitigation. Section 2.0 - Introduction. This section provides relevant, information, context and background on the CEQA process and the proposed project. Section 3.0 — Proiect Description. This section includes a brief description of the environmental setting, provides a detailed project description, enumerates the project objectives, and identifies implementation /phasing associated with the proposed project. Section 4.0 — Environmental Analysis. This section describes the existing conditions, the thresholds of significance, the analytical methodology, the impacts of the proposed projects, mitigation to reduce or avoid any significant adverse impacts, and the level of significance of the impacts after mitigation for the environmental parameters determined in the IS to potentially result in significant adverse impacts. Section 5.0 — Impacts Determined to be Less than Significant. This section summarizes the environmental impacts found not to be significant based on the analysis provided in the initial study (IS). Section 6.0 — Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. This section summarizes the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project, after mitigation, based on the analysis documented in Section 4.0. Section 7.0 — Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. This section addresses the potential for irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources associated with the proposed project. Section 8.0 — Growth - Inducing - impacts. This section addresses the potential for growth - inducing impacts associated with the proposed project. Section 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts. This section addresses the potential for cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. Section 10.0 — Alternatives. This section provides a qualitative analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the Alternatives to the Project, Including the No Project Altemative. Section 11.0 — Oroanizations and Persons Consulted. This section lists the City of Newport Beach staff and /or departments consulted during the preparation of the Draft EIR as well as consultant personnel who were consulted during or responsible for the preparation of this Draft EIR. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use PemM Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 2 -8 C C 1 I 11 11 11 ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 20 Section 12.0 — Bibliooraohv. This section lists the references used in the preparation of this Draft ' EIR. 1 1 P 1 I Section 13.0 = Glossary of Terms. This section provides a comprehensive glossary of terms and acronyms used in the EIR. Appendices. The Appendices to this EIR include the NOP, the responses to the NOP and technical reports prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the project alternatives. Technical studies prepared for the proposed . project, which include: (1) traffic impact analysis; (2) air quality analysis; and (3) acoustical analysis. 1 i 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 2 -9 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Repoli Section a 0 ' SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . 3.1 Project Location The City of Newport Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in western Orange County (refer to Exhibit 3 -1). Newport Beach is bordered by the. Cities, of Irvine on the north and northeast and by Costa Mesa on,the north and northwest. Crystal Cove State Park is located southeast of the City's corporate boundaries. On the west, the incorporated limits of the City extend to the Santa Ana River the City of ' Huntington Beach is located west of the Santa Ana River. The Pacific Ocean comprises the southwestem boundary of the City. The relationship of the City of Newport Beach with the region is Illustrated in Exhibit 3 -1 (Regional Location). ' The City. of Newport Beach has developed as a grouping of small communities or "villages," primarily due to the natural geographic form of the bay. Many of the newer developments, located inland from the bay, have been based on a "Planned Community'' concept, resulting in an extension of the village form, even Where no major geographic division exists. The various villages provide for a wide variety of type and ' style of development, both residential and commercial. The City includes lower density, single- family residential areas, as well as more intensively developed residential beach areas. Commercial areas range, from master planned employment centers to marine industrial, neighborhood shopping centers, a regional shopping center, and visitor commercial areas. ' Formerly known as the Newport Technology Center, the site was developed in 1968. The roughly ' rectangular- shaped property encompasses 13.7 acres, which are bounded on the northwest by Superior Avenue and on the southwest and southeast by Dana Road and a care and rehabilitation facility, respectively.,. Newport Boulevard abuts the site along the entire eastern property boundary, while the Newport Beach Corporate Yard abuts the subject property at the northern limits. Exhibit 3 -2 provides.a ' local context for the subject property. The aerial photograph (Exhibit 3 -3) illustrates the relationship, of the existing development to other development in the project environs. ' 3.2 Environmental Setting ' 3.2.1 Existing Land Use Newport Technolo9]LCenter ' As previously indicated, the Newport Technology Center property encompasses approximately 13.7 acres and is fully developed with professional office and research and development (R &D) land uses. Development consists of four buildings totaling 415,493 square feet in size and a four -level above grade ' parking structure. Of the total floor area, 236,832 square feet (or 67 percent) are dedicated to R &D use. Approximately 178,661 square feet (or 43 percent) are dedicated to office uses. Table 3 -1 summarizes the existing development and most current use permit approval. Development of the Property has resulted in the elimination of any significant topographic features as well as native habitat and native plant' ' and animal species. The area in the vicinity where the Property is located is intensively developed with a variety of land uses, including medical facilities, industrial and office uses and residential development. !haft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA . September 2007 Page 3 -1 Q. M � _' � � R �,: t c `� -� � _ � ;� �. I \�_� i — � �� � .� � ,. � i � � 'c r —"-i"' � �.al. '. � � `�. / � fP .. � 1 f � .�f'. ,„ .. „ � /, �® N � O / N C � E-..�/ ` 0 Z Z 0 i � C� pq 6 O Yctorio Street m a 0 m is 19th Street 18th Street Broadway Rochester Orange Street Avenue 17th Street �Q 16th ° Street ` ! Industrial Orange . ^. Way P Street i its °Qd� Prospect � r Newport Street ` ' Boulevard �e P Hospital Riverside • `� Road Avenue Tustin Avenue BORM Boulevard Dover Na L Wo fast Drive H SR -1 32nd Street Exhibit 3 -2 Vicinity Map awe JP; *AW pe, ou 1044. IN Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Table 3.1 Statistical Summary - Existing Development Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Surrounding Land Uses The area in the vicinity where the Properly is located is nearly completely developed with a variety of land ' uses, including medical facilities, industrial and office uses and residential development. As indicated of Newport Beach Corporate Yard in on the north and northeast including respectively', a medical and e home park located northwest of the site. Apartments and a healthcare center are located south of the Properly, townhomes are located to the southeast, and Newport Boulevard is located east of the Properly. No significant undeveloped land is located within the immediate vicinity of the Properly. The properly is devoid of natural vegetation; however, it supports urban landscaping and introduced pent ' . materials. Draft Environmental Impact RePort Hoag Health Center Use Pa� Amendment - Newport Beach, CA Page 3 -5 t Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment -Draft Environmental Impact Repoli . Section al) 3.2.2 Existing General Plan The subject property is located within the West Newport Mesa area of the City (refer to Exhibit 3-4), which contains a mix,of residential, office, retail, industrial, and public uses. Hoag Hospital abuts this planning area on the south; the City of Costa Mesa corporate limits are located along immediately north of the West Newport Mesa and the Banning Ranch property is located to the west. Development of the Newport Mesa area dates back to the mid - twentieth century. Land use designations adopted for the properties within the West Newport Mesa planning area include those that would allow for a mix of office, research, convalescent care, and retail facilities supporting Hoag Hospital. The 13.7 -acre property is designated CO -M (Medical Commercial Office). The maximum development limit of the site permitted by the Newport Beach General Plan is 360,000'square feet. Exhibit 3 -6 illustrates the adopted land use designations reflected on the Newport Beach General Plan (Land Use Element). 3.2.3 Existing Zoning The subject property is currently zoned M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing District). According to the Newport Beach Municipal Code, lands zoned for industrial uses are intended to provide for a broad range of manufacturing and service uses in order to strengthen the City's economic base and provide ' employment opportunities for the City's and surrounding residents. Specifically, the M -1 -A zoning district provides areas for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. According to the M -1 -A zoning district regulations, medical and dental offices are uses that are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit. Exhibit 3-6 illustrates , the zoning for the site and surrounding properties. 3.2.4 Physical Environment Land Use Development of the property has resulted in the elimination of any significant topographic features as well ' as native habitat and native plant and animal species. The area in the vicinity where the property is located is intensively developed with a variety of land uses, including medical facilities, industrial and office uses and residential development. As indicated above, a variety of land uses exist in the Project environs, including commercial development and the City of Newport Beach Corporate Yard on the north. and northeast, respectively; a medical center and mobile home park on located northwest of the site. Apartments and a healthcare center are located south of the property, townhomes are located to the southeast, and Newport Boulevard is located east of the property. No significant undeveloped land is located'wMin the immediate vicinity of the property. The property is devoid of natural vegetation and has urban landscaping and introduced plant materials. Climate and Air Qualltv ' The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600 square mile area encompassing all of .Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. A persistent high - pressure area that commonly resides over the eastern Pacific ' Ocean largely dominates regional meteorology. The distinctive climate of' this 'area is determined primarily by its terrain and geographic location. Local climate is characterized by. warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Ozone and pollutant concentrations tend to be lower along the coast, where the constant onshore breeze disperses pollutants toward the inland valley of the SCAB and adjacent deserts. However, as a whole, the SCAB fails to meet national standards for several criteria pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and PM1e, and is classified as a "non- attainment" area for those pollutants. ' Draft Environmental Impact Repoli ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 3-6 t x OE ., W = ,E a R H d 'C Q O Q d °Y Z •�� TOY yJ ,w V r O Q a V m _ G't O O 6 4 b o o A R I I 1 1 j I I I 1 I d I Residential Neighborhoods �� = Single -Unit Residential Detached a Single -Unit Residential Attached ® Two-Unit Residential - Multiple -Unit Residential Land Use Delineator Une - Multiple -Unit Residential Detached Refer to anomaly table SZpE Commercial Districts and Corridors Neighborhood Commercial ® Corridor Commercial - General Commercial ' - Visitor Serving Commercial - Recreational and Marine Commercial - Regional Commercial ' Commercial Office Districts — General Commercial Office — Medical Commercial Office — Regional Commercial Office Industrial Districts _ Industrial ry m Airport Supporting Districts - Airport Office and Supporting Uses Mixed -Use Districts - Mixed Use Vertical - Mixed Use Horizontal Mixed Use Water Related Public, Semi- Public and Institutional - Public Facilities - Private Institutions - Parks and Recreation - Open Space -Open Space (Residential uses. H not acquired as permanent openspace) ,ti Tidelands and Submerged Lands p`0 qty of Newport Beach �e Boundary Statistical Area Al Boundary /--N \_/ Land Use Delineator Une • Refer to anomaly table 0 500 1,000 Feet I r r r r Exhibit 3 -5 Existing General Plan ' Hoag Health Center Use PermltAmendment . Dratt Environmental Impact Report Secdon 3.0 ' Geology and Seismicity The project site is located in the seismically active southern California region. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project she. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the Newport- Inglewood, Norwalk, and Raymond Faults. The Newport- Inglewood fault, which is the only active fault within or immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, could generate a 7.0 magnitude or greater maximum credible earthquake. Although the subject property Is devoid of slopes, the site is bounded by a 25- to 30 -foot manufactured descending slope along the eastern property boundary. The proposed parking structure is located approximately 60 feet from the top of the manufactured slope at its nearest. point. Therefore, the potential for gross instability of the slope affecting the parking structure is low. Drainaae and Hvdroloov As previously Indicated, the entire site is currently developed. Impervious surfaces cover the vast majority of the site, which is adequately served by the City's storm drain system located in the roadways that surround the site. The subject property is not located.within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for. the City of Newport Beach. Further,.neither the subject property nor the surrounding residential development is located in an area of the City that is subject to flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. ' Hazardous Materials The project site has been historically used for activities that have resulted in some contamination, including subsurface contamination. Remediation of the contamination is currently underway as a result of prior approvals and is being overseen by various regulatory agencies including, but not limited to, the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The remediation will be completed in accordance with the current regulatory requirements to ensure no significant adverse health effects occur to persons working at or visiting the site. Transportation and Circulation Three public streets abut the subject property, Including Superior Avenue on the west, Newport Boulevard on the east, and Dana Road on the south. Newport Boulevard is classified as a major road on the City's Circulation Element/Master Plan of Streets & Highways. Direct vehicular access to the project site is currently available at three entrances along Superior Avenue. The existing Newport Technology Center currently generates traffic throughout the week. Approximately 1,332 on -site parking spaces are currently provided on the property both within a parking structure and in surface parking lots to accommodate employees and visitors to the site. Public Services and Utilities Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The NBFD operates and maintains six fire stations to respond to emergency calls throughout the City. Fire Station No. 2 is located on the Balboa Peninsula at 32nd Street, near City Hall ' and is approximately 1.5 miles from the site. In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal mutual aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The Newport Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September2007 ' Page 3 -10 Hoag Health Center Use PennitAmendment . Draft Environmental impact Report Section 3.0 Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within. the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the subject property. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." , The City of Newport Beach owns and maintains several sewer and water mains in the vicinity of the subject ,property, including those in Superior Avenue, Dana Road, and Newport Boulevard. Sewer collection and wastewater treatment services are provided by the City of Newport Beach (local collection) and the Orange County Sanitation District (conveyance and treatment). In addition, all of the utilities (i.e., electricity, natural gas, and telephone) are currently available and serve the existing development. The project site receives electrical and natural gas service from Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, respectively. 3.2.5 Social Environment The City of Newport Beach is nearly fully developed with a diverse mixture of residential, institutional, commercial, industrial, and recreational and open space uses. The predominant land use in the City is residential, which is characterized by many distinct neighborhoods. Older communities were first developed along the coastline, including the Peninsula, West Newport, Balboa Island, and Lido Isle. The early housing is characterized by a diversity of multiple- family, single - family, and mixed -use housing located within proximity of commercial and visitor - serving uses. While single- family attached and detached residential development comprise the majority of housing in the City, many multiple - family dwelling units, including condominium, apartments, duplex, triplex, and fourplex units, exist in Newport Beach and, in particular, in the older neighborhoods including West Newport. Between 1980 and 2005, 11,127_ housing units were added to the City's inventory of housing stock. Although the rate of increase in housing within the City has slowed since 1990, the City averaged approximately 200 to 300 dwelling units per year between 2001 and 2005 (with the exception of 2003, which included the annexation of Newport Coast). The total number of housing units as of January 1, 2005 was estimated to be 42,143, including approximately 26,000 units (62 percent) that are single - family attached and detached homes. Thirteen percent of the units (5,475 homes) were duplex, triplex, and fourplex units. Other multiple - family dwelling units in the City in 2005 totaled 9,721 (23 percent). The remainder of the dwelling units in the City was mobile homes (863 or two percent). The overall vacancy rate of housing in the City of Newport Beach ranged from 10.1 and 11.3 percent between 1980 and 2000, respectively; however; there are a significant number of homes in the City that are classified as season units and second hones. The vacancy rate in all units in the City in 2005 was reported to be 10.91 percent. A variety of retail uses are located throughout the City and include those in neighborhood shopping centers, commercial strips and villages, and shopping centers, with the largest being Fashion Island, a regional .center that is framed by a mixture of office, entertainment, and residential uses. Other neighborhood retail centers are located throughout the City. In addition to the retail uses, the City also supports a variety of professional office uses, which are located mostly within Newport Center and the Airport Area. Industrial uses are primarily located within the West Newport Mesa area, east of Banning Ranch, and include a variety of industrial, manufacturing, and supporting retail uses. Research and development uses are clustered in the Airport Area while government, educational, and Institutional uses are scattered throughout the City. One of the primary locations for medical uses in the City is near Hoag Hospital. Draft Environmental impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amenctment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 3-11 7 J i [1 L I I 11 I 11 I I 11 I 11 U I I I H I LJ Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment - Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10 3.3 History and Evolution of the Existing Development Hoag Health Center, currently known as Newport Technology Center, is located at 500-540 Superior Avenue (the "Property"). Historically, the site and portions of the surrounding area have been used for agricultural purposes. Development of the properly occurred in 1968, with the construction of four buildings and surface parking,, a fifth building and a parking structure were subsequently constructed on the site, which supported 416,499 _square feet of gross floor area. The development was used in the manufacture, mounting, and packaging of semiconductors and other electronic components by the Raytheon Company until 2000. The site was redeveloped by the St. Clair Company in 2001. Redevelopment included the demolition of two buildings and the construction of two new buildings, which were occupied by a variety of professional office and R &D uses. Redevelopment of the site resulted in.a total floor area of 415,493 square feet. Recently (December 2006), the City approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 for the site that allows the demolition of one existing office building (Building 4) and the construction of an additional parking structure (Structure 2). The approval also authorized the conversion of 97,000 square feet of existing general office/research and development (R &D) space to medical office space, resulting in a total of 232,414 square feet of cffice/R &D floor area and 97,000 square feet of medical office floor area. The amended Use Permit approved by the City also included an increase in on -site parking from 1,332 combined parking spaces (i.e., surface and structure parking) to 1,985 combined parking spaces, including 697 spaces in the new parking structure that replaced Building 4. The existing approved Use Permit land use entitlements for the 13.7 -acre project site are summarized in Table 3 -2. Table 3 -2 Land Use Summary — Approved UP2006 -010 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment -w' •: � 'l�[Gj -dilf • �' A)proved •r • f s: w Use Permit No. 2006.010 Building 1 100,407 486" Building 2 117,027 32'5" Building 3 111,980 48'6" Structure 1 Parking Structure 46'0" Structure 2 Parking Structure 32'0" Total R&D 96,414 Total Office 136,000 Total Medical Office 97,000 Total Gross Floor Area 329,414 SOURCE: Planning Activity No. 2007 -013 (January 18, 2007 . The amended- Use Permit also.includes a shuttle service that consists of a 20- passenger van that will serve physicians and.patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The shuttle service is limited 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 (1.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 tie. provided at Hoag Hospital. No ' ancillary parking will be allowed to occur at Hoag Health Center for Hoag Hospital except during a one- year interim period to facilitate completion of Hoag's construction of its Lower Campus. .' W Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 3-12 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 3.4 Description of the Proposed Project ' The applicant, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is requesting the approval of an amendment to the existing Use Permit (UP2006 -010) to allow: (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet general office and R &D floor area, of the existing 329,414 square feet of existing floor area, to medical office use within the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district; and (2) the construction of an , additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space on -site, for a total of 350,000 square feet of gross floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 2$3,000 square feet. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site as CO -M (Commercial Medical Office) and the precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area. This land use designation is intended to provide primarily medical - related uses. Implementation of the proposed project would include construction of a new building to accommodate the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space. As shown on the Site Development Plan (refer to Exhibit 3 -7), this new building will be located between the two parking structures. The new building will not be higher than any of the on -site structures surrounding it. The new building will be designed to be compatible architecturally with the other buildings on the Hoag Health Center "campus." Given its location and design elements, the new building will be shielded from view from the residential , developments to.the west and south. Additionally, approval of a traffic study is being requested pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). As indicated. above, a total of 1,985 parking spaces are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces, in two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on -site, parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed. by the City's parking code. No additional parking is being requested as part of the proposed project; however, the already- approved second parking structure would be constructed to complete the total on -site parking. Table 3 -3 provides a comparison of the existing , approved floor.area allocation to that of the proposed project. The Conceptual Site Plan is illustrated in Exhibit 3 -7. I I I I I I I Draft Environmental Impact Report , Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 3-13 i j7j %j nor o/* / 4b // • < po Exhibit 3 -7 Site Development Plan 1 I Health Center Use Table 3.3 Proposed Land Use Summary 41oaa Health Center Use Permit Amendment 3.5 Project Phasing oject over several years based on the schedule presented The applicant is proposing to implement the pr in Table 3 -4. Draft Environmental Impact Rapes rt Beach• CA Hoag Health Center Use serr4w 2W page 3 -15 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental impact Report Section 3.0 3.6 Table 3-4 Proposed Phasing Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ..3' •? Building Buildin Demolition 3 Quarter 2007 a Construction 3 Quarter 2008 Conversion of 350,000 sq. ft. to 5 — 7 Years from Approval' Medical Office 20,586 sq. ft. new Medical Office floor 3,000 — 5,000 s . ft. 3 — 5 years from Approval areal 16,586 to 18,586 s . ft. 5-7 ears from Approval 'Anticipated completion. 2New construction. SOURCE: Newport Beach Healthcare Center LLC; 2007. Project Objectives Implementation of the proposed project will achieve the following intended specific objectives, which have been identified by project applicant. To provide 350,000 square feet of medical office space that can be utilized to meet the growing demand for outpatient health care services, including imaging, urgent care, rehabilitation and health care education programs. • To provide the highest quality health care available. To support Hoag Hospital's delivery of patient centered care for those hospitalized as an inpatient and by providing additional outpatient care and services. To recognize that as Orange County's population ages, and expands, so grows the need for increased health care services. To have medical office space conveniently located near the hospital, and supported by imaging, rehabilitation and educational programs allowing the hospital to attract new physicians to the community. • To provide the much needed space for physician offices. There is In great need for primary care and specialty physicians. It is Hoag's objective to provide the space for them to practice. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 3 -16 I LJ I 1l 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental impact Report Section 3.0 3.7 Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements Project implementation will necessitate the approval of the following discretionary actions by the Newport Beach Planning Commission: • Use Permit Amendment • Traffic Study (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) II II II I1 II IF II UJ II II II II ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 3 -17 I I 1 t 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section AO CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This section documents the environmental analysis for those parameters for which the proposed Use Permit Amendment for the Hoag Health Center project may or would result in potentially significant adverse impacts. These parameters were identified based on the cursory environmental analysis presented in the Initial Study contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR and in comments received during the 30 -day NOP comment period. The purpose.of Chapter 4.0 (Environmental Analysis) is to describe the existing environmental conditions on the subject property and in the environs and to identify, the potential impacts or consequences that may result from implementation of the proposed project. In order to facilitate the analysis of each issue in this EIR, a standard format was developed to analyze each issue thoroughly. This format is presented below with a brief discussion of the information included within each topic. Existing Environmental Setting This introductory section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each issue analyzed in the Draft EIR. In accordance.with Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and regional settings are discussed as they exist prior to implementation of the proposed project. The existing conditions provide the basis against which the potential environmental impacts are evaluated. Significance Criteria Specific criteria have been identified upon which the significance of project - related potential impacts are determined. The significance criteria which are the basis of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR are derived from the significant effects presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, adopted local, State, and federal policies and programs which may apply, and other commonly accepted technical and non - technical standards. Analysis of the Proposed Project This section of the Draft EIR identifies and describes the potential impacts, both adverse and beneficial, which will result from project implementation. All project- related impacts have been clearly and adequately analyzed in accordance with Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Impacts that have been avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance are identified as "insignificant' and analyzed accordingly. In order to facilitate the impact analysis, the following outline has been utilized. Potential Effects of Project Found to be Insignificant Short -Term (Construction) Impacts Long -Term (Operational) Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use permit Amendment - Newport Beach, CA September 2007 4 -1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.0 Potential Effects of Project. Found to be Significant Short-Term (Construction) Impacts Long -Term (Operational) Impacts Mitigation Measures 11 Where a potential significant environmental effect has been identified in the environmental analysis, mitigation measures have been included in this section of the document which " .. ' minimize significant adverse impacts ... for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR ", as prescribed in Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those effects that either cannot be mitigated or they ' remain. significant even after mitigation. These significant effects will be identified in this section of the Draft EIR. Prior to approval of the proposed project, the Newport Beach Planning Commission will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that identifies and describes the public benefit(s) associated with project implementation that offset the significant t impacts. �I LJ L Draft Environmental Impact Report , Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 4 -2 ' ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Sadlon 4. r 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.1.1 Existing Conditions ' Existing Land Use Existing Site As described in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description), the 13.7 -acre property is currently developed as the Newport Technology Center. The site is occupied by several structures, including four existing buildings and a parking structure as well as surface parking. The buildings occupying the site encompass 415,493 square feet of research and development and general office floor area. In addition, 1,332 parking spaces exist on the site, including 471 surface parking spaces and 861 spaces that are located with the existing parking structure. Table 4.1 -1 reflects the development that currently exists on the subject property. ' Table 4.1 -1 I 1 I .1 Existing Development Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Ali Mt Lot Size . ft. 596,393 Floor Areas . ft. Building 1 100,407 Building 2 117,027 Building 3 111,980 Building 4 86,079 Total 415,493 Floor Area Allocations . ft. Research & Development 236,832 General Office 178,661 Medical Office Total Weighted FAR 0.498 Buildin Bulks . ft. Total Bulk Area 637,493 Maximum Bulk Area 447,295 Bulk Area Over Limit 190,198 Parkin (spaces) Surface Parking 471 Parking Structure No. 1 Buildin 5 861 Total Parking Provided 1,332 Minimum Code Required 1,189 'Use Permit 2006 -010, approved in December 2006, included the demolition of Building 4, construction of a parking structure in its place, and the conversion of 97,000 square feet of existing floor area to medical office floor area; however, neither the new parking structure nor the 97,000 square feet of the medical office floor area currently exist. SOURCE: Use Permit 2006 -010 December 2006). Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pemrot Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -r I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 As indicated in Table 4.1 -1, although 97,000 square feet of medical office floor area were approved in December 2006 with the approval of Use Permit 2006 -010, none of the existing general office and/or research and development floor area has been converted to medical office. In addition, the Use Permit 2006- 010 also included the demolition of Building 4, which encompasses 86,079 square feet of floor area, and the construction of a second parking structure in its place; however, neither the demolition of that office building nor the construction of the parking structure has occurred. Surrounding Property The area in the vicinity where the Properly is located is nearly completely developed with a variety of land uses, including medical facilities, industrial and office uses and residential development. As indicated. ' above, a variety of land uses exist in the project environs, including commercial development and the City of Newport Beach Corporate Yard on the north and northeast, respectively, a medical center and mobile home park on located northwest of the site. Apartments and a healthcare center are located south of the Property, townhomes are located to the southeast, and Newport Boulevard is located east of the , Property. No significant undeveloped land is located within the immediate vicinity of the Property. The property is devoid of natural vegetation; however, it supports urban landscaping and introduced plant materials. Land Use Planning Newport Beach General Plan The City of. Newport Beach recently completed the first comprehensive revision of the City's General Plan in over 30 years. The Newport Beach Comprehensive General Plan was adopted in November 2006. The , General Plan for the City of Newport Beach presents a vision for the city's future and a strategy to make that vision a reality. The General Plan, which recognizes that the City is primarily, a residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, is nearly fully developed. As a result, the Plan focuses on conserving the existing pattern of land uses and establishes policies for their protection and long -term , maintenance. The discussion presented below provides a summary of each of the elements of the Comprehensive General Plan. Land Use Element , The Land Use Element provides guidance regarding the ultimate pattern of development anticipated for full buildout of the City. Because the City is nearly fully developed, this element focuses on how populafion and , employment growth can be accommodated yet still preserve its distinguishing and valued qualities. The subject property is located within the West Newport Mesa area, Which is characterized by a mix of residential, office, retail, industrial, and public uses. Hoag Hospital is located south of the site; the City of Costa Mesa is located to the north and the Banning Ranch is west of the site. Development of the area dates back to the , 1950s. The West Newport Mesa area is subdivided into four "sub -areas' by land use, including: (1) medical - related uses; (2) general industrial uses; (3). multiple - family residential uses; and (4) neighborhood and general commercial uses. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.1 -1, the subject property is designated CO -M (Medical Commercial Office). This land use designation is intended to provide primarily for medical- related offices, other professional offices, retail, short-term convalescent and long -term care facilities, research labs, and similar uses. A maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 (except as specified on the Land Use Plan) has been .established for the CO-M land use designation. Based on the Land Use Plan, a precise development limit of , 350,000 square feet has been established for the subject property (Table L -2, Anomaly No. 74). . Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -2 r Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 Harbor and Bay Element ' This element of the .General Plan addresses natural resources, community identify, and economic characteristics of the City given the location of Newport Beach on the coast. Some aspects of the Harbor r and Bay Element address public access, water quality, and environment as well as land use policies relating to the waterfront uses along Lower Bay and Newport Harbor. Housing Element The Housing Element is designed to facilitate attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs ANocation (RHNA) and to foster the availability of housing affordable to all income levels to the extent possible given the ' constraints within the City. The Housing Element is a comprehensive statement of the City's housing policies and services as a specific guide for implementation of these policies. The Element examines current housing needs, estimates future housing needs, and establishes goals, policies, and programs pertaining to those needs. According to the updated date presented in the Housing Element, the City had a total of 42,143 r housing units in 2005, including approximately 62 percent of the homes that were single- family.detached and attached, 17 percent duplex to fouiplex units, 23 percent multiple - family homes, and two percent mobile homes. The site is designated as CO -M and, therefore; is not intended to contribute to the supply of housing ' within the City of Newport Beach. Historical Resources Element ' This Element addresses the protection and sustainability of Newport Beach's historic and paleontological resources. Goals and policies presented within the element are intended to recognize, maintain, and protect .the community's unique historical, cultural, and archaeological sites and structures. Figure HR1.(Historic ' Resources) in the Historical Resources Element identifies the historic resources includes on the National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, other historic sites or potentially historic sites in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database, and other historic sites in the City s Register. None of the sites identified in Figure HR1 are located on the project site. rCirculation Element ' The Circulation Element governs the long term mobility systems of the City. The goals and policies in this element are closely correlated with the Land Use Element and are intended to provide the best possible balance between the City's future growth and land use development, roadway size, traffic service levels, and community character. The Element is consistent with the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance and the Local Coastal Program. Figure CE1 in the Circulation Element reflects the City s Master r , Plan of Streets and Highways. Two Master Plan roadways facilitate access to the subject property. Newport Boulevard is designated as a Major Road (i.e., 6 -land divided roadway). This roadway abuts the subject ' property to the east. In addition, Superior Avenue is designated as a Primary Road (i.e., 4 -lane divided roadway) and is located immediately west of the property. The Circulation Element also includes the Bikeways Master Plan (refer to Figure CE4 in -the Circulation Element). As indicated in that figure, a Class I Bikeway (Le:, off -road paved facility) is identified along the westerly limits of the subject property on Superior Avenue. The City has also adopted an Equestrian and Hiking Trails Master Plan (refer to Figure CE5 in the Circulation Element). None of these existing and proposed trails, which are confined to the area north of the Upper Newport Bay and south'of San Joaquin Hills Road, exist within the vicinity of the project. LJ I ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pemdt Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September2007 ' Page 4.1 -3 I Hoag Health Center Use Pam* Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 ' Recreation Element The primary purpose of the Recreation Element is to ensure that the balance between the provision of ' sufficient parks and recreation facilities are appropriate for the residential and business population of Newport , Beach. Specific recreational issues and policies contained in the Recreation Element address parks and recreation facilities (278 acres of developed parks), recreation programs, shared facilities, coastal recreation ' and support facilities, marine recreation, and public access. The existing recreational facilities are identified on Figure R1 in the Recreation Element. ' Newport is divided into recreation service areas for the purposes of park planning and to equitably , administer parkland dedications and fees provided by residential development. The subject property is ' Iodated within Service Area 1 (i.e., West Newport). The land dedicated to recreational facilities in this service area is mostly beaches. There is a deficit of 21.6 acres of parkland and a need for sports fields within a new ' community or neighborhood level park. Although Boise Park is the nearest recreational facility to the site, located east of Newport Boulevard, that facility is not located within Service Area 1. Sunset View Park and ' West Newport Community Center /Gym are the nearest recreational facilities within Service Area 1. The Service Area 1 Recreation and Open Space Plan (refer to Figure R3 in the Recreation Element) reflects one ' proposed park (i.e., Sunset Ridge Park), that would be located less than one mile southwest of the site, near ' the intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. The Recreation Element also identifies the development of an active community park within the Banning Ranch property, regardless of the ultimate ' development of that site, to accommodate the Service Area and Citywide needs for active sports fields. . Arts and Cultural Element ' The goals and policies of the Arts and Cultural Element are intended to serve as a guide for meeting the future cultural needs of the community. The City's Arts Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council on all matters pertaining to artistic, aesthetic, and cultural aspects of the City. This commission also , participates in the designation of historical landmarks and reviews design elements for public sculpture, fountains, murals, benches, and other fixtures. Natural Resources Element ' The primary objective of the Natural Resources Element is to provide direction regarding the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. It identifies the City's natural resources and policies for ' their preservation, development and use. The element addresses water supply and water quality, air quality, biological resources, open space, cultural and scientific resources, mineral resources, visual resources, and energy. According to the Natural Resources Element, no portion of the subject property is identified as a potential resource because the site and surrounding areas are intensively developed. Important biological ' resources are limited to the coastal areas, Newport Harbor, and Upper Newport Bay and the areas adjacent to.it (refer to Figure NR1 in the Natural Resources Element. The nearest environmental study area (refer to Figure NR2 in the Natural Resources Element) is the Banning Ranch, located approximately one half mile ' west of the site. This element of the General Plan also addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. However, the site is entirely developed and is located in an industrial area that is not characterized by any important aesthetic resources and it does not serve as a public view point from which coastal views may exist (refer to Figure NR31n the Natural Resources Element). ' Safety Element The primary goal of the Safety Element is to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and ' economic and social dislocation resulting from natural and human-induced hazards. The Newport Beach Safety Element addresses coastal hazards (e.g., tsunamis, coastal erosion, etc.), geologic hazards (e.g., slope,failures, adverse soils conditions, etc.), seismic hazards (e.g., liquefaction, ground shaking, etc.), flood ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pem* Amendment — Newport Beach, CA ' septemher 2007 Page 4.1-4 ' 11 ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 hazards, wildland and urban fire hazards, hazardous materials (e.g., hazardous waste, leaking underground ' storage tanks, etc,) aviation hazards, and disaster planning. • Coastal Hazards ' Newport Beach is susceptible to low - probability /high risk events such as tsunamis as well as isolated hazard that include storm surges and coastal erosion. The Safety Element addresses these potential hazards, which are generally limited to the portions of the City located immediately adjacent ' to the coast, within and adjacent to Newport Harbor and the Upper Newport Bay areas. The subject property is not located within the limits of any area identified in Figure S1 (Coastal Hazards) in the Safety Element that has been identified to be subject to tsunamis, coastal erosion, or other coastal ' effects. Geologic Hazards The geologic diversity of Newport Beach is strongly related to tectonic movement along the San ' Andreas Fault and its broad zone of subsidiary faults. This along with sea level fluctuations related to changes in climate, has resulted in a landscape that is also diverse in geologic hazards that have the potential to cause loss or harm to the community and /or the environment. The major geologic constraints identified in the Safety Element include slope failure, compressible soils, and expansive soils. However, the site is not underlain by adverse conditions, and is not subject to the potential for slope failure as indicated on Figure S2 (Seismic Hazards) in the Safety Dement. ' Seismic Hazards The greatest potential for seismic activity to affect the City of Newport Beach is activity occurring ' along the Newport- Inglewood Fault zone, the Whittier Fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills Fault zone, and the Elysian Park Fault zone, which with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would result in ground shaking in the City and in nearby communities. Other secondary seismic effects include liquefaction and selsmically- induced slope failure. However, no portion of the site is ' identified in the Safety Element as subject to potential liquefaction or the potential to slope failure associated with seismic activity. ' Flood Hazards The Safety Element also addresses potential flooding associated with significant storm events. The 100 - and 500 -year flood zones within the City of Newport Beach have been mapped by the Federal ' Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Based on the FEMA studies, no portion of the subject property is subject to inundation resulting from either a 100- or 500 -year storm event. ' Fire Hazard The City's Safety Element also addresses wildland fire hazards (refer to Figure S4). The City is distinguished by three classifications if fire susceptibility, including: High, Moderate, and Low /None; ' the City does not contain "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones as defined by Government Code Section 51179. The majority of the City, including the subject site is identified to have a Moderate fire susceptibility potential. The City of Newport Beach has adopted the 2001 California Fire Code ' with City amendments and some exceptions. These provisions include construction standards in new structures and remodels, road widths and configurations designed to accommodate the passage of fire trucks and engines, and requirements for minimum fire flow rates for water mains. ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4. 1-5 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 Hazardous Materials The Hazardous Materials component of the Safety Element addresses several areas related to hazardous materials, including toxic release Inventory, hazardous waste, leaking underground storage tanks, oil fields, methane gas mitigation districts, and hazards overlay. The Safety Element Includes programs for ensuring that the potential for the release of hazardous materials into the environment is minimized. Aviation Hazards The City of Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport; however, the subject property is located approximately four miles southwest of JWA, which generates nearly all of the aviation traffic affecting the City of Newport Beach. Although the accident potential zones delineated for JWA are located in the areas adjacent to and surrounding the airport, three areas within the. City were found to be subject to increased vulnerability to aviation hazards: Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay. However, nor portion of the subject property has been identified as subject potential aviation hazards. Disaster Planning Any potential hazard occurring in the City of Newport Beach resulting from either manmade or natural disasters may require the evacuation of residents of the City. In order to facilitate such evacuation, the City employs the Standardized Emergency Management System for emergency response. This system provides for assistance by one or more emergency response agencies as well as the potential implementation of other policies and plans from the County of Orange, State of California and/or federal government. In addition, the City has adopted an Emergency Management Plan that is implemented in the event of any emergency. This plan is prepared and updated by the Newport Beach Fire Department. Noise Element The Noise Element serves as a tool for including noise control in the planning process, which is Intended to ensure land use compatibility. This element identifies noise sensitive land uses as well as the sources of noise, defines areas of noise impacts for the purpose of developing policies Intended to protect residents and sensitive receptors from the effects of excessive noise. The most common noise sources in the City of Newport Beach include the existing freeway/high system and the major arterial roadways extending throughout the City. In addition, aircraft operations associated with John Wayne Airport (JWA) also result in noise excessive noise levels in parts of the City, Other aircraft operations related to helicopter operations at Hoag Hospital are also a source of noise that affects residential uses in the vicinity of the hospital. Newport Beach has the largest small boat harbor in Southern California. The operations of the small motorized boats generate undesirable noise in proximity to residences. Non - transportation related noise sources include restaurant/bar /entertainment establishments, mixed -use structures, mechanical equipment, and recreational facilities. Figure N1 in the Noise Element indicates that the western and eastern portions of the property are subject to vehicular noise associated with traffic on Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard, respectively. However, the site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour established for aircraft operations at JWA. !haft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach,, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -6 I 1 rJ 1 E 1 [1 1 1 LJ LJ I I ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment 4 f Draft Environmental Impact Report Section Newport Beach Zoning Subject Property The subject property is zoned M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing District). This zoning district provides areas for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. Industrial uses expressly permitted in the M -1 -A zoning district include research and development (R &D) industrial. The M -1 -A zoning district permits the following commercial uses: animal hospitals, artists' studios, banks /savings and loans, catering services, communication facilities, maintenance and repair services, research and development services, warehousing and storage (limited), etc. Medical and dental offices are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit. ' Surrounding Property Properties surrounding the project site are zoned GEIF (Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities District) on the north, and MFR (Multiple Family Residential District) and APF (Administrative, Professional and Financial District) on the south. The properties west of Superior Avenue are zoned RSC (Retail Service Commercial District), MHP (Mobile Home Park District) and M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing). East of ' Newport Boulevard, the properties are zoned SP -9 (Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan). As previously indicated, these zoning district classifications allow for a variety of residential, commercial, industrial and govemmentlinstitutional land uses. 1 4.1.2 Significance Criteria ' Land use impacts are considered significant if the proposed project will conflict with the adopted plans and goals of the community as expressed in the Newport Beach General Plan. In addition, the following would be considered significant adverse impacts of the proposed project related to land use: ' Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdictlon over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. ' Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation. plan. Physically dividing an established community. ' Substantial or extreme use incompatibility. • Incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use ' plan. Inconsistency or conflict with established recreational, educational, religious our scientific uses of the area. ' 4.1.3 Standard Conditions ' SC 4.1 -1 All development proposed for Hoag Health Center shall be reviewed for consistency with applicable provisions of the Building Code, Noise Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach. CA . September 2007 ' Page 4.1-7 I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 ' 4.1.4 Potential Impacts , 4.1.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts , Page 4.1-8 , Substantial or extreme use incompatibility ' Short-term land use incompatibility Is related to the actual construction of the improvements. These conflicts include disturbances to the existing residential, commercial and business/employment uses located adjacent to the proposed medical office development project. Specifically, the land use "conflicts" would include construction noise, air emissions, and traffic delays in the immediate vicinity of the subject properly. Each of ' these potential impacts is addressed in detail in Section 4.2 (Traffic and Circulation), Section 4.3 (Air Quality) and Section 4.4 (Noise) and briefly summarized below. t The proposed project will only involve interior remodeling of existing buildings and the construction of the new building for the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space. Buildout of the property in accordance with the existing approval and the proposed project may require that travel lanes may be temporarily closed during construction to accommodate the roadway improvement activities, including the site remediation, , demolition, site preparation /grading, and construction. As lanes are closed to provide safe construction zones for workers and equipment, it is possible that congestion may occur, resulting in vehicles queuing along the construction. areas (e.g., Superior Avenue and Dana road). The increased congestion could affect , ingress and egress into the residential neighborhoods particularly along Superior Avenue and Dana Road. In addition, haul trucks (i.e., heavy trucks) will be utilized during the construction phase to transport demolition debris (e.g., concrete and asphalt, etc.) from the site, which could exacerbate congestion in the immediate vicinity of the construction activities. As indicated in Section 4.3 (Air Quality), construction activities necessary to implement the medical office ' improvements would result in short-term air emissions. In particular, fugitive dust and particulates would be generated by the site remediation activities, surficial excavations and construction activities, as well as from construction equipment. As a result, dust, both small diameter respirable matter (PM,e) and larger, heavier particulates, would be carried from the construction site and ultimately settle in nearby residential areas. , Their effects would be noticeable on automobiles and structures. However, the dust and particulate emissions would cease upon completion of the construction activities. Appropriate measures aimed at abating fugitive dust (e.g., spraying exposed areas, etc.) must be incorporated into the proposed project ' to ensure that these short-term impacts are minimized. Similar to air emissions, elevated noise levels would also occur during the construction phase of the proposed project. The most sensitive "receptors" are the residents located in the vicinity of the construction , zone. As described in Section 4.4 (Noise), the maximum project - related construction noise generation will occur during pavement removal using jackhammers or other pavement breakers. Peak noise levels of up to 90 dB(A) may be audible in the nearby residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the proposed project site for several days as construction activities occur. The maximum intrusion, however, will last only , during the demolition and construction phases. However, construction activities must comply with the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance to ensure that construction impacts are adequately addressed. The City's Noise Ordinance is used to protect people from noise generated by people. or ' machinery on adjacent property. Specifically, the ordinance addresses construction noise by regulating construction hours. Grading and construction hours will be restricted to those hours established by the Noise Ordinance (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday). Therefore, potential construction impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level , through the implementation of the adopted regulatory requirements. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA , September 2007 Page 4.1-8 , I Hoag Health Center Use PamutAmendment Draft Environmental fnipact Report Becton 4.1 4.1.4.2 Long -Term Operational impacts Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. ' Land use within the City of Newport Beach is set forth in the Land Use Diagram (LUi) contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. As previously indicated, acco ubJec rding to Policy LU1, the st property is designated CO -M (Medical Commercial Office). Table LU1 further defines the range of land uses that are generally permitted in the CO -M land use category, which includes medical- related offices, other professional offices, retail, short-term convalescent and long -term care facilities, research labs, and similar uses. The floor area to land area ratio (i.e., floor area ratio) has been established at 0.75, except as specified on the Land Use Plan. Specifically, Policy LU 4.1 prescribes the method of determining the densitylintensity, ranges for specific properties within the City. Based on that policy, development of the site is subject to the maximum floor area limitation prescribed in Table LU -2 (Anomaly Locations), which limits the intensity of development to 350,000 square feet (Anomaly No. 74) of medical office floor area. ' Table 4.1 -2 reflects the intensity of development proposed for the site, which is consistent with both the land use designation and the floor area limit established by Table LU -2. ' Table 4.1 -2 Proposed Land Use Allocation — 2007 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ,. Buildin 1 100,407 Buildin 2 1.17.027 ' Gross floor area equates to a FAR of 0.59. 2Total parking requirement is 1,750 parking feet for medical office land use. spaces based on one parking space per 200 square ' SOURCE: Planning Activity No. 20(17 -n1s chi , , . 4o ' Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element ' Implementation of the proposed project is entirely consistent with the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The consistency analysis presented in Table 4.1 -3 reflects the relationship of the Proposed project with the applicable policies articulated in the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. ' Draft Environments! trnpact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pemut Amendment - Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.1 -9 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.3.5 5.3.6 Table 4.13 Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Analysis Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Require that new development within existing commercial districts, centers and corridors complement existing uses and exhibit a high level of architectural and site design in consideration of the principles articulated in the this policy (refer to NB General Plan Land Use Element). Require that commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible and minimize impacts through appropriate techniques (refer to NB General Plan land Use Element). Require that buildings located in pedestrian - oriented commercial and mined use districts (other than Newport Center and Airport Area, which are guided by Goals 6.14 and 6.15, respectively, specific to those areas) be designed to define the public realm, active sidewalks and pedestrian paths, and provide "eyes on the street" in accordance with the principles articulated in this policy (refer to NB General Plan Land Use Element). Require that adequate parking be provided and is convenienty located to serve tenants and customers. Set open parking lots back from public streets and pedestrian ways and screen with buildings, architectural walls, or dense landscaping. The proposed project encompasses the conversion of R &D and professional office Poor area In three existing structures to medical office land uses as well as the construction of an additional 20,566 square feet of medical office floor area in a new building. Use Permit 2006 -010, approved by the City in December 2006, also includes the demolition of one existing office structure and the replacement of that structure with a parking structure. Design and development of the new structures will be consistent with the guidelines identified in the Land As Indicated above, with the exception of the (approved) parking structure and the new medical office building proposed by the applicant, the remaining structures currently exist. The majority of the proposed improvements includes interior remodeling of the existing structures that are necessary to accommodate the proposed medical office uses. Nonetheless, the proposed building will be designed to be compatible with the nearby residential and mined uses within the West Newport The proposed project primarily includes the conversion of the existing non - medical office floor are to medical office uses. Additional development Includes only a maximum of 20,566 square feet of new construction; the parking structure that will replace Building 4 was approved as part of Use Permit 2006 -010. Although the proposed project is not located In a pedestrlan- oriented commercial area, the new medical office structure and parking structure and related site features will be designed to comply with the provisions of this policy, including the minimization of driveways, and other guidelines A total of 1,985 parking spaces is provided to accommodate the proposed development,. including 427 surface parking spaces and 1.558 spaces In two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on -site parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's parking code. Additionally, parking is well distributed throughout the site to conveniently serve tenants and customers Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -10 I 11 11 ' Hoeg Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4,1 1 1 1 1 [1 1 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.6.1 5.6.2 5.6.3 Require that new and renovated office and retail development projects be planned to exhibit a high quality and cohesive "campus environment," characterized by principles articulated in this policy (refer to NB General Plan Land Use Element). Require that new development of business park, office, and supporting buildings be designed to convey a unified and high quality character in consideration of the principles articulated In this policy (refer to NB General Plan Land Use Element). .t; . The applicant is proposing the conversion of the remaining non - medical office floor area to.medical office uses as well as an additional 20,586 square feet for a total of 350,000 square feet of medical office uses. Approval of Use Permit 2006 -010 includes the demolition of one of existing office buildings and the construction of a parking structure. The proposed site plan includes landscaping and other elements that are recommended by this policy. The character of the new medical office building and parking structure will be consistent with the existing structures located within the "campus" that will comprise the Hoag Health Center. Finally, adequate site access will be provided to accommodate both As indicated above, the proposed project includes a consistent and compatible architectural character and design, including the previously approved parking structure. Proposed structures will not exceed the maximum building heights prescribed by the City, for the land use district. and Require that buildings and properties be designated to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover, onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. The proposed project encompasses mostly interior modifications and improvements to existing structures that are necessary to accommodate medical office uses. In addition, the applicant Is also proposing to construct a new building that would include 20,586 square feet of additional medical office uses. The new structures will be designed to be compatibility with the existing buildings on -site as The character of the new building and the parking structures will be consistent with the existing structures located within the "campus" that will comprise the Hoag Health Center. This will be accomplished through the use of similar architecture and building materials. Further, lighting for the new parking structure and office building will comply with the requirements prescribed by the City of Newport Lighting required, to Illuminate the proposed parking structure and new medical office building will comply with standards established by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Proposed lighting will not spill onto adjacent properties. Although It Is anticipated that the lighting will be energy efficient and will also be shielded or recessed so that direct glare and Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -11 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental impact Report Section 4.1 II 1 I As indicated in the analysis presented in Table 4.1-3, the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies adopted by the City. As a result, project implementation will not result in any conflicts with adopted long -range plans and/or policies of the City of Newport Beach. The potential impacts associated ' with the land use and intensity of development were analyzed in the EIR prepared for the Newport Beach General Plan Update. Housing Element As previously indicated, the subject property is not one of the several remaining major undeveloped sites identified in the City as suitable for development. Further, the proposed project site is not designated for ' residential development and will not affect either the existing or future demand for housing in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, project implementation will not have any significant impacts on the goals, objectives. and policies of the Newport Beach Housing Element. I Draft EmerrDnmentai Impact Report yi.. ' September 2007 Page 4.1 -12 ' the property, the applicant will be required to prepare a lighting/photometric plan to ensure that the proposed lighting meets the lighting standards stipulated in the municipal code. Consistent The subject property, which is located within an Require that sites be planned and buildings urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach, Is designed in consideration of the property's devoid of natural landforms and other natural 5.6.4 topography, landforms, drainage patterns, natural features. The site is already developed, and existing vegetation, and relationship to the Bay and Buildings 1, 2, and 3 and the existing parking coastline, maintaining the environmental character structure will remain with implementation of the that distinguishes Newport Beach, proposed project. The approved second parking - structure and proposed new building will be sited on the property without adversely affecting the natural environment. Neighborhoods, Districts, and Coricorm est Newport Mesa") Consistent Prioritize the accommodation of medical - related and The proposed project is consistent with the adopted supporting facilities. on properties abutting the Hoag CO -M land use designation and the development Hospital complex [areas designated as "CO-M (0.5Y Intensity prescribed in Table LU2 (Anomaly 6.6.1 (Figure LU18, Sub -Area A)] with opportunities for Locations), which establishes a development limit at new residential units [areas' designated as °RM 0 square feet n medical office floor area on (181ac)l and supporting general and neighborhood- the s the subject property. The proposed floor area . serving retail services [°CG (0.75Y and "CN (0.3)], - equates to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.59, which Is respectively. also consistent with the maximum FAR prescribed in the CO-M land use category i.e. 0.75 . Work with property owners and encourage the Consistent development of a master plan for streetscape, pedestrian, signage, and other improvements that The landscape concept plan developed for the 6.6.3 contribute to a definable district. Land use proposed project will Incorporate features that boundaries delineated on the Land Use Diagram address the streetscape, signage, pedestrian may modified by a specific plan to of land amenities, and related elements that characterize iv cohesive districts that integrate a variety of land the area. uses. II 1 I As indicated in the analysis presented in Table 4.1-3, the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies adopted by the City. As a result, project implementation will not result in any conflicts with adopted long -range plans and/or policies of the City of Newport Beach. The potential impacts associated ' with the land use and intensity of development were analyzed in the EIR prepared for the Newport Beach General Plan Update. Housing Element As previously indicated, the subject property is not one of the several remaining major undeveloped sites identified in the City as suitable for development. Further, the proposed project site is not designated for ' residential development and will not affect either the existing or future demand for housing in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, project implementation will not have any significant impacts on the goals, objectives. and policies of the Newport Beach Housing Element. I Draft EmerrDnmentai Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA ' September 2007 Page 4.1 -12 ' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 i 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 Historical Resources Element All of the structures that exist on the site are of recent construction. None of the buildings are identified on any of the lists maintained by the City or State of California that include historic features. Implementation of the proposed project would neither conflict with any of the adopted policies articulated in the Historic Resources Element nor result in any adverse impacts to historic resources. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and. no mitigation measures are required. Circulation Element The Circulation Element of the General Plan include several policies that are intended to achieve the long -range transportation and circulation goals desired for the City. In particular, it is the City's intent to maintain a transportation system that facilitates vehicular travel generated by. existing and future development occurring in Newport Beach as well as In the surrounding region. The project's consistency with the relevant policies adopted by the City is summarized in Table 4.1 -4. Table 4.1-4 Newport Beach Circulation Element Policy Analysis Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -13 ltl t. - ,..: :Aria 'Consistent The previously approved project includes a shuttle service that will consist of a 20- passenger van that will serve physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center during the hours of CE 1.2.2 Encourage remote visitor parking and shuttle 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The shuttle service is limited services. 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), Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected baftic at the following levels of service standards: • Level of Service (LOS) "D" throughout the City Consistent unless otherwise noted. Project Implementation will not result in significant • LOS "E" at any intersection in the Airport Area Impacts at any intersections In the City of Newport 'CE 2.1.1 shared with Irvine Beach. As indicated in Section 4.pr all the key • LOS "E" at Coast Highway (EW) and Dover Drive study intersections affected by the proposed project (NS) due to right- of-way limitations. w ll continue to operate at an acceptable level of • S LOE" at Marguerite Avenue (NS) and Coast service (i.e.. LOS "D ") as prescribed in this policy of Highway (EW) In the pedestrian oriented area of the Circulation Element. Corona del Mar. • LOS "E" at Goldenrod Avenue (NS).and Coast Highway (EW) in the pedestrian oriented area in Corona del Mar. Consistent CE 2.2.3 Design traffic control measures to ensure City Project Implementation will necessitate the streets and roads function with safety and efficiency. implementation of a traffic signal and other Improvements that will facilitate traffic circulation and improve safety conditions In the project area. CE 2.2.4 Limit driveway and local street access on arterial Consistent Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -13 C Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Report section 41 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -14 1 F F u 1 C 1 1 :.� streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow. Wherever passible, consolidate driveways and No additional access driveways are proposed by the Implement access controls during redevelopment of applicant for the project. Three existing locations for adjacent parcels. ingresslegress will continue to provide access to the Hoag Health Center, which are controlled by appropriate controls (i.e., stop signs, signals, etc.) that facilitate traffic flow and enhance safety. Consistent Interface with regional and surrounding local The City has contacted all potential responsible agencies, such as Caltrans, OCTA, the County of agencies, Including the City of Costa Mesa and Orange, John Wayne Airport, the Cities of Irvine, Cakrens to ensure that traffic and circulation issues CE 3.1.2 Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach, and the identified by each can be adequately evaluated and University of California,' Irvine to implement systems addressed during the environmental review process. that serve the needs of regional travelers In a way Where necessary, appropriate mitigation measures that minimizes Impacts on Newport Beach residents. have been identified to ensure that potential Impacts are eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level. Consistent A Class I bicycle (i.e., off -road paved facility) path is Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and located on Superior Avenue in the vicinity of the CE 5.1.7 pedestrians by adhering to current national subject property. Although project Implementation standards and uniform practices. will result in an increase in vehicular traffic, no significant Impacts to the existing bicycle path would occur. Stop controls, signalization, and adequate sight distance will ensure that safety to bicyclist and pedestrians Is provided. Consistent Implement improved pedestrian crossings in key CE 5.1.12 high volume areas such as Corona del Mar. As indicated above, the site will be designed to Mariners' Mile, West Newport, Airport Area, Newport provide adequate sight distance and other measures Center/Fashion Island, and the Balboa Peninsula (e.g., stop controls) to ensure pedestrian safety in the project environs. Consistent Explore and implement intelligent transportation A shuttle service consisting of a 20- passenger van CE 6.1.2 system and infrastructure improvements which will will be available to hospital staff and patients that will reduce peak hour traffic from that forecast in this serve the project site and Hoag Hospital. Use of the Element. shuttle service will reduce traffic and parking demands at these facilities. Consistent The City has consulted with Coltrane and the City of Coordinate operations with adjacent jurisdictions to Costa Mesa through the NOP process to Identify CE 6.1.3 enhance the efficiency of inter - jurisdictional Intersections and circulation facilities that require roadways system operations. analysis. In addition, the City has also met with the City of Costa Mesa to determine the nature and extent of improvements to intersections and circulation facilities located within, Costa Mesa that are affected by the project- related traffic. Consistent Promote and encourage the use of alternative As indicated above, a shuttle service will be 6.2.1 transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, provided to facilitate travel between the project site .CE vanpools; public transit, bicycles, and walking; and and Hoag Hospital. The 20- passenger van will provide facilities that support such alternate modes. serve both hospital staff and patients traveling between the two facilities. Require new development projects to provide Consistent facilities commensurate with development type and CE 6.2.2 intensity to .support alternative modes, such as The proposed project Includes 1,966 parking spaces preferential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, in two parking structures and surface facilities to showers, commuter information areas, rideshare accommodate tenants and users of the site. Other vehicle loading areas, water transportation docks, features include the shuttle service bicycle racks Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -14 1 F F u 1 C 1 1 I ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment . Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 1 LJ 11 As indicated in Table 4.1 -4, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies that are intended ' to guide future development and circulation facilities in the City. Recreation Element ' The proposed project is non - residential in nature and will not result in any direct demands for recreation and/or park amenities. As described for Service Area 1 (West Newport), future parks and recreational facilities are anticipated for the Banning Ranch, which would address the existing 21.6 -acre deficit. Project implementation would not exacerbate the existing deficit in parks within the West Newport area and would not create a demand for new facilities. As a result, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts and no mitigation measures are required. ' Noise Element A noise analysis was conducted in order to evaluate potential impacts associated with project ' implementation. That analysis determined that the conversion of the existing non - medical office uses to medical office uses and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office for a total of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area on the site will generation both short- and long -term noise ' impacts, which are associated with construction activities and vehicular traffic, respectively. The potential noise impacts are identified and described in Section 4.4. As indicated in Table 4.1 -5, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies articulated in the Newport Beach Noise Element. 1 ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Healh Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.1 -15 Q and bus stop improvements and information related to public transit service. Consistent The structure and surface parking provided on the Require that new development provide adequate, site will exceed the parking requirements prescribed CE 7.1.1 convenient parking for residents, guest, business in the Cllys Municipal Code. The 1,985 parking patrons, and visitors. spaces equates to approximately 5.67 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, compared to 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet required in the Municipal Code. Consistent Site and design new development to avoid use of Parking proposed for the project is located in two CE 7.1.8 parking configurations or management programs structures and in surface locations that are proximal that are difficult to maintain and enforce. to the existing medical office buildings to provide convenient access for both tenants and visitors to the site. As indicated in Table 4.1 -4, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies that are intended ' to guide future development and circulation facilities in the City. Recreation Element ' The proposed project is non - residential in nature and will not result in any direct demands for recreation and/or park amenities. As described for Service Area 1 (West Newport), future parks and recreational facilities are anticipated for the Banning Ranch, which would address the existing 21.6 -acre deficit. Project implementation would not exacerbate the existing deficit in parks within the West Newport area and would not create a demand for new facilities. As a result, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts and no mitigation measures are required. ' Noise Element A noise analysis was conducted in order to evaluate potential impacts associated with project ' implementation. That analysis determined that the conversion of the existing non - medical office uses to medical office uses and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office for a total of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area on the site will generation both short- and long -term noise ' impacts, which are associated with construction activities and vehicular traffic, respectively. The potential noise impacts are identified and described in Section 4.4. As indicated in Table 4.1 -5, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies articulated in the Newport Beach Noise Element. 1 ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Healh Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.1 -15 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 , Table 4.1 -5 Newport Beach Noise Element Policy Analysis Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Irnpect Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -16 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 11 Consistent Require that all proposed projects are compatible Although project Implementation will result in some with the noise environment through use of Table N2 increase in noise levels resulting from the increase N 1.1 and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards in vehicular traffic, the mobile source noise shown in Table N3, generated by the proposed project would not exceed thresholds established by the City. Project Implementation will comply with the interior and exterior standards in Table N3. Consistent Require that all remodeling and additions of N 1.3 structures comply with the noise standards shown in As indicated above, the proposed project will comply Table N3. with the noise standards prescribed in Table N3 to ensure that no significant noise impacts occur. Consistent Require the employment of noise mitigation The noise analysis concluded that no significant measures for existing sensitive 'uses when a mobile- source noise impacts would occur as a result significant noise impact is identified. A significant of project implementation. However, short-term noise Impact occurs when there is an increase in the construction activities would occur. Compliance with N 1.6 ambient CNEL produced by new development the City's Noise Control Ordinance, which limits impacting existing sensitive uses. The applicable construction hours, will ensure that the temporary noise increases are: 3 dBA for 55 dBA CNEL, 2 noise Impacts will be minimized. In addition, it is dBA for 60 dBA CNEL, 1 dBA for 65 and 70 dBA possible that some long -term noise impacts CNEL, and any Increase in noise for noise levels associated with potential HVAC equipment could over 75 dBA CNEL affect noise sensitive land uses located nearby; However, these features will be sited to ensure that no impacts occur. Limit the hours of truck deliveries to commercial uses abutting residential uses and other noise Consistent N 2.3 sensitive land uses to minimize excessive noise unless there is no feasible alternative. Any The project will comply with all applicable existing exemption shall require compliance with nighttime City requirements that govern deliveries. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. noise standards. Ensure new development is compatible with the Consistent noise environment by using airport noise contours The project site is not located within the 65 CNEL N 3.1 no larger than those contained in the JWA Airport noise contour associated with JWA. As a result, no Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) dated December aircraft noise related impacts emanating from as guides to future planning and aviation uses at that facility will adversely affect the de opme development decisions. proposed project. Enforce interior and exterior noise standards Consistent outlined in Table N3, and in the City's Municipal N 4.1 Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are As previously indicated, the proposed project will not exposed to excessive noise levels from comply with the requirements and noise standards stationary noise sources, such as heating, prescribed in the City's General Plan, including ventilatlon and air conditioning equipment Table N3. Consistent Require that new uses such as restaurants, bars, The project is subject to the approval of a Use entertainment, parking facilities, and other Permit (amendment). As such the noise analysis commercial uses where large numbers of people has. evaluated the potential noise impacts of the N 4.2 maybe present to sensitive noise receptors proect, Including those associated with the parking obtain mil that i use permit that is based on compliance with structure that will be located on the site and Its i the noise standards in Table N3 and the City's relationship with the nearby sensitive receptors. Municipal Code. The proposed project will comply with the noise standards identified in Table N3. Draft Environmental Irnpect Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -16 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 11 I ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 L I I ' Safety Element - ' The project proposes Improvements on a site that has been historically used for activities that have resulted in some contamination. Without proper remediation of the site, it is possible that workers and others visiting the site could be subjected to adverse soils and air emissions associated with the contamination that has resulted from the prior use of the site. Remediation of the contamination that has occurred is underway as a result of prior approvals and will be completed in accordance with the current regulatory requirements to ensure that no significant adverse health effects occur. Table 4.1 -6 summarizes the relationship of the proposed medical office use of the site to the relevant policies I fl I 1 I H I H I I included in the Newport Beach Safety Element. As indicated in the consistency analysis, the proposed project is consistent with those adopted goals, which are intended to ensure that the public health and safety are maintained. Table 4.1 -6 Newport Beach Safety Element Policy Analysis Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment b.. 4 � e c • �. K at..a Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits Consistent on hours of maintenance or construction activity in Consistent N 4.6 or adjacent to residential areas, Including noise that The proposed project will be subject to the results from in -home hobby or work - related limitations prescribed by the City in the Noise activities. Control Ordinance that restrict construction activities. standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory Consistent ' N 5.1 Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. The limitation on construction hours will be enforced remediation procedures prior to grading and through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting ' Program, which will ensure that compliance with the Environmental Health Division, County Department construction hours occurs. ' ' Safety Element - ' The project proposes Improvements on a site that has been historically used for activities that have resulted in some contamination. Without proper remediation of the site, it is possible that workers and others visiting the site could be subjected to adverse soils and air emissions associated with the contamination that has resulted from the prior use of the site. Remediation of the contamination that has occurred is underway as a result of prior approvals and will be completed in accordance with the current regulatory requirements to ensure that no significant adverse health effects occur. Table 4.1 -6 summarizes the relationship of the proposed medical office use of the site to the relevant policies I fl I 1 I H I H I I included in the Newport Beach Safety Element. As indicated in the consistency analysis, the proposed project is consistent with those adopted goals, which are intended to ensure that the public health and safety are maintained. Table 4.1 -6 Newport Beach Safety Element Policy Analysis Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment b.. �" „„K1S1t c • �. K at..a Require proponents of projects in knovm areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to Consistent perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with As indicated above, the site is currently undergoing American Society for Testing and Materials remedtation and will continue to be remediated in standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory accordance with the Remedial Action Plan approved S7.1 action levels, require the proponent to undertaken by the applicable regulatory agencies, which include remediation procedures prior to grading and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, development under the supervision of the County Orange County Health Care Agency, Regional Environmental Health Division, County Department Water Quality Control Board, and the Department of of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Toxic Substances Control. Quality Control Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination). Consistent Ensure that any development within identified AS required in the mitigation measures prescribed S7.2 methane gas districts be designed consistent with for the proposed project, future development along the requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal the northeastern property boundary would be Code. subject to appropriate measures to ensure that methane gas conditions in that area are properly addressed. Minimize the potential risk of contamination to Consistent S 7.4 surface _water and groundwater resources and implement remediaton efforts to an resources I Project implementation will necessitate the Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -17 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report I Section 4.1 1 Harbor and Bay Element The subject property is not located within the harbor area as designated by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the goals, objectives and policies of the Harbor Element do not apply to development of the site as proposed and no impacts are anticipated. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (LCPlLUP) As indicated in Section 4.1.1, the subject property is not located within the coastal zone delineated within the City. Therefore, site development is not subject to the provision of the LCPlLUP. No significant Impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Newport Beach Zonina As previously indicated, the subject property is zoned M -1 -A, which allows medical and dental offices subject to the approval of a use permit. With the exception of the new structure proposed by the applicant, the existing structures occupying the site comply with the development standards prescribed by the M -1 -A zoning district regulations. The new building proposed to accommodate 20,586 square feet of additional medical office floor area will also comply with building height, setback, and other development standards. As a result, no significant impacts to the adopted zoning would occur. Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan On October 24, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a final rule to designate 513,650 acres of land as critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Although these lands encompass portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties, neither Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pemut Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -18 11 r u I 1 adversely Impacted by urban acdvhles. unplementation of several measures Intended to remedlate the soil and groundwater contamination that eidsts as a result of the past site use. Remedation that complies with the RAP approved for the site and the regulatory requirements of the applicable local, State, and federal agencies will ensure that potential health risks are eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level. Consistent Due to the proposed medical office use of a portion of the project some medical supplies and medical waste would be stored In the proposed medical office component of the Project The proposed medical offices would be required to register with the ransp Require all users, producers, and transporters of OCHCA and would also be required to prepare a hazardous materials and wastes to Identify Medical Waste Management Plan (MWMP) that S7.6 - the materials that they store, use, or transport , and Includes an Emergency Action Plan, which delineates the procedures for property handling th to notify the appropriate City, County, state, and site spills and releases o medical waste. This plan federal agencies in the event of a violation. also addresses surface cleanup, eanup, protective clothing and equipment to be used, and disinfecting procedures. Any such materials will be stored and used In the prescribed manner by the OCHCA. Compliance with the MWMP and related OCHCA and related Public Health and Safety Code requirements will ensure that no significant Impacts . would occur. Harbor and Bay Element The subject property is not located within the harbor area as designated by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the goals, objectives and policies of the Harbor Element do not apply to development of the site as proposed and no impacts are anticipated. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (LCPlLUP) As indicated in Section 4.1.1, the subject property is not located within the coastal zone delineated within the City. Therefore, site development is not subject to the provision of the LCPlLUP. No significant Impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Newport Beach Zonina As previously indicated, the subject property is zoned M -1 -A, which allows medical and dental offices subject to the approval of a use permit. With the exception of the new structure proposed by the applicant, the existing structures occupying the site comply with the development standards prescribed by the M -1 -A zoning district regulations. The new building proposed to accommodate 20,586 square feet of additional medical office floor area will also comply with building height, setback, and other development standards. As a result, no significant impacts to the adopted zoning would occur. Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan On October 24, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a final rule to designate 513,650 acres of land as critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Although these lands encompass portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties, neither Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pemut Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -18 11 r u I 1 I] i I 1 1 I n 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 the project site nor environs is located within areas designated as critical habitat of the USFWS final rule. Further, the area, in which the subject property is located is not covered by an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan or program. The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the subject property is located Is *nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The subject property encompasses approximately 13.7 acres that are currently developed as Newport Technology Center. The site has been entirely, altered in order to accommodate the existing development. As a result, no natural features and /or habitat that would support sensitive species exist on the site. In particular, neither the site nor the surrounding areas is located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and /or resources. No significant Impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Physically divide an established community Impacts associated with the physical division of an established community typically occur when land uses or features (e.g., arterial roadways, flood control channels, and related infrastructure) have the effect of creating a physical barrier and prevent circulation and integration between the existing land uses. Implementation of the proposed project includes only the conversion of the remaining non - medical office and related floor area' in the existing professional 'office /technology center to medical office uses and the addition of 20,586 square feet of additional medical office floor area on the 13.7-acre site, which will occur entirely on the existing property. Therefore, the proposed conversion will not result in the physical division of the established residential neighborhoods surrounding the subject property. Although some temporary impacts associated with demolition, construction of the new structure, and remodeling of the existing structures to accommodate the medical office uses will have some affect on circulation, noise and air quality, once construction is completed, no discernable physical features will exist that would cause a physical division of the neighborhood land uses. Further, use of the site would continue to accommodate activities that current take place on the property. No significant departure from the current use of the site is anticipated that would cause a physical division within the existing neighborhood. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Substantial or extreme land use incompatibility Existina Land Use t As previously indicated, the site is developed with professional office, medical office, and R&D office uses; project implementation includes only the conversion of the existing remaining non - medical office floor area to medical office uses and the construction of an 20,586 square feet of additional medical office floor area. Use Permit 2006 -010, allowing for the conversion of 97,000 square feet of floor area to medical office was ' approved in December 2006. With the exception of the increase in floor area, the proposed project will not significantly change the land use existing on the subject property and will be consistent and compatible with ,the surrounding land uses. ' The location of the new parking structure approved as part of Use Permit 2006010 is such that it backs up to the existing City Yard and can be screened from Newport Boulevard with trees and landscaping along the slope. As a result, the project will appear to remain much the same as the existing ' development and would not be perceived as additional "bulk" on the site. The parking structure is located farthest from the existing residential development to the south and is separated by abutting streets, 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.1 -19 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draff Environmental Impact Report Section A 1 In addition, adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the 350,000 square feet of medical office , floor area with the completion of the parking structure and surface parking, which will result in a parking ratio of 5.67 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, exceeds the City's current parking code requirement of five spaces per 1,000 square feet. The excess parking will address parking concerns in the neighborhood and provide adequate parking for tenants and users of the proposed facilities. Future new development proposed by the applicant includes only the addition of 20,586 square .feet of medical offices as illustrated on the Conceptual Site Plan (refer to Exhibit 3 -7). Construction of that new building would be designed to be compatible with the existing character of development existing on the site and would also be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Further, the new structure would be located in an area of the site that would be screened /shielded from the residential development to the , west and south by existing structures. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not compromise the character and/or integrity of the mixed uses with the West Newport area. 4.1.5 Mitigation Measures As indicated in the preceding analysis, the proposed project, which includes only the conversion of existing , non - medical office uses to medical office floor area and the addition of 20,586 square feet of new medical office floor area, consistent with the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, is consistent with the long -range goals, policies and objectives adopted by the City in the General Plan Update. The proposed project is also compatible with the existing and planned land uses in the area. As a result, no significant land , use impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.1.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation , As indicated above, the project is consistent with the long -range plans and programs adopted by the City. Further, implementation of the standard condition identified for the project (i.e., comply with the Building Code ' requirements and other regulatory requirements) will ensure that no significant impacts will occur. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. J I C Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA ' September 2007 Page 4.1 -20 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Draft Environmental lmpi 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Amendment 4.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 4.2 A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by Kunzman Associates to evaluate the potential project- related traffic Impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed Hoag Health Center project. The TIA, dated September 5, 2007, is summarized in the assessment of project - related traffic impacts that follows; the TIA is included in Appendix _ to the Draft EIR. The TIA also includes an analysis that complies with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), which is required by the City. A total of 32 intersections, Including 17 intersections in Costa Mesa identified by that City during the scoping process, are evaluated in the TIA. The 32 key study Intersections are reflected in Table 4.2 -1. Table 4.2 -1 Study Area Intersections Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment The project site and existing circulation system in the vicinity of th 4.2 -1. e subject properly are illustrated in Exhibit Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pemdt Amendment — Newport Beach, CA. September 2007 Page 4.2 -1 Victoria Street m o � e S 19th Street 16th Street /�°°d"0y Rochester Orange M Street Avenue 17th Street �o e 16th 3P street p Induetrid Way p Orange � "�, ` Street ' Prospect Newport < Street Boulevard Hospital Riverside Read Avenue Tustin Avenue i Balboa Boulevard Dover Vio Drive lido Mi SR -1 32nd Street Exhibit 4.2 -1 Existing Circulation System I ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment . Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 4.2.1 Existing Conditions Existina Circulation ' The subject property currently supports 415,493 square feet of professional office and research and development uses in four buildings. The site currently accommodates a total of 1,332 parking spaces, consisting of 471 surface parking spaces and 861 spaces in a four -level parking structure on the property. The site is. located east of Superior Avenue and north of Dana Road; Newport Boulevard is located immediately east of the site, below the grade of the development. Direct access to the subject property is provided along Superior Avenue. ' The Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates Superior Avenue as a Primary Road (i.e., four travel lanes, divided) with 104 feet of right -of -war. Superior Avenue, which extends generally in a northerly direction from West Coast Highway (SR -1) to 17 Street in Costa Mesa, is currently improved as a four -lane divided roadway in the vicinity of the site. Newport Boulevard is designated as a Major Road. (i.e., six lane divided roadway) with a right-of -way of 128 feet. This roadway extends through Costa Mesa and Newport Beach from the Newport Freeway (SR -55). This roadway also extends beyond West Coast Highway into the Balboa Peninsula. West Coast Highway extends east and west through Newport Beach in ' the vicinity of the project. This divided Major Road accommodates from four to six lanes east of Newport Boulevard and west of Superior Avenue; the roadway is Improved with seven lanes between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. Dana Road and Flagship Road are local streets that form a 'loop" extending from Superior Avenue on the west to Placentia Avenue on the south, respectively. 'Other roadways in the vicinity of the subject property include Placentia Avenue, designated a Secondary Road (i.e., 84 -foot, divided roadway) between Hospital ' Road on the south and I Street on the north; it is designated as a Primary Road north of 16"' Street in the City of Costa Mesa. Hospital Road, located south of the site, is also designated as a Secondary Road. Industrial Way is a local street north of the subject property. ' Roadways in the City of Costa Mesa that are part of the local circulation system include Placentia Avenue (four -lane divided roadway) and Harbor Boulevard (six -lane divided roadway), which extend through that City in a north -south direction. East -west streets in Costa Mesa include Industrial Way, 17th Street, le Street ' and Victoria Street, Exhibit 4.2 -2 illustrates the number of travel lanes, intersection controls, and key study intersections identified in Table 4.2 -1. Existing Intersection Onerafing Conditions ' Existing a.m. and p.m.. peak hour volumes are illustrated on Exhibits 4.2-3 and 4.2-4, respectively. Table 4.2- 2 summarizes the existing (2007) intersection operating conditions at the key study intersections. As indicated in that table, all of the key study intersections are currently operation at acceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better). 1 I Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.2 -3 Q 6D 15 : victoria street 0 4D 40 4D 18 y 9 j fA V p^ 0 4D m VV � R p O 2 Z i' 60 40 40 19th street 5D 19 : 66 .. 16 5D 18th 4D 2 ' Street 2U ,,Grcodmy 25 R ter Orange 4D 2D Street 2U -- Avenue 2U ' QQ 2U : 2U 17th Street 2 2U 2U �� 17 16th 40 Street 29 `'& 2U 40 2U 27 Q t� $ o 2U 2U *. • 6D In bslrial 2U 36 Q ~ �.4� Q Orww Street ^ 2 y 2U 4D �: Prospect Street : 51te : 28 R 31 °'SJ ' ` 6D •�� fiD`_ Soule and 4U 13• 40 4D 5 1 6D 41) 6 4D 2U 2 �3 V Hospital 7 Riverside fig 'i 4D Road 6D Avenue Tustin Avenue 0 4U Balboa Boulevard 4D 7D 8 5D 1 I. 2U Dow " 6D Via Odvs T q Lido 12 9 5D9/ Hf SR-1 60 . 5D : 2nd 4Dt 6D 14 b 41.1 Street 40 1021 Legend . 0 - Tro1Fic Signal sm = Stop Sign 4 = Through Travel Lanes D = Divided U = Undivided >x Free Right Turn > = Right Turn Overlap Exhibit 4.2 -2 Roadway Improvements and Intersection Controls R 4-1Ny S 4 -1118 °�'# 4-0 8F1� 4- 506•= 4-1fia --•rS 4-145 —� 4-71/ d14412 a dlbrs a d14r32 a d14rm a d14ru a d14r144 a 1 1 4r63 a e 19sgYP D 1]s9YP D o99YP ' �s9tP >s9YP ' �s9YP D +is9YP 40 m 72 iF 2 R of e1 Orago Shah/ Prmpeat Street/ Suptrlor AM=/ 59vlor Amue/ Plooatto Aver/ PlocMUO Avaue/ NNW Boulevard/ Keel Cast Hay Nat Corot Hwy Hmpilul Road Nest Corot Hry $WNW Averm Hmpltd Rand Hospital Rood •' °`Naaport Boulevard/ %wW BaWnad/ NoWark Boutaad/ River" Avenue/ Tualh Amu@/ Irises Aaedue/ Dever Drive/ Keel Carat Hay War lido 32nd Street Kest Carat Nay Wast Coal Hey 17th Sheet/ Wd Corot Hwy leg PIZWUD Aware/ fteenOn AMeue/ Placentia Avenue/ Habra Bmkvad/ Harbor Balavad/ Superlm Awsue/ Sumw Aver/ WHOM Street 19th Short 17th Stral Wcterla Sheet 19M Street 17M Street 18th Street Newport Bmlewrd/ k pat Baulerad/ Napwf Badaurd/ Newport BwWmd/ NvapwN D kwrd/ Report BW&.d/ Neapat 9oWawd/ in Shd - Brandao7' Haan Be le"d lath Sh oMod Ater St 17th Sheet IBM Shet Indmtriul Way . 17�Sh ott 17th Santa Am rat � 17t eSt,"t a/ KunzTaan Associates intersection refeence numbers are in upper left carnet of turning moverrlent boxer Exhibit 4.2 -3 Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes 1 %-]yl W��:25 ° a 2119 a d °131 < d14r1 < gg�� aY14s+sy < d14r]7 db44> < + d14rs — 7R3B 4-135 d14ro tai x �� nH 17Q $�4 -198 11 �. °i� 4pp 4-1M4 a -702 D �s9Y ��s°,$ D �s9YP 1093 D s"'9YP ,92'R� 6yr 4 -1293 d 14 rlm < d� 4 r,B9 < d d 4 r4s a dlbrs rls3 < d 14 r7s a dl< r]24 a brm r29 a us9YP > �s9YP > sss9_j H zeds9Y� nie3 �° D 74�2-1y Y�' �P ,1P 12b��Y� ass-es9�a 116731��ffi � 1293 +.R #71^ m7-a ��rx 493 < 7 ° a 2119 a d °131 < d14r1 < gg�� aY14s+sy < d14r]7 db44> < + d14rs — 7R3B 4-135 d14ro tai x �� nH 17Q $�4 -198 D 42s9YP tme —e > zws9f�' a -702 D �s9Y ��s°,$ D �s9YP 1093 D s"'9YP ,92'R� d 14 rlm < d� 4 r,B9 a d d 4 r4s a d 14 rls3 d d 14 r7s a d 14 r]24 a d 1 4 r29 a us9YP > �s9YP > sss9_j D �s9YP. +B939f�R D 74�2-1y Y�' > Its�l ,1P > 1s9YP 116731��ffi #�� 1293 +.R #71^ 493 a TSI ° a 2119 a d °131 < d14r1 < gg�� aY14s+sy < d14r]7 db44> < + d14rs — �14r36 a714ss1 d14ro *+es9YP �s9 > Bs9_ggYP D �s9tP > ns9YP D 42s9YP tme —e > zws9f�' IW6—D 963 D �s9Y "P D �s9YP 1093 D s"'9YP ,92'R� Fx fix° 1913 �# a�3 IIZ S�A J3 5703 273 .1003X$9: ° °442 °131 lei? 4121 a-eet sR =s a-no a�® wee+ db44> -n < d14r]I < dlbr]e �s9 P D �s9tP D 42s9YP tme —e IW6—D 963 a�a 513 1093 „�� —' — . igy 4 -1527 ^ D� 08-4 0a %Y° 4-0 173s i� 4-0 ° �'4IYP 7541 —a 274 1 1131 4-2187 2334 %YD 284 �•�—•R 4-427 -� sI a-ttn 5 =3rR 18 �+, qg 3 ^R' IE dlbslat 4 4 db4s173 4 a�bbsl+e -eh a db4s+a t0�x a dbbss3l 4 dbbsln r1- n�� 4 db4sNS a D stsl44I��t1 P D 32s� %YP ° 479 %YP ' �39%YP 5�$F��SO 'sro9 %Y °'�A "'1� 3p7�XR� 1W�71�? 4 ��$�� Aa8Ri9 7574 ^ ^ ^ 3054 2754 r/ / / PRoW d/ Met Court Huy Mast coat Hwy HOWRd Road Merl Cowl Hey/ Sugdcr Awn W Red HD� Road my 732v 4 9 gi5t1 R 4-0 0 iy. � 4-37 t 'r_8$ g 4-2151 2 ill IS i8B °4-707 M "7717 dbbs28 4 db4ce 4 dbtrsae Jbb o 4 db6sna 4 IkW BWM4/ Neep,t OWmad/ N Wvt BWarud/ Rlwrside Awn /' Toth Awn/ brine Awn/ Doer 0th/ Met COW 114y Yes lido 32nd Sht Masl Cost Hey *0 Cost Hwy 17th Street/ West Cant +7 Pbmtb Awnn/ PW=W banes/ Plocentlo Aw n/ How BWewd/ HaNU Bohswd/ Superior A—/ 9gahr Marv/ Nclarla Street 190 Shat 171h Street foam Street 19th Street 17th Street 18th Street �153 1-91 Ikepert BWnwa/ Re,* BWwra/ M-I Eni— / Nap,t ftkwd/ NeepW B *CW NwI 9rlerrd/ RVI UkWd/ . 19th Street Brondwy Nub, Dokwd IBIh Statl/RDhhat, SI1781 Stmt' 15th-Sba1 hdhnbhl Mwy O,qr Awn/ Santo Aa Awn/ Tooth Awn/ 17th Street 17th Shad 170 Strad l unz77b n Associates Intrsection reference numbers ae in Upper left cane? of turning mu m t.. boxes. Exhibit 4.2-4 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes . igy 4 -1527 ^ D� 08-4 0a %Y° 4-0 173s i� 4-0 ° �'4IYP 7541 —a 274 1 1131 4-2187 2334 %YD 284 �•�—•R 4-427 -� sI a-ttn 5 =3rR 18 �+, qg 3 ^R' IE dlbslat 4 4 db4s173 4 a�bbsl+e -eh a db4s+a t0�x a dbbss3l 4 dbbsln r1- n�� 4 db4sNS a D stsl44I��t1 P D 32s� %YP ° 479 %YP ' �39%YP 5�$F��SO 'sro9 %Y °'�A "'1� 3p7�XR� 1W�71�? 4 ��$�� Aa8Ri9 7574 ^ ^ ^ 3054 2754 . igy 4 -1527 ^ D� 08-4 0a %Y° 4-0 173s %1P 7 § ^ ° �'4IYP 7541 —a 274 � ^ S � 73 2334 %YD 284 �•�—•R 4-427 -� sI . igy 4 -1527 ^ v 1210 4 -114 4-0 v i715 4-178 •F.�'c 4—II� §�$ 4—I00/ �bbs73 �•�—•R 4-427 -� 4 db4s9s 5 =3rR 18 �+, qg ��� dlbslat 4 4 db4s173 4 db44 -eh 4 db4sul t0�x 4 dbbss3l 4 dbbsln r1- n�� 4 d�4su 4 D stsl44I��t1 P D 32s� %YP ° 479 %YP ' �39%YP 5�$F��SO 'sro9 %Y °'�A "'1� 3p7�XR� 1W�71�? 4 ��$�� Aa8Ri9 03 3054 571 v 4-265 4-0 =ls -1�� 4-582 19sal dsN �bbs73 �w -� 4 db4s9s 4s0 4 dbbsls 4 %YP 2n 4 4 +m0- nta�>° I41a � m-esxD -n 824'" t0�x N se�� ��g$D 8^ r1- n�� D a�s � 4 571 v �� �bbs73 db44 -� 4 db4s9s 4 4 ° �� %YP 1028 + +N��6S +m0- nta�>° I41a -n 824'" t0�x 7Ba '� I ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 1 1 �J 1 Table 4.2 -2 Existing (Year 2007) ICU and LOS Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment City of New rt Beach Intersections Oranne Street/West Coast Highway, TS 0.66 B 0.70 B Pros cf Street/West Coast Hi hwa TS 0.77 C 0.68 B Superior Avenue/Pro DNvewa NA NA NA NA NA Su erior Avenue/Hos ital Road TS 0.87 B 0.46 A Superior Avenue/West Coast HiTS 0.70 B 0.63 B Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue TS 0.60 A 0.68 B Placentia Avenue/Hospital Road TS 0.34 A 0.41 A Newport Boulevard/Hospiltal Road TS 1 0.50 A I 0.67 B Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway TS 0.76 C 0.66 B Ne rt Bouleva�a Lido TS 0.41 A 0.43 A Ne rt Boulevard /32 Street TS 0.44 A 0.78 C Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway TS . 0.74 C 0.77 C Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway TS 0.74 C 0.59 A Irvine Avenue/1 r Street TS 0.53 A 0.71 C Dover Drive/West Coast Highway TS 0.74 C 0.78 C City of Costa Mesa Intersections Placentia Avenue/ Victoria Street TS 0.80 C 0.85 D Placentia Avenue/190 Street TS 0.47 A 0.53 A Placentia Avenue/17 Street TS 0.38 A 0.51 A Harbor BoulevardNictoda Street TS 0.73' C 0.86 D Harbor Boulevard/1 r Street TS 0.40 A 0.75 C Su erorAvenuell7 Street TS 0.89 D 0.81 D Su eriorAvenue/16 Street TS 0.39 A 0.34 A Newport Boulevard/19m Street TS 0.79 C 0.83 D Newport Boulevard/Broadway TS 0.59 8 0.68 B Newport BoulevardlHarbor Boulevard TS 0.66 B 0.74 C Newport Boulevard/18 Street- Rochester Street TS 0.73 C 1 0.88 D New Boulevard/17 Street TS 0.79 C 0.83 D N Boulevard/16 Street TS 0.47 A 0:49 A N rt 8oulevardAndusfrial W TS 0.57 A 0.55 A Oran a Avenue/17 Street TS 0.58 A 0.64 B Santa Ana Avenue/1 Street TS 0.51 A 0.64 B Tustin Avenue/17m Street I TS 1 0.86 B 0.64 B TS- Traffic Signal 'Not evaluated for Existing Conditions. SOURCE: Kur¢manAssociates (September 5 200 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment - Newport Beach, C4 September 2007 1 Page 4.2 -7 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 4.2.2 Significance Criteria Implementation of the.proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation. The project will generate an increase in traffic at intersections in the City of Newport Beach that results in an ICU change of 0.01 or more and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS E) or greater. The project will generate an increase in traffic at a Congestion. Management Program (CMP) intersection resulting in a LOS F, or if a CMP intersection maintains an existing LOS F and an increase in traffic results in an ICU change beyond 0.10. The project will.result in inadequate access or parking capacity. 4.2.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.2 -1 On -site parking shall comply with the Newport Beach Parking Code requirements. SC 4.2 -2 Sight distance at the project accesses shall comply with City of Newport Beach standards SC 4.2 -3 On -site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project as approved by the City of Newport Beach. SC 4.2-4 Prior to issuance of the building permit for each phase of development, a Traffic Control Plan and Construction Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented during the construction phase for each improved phase. The Traffic Control Plan shall address traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation. The plan shall also provide for adequate traffic controls and /or detours to allow existing City roads that require Improvements to remain open to traffic at all times, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The Traffic Control Plan shall show all lane closures, restrictions, tapers and other disruptions of normal traffic flow, including pedestrian and vehicular detours, as well as all existing and temporary striping, pavement markings, pavement legends, striping removals, and temporary barricades. The Traffic Control Plan shall include provision for advance notification signs for posting periods. SC 4.2 -5 The City of Newport Beach shall periodically review traffic operations In the vicinity of the project following implementation of the approved project to ensure that traffic operations are satisfactory.. 4.2.4 Potential Impacts Trio Generation Trip generation rates used to conduct the TPO analysis required by the City of Newport Beach were determined for daily traffic and morning and afternoon peak hour traffic based on the City's bip generation rates, which are derived from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). Trip generation rates utilized to evaluate traffic Impacts at intersections located In the City of Costa Mesa were derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7"' Edition (2003). These relevant trip generation rates and estimated project - related trips are presented in Table 4.2 -3. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Carrier Use PermitAmendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2707 . Page 4.2-8 11 1 11 1 [1 1 1 1 Il i 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I u 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 Because the site is currently developed with a mix of professional office and research and development uses, future traffic generation resulting from project implementation reflect a °net" increase. As indicated in Table 4.2 -3, the proposed project is forecast to generate a total of 17,500 trips per day (total), based on the NBTAM trip generation rates and 12,646 trips per day (total) utilizing the ITE trip generation rates. However, after accounting for the °existing development,' the net in crease in project- related daily trip generation is estimated to be 12,743 based on NBTAM and 8,758 based on ITE. As indicated above, the potential impacts at key study locations are based on the net increase In project- related trips utilizing the NBTAM trip generation for Newport Beach intersections and on the net increase in trips based on the ITE trip generation rates for intersections in Costa Mesa. Table 4.2.3 Project Traffic Generation Hoag Health Center'Use Permit Amendment TrID Distribution Project- related trip distribution is based on the geographical location of employment centers, commercial centers, recreational areas, and /or concentrations of residential areas. The basic factors affecting route selection to and from a particular site include minimum time path and minimum distance path. Based on those parameters, project - related trip distribution for the proposed project was determined, as illustrated in Exhibit 4.2 -3. Peak Hour Volumes Morning and afternoon peak hour volumes were estimated for the proposed project based on the trip generation rates utilized In Table 4.2 -3 and the trip distribution assumptions identified in Exhibit 4.2 -5. Project - related peak hour traffic volumes based on the trip distribution are illustrated on Exhibits 4.2-6 and 4.2 -7. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA , September 2007 Page 4.2 -9 k City of Newport Beach Tri Generation Exstin T Generation General Office 1 178.661 TSF 302 38 1 340 57 277 1 334 2,507 Research and Development 236.832 1 TSF 1 237 24 261 71 261 1 332 2,250 Subtotal 1 1 539 62 601 128 538 1 666 4,757 Pro osed Amended Use Permit Tri Generation — New rt Beach Medical Office 350.000 TSF 840 210 1,050 525 1225 1,750 17500 Difference increase 301 148 449 397 667 11184 12,743 City of Costa Mesa Trip Generation Existing Tri Generation General Office 178.661 TSF 243 34 277 45 222 257 1,957 Research and Develo ment 236.832 TSF 1 244 1 50 1 94 1 38 1 218 256 1 921 Subtotal 415,493 487 54 371 83 440 423 3,868 Proptised Amended Use Permit Trip Generation — Costa Mesa Medical Office 350.000 TSF 686 182 868 350 952 1,302 12646 Difference Increase 1 199 98 297 267 512 779 756 'TSF — Thousand Square Feet rExisdng Trip Generation does gQ.t reflect UP 06-010 approved by the City of Newport Beach in December 2007 in order to provide a 'Worse case- analysis of traffic Impacts. SOURCE: Kuraman Associates (September 5, 2007 TrID Distribution Project- related trip distribution is based on the geographical location of employment centers, commercial centers, recreational areas, and /or concentrations of residential areas. The basic factors affecting route selection to and from a particular site include minimum time path and minimum distance path. Based on those parameters, project - related trip distribution for the proposed project was determined, as illustrated in Exhibit 4.2 -3. Peak Hour Volumes Morning and afternoon peak hour volumes were estimated for the proposed project based on the trip generation rates utilized In Table 4.2 -3 and the trip distribution assumptions identified in Exhibit 4.2 -5. Project - related peak hour traffic volumes based on the trip distribution are illustrated on Exhibits 4.2-6 and 4.2 -7. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA , September 2007 Page 4.2 -9 5% 5� Victoria Street � d a s \ 20% r . .2 07 19th Street I 15% 1 18th Ox I � Shot Brwdway 2$ile r ochesler Orange Street — pw:nue 20% 25% - 17th Street �o 164 � rest. P� 35% 5% strid Orange way 15% P 70% Street ,. Prospect . Newport Street _ rr - gx - Boulewrd 25 0% 10% Hospit 5x Riverside Road 0 Avenue Tustin , 1 Avenue Belboo Boulewrd 59 Dever Lido NE Drixe fast A' . w SR-1 32nd iSx Street 5% 10% Percent To/From Project Exhibit 4.2 -5 Project - Related Trip Distribution mp Avawle/ Soda Am Aee/ TM1r Arwene/ i7& Strad 17th Shot 17th Sued Kunz7wn Associates Intersection reference numbs are in upper left oma of turning movement bos Exhibit 4d 1 ° . • • t �a � v 4= e' -I— - Y� p ] 0 P ° d Bbbap -a 4es'= -I—I-I- p v P iar'e I- p p P 1 n ° R d 7� bbpp �� a v b4 4a= -I-0 � _ P 6 p 27b2 �a 0 a4s9 mgYe p p p sp d 4p d d so d irw d p e P d ° p9 ° 89Y ° ° ° ° 7se � p-n 1 ° t d b �ia � bv 4 a4se 9 Y p p p P a e d ° d ppp J�a e°e � e 1 Cae° i- YYp p P ° d 3 p 'ia v 4ae O - Ylp 6 P ° 2 J Y L°bp -ia b 0 t°p 'a i v a 4°o 4vr�I-- - ep / 5 P S �t� HAvenue/ Aa/ dam/ R�/ 1Cna 1 Nwy Wad Cuw oq d Rend *d Cad � Swerlor mw HmpOa R Rupild Road e—/5 p 4p 4sp d dbsd lbsp d sp d dbsp a b° 7J1 dbbrp e ° 1 T � to d ppI � a - v s 4arg= - Y p p Yp a P a d 0 a� S bp � �a *'= --- Y�Yp Y�p = 49 p P N da�' 1 bppDb°pp s� a c o a�4ra - - a Yp 1p d P a d 0 a� s o°p �a � v �v � i � Yp o Yp = - Newport Badmd/ NePW Bmkwd/ Newp Bakwd/ Rmdk Amu/ Tmtn Avenue/ Wee Avenue/ Dover da/ Wad Coast by Lido 32nd Strew Wes Curet Hwy West Ca Hwy 17th Street/ West Carat Nq p 70 p bY -rp p d esp p d d es2o d ° �° °, ° ° ° p pi p p� A 5 5 ° a ds7 eb ppp�bp pp °pp sa b. p v .bp 4so' I - � p p a ° a� °pp � a v Y� v Pe 4ars e ea4s -- p 7p p e ° aS i � e � � v 4 ea4sei% - - pp 3p p p p = � n b s � v p � p 3p 3p p o a P 5 P b°p5 �b'�a v - Yp p e P o Pkm dia Aaa/ Plantia Aw/ Pk Ua Amue/ aga wowd/ lmhv Bm*wd/ 9gma Aanuw/ 5mb Avenue/ WCtmk Strad lob Street 17th SUM Mora StrM 1& Sbwt 17& Street 1610 Street po 10 Ip II 4p p 1 4p J 4 d-p d 00 bsp d 4 p d J d eYP 1Y1 0 70s 10a -9 pa pro pa 0 - 3 1 p v Na,W Boutavnd/ Nwpwt Bk-d/ Neva Bcdaad/ Newport Bazad/ Napa Bwkwd/ Nwpot B&i ad/ Negwl Balwd/ in Short &okw Kra B&A end 18th StrM St 17th Stied 16th Sued bdustrkt Way dbYsp d bso d ..2 . - 6 Project - Related AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes a�bbsp d ISi i3� i5i oeo pa pa pa v p . ° 4-0 i0 4-0 ip 1 4--0 x-177 a db�eso =0 4-{0 Oi a�g4ro igp w-0 7 ip 4-0 pS 'o, A�b4so a A�gbro a db4so a db4ro a Od4st37 a 46 10 a 4-6 o a db4so a a�bbro P °s%1P %1P ° �1YP a dbso a ° °s %tP %1P pia, =gp�a,�e o�eRe o�eRe ° °s11� °, °' o���= %1P yp�e -ee lee o�e�e o� =Re e9�e =� o�eR o-� ro3z. o� 1 o � s n s Omge Shunt/ PronP� Strop/ Superb Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ PlarmHO Amu$/ Placentia Avenue/ HegIM Rood Newport Bapnvd/ . Hoop1401 Road Wet Coast Hoy flat Coop nor HMpM Hood Meet Conti Hwy Supolor Avear$ 1 Newport Bo d"NO Newport Bademd/ Newport Bereeverd/ Xne+" Asexual Coast Hwy Tustin Moue/ Mat Count Hwy InNe Amu/ 17th Strop 0oser Orin/ Map count Noy Wet Cant H$y Via Lido 32ed Streak Mat RoanOo AVerwn/ PIOCmUO Amu$/ Placunen Assam/ Norbn BuJavd/ Huhn BMiand/ Street Seperfa Amore/ 17th Shat Superb Amun/ loth Shel Victoria Street loth Street 17th Strop Victoria Street .19th Nupert pnawrd /' Newport Buperad/ Neopat BW&-d/ Neopert Baulrnrd/ Newport Boukwad/ Nepal Buk-W 1M Shae1 Nooport W—d/ - bdunMd Moy in Street Broadoay Harbor Boulevard 1Rh StMiA droste St 1 Ah Streak , Amount/ Santa Am 'wtnS� / . 1Orm0ee i . Korn z7wn Associates Intersecffnn reference numbers at in upper left caner of turning movement bouts. Exhibit 4.2 -7 Project- Related PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes v ip 0-p ° 4-0 i0 4-0 ip ° a db�eso =0 4-{0 Oi a�g4ro a e pS db�iro pS dbbro db4so dg4so a a 4-6 o a db4so a a�bbro P °s%1P %1P ° �1YP a dbso a ° °s %tP %1P pia, =gp�a,�e o�eRe o�eRe ° °s11� °, °' o���= %1P yp�e -ee lee o�e�e o� =Re e9�e =� o�eR o-� ro3z. o� 1 o � s n s v ip 0-p ° 4-0 i0 4-0 ip ° a db�eso =0 4-{0 Oi a�g4ro a e pS db�iro pS dbbro db4so dg4so a a 4-6 o a db4so a a�bbro P °s%1P %1P ° �1YP ° °� w ° ° o� %1P %1P pia, =gp�a,�e o�eRe o�eRe lmie 1er -ee 1031= o� o� o-a oz 0� 1 o � s 1S 13v i0 ° i0 4-0 ip ° a db4rm a m° 'J a db4sn i 0 4-0 a dbbso 6 dbbso 7 db4so dbbro aybpiro a a o, a a a�bbro p °s %1P ° o���P ° o�rya� w ° ° o� %T� ° o��r�s %1P o� =gp�a,�e 1er o�aee S� 0-a 0� 1 e zs 1S ° i0 4-0 ° i0 4-0 4-0 ip ip � dl4ro al�iro 4-0 a ° ='° JlYiso t-0 e 4-0 a B 'ate 4 a4a aybpiro a a o, p °s %1P w ° p9 %�1P ° �' %1P o� =gp�a,�e o�aee S� 0-a 0� 1 1S ° Jb�ero ip � dl4ro ip a a�g4so i-o a o, I U O 1 1 1 1 l_ 1 1 1 1 I I Hoag Health Center Use PemnY Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 4.2.4.1 Short -Term Construction Impacts Traffic and Circulation Short-term traffic impacts are those resulting from site preparation (i.e., demolition and grading) and construction activities. As indicated in the environmental analysis conducted for UP 06 -010, It is anticipated that approximately 86,000 square feet of floor area encompassing Building 4 would be demolished to make way for a second parking structure. As part of the proposed project, remodeling of the existing non - medical office floor area to medical offices use and the construction of the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area in a new structure is anticipated to occur over a five to seven year period beginning in 2008. With the exception of heavy trucks traveling to and from the site in the morning and afternoon to be used during site preparation and construction that occurs on -site, no other heavy truck traffic associated with hauling earth materials to or from the site will occur. All such traffic will be contained within the limits of the subject property and would not have any impacts on the traffic on surface streets. Other construction - related traffic impacts are associated with vehicles carrying workers to and from the site and medium and heavy trucks carrying construction materials to the project site, which may result in some minor traffic delays; however, potential traffic interference caused by construction vehicles would create a temporarylshort-term impact to vehicles using neighboring streets in the morning and afternoon hours. Therefore, aside from the nuisance traffic that will occur as a result of construction- related traffic (e.g., construction materials, construction workers, etc.), which would be adequately addressed through the implementation of a Traffic Control Plan (refer to SC 4.2 -4), no significant impacts resulting from construction traffic are anticipated. In addition, as a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to obtain a Haul Route permit from the City that stipulates that construction equipment and construction equipment will utilize arterial roadways and avoid residential and local streets. 4.2.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Traffic and Circulation Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis The City of Newport Beach requires the preparation of an analysis that complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), which requires an analysis of projects approved pursuant to the TPO in the City within the project area. The TPO analysis reflects traffic generated by projects that require no further discretionary approval by the City and have received (or are entitled to receive) a building or grading permit for construction; however, their development has not been fully completed. In addition, the TPO analysis also accounts for regional growth on area roadways, which has been assumed to be one percent per year over the two -year period before 2009, which is one year after project opening. The initial step in the TPO analysis is the one percent evaluation. Based on that analysis, if one percent of the existing (i.e., Year 2009) plus approved projects peak hour traffic volumes at each intersection approach is greater than the peak hour project- generated approach volume, no further analysis is required; however, if the project - generated peak hour approach volumes are higher than one percent of the projected peak hour volumes on any of the intersection approaches, additional analysis is required. Table 4.2-4 provides a summary of the one percent analysis conducted for the proposed project. As indicated in that summary, the one percent threshold was exceeded at one or more of the approaches at each of the intersections in the City of Newport Beach. As a result, the subsequent ICU analysis will be required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach,, CA September 2007 Page 4.2 -13 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 Table 4.2-4 TPO Analysis one Percent Threshold Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment l.' Orange Street/West Coast Highway No No No No Yes Yes Pros StreetMest Coast Highway No No No No Yes Yes 7NoNo St eriorAvenue/Hos ital Road Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Su erior Avenue/West Coast Hi hway Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Placentia Avehue/Su erlorAvenue Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Placentia Avenue /Hos ital Road Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road Yes Yes No Yes Yes .Yes No No Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway No No Yes Yes No No No No New . rt Boulevard.Alla Lido Yes Yes No Yes No No Nb No Newport Boulevardl32 Street Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway No No No No Yes Yes Yes Irvine Avenue/t7 Street No No &No Yes Yes as Yes Yes Dover DriveMest Coast Highway No No No No I Yes Yes Yes 'Project traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater. than one percent of projected peak hour traffic. ICU analysis is required. SOURCE: Kunzman Associates (September 5, 2007 TPO Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Based on the ICU analysis conducted for the project to comply with the TPO, it is anticipated that all of the intersections in the City of Newport Beach will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better). Table 4.2 -5 summarizes the results of the ICU analysis, which compares the ICU and LOS values forecast for existing (i.e., 2009 traffic volumes with the addition of the annual one percent growth) plus approved projects with those anticipated for existing plus approved projects plus the proposed project. No significant project - related traffic Impacts are anticipated at any of the key study intersections in the City of Newport Beach based on the ICU analysis prepared for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment - Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.2 -14 C 1 1 1 I C C 1 1l 1 C 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I .1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 Table 4.25 City of Newport Beach TPO Analysis (ICU and LOS) With Project Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue. 1 0.67 1 B 1 0.75 C 1 0.71 1 C 0.83 D 1 +0.04 +0.08 Placentia AvenueMospital Road 1 0.40 1 A 1 0.46 A 1 0.43 1 A 0.54 A 1 +0.03 +0.08 Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road 1 0.53 1 A 1 0.74 C 1 0.54 1 A 0.78 C 1 +0.01 +0.04 'Year 2009 (i.e., existing traffic volumes and regional growth of one percent per year). 'Approved projects in the City of Newport Beach Identified in Table 5 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix, ' 2009 CEQA Intersection Capacity Analysis ' In addition to the ICU analysis required by the Newport Beach TPO, an ICU analysis was also conducted to assess project - related impacts pursuant to CEQA. The 2009 CEQA analysis evaluates future projects beyond the City of Newport Beach corporate limits that are located within the vicinity of the project site and may contribute to future traffic conditions in the study area. Several project are proposed or approved in the ' two cities that could contribute to future traffic conditions. Traffic volumes associated with these projects, which are identified in Table 9 -1 (refer to Section 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts). In addition to the cumulative projects, traffic anticipated as a result of regional growth was also estimated, based on a one percent per year growth rate, and was also added to the traffic volumes identified for the "existing" and approved projects. 1 Year 2009 a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes (i.e., existing plus approved projects plus cumulative projects plus project) are illustrated in Exhibits 4.2-8 and 4.2 -9, respectively. ' Table 4.2-6 summarizes the ICU and LOS values for the key study intersections in the two cities. As indicated in Table 4.2-6, all of the intersections in the City of Newport Beach are forecast to operate at LOS D or better (i.e., acceptable) in 2009 without the addition of project - related traffic; however, two intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F (i.e., unacceptable) without the addition of project - related traffic in 2009. ' These intersections, which are located in the City of Costa Mesa, include: • Superior Avenuell7th Street (LOS F during the a.m. and LOS E during the p.m. peak hour) • Newport Boulevardl1 8"' Street - Rochester Street (LOS E during the p.m. peak hour) With the addition of project - related traffic, all of the intersections in the City of Newport will operate at LOS D or better; however, project - related traffic will contribute to the degradation of the two intersections Identified in ' Table 4.2-6 that are forecast to operate at unacceptable levels without the project. The addition of project- ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.2 -15 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 related traffic will also result in a significant impact at two intersections (in the City of Costa Mesa), which are forecast to operate at an unacceptable level of service in 2009. These intersections include: • Superior Avenuell 7e Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours) . • Newport Boulevardl1 8th StreetlRochester Street (LOS E during the p.m. peak hour) Table 4.2.8 2009 ICUILOS Analysis With Project Traffic Hoag Health Center Amended Use Permit 41110 -3 City of NNawport Bwch Intersections Orange Street/West Coast HignWay 0.710 C 0.744 C 0.723 C 0.802 D +0.013 +0.028 Prospect Street/West Coast Highway 0.838 D 0.754 C 0.851 D 0.783 C +0.013 +0.029 Superior Avenue/Project Driveway Su or Avenue/Hospital Road 0.706 C OA78 A 0.729 C 0.532 A +0.023 +0.054. Superior AvenueNJest Coast Highway 0.739 C 0.695 B 0.745 C 0.73 C +0.006 +0.035 Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue 0.668 B 0.762 C 0.711 C 0.840 D +0.043 +0.078 Placentia Avenue/Hospital Road 0.393 A 0.459 A OA26 A 0.532 A +0.033 +0.073 Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road 0.559 A 0.759 C 0.563 A 0.803 D +0.004 +0.044 Newport Boulevard/West Coast Hwy 0.814 D 0.711 C 0.820 D 0.711 C +0.006 +0.000 N rt Boulevard/vIa Lido 0.411 A 0.429 A OA14 A OA33 A +0.003 +0.004 N BoulErd/32 Street 0.463. A 0.789 1 C I OA68 I A 0.799 C +0.005 +0.010 Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway 0.805 D 0.839 D 0.812 D 0.852 D +0.007 +0.013 Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway 0.811 D 0.692 B 0.818 D 0.724 C +0.007 +0.032 Irvine AwanueN7 Street 0.579 A 0.779 C 0.590 A 0.612 D +0.011 +0.033 Dover Drive/West Coast Highway 0.789 C 0.884 1 D 1 0.793 1 C 0.897 D +0.004 +0.01 City of Costa Mesa Intersections Placentia Avenue/Victoria Street 0.829 D 0.866 D 0.832 D 0.870 D +0.003 +0.004 Placentia Avenue/1 Street 0.506 A 0.570 A 0.509 A 0.578 A +0.003 +0.008 Placentia Avenue/1 Street 0.395 A 0.559 A 0.397 A 0.567 A +0.002 +0.008 Harbor Boulevard/ ictoda Street 0.751 C 0.885 D 0.752 C 0.887 D +0.001 +0.002 Harbor Boulevard/1 Street 0.444 A 0.764 C 0.446 A 0.784 C +0.002 +0.000 Superior Avenue/1 Street - Without Improvements Wil 'in rovemenffi 1.047 F 0.920 E 1.105 0.984 F E 1.094 0.925 F E +0.058 -0.063 +0.134 -0.005 Su or Avenue/16 Street 0.452 A OA09 A OA79 A OA87 A +0.027 +0.07 Newport Boulevarcill r Street 0.715 C 1 0.797 C 1 0.718 C 0.806 D +0.003 +0.009 Ne rt Boulevard/Broadwa 0.607 B 0.666 B 0.615 1 B 0.677 B +0.008 +0.011 N rt Boulevard/Harbor Boulevard 0.722 C 0.803 D 0.733 C 0.822 D +0.011 +0.019 Newport 50ulevard/1 8 St- Rochester St - Without Improvements With Im roverrhenffi 0.793 C 0.927 E 0.803 0.666 D B 0.941 0.801 E D +0.010 -0.127 +0.014 -0.126 N Boulevard/17 Street 0.808 D 0.853 D 0.819 D 0.878 D +0.041 +0.025 Newport Boulevard/16"' Street 0.531 A 0.535 A 0.532 A 0.536 A +0.001 +0.003 N Boulevard/lndustrial Way 0.606 B' 0.606 B 0.609 B 0.633 B +0.003 +0.027 O ra a Avenue/17 Street 0.622 B 0.676 B 0.627 B 0.700 B +0.005 +0024 Santa Ana Av6nue/1 Street 0.532 A 0.674 B 0.537 A 0.686 B +0.005 +0012 Tustin Avenuell Street 0.682 B 0.676 1 B 0.686 B 1 0.700 B +0.004 +0.024 SOURCE: Kunzman Associates (September 5, 2007 ' Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment - Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.2 -16 ' � � �L,S s v ssaa � v bbr35 1 R aI1 d%-�YI36F 9 a 2 -h^ !^11 41 - -o 141 A �16 L26 r � ti p a dlbr560 145 4r-�5l� 6 ] % 2r% ZsYpp 41 64212 o a br d9a ° 36 Iwp��� dUa %YP qt a %YP 4e ° a J a a db2 4 7 a ° 32�i °� P ° M °R 02%40 °r7a 671 2N0%b° %YP 0 b 172R P 816 -p e; 0 H R R� l Imo let -°CF, w5 --0t.�� 84-x: � �� � a e a 65a Isz q 957 q q e q e i e ore¢ Strad/ Prospect strat/ Sgele Maws/ &"W Benue/ Awoffa Aawe/ PkMid Av / Ne.put Badewld/ Wat coat IMy Nat Cast Ney Nospild Rand West Cant Hwy S poft Mme NmpW Rand HoWU Rood SO 0 s v ssaa � v bbr35 41 132 a HR -2M 200 41 - dlbrw a2s15s 7 141 clB K' - - a dlbr560 541 a 4 9 e9s 1,Rj�3>� o ° 314 `Ma: VFt ° 36 Iwp��� % ° x7ss tg$5a %YP qt ° 28132 %YP 4e ° B= 4-e s9 om! dl4r3e q brsB a p 827- ° 6s%YP ° Pu%YP 00 2N0%b° %YP >p�ss R i4o 7+7V 3 5iRIw 816 -p e; 0 H R R� l Imo let -°CF, w5 --0t.�� 84-x: M- 33 � a e a 65a Na Isz q 957 q w Ca.t d/ BWewrd/ 32DdNespa tr�BWC.ad/ CArnme/ +Traci Iasi Nay IIiM �% Wwat c 001 fty Ploemtw Atmue/ Plasma Mane/ Phsdle Aaae/ Nehe awead/ 1M6ar awkward/ s peh Maw/ 9ryeAx Amlw/ 5letale shed In Sireel 171A sled Marla shat 12th stral 17th slrm l ,6th slop o 0 s v ssaa � v bbr35 41 132 a HR -2M 200 41 - dlbrw a2s15s 7 141 clB K' X51 a-7o o br99 a-5m 10 a dlbr560 'La e-b a dbbrta tt t a a 9 e9s 1,Rj�3>� 1 1P ° 314 `Ma: VFt ° 36 Iwp��� % ° x7ss tg$5a %YP qt ° 28132 %YP 4e ° B= 4-e %YP Fq= ° Is9tr 63a om! dl4r3e q e p 827- Ploemtw Atmue/ Plasma Mane/ Phsdle Aaae/ Nehe awead/ 1M6ar awkward/ s peh Maw/ 9ryeAx Amlw/ 5letale shed In Sireel 171A sled Marla shat 12th stral 17th slrm l ,6th slop o 0 s v ssaa v v bbr35 q 8 SB>B 2M "47 n^rAR ' 87 a 5 %Y g ' o e-e FL clB K' X51 a-7o 52_ to r� "781 0 X63 Ki = 'La e-b db4rM d d14r32 d dbro a 411481 0 01681/1 0 dl4r3e d p 827- ° 6s%YP ° Pu%YP ° zus %YP ° T5s %YP ° �s %YP N 816 -p e; 0 H R R� e-a Imo let -°CF, w5 --0t.�� 84-x: M- 33 I /-6 e Sa 65a Na Isz q Negwt Badermd/ Nspod BWwwrd/ Na.pmt Ba heir/ *.W BwWwd/ Nwpad %AMFd/ N-PWt Belead/ Nmeet Batewrd/ IBM shwl Beedny Nmhe BMWwd 181h st=I/Rodwdar st,7th street I* Strad "MM qq 29 12 o 0 s +_� a 693 ssaa 4w x-° �N 9os bbr35 a rN e %Y f %Y�n FL %Y $&'S{- ormg. A—w/ Smto Am Mme/ Tuft A.mw/ 17th Shed ISM sued I'M shat Kunz7fi11.71. Associates Interm ion mPoealce numbers = in upper left comet of luming movement boxes. Exhibit 4.2.8 Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Traffic Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (2009) r ao - - i 2a 4--SW 1 211 A R_ a-17m s 2� a 9-p db4r+so i g 2141 B_ 9-2406 X13 .g3'^ +-W R8 w-177 rrn d-1® -, J1bi 4sx a dl sat a a dbbrlrt a a�bbr311 a db10 . dbbr174 a: %tP ° ue—'htP a iiW�F"R 6 � � db4ro _1679 a 18 lima 2745 a-4u °Y�.2 .�. � R db4a 9-97 IN � � - ��R�B 2,7MD4i',;" S e S ��RfcC a 4ruo E1z date, Street/ Prospect Street/ Supwkr Avenue/ 9geM Avmua/ Romeo Avewe/ Pkomtk Av / Newpwl RWevod/ p'b Neat Coast Hay 'pet cwmt H•2 Notpital Row What COW Hwy Stpeft Avmue IkepNd Rood HmpHd Rand ° a ° ip°�9tP R87 s IS a dbbr619 a db4rn d ° s6shtP ° P ° �s %tP ° xis %gYP ° s�9 %tP ° n9 Sn�igg� %tP I j9 %YP u�e4gz ��r2�9 _ $�%:�R J9��m� o al HaMwt BOWwwd/ NewW Bolerord/ Newport BWevwd/ Niwmke Avmue/ Tusth Avawe/ Nrtw Awnw DOVer Dine/ Rat Coat Hwy Na Lido 32nd Strad Wed Cowl Hay Wwl Cwrt Hwy 17th Rat ODOM N.y . ft mtk Avmue/ Pkcmtk Ave mw/ MwIto Ave / Huhar Ukowd/ Hwhor Bwiawd/ a"V Art / Sepab Avow/ 5k6wk Street tBd SIMI 17th Sired Adodo Strad In Strad 17th Sheet lath Stied Newport IlWewrd/ Newport BoL#^wd/ Newport SWemd/ Ne.9ort BWA6 d/ Nmped BmdewW/ Nnwd 8udwmrd/ Nw•9e•t kulmd/ In Sbeat Brwhoy Nola Bwkv d /6a SMd/RodimW S1 171h Strad 16th S6wt Akualdol WOy . dm9e Acme/ We Ave AvxW Tusth Avenue/ . 17th Street 11th Shad 17th Stmt Ku7t27w,n Assoc L6tBS Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner o1 tuming movement boxes. Exhibit 4.2 -9 Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Traffic Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (2009) ��htP 2166 %tP -n� ° D� %tP 2p a-o a 1 gyp a-ne �z�htP 2500 %tP ° ue—'htP a iiW�F"R 6 � � db4ro _1679 a 18 lima 2745 a-4u °Y�.2 .�. � R db4a 9-97 '�'R$ � � - ��R�B 2,7MD4i',;" S e S ��RfcC a 4ruo E1z ��= � � � 7187 d db4risl 9 p'b ��hYP a db4s61 W�78 a db4r12s ° a ° ip°�9tP R87 s IS a dbbr619 ��= ,1m4 a U dba 2166 � 293 a--27 a � 2p a-o a 1 gyp a-ne 2500 21BL d'b4r7s a Jb4rm 6 � � db4ro 9-2ne a 18 lima 2745 a-4u � .�. � R db4a 9-97 141s�yoas � � - a-14u 2,7MD4i',;" S e S /�� ro a 4ruo d � � � 7187 d db4risl 9 s 1161 ��hYP a db4s61 W�78 a db4r12s ° a ° ip°�9tP R87 s IS a ��= ,1m4 a U dba 2166 � 293 a--27 a � 2p a-o a 1 gyp a-ne 2500 21BL d'b4r7s a Jb4rm m� Nat %tP ��- 9 Is�hItYe�P 0-a 18 lima 2745 a-4u � >� � � 2119 a -1st 141s�yoas � � - a-14u 2,7MD4i',;" 2476 su db4risl 9 dl4stel a db4s61 a db4r12s a db4rza a dbbr619 a db4rn d ° s6shtP ° P ° �s %tP ° xis %gYP ° s�9 %tP ° n9 Sn�igg� %tP I j9 %YP u�e4gz ��r2�9 _ $�%:�R J9��m� o al ��= ,1m4 a U dba 2166 Y111 a _ e�b4r/7 293 a--27 a 7a7 0 / �= db4r6 2p a-o a 11,76 � Q gig Jba gyp a-ne 2500 21BL d'b4r7s a Jb4rm m� Nat %tP ��- 9 Is�hItYe�P 0-a -lB� ° s91 555�'^�� %tP �'hY�° 141s�yoas RM Mil 2,7MD4i',;" N su � � '211 2500 21BL d'b4r7s a Jb4rm a db4s74 a u7e���� Isa�d�� 141s�yoas IRS" 6az' su 1 1 I LA I I Hoag Heath Center Use PemNt Amendment Draft Environrrrentat Impact Report 4.2 Table 4.2 -7 summarizes the nature of potential impacts resulting from project implementation at each of the affected intersections. Table 4.2 -7 Summary of 2009 ICU Analysis Traffic impacts Hoag Health Center Amended Use Permit Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project will improve the ICU values to an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better) with the exception of two intersections. The Superior Avenue /17"' Street and Newport Boulevard /18' Street - Rochester Street intersections will continue to operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively, however, the mitigation measures prescribed for the proposed project would reduce the ICU values to levels that are less than the pre - project ICU values. As a result, implementation of the proposed mitigation measures (refer to Section 4.2.5) for the Superior Avenue/17"h Street intersection will reduce potential project - related impacts at that intersection to a less than significant level. Mitigation proposed for the Newport Boulevard/1 8'� Street - Rochester Street intersection is considered legally infeasible until such time as the City of Costa Mesa has a mechanism to accept fair share fees to complete the work at that intersection. Thus, the impact of the proposed project at the Newport Boulevard/) a Street - Rochester Street intersection will remain significant and unavoidable. Caltrans Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Analysis Several intersections are located along roadways under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). That agency requires that such intersections be evaluated based on the HCM methodology in order to determine potential traffic impacts to the State facilities. Table 4.2-8 summarizes the ' results of the HCM analysis conducted at intersections within Newport Beach and Costa Mesa that are located along State routes (i.e., West Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard), As indicated in Table 4.2 -8, three of the intersections located in the City of Costa Mesa are forecast to ' operate at LOS E and F without and with the proposed project - related traffic. Project implementation will contribute cumulatively to delay deficiencies forecast at the three intersections based on the HCM methodology. These Intersections include: ' Newport Boulevard/19P Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours) Newport Boulevard /le Street- Rochester Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours) ' Newport Boulevard/17"' Street (LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS during the p.m. peak hour) I Draft Environmental impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.2 -19 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.2-8 Intersection Delay/LOS Analysis With Project Hoag Health Center Amended Use Permit Section 4.2 ' Although these intersections_ would continue to operate at LOS E and F in the future, even with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 4.2.5, the post- mitigation delay /LOS would improve the operations to pre - project conditions or better. Therefore, cumulative impacts at these intersections based on the HCM methodology would be less than significant. Synchro Analysis A Synchro operational analysis was conducted on the study area Intersections along Superior Avenue to evaluate the adequacy of signal timing and capacity. Based on that analysis, the study area intersections along Superior Avenue are projected to operate within acceptable levels of service during the peak hours for existing (Year 2009) plus approved project plus cumulative projects plus project traffic conditions. The proposed traffic signal at Superior Avenue/Project Central Driveway is not projected to adversely impact adjacent traffic signal operations. Table 4.2 -9 reflects the peak hour operational characteristics for the Superior Avenue/Project Central Driveway intersection. Draft Emnronmental impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment - Newport Beach. CA September 2007 Page 4.2 -20 Ll 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I City 01 Newport Beach Mtersections Orange SUW Coast FhW 3.5/A I 4.2(A 3. 81A I 4.7/A 3.91A 5.1 /A 0.1 0.4 Prospect SI/W Coast Hwy 7.41A 4.9 1A 8.71A 5.5/A 9.1 /A 5. 81A DA 13.3 Superior AvelW Coast Hwy 17. 6/13 25.4/C 19.61B 36. 61D 20.910 52.9113 1.3 16.3 Newport Blvd/Hospital Rd 15. 8113 18.3E 18.11B 27. 61C 19.78 45.5/D 1.6 17.9 Newport BKdM Coast Hwy 10.9E 11.2B 13.08 14.0/8 13.4/6 15.7/6 DA 1.7 Newport BlvdlVia Lido 12.7/6 16.7/3 12.7B 17.4/6 12.7E 18.0/6 0.0 D.6 Riverside Ave/W Coast Hwy 15.7/3 28.5/C 18.51B 40.1/13 19.0/8 43.0/1) 0.5 2.9 Tustin Ave/W Coast Hwy 2.0 /A 2.4 1A 2.31A 2.71A 2.31A 2. &A 0.0 D.1 Dover Dr/W Coast Hwy 16.58 17.3E 17.68 22.9/C 17.7B 23.910 0.1 1.0 City of Costa Mesa Intersections Newport Blvd/19P St WAIF I 159.3/F 135.0/F I 151AT 139AIF 161AIF 4.4 10.0 Newport Blvd/Broadway 3.7 /A 6.2/A 3.5/A .6.0 /A 3.51A 6.0 /A 0.0 0.0 BivcMarbor Blvd 10.98 15.3/3 11.61B 20.51C 12.0B 23.510 DA 3.0 Newport BV18 St- Rochester - Wout Improvements 114. 61F 189.2/ /F 102.3/F 173.11E 107.a1F 187.11F 5.5 14.0 wAm vements 59.6/E 134.9/F -42.7 -38.3 Blvd/- St 51.8/D 69.71E 63.27E 90. 81F 69. 8/E 96.7/F 6.6 4.9 BW160 St 4.71A 6.1 1A 5. 6/A 7.2/A 5. 61A 7.21A 0.0 0.0 Newport BlvdAndusbial Way 10.1 /13 8.21A 10.7B 9.1/3 11.06 10.216 0.3 1.1 SOURCE: Kunzman Associates (September 5, 2007 Although these intersections_ would continue to operate at LOS E and F in the future, even with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 4.2.5, the post- mitigation delay /LOS would improve the operations to pre - project conditions or better. Therefore, cumulative impacts at these intersections based on the HCM methodology would be less than significant. Synchro Analysis A Synchro operational analysis was conducted on the study area Intersections along Superior Avenue to evaluate the adequacy of signal timing and capacity. Based on that analysis, the study area intersections along Superior Avenue are projected to operate within acceptable levels of service during the peak hours for existing (Year 2009) plus approved project plus cumulative projects plus project traffic conditions. The proposed traffic signal at Superior Avenue/Project Central Driveway is not projected to adversely impact adjacent traffic signal operations. Table 4.2 -9 reflects the peak hour operational characteristics for the Superior Avenue/Project Central Driveway intersection. Draft Emnronmental impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment - Newport Beach. CA September 2007 Page 4.2 -20 Ll 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 C i [1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report section 4.2 Table 4.2-9 Superior Avenue /Project Central Driveway ICUILOS Analysis. Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment 1 2025 Traffic Conditions The proposed project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan, which permits a maximum ' of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area. The Newport Beach General Plan Update was adopted in November 2006. it is anticipated that the SR -55 Freeway will not be extended south of 1 e Street; however, the le Street bridge over the Santa Ana River will be constructed. In addition, the City's Circulation Element ' in the Updated General Plan also assumes that West Coast Highway would be widened from Newport Boulevard to Dover Drive. The latter two improvements are consistent with the Orange County Master Pian of Arterial Highways (MPAH). 1 Year 2025 traffic conditions based on the City of Costa Mesa General Plan traffic analysis assume the following: ' SR -55 Freeway is not extended south of le Street 1 e Street bridge over the Santa Ana River is not constructed ' Based on the City of Costa Mesa General Plan (adopted January 22, 2002), the Costa Mesa City Council policy direction is to delete the 9t' Street bridge over the Santa Ana River from the MPAH. Although existing long -range plans reflect the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55) extending beyond its current termination point, neither a timetable nor a funding source for its extension has been identified and may of the issues, including 'right-of-way acquisition, have been addressed. Site Access/On -Site Circulation ' The ultimate configuration of Superior Avenue will have a raised median to approximately Industrial Way.' The Project North and South Driveways will provide right turns in /out only access to Superior Avenue with stop sign control. A right -turn is striped on Superior Avenue at the Project North Driveway. The Project ' Central Driveway will provide for full access to Superior Avenue with the implementation of the traffic signal. A right turn lane is striped on Superior Avenue at the Project Central Driveway. ' Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis As part of the prior approval for the project site, it was determined that a traffic signal would be installed on Superior Avenue adjacent to the subject property. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for the ' Superior Avenue/Project Driveway intersection. Based on warrants adopted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans, a traffic signal is warranted. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.2 -21 NE V 1GT11 C7 M, SOURCE: (September rr 1 2025 Traffic Conditions The proposed project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan, which permits a maximum ' of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area. The Newport Beach General Plan Update was adopted in November 2006. it is anticipated that the SR -55 Freeway will not be extended south of 1 e Street; however, the le Street bridge over the Santa Ana River will be constructed. In addition, the City's Circulation Element ' in the Updated General Plan also assumes that West Coast Highway would be widened from Newport Boulevard to Dover Drive. The latter two improvements are consistent with the Orange County Master Pian of Arterial Highways (MPAH). 1 Year 2025 traffic conditions based on the City of Costa Mesa General Plan traffic analysis assume the following: ' SR -55 Freeway is not extended south of le Street 1 e Street bridge over the Santa Ana River is not constructed ' Based on the City of Costa Mesa General Plan (adopted January 22, 2002), the Costa Mesa City Council policy direction is to delete the 9t' Street bridge over the Santa Ana River from the MPAH. Although existing long -range plans reflect the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55) extending beyond its current termination point, neither a timetable nor a funding source for its extension has been identified and may of the issues, including 'right-of-way acquisition, have been addressed. Site Access/On -Site Circulation ' The ultimate configuration of Superior Avenue will have a raised median to approximately Industrial Way.' The Project North and South Driveways will provide right turns in /out only access to Superior Avenue with stop sign control. A right -turn is striped on Superior Avenue at the Project North Driveway. The Project ' Central Driveway will provide for full access to Superior Avenue with the implementation of the traffic signal. A right turn lane is striped on Superior Avenue at the Project Central Driveway. ' Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis As part of the prior approval for the project site, it was determined that a traffic signal would be installed on Superior Avenue adjacent to the subject property. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for the ' Superior Avenue/Project Driveway intersection. Based on warrants adopted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans, a traffic signal is warranted. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.2 -21 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 In addition to the traffic signal warrant analysis, the TIA also included a Synchro Analysis, which evaluated the effectiveness of the traffic signal timing. Based on that analysis, the key study intersections located along Superior Avenue are projected to operate within acceptable levels of service during the peak hours for the 2009 plus approved projects plus cumulative projects plus project traffic conditions. Implementation of the traffic signal at the Superior Avenue/Project Central Driveway is not projected to adversely impact nearby traffic signal operations. Parking As previously indicated, the Newport Technology Center currently accommodates a total of 1,332 parking spaces, consisting of 471 surface parking spaces and 861 structure spaces. The current parking ratio for the existing 415,493 square feet of mixed officetresearch and development uses is about 3.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Project implementation will result in the conversion of the remaining non- medical office floor area to medical office and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of, medical office floor area for a total of 350,000 square feet, including 97,000 square feet of medical office uses previously approved in UP 06 -010 in December 2006. The City's parking code requires one parking space for each 200 square feet of medical office floor area (i.e., 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet). Based on that, the 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area would result in a requirement to provide 1,750 parking spaces. The approval of UP 06-010 allowed for the demolition of one existing office building (Building 4) and the construction of a four level parking structure in its place. The 1,985 parking spaces proposed by the applicant and previously approved by the City of Newport Beach, will be provided in two parking structures and in surface parking. The proposed parking spaces are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces in the two parking structures. Total parking proposed for the project will exceed the minimum on -site parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's parking code. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) The City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance requires projects to reduce the number of peak - period vehicle trips by promofing and encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles and walking; and provide facilities that support such alternate modes. Employers with large work forces can utilize all of these techniques. As provided by the amended Use Permit 06 -010, which was approved in December 2006, also provided for a shuttle service that will consist of a 20- passenger van that will provide shuttle service for physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The shuttle service is limited 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). Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.2 -22 I I I 1 1 1 I 11 Ll 1 L 1 I �I 1 [1 [I I 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report 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. No ancillary parking will be allowed to occur at Hoag Health Center for Hoag Hospital except during a one -year interim period to facilitate completion of Hoag's construction of its Lower Campus. In addition, the project includes bicycle racks to accommodate bicyclists and information on public transportation options will be made available on -site. As a result, project implementation is consistent with the Citys desire to reduce reliance on the automobile through by including these elements within the project design. Therefore, no significant Impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.2.5 Mitigation Measures impact 4.2 -1 Project implementation will result in significant project - related and cumulative impacts to the Superior Avenua117'" Street intersection, which is forecast to operate at LOS F (ICU 1.105) during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F.(ICU1.054) during the p.m. peak hour with the addition of project - related traffic. MM 4.2 -1 Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project applicant shall be required to restripe to provide a westbound left turn lane, shared left/through lane, through lane, and right turn lane. This Improvement would reeqq,uire modification to the traffic signal phasing and interconnect with the Newport Boulevard/17" Street intersection. Impact 4.2 -2 Project implementation will result in significant cumulative impacts to the Newport Boulevard118m Street - Rochester Street intersection, which is forecast to operate at LOS E (ICU 0.941) during the p.m. peak hour with the addition of project - related traffic. MM 4.2 -2 Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project applicant shall pay a fair share fee to the City of Costa Mesa through the City's established fee program to provide a southbound throughiright turn lane. The southbound improvement would require right -of- way acquisition. Long -term traffic impacts due to the proposed project on all other intersections other than Newport Boulevard /18th Street - Rochester Street and Superior Avenue/17th Street will be less than significant. As indicated in Section 4.2.4, the short-term, construction traffic that will occur (e.g., hauling construction materials, construction worker trips, etc.) will be adequately addressed through the implementation of a Traffic Control Plan (refer to SC 4.2 -4); no significant impacts resulting from construction traffic are anticipated. In addition, the proposed project includes a surplus of on -site parking, which will be located in two structures and in surface locations, to accommodate buildout of the site as proposed with 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area. 4.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the standard conditions identified in Section 4.2.3 and the mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.2.5 for Superior Avenue/17"' Street intersection in the City of Costa Mesa, potential project- related traffic impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level with one exception, which is discussed below. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.2 -23 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 As indicated in the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, the Newport Boulevard/18th Street - Rochester Street intersection in the City of Costa Mesa is forecast to operate at an unacceptable level of , service (i.e., LOS E), in the future (2009) without the proposed project; project Implementation will contribute traffic to that intersection that will exacerbate the unacceptable intersection operating condition forecast for that intersection. Although the City of Costa Mesa has adopted a fair share fee program to implement ' circulation improvements identified in the City -wide long -range circulation improvement program, the mitigation measure identified in MM 4.2 -2 is not included in the Citys circulation system improvement program. Therefore, the City of Costa Mesa 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 recommended in MM "4.2 -2. As a result, because the Implementation of MM 4,2 -2 cannot be assured, the mitigation is considered legally infeasible, and cannot be Implemented. Therefore, the project - related cumulative Impact identified for the Newport Boulevard /18"' Street - Rochester Street intersection will ' remain significant and unavoidable. [1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA ' September 2007 . Page 4.2 -24 ' I 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 4.3 AIR QUALITY A detailed air quality analysis was prepared by LSA, Inc., to evaluate the potential air quality impacts. The analysis in the following sections focuses on the existing conditions in the study area, the analysis methodology, thresholds of significance, the potential short- and long-term air quality impacts of the proposed expansion of the Hoag Health Care Center project related to the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) and sensitive receptors, and mitigation as needed. The LSA air quality analysis. is included in Appendix D; the findings and recommendations of that analysis are summarized below. 4.3.1 Existing Conditions Climate Climate in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwestern border, and high mountains surround the rest of the SCAB. The SCAB lies in the semi- permanent high - pressure zone of the eastern Pacific; the resulting climate is mild and tempered by cool ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. However, periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana wind conditions do occur. The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit. With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station closest to the site is the Newport Beach Station. The monthly average maximum temperature recorded at this station in the past 71 years ranged from 63.3 °F in January to 73.5 °F in August, with an annual average maximum of 67.8 °F. The monthly average minimum temperature recorded at this station in the past 71 years ranged from 47.0 °F in January to 63.4 °F In August, with an annual average minimum of 54.8 °F. January is typically the coldest month, and August is typically the warmest month in this area of the Basin. During spring and early summer, pollution produced during any one day is typically blown out of the SCAB through mountain passes or lifted by warm, vertical currents adjacent to mountain slopes. Air contaminants can be transported 60 miles or more from the SCAB by ocean air during the afternoons. From early fall to winter, the transport is less pronounced because of slower average wind speed and the appearance of drainage winds earlier in the day. During stagnant wind conditions, offshore drainage winds may begin by late afternoon. Pollutants remaining in the SCAB are trapped and begin to accu- mulate during the night and the following morning. A low morning wind speed in pollutant source areas is an important indicator of air stagnation and the potential for buildup of primary air contaminants. ' Temperature normally decreases with altitude, and a reversal of this atmospheric state, where temperature increases with attitude, is called an inversion. The height from the earth to the inversion base is known as the mixing height. Persistent low inversions and cool coastal air tend to create morning fag and low stratus clouds. Cloudy days are less likely in the eastern portions of the SCAB and are about 25 ' percent more likely along the coast. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB Is limited by temperature inversions in the atmosphere close to the earth's surface. Inversions are generally lower in the nighttime, when the ground is cool, than during daylight hours when the sun warms the ground and, in turn, the surface air layer. As this heating process continues, the temperature of the surface air layer approaches the temperature of the inversion base, causing heating along its lower edge. If enough warming takes place, the inversion layer becomes weak and opens up to ' allow the surface air layers to mix upward. This can be seen in the middle to late aftemoon on a hot ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.3-1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 ' summer day when the smog appears to clear up suddenly. Winter inversions typically break earlier in the day, preventing excessive contaminant buildup. ' The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the 'greatest pollutant concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas ' are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. In the winter, the greatest pollution problem is accumulation of CO and oxides of nitrogen due to extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to form ' photochemical smog. Air Qualitv Management Federal Regulations/Standards Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, the EPA established national ambient air quality , standards ( NAAQS). The NAAQS were established for six major pollutants, termed `criteria" pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established AAQS, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health. ' Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the EPA to classify regions as "attainment" or "non- attainment," depending on whether the regions met the requirements stated in the primary NAAQS. Non - attainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by the EPA. ' The EPA has designated the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of ' the CAA for the SCAB. The EPA established new national air quality standards for ground level ozone and fine particulate matter ' in 1997. On May 14, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision ruling that the CAA, as applied in setting the new public health standards for ozone and particulate matter, was unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative authority to the EPA. On February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the way the government sets air quality standards under the , CAA. The court unanimously rejected Industry arguments that the EPA must consider financial cost as well as health benefits in writing standards. The justices also rejected arguments that the EPA took too much lawmaking power from Congress when it set tougher standards for ozone and soot in 1997. Nevertheless, the court threw out the EPA's policy for implementing new ozone rules, saying that the agency ignored a section of the law that restricts its authority to enforce such rules. In April 2003, the EPA was cleared by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to , implement the eight -hour ground -level ozone standard. The EPA issued the proposed rule implementing the eight -hour ozone standard in April 2003. The EPA completed final eight -hour non - attainment status on April 15, 2004. The EPA revoked the one -hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005. ' The EPA issued the final PM2.5 implementation rule in fall 2004. The EPA issued final designations for PM2,5 attainment status on December 14, 2004. The EPA lowered the 24 -hour PM2.5 standard from 65 to 35 Ng/m3 and revoked the annual average PMro standard in December 2006. ' 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Hoag Health Center Use PennitAmendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.3-2 , I 11 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 11 r 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report. Section 4.3 State Regulations/Standards The State of California began to set California ambient air quality standards ( CAAQS) in 1969 under the mandate of the Mulford - Carrell Act. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS. In addition to the six criteria pollutants covered by the NAAQS, there are 'CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are also listed in Table D (refer to Appendix D - Air Quality Analysis). Originally, there were no attainment deadlines for CAAQS. However, the CCAA of 1988 provided a time frame and a planning structure to promote their attainment. The CCAA required non - attainment areas in the State to prepare attainment plans and proposed to classify each such area on the basis of the submitted plan, as follows: moderate, if CAAQS attainment could not occur before December 31, 1994; serious, if CAAQS attainment could not occur before December 31, 1997; and severe, if CAAQS attainment could not be conclusively demonstrated at all. The attainment plans are required to achieve a minimum 5 percent annual reduction in the emissions of non- attainment pollutants unless all feasible measures have been implemented. The State has currently classified the Basin as a non - attainment area for three criteria pollutants; 03, PM,o, and PM2,5. Regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The 1976 Lewis Air Quality Management Act established the SCAQMD and other air districts throughout the State. The federal CAA Amendments of 1977 required that each state adopt an implementation plan outlining pollution control measures to attain the federal standards in non - attainment areas of the state. The ARB coordinates and oversees both State and federal air pollution control programs in California. It oversees activities of local air .quality management agencies and is responsible for incorporating air quality management plans for local air basins into a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for EPA approval. The ARB .maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the State in conjunction with local air districts. Data collected at these stations are used by the ARB to classify air basins as attainment or non - attainment with respect to each pollutant and to monitor progress in attaining air quality standards. The ARB has divided the State into 15 air basins. Significant authority for air quality control within them has been given to local air districts that regulate stationary source emissions and develop local non - attainment plans. The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for'the Basin. Every three years the SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP, updating the previous plan and having a 20 -year horizon. The SCAQMD adopted the 2003 AQMP in August 2003 and forwarded it to ARB for review and approval. The ARB approved a modified version of the 2003 AQMP and forwarded it to the EPA in October 2003 for review and approval. The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for the federal standards for 03 and PM,e; replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard and provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal NO2 standard that the Basin has met since 1992. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Perm& Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.3-3 1] Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Drag Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 ' This revision to the AQMP also addresses several State and federal planning requirements and ' incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions Inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. This AQMP is ' consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendments to the ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard. However, this revision points to the urgent need for additional emission reductions (beyond those , incorporated in the 1997/1999 Plan)to offset increased emission estimates from mobile. sources and meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the time frames allowed under the federal Clean Air Act. The SCAQMD has adopted the 2007 AQMP, which it describes as a regional and mufti- agency effort (i.e., , the SCAQMD Governing Board, ARB, SCAG, and EPA). State and federal planning requirements will include developing control strategies, attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, and maintenance plans. The 2007 AQMP also incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the ' form of updated emission inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The SCAQMD has forwarded the 2007 AQMP to the ARB and EPA for their review and approval. ' Ambient Air Qualltv Regional Air Quality ' Both the State of California (State) and the federal government have established health -based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table D in Appendix D), these pollutants include ozone (03), CO, nitrogen dioxide (NOA sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter ' with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM,a), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility - reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. In addition to setting out primary and secondary AAQS, the State of California has established a set of ' episode criteria for ozone, CO, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public health. Health effects are progressively more severe as pollutant levels increase from Stage One to Stage Three. Table 4.3 -1 lists the health effects of these criteria pollutants and their potential sources. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety (EPA), these health effects would not occur unless the standards are exceeded by a large margin. The State AAQS are more stringent than the federal AAQS. ' The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) provides the SCAQMD and other air districts with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources. Indirect sources of pollution are generated when minor sources collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution. Examples of this would be the motor , vehicles at an intersection, a mall, and on highways. The SCAQMD also regulates stationary sources of pollution throughout its jurisdictional area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). ' 11 (haft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA ' September 2007 Page 4.34 , Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 Table 4.3 -1 Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants Hoag Healthcenter Use Permit Amendment Air Pollution Constituents and Attainment Status The following describes the criteria air pollutants and their attainment status in the SCAB based on ARB's ' Area Designations, Activities, and Maps (ARB 2007). ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.3-5 iA Ozone (03) Atmospheric reaction of organic gases Aggravation of respiratory and with nitrogen oxides in the presence of cardiovascular diseases. sunlight. Irritation of eyes. Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. Plant leaf injury. Nitrogen Motor vehicle exhaust. Aggravation of respiratory illness. Dioxide (NO2) High temperature stationary Reduced visibility. combustion. Reduced plant growth. Atmospheric reactions. Formation of acid rain. Carbon Byproducts from incomplete Reduced tolerance for exercise. Monoxide combustion of fuels and other carbon Impairment of mental function. (CO) containing substances, such as motor Impairment of fetal development. exhaust. Death at high levels of exposure. Natural events, such as decomposition Aggravation of some heart diseases of organic matter. (angina). Suspended Stationary combustion of solid fuels. Reduced lung function. Particulate Construction activities. Aggravation of the effects of gaseous Matter (PM2.5 Industrial processes. pollutants. and PM1e) Atmospheric chemical reactions. Aggravation of respiratory and cardiorespiratory diseases. Increased cough and chest discomfort. Soiling. Reduced visibility. Sulfur Dioxide Combustion of sulfur- containing fossil Aggravation of respiratory diseases (S02) fuels. (asthma, emphysema). Smelting of sulfur - bearing metal ores. Reduced lung function. Industrial processes. Irritation of eyes. Reduced visibility. Plant injury. Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc. Lead (Pb) Contaminated soil (e.g., from leaded Impairment of blood function and nerve fuels and lead -based paints). construction. Behavioral and hearing problems in children. SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (August 2007) Air Resources Board 2005 Air Pollution Constituents and Attainment Status The following describes the criteria air pollutants and their attainment status in the SCAB based on ARB's ' Area Designations, Activities, and Maps (ARB 2007). ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.3-5 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment !raft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 Ozone. Ozone (smog) is formed by photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic gases rattier than being directly emitted. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas typical of Southern California smog. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, the elderly, and young children. Ozone levels peak during summer and early fall. The entire SCAB Is designated as a non - attainment area for the State one - hour ozone standard. The EPA has officially designated the status for the SCAB,regarding the eight -hour ozone standard as "Severe 17," which means the SCAB has until 2021 to attain the federal eight -hour ozone standard. Carbon Monoxide. CO is formed by the Incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, almost entirely from automobiles. It is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and impairments to central nervous system functions. The entire SCAB has been designated as an attainment area for the federal CO standards. In addition, Orange County has been designated by the ARB to be an attainment area for State CO standards. Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a reddish brown gas, and nitric oxide (NO), a color- less, odorless gas, are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. These compounds are referred to as nitrogen oxides, or NOx. NOx is a primary component of the photochemical smog reaction. It also contributes to other pollution problems; including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition (i.e., acid rain). NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. The entire SCAB has not exceeded both federal and State standards for nitrogen dioxide in the past five years with published monitoring data. It is designated as an attainment area under both federal and State standards. Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless irritating gas formed primarily from Incomplete combustion of fuels containing sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SO2 levels. SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter, and reduces visibility and the level of sunlight. The entire SCAB Is in attainment with both federal and State sulfur dioxide standards. Lead. Lead is found in old paints and coatings, plumbing, and a variety of other materials. Once in the blood stream, lead can cause damage to the brain, nervous system, and other body systems. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead. The entire SCAB is in attainment for the federal and State standards for lead. Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Coarse particles (ail particles less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter, or PM,o) derive from a variety of sources, including windblown dust and grinding operations. Fuel combustion and resultant exhaust from power plants and diesel buses and trucks are primarily responsible for fine particle (less than 2.5 microns in diameter, or PM2.5) levels. Fine particles can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical 'reactions. Coarse particles (PM,o) can accumulate in the respiratory system and aggravate health problems such as asthma. The EPA's scientific review concluded that fine particles (PMU), which penetrate deeply into the lungs, are more likely than coarse particles to contribute to the health effects listed' In a number of recently published community epidemiological studies at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM,o standards. These health effects include premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma); decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 43-6 I 1-1 1 11 `1 1 1 1 [_1 1 1 IJ ILJ 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Section 4.3 lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. The entire SCAB. is a non- attainment area for the federal and State PM10 and PMz5standards. Table 4.3 -2 summarizes the attainment status in the SCAB for the major criteria pollutants. Table 4.3 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Local Air Quality The SCAQMD, together with the ARB, maintain ambient air quality monitoring stations in the SCAB. The air quality monitoring station closest to the site is the Costa Mesa station, and its air quality trends are representative of the ambient air quality in the project area. The pollutants monitored are CO, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The levels of particulate matter monitored at the Mission Viejo Station (the station closest to the project site that monitors these pollutants) are included in these tables. for reference. The ambient air quality data in Table 4.3 -3 shows that nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and CO levels are below the relevant State and federal standards in the project area. Ozone levels exceed the State one - hour standard and federal eight -hour ozone standard from one to two times a year in 2004 and were below the federal and State standards in 2005 and 2006. The PM10 level monitored at the Mission Viejo ' station exceeded the State annual arithmetic average standards in two of the past three years but has not exceeded the federal standards since 1996. PMzg levels monitored at the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station were below the federal standard in the past three years. 1 ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beech, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.3-7 t. fi 5dA s Standard Revoked June 2005 Ozone -1 hour Non- attainment Ozone -8 hour Not Established Severe 17 Non - attainment PM10 Non - attainment Serious Non - attainment PM25 Non- attainment Non - attainment CO I Attainment (except Los Angeles County) Attainment NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance SOZ Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Al others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified SOURCE: Air Resources Board (July 2007 Local Air Quality The SCAQMD, together with the ARB, maintain ambient air quality monitoring stations in the SCAB. The air quality monitoring station closest to the site is the Costa Mesa station, and its air quality trends are representative of the ambient air quality in the project area. The pollutants monitored are CO, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The levels of particulate matter monitored at the Mission Viejo Station (the station closest to the project site that monitors these pollutants) are included in these tables. for reference. The ambient air quality data in Table 4.3 -3 shows that nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and CO levels are below the relevant State and federal standards in the project area. Ozone levels exceed the State one - hour standard and federal eight -hour ozone standard from one to two times a year in 2004 and were below the federal and State standards in 2005 and 2006. The PM10 level monitored at the Mission Viejo ' station exceeded the State annual arithmetic average standards in two of the past three years but has not exceeded the federal standards since 1996. PMzg levels monitored at the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station were below the federal standard in the past three years. 1 ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beech, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.3-7 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Oran Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 Table 4.33 Ambient Air Quality at the Costa Mesa/Mission Viejo Air Monitoring Stations Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ] Carbon 1; Monoxide Max 1 -hr concentration m 4.9 4.7 3.5 No. days exceeded:State > 20 ppm/1-hr 0 0 0 Federal > 35 m/1 -hr 0 0 0 Max 8 -hr concentration m 4.1 3.2 3.0 No. days exceeded: State 9.0 m /8 -hr 0 0 0 Federal 9 m /8 =hr 0 0 0 Ozone Max 1 -hr concentration m 0.104 0.085 0.074 No. days exceeded:State > 0.09 Domll -hr 2 0 0 Max 8 -hr concentration m 0.087 0.072 0.062 No. days exceeded: Federal > 0.08 m/8 -hr 1 0 0 Particulates PM10 Max 24 -hr concentration /m 47 41 57 No. days exceeded: State > 50 m /24 -hr 0 0 1 Federal > 150 /m /24 -hr 0 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Average /m 24 18 21 Exceeded:. State > 20 pg /m ann. arith. av . Yes No Yes Federal > 50 pg /m ann. arith. avg. 140 No No PartlCUlates PMzs Max 24 -hr concentration /m 49.4 35.3 46.9 No. days exceeded: Federal > 65 /m /24-hr 0 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Avera a /m 12 11 ND Exceeded: State > 12 pg /m ann. arith. av . No No ND Federal > 15 pg /m ann. arith. avg. No No ND Nitro en Dioxide Max 1 -hr concentration m 0.097 0.085 0.101 No. days exceeded: State > 0.25 m/1 -hr 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.016 0.014 0.015 Exceeded: Federal > 0.053 ppm ann. arith. avg. No No No Sulfur Dioxide Max 24 -hr concentration m 0.008 0.008 0.005 No. days exceeded: State > 0.04 m/24 -hr 0 0 0 Federal > 0.14 m/24 -hr 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average, concentration (ppm) 0.002 0.001 0.001 Exceeded: Federal > 0.030 ppm ann. arith. avg. No No No PM10 and PM2.5 data from the Mission Viejo Station. All other data from the Costa Mesa station. ppm — parts per million pg /m3 — micrograms (of pollutant) per cubic meter (of air) ND — No sufficient data. SOURCE: EPA and ARB; 2004 to 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.3 -8 I L� 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Repoli Seddon 4.3 Global Warming Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The Earth's average near- surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 t 0.2 *Celsius (1.1 t 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities ". The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (COO and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human - induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. GHGs are present to the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. In the last 200 years, mankind has been releasing on quantities of GHGs Into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While man- made greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, some like the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are completely new to the atmosphere. Natural sources of carbon dioxide include the respiration '(breathing) of animals and plants, and evaporation from the oceans. Together, these natural sources release about 150 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year worldwide, far outweighing the 7 billion tons of man -made emissions per year from fossil fuel burning, waste incineration, .deforestation and cement manufacture. Nevertheless, natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by land and ocean - dwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this. extra input of man -made carbon dioxide, and consequently the gas is building up in the atmosphere. Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes In environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Man -made sources include the mining and burning of fossil fuels, digestive processes in ruminant animals such as cattle, rice paddies and the burying of waste in landfills. Total annual emissions of methane are about 500 million tons, with man- made emissions accounting for the majority. As for carbon dioxide, the major removal process of atmospheric methane - chemical breakdown in the atmosphere - cannot keep pace with source emissions, and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing. In the fall of 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the global warming bill, into law. AB 32 codifies the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1880 levels by the year 2020. AB 32 requires that that the State Air Resources Board adopt regulations by January 1, 2008, to require reporting and verification of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and to monitor and enforce compliance with that program. To date, there are no regulations adopted to implement AB 32 and there are no significance thresholds yet established for GHG emissions. The emission levels in California have been estimated to be 426 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 1880, 473 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2000, 532 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2010, and 600 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2020. AB 32's goals for emission reductions have been estimated to be approximately 174 million tons CO2 equivalent by 2020 based on the 2007 AQMP. Achieving AB 32's target will require significant development and implementation of energy efficiency technologies and extensive shifting of energy production to renewable sources. In addition to reducing GHGs, such strategies would concurrently reduce emissions of criteria pollutants associated with fossil fuel combustion. Draft Environmental Impact Repoli Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.3 -9 . I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 ' 4.3.2 Significance Criteria . Per CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if ' the project would violate any ambient air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any pollutant for which the area is in. a state or federal non - attainment, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants concentrations, or , conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located. In addition to the federal and State AAQS, there are daily and quarterly emissions thresholds for , construction and operation of a proposed project in the SCAB. The SCAB is administered by the SCAQMD, and guidelines and emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD, April 1883) are used in this analysis. It should be noted that the emission , thresholds were established based on the attainment status of the air basin in regard to air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants. Because the EPA set concentration standards at a level that protects public health with adequate margin of safety, these emission thresholds are regarded as conservative and would overstate an individual project's contribution to health risks. ' Thresholds for Construction Emissions The following CEQA significance thresholds for construction emissions have been established for the ' SCAB: 75 pounds per day (lbslday) of reactive organic compounds (ROC) ' • 100 Ibslday of NOx • 550 Ibslday of CO 150 Ibslday of PM1e 55 Ibslday of PM2.5 ' . 150 Ibslday of sulfur oxides (SOx) Projects in the SCAB with construction related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds are ' considered to be significant under the SCAQMD guidelines. Thresholds for Operational Emissions The daily operational emissions "significance" thresholds for the SCAB areas follows: 55 Ibslday of ROC ' 55 Ibslday of NOx 550 Ibslday of CO 150 Ibslday of PM1e • 55 Ibslday of PMzS , • 150 ibslday of SOx Thresholds for Localized Significance ' For this project the appropriate Source Receptor Area (SRA) is the North Coastal Orange County (SRA 18).' The site is approximately 14 acres; however, the site is divided up into parcels for the individual medical office buildings that are less than 5 acres. It is expected that the construction activities will be ' confined to 5 acres or less at any one time, so the 5 -acre thresholds were used. Residential uses exist to the west of the subject property at a distance of approximately 100 feet (30 meters [m]) from the closest construction area, and others to the south at approximately 150 feet (45 meters). Thus, localized ' ' www. agmd. gov /cega/handbookflST/LST.htmi. Draft Envlrorimental Impact Report ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.3-10 ' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Drag Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 significance thresholds (LSTs) values for 25 meters were used. The following thresholds apply for this project: Construction thresholds for a 5 -acre site: • 345 Ibs/day of NOx at 25 m • 964 Ibs/day of CO at 25 m • 14 Ibs/day of PM1e at 25 m • 9 Ibs/day of PM2,5 at 25 m Operational thresholds for a 5 -acre site:2 • 345 Ibs/day of NOx at 25 m • 964 Ibs /day of CO at 25 m • 4 Ibs/day of PM10 at 25 m • 2 Ibs/day of PM2.5 at 25 m Local Microscale Concentration Standards The significance of localized project impacts under CEOA depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant Impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, project emissions are considered significant if they increase one -hour CO concentrations by 1.0 part per million (ppm) or more or eight -hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. The following are applicable local emission concentration standards for CO: California State one -hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm California State eight -hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm Thresholds for Health Risk Analysis Maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) is the estimated probability of a potential maximally exposed ' individual contracting cancer as a result of exposure to toxic air contaminants over a period of 70 years for residential locations and 46 years for worker receptor locations. The MICR calculations shall include •multi - pathway consideration if applicable. Cancer burden means the estimated increase In the occurrence ' of cancer cases in a population subject to a MICR of greater than or equal to 1 in 1,000,000 (1.0 x 10$) resulting from exposure to toxic air contaminants. The chronic hazard index (HI) is the ratio of the estimated long -term level of exposure to a toxic air contaminant for a potential maximally exposed individual to its chronic reference exposure level. The Chronic HI calculations shall include multi- pathway ' consideration if applicable.. Acute HI is the ratio of the estimated maximum one -hour concentration of a toxic air contaminant for a potential maximally exposed individual to its acute reference exposure level. ' The following limits for MICR, cancer burden, and non -cancer acute and chronic HI from project emissions of toxic air contaminants have been established for the Basin: 1 ' 2 SCAQMD has not provided thresholds for sites larger than 5 acres. The application of the full project emissions to a 5-acre site Is conservative (i.e. , the emissions will aclually more spread out over 14 acres). ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.3 -11 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmentat Impact Report Section 4.3 MICR and cancer burden The cumulative increase in MICR, which is the sum of the calculated MICR values for all toxic air contaminants emitted from the project, will be deemed less than significant if the increase will not result in any of the following: An increased MICR greater than 1 in 1,000,000 (1.0 x 10'8) at any receptor location, if the project is constructed without T -BACT An increased MICR greater than 10 in 1,000,000 (1.0 x 10"8) at any receptor location, if the project is constructed with T -BACT A cancer burden greater than 0.5 Chronic HI The cumulative increase in total chronic HI for any target organ system due to total emissions from the project will be deemed less than significant if the increase will not exceed 1.0 at any receptor location. Acute HI The cumulative Increase will be deemed less than significant if the total acute HI for any target organ system due to total emissions from the project will not exceed 1.0 at any receptor location. Risk per year The risk per year shall 'not exceed 1/70 of the maximum allowable risk specified above at any receptor locations in residential areas in order to be considered a less than significant impact. 4.3.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.3 -1 The project applicant shall comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short -term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires the implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. The applicant shall implement the following Rule 403 measures: • Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earth moving). • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the .requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer). • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.3 -12 it I 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Envronmental Impact Report Section 4.3 SC 4.3 -2 The project shall comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113 on the use of architectural coatings. Emissions associated with architectural coatings would be reduced by using pre- coated/natural colored building materials using water -based or low -VOC coating and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency (or using manual application methods). SC 4.3 -3 The project applicant shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the Energy Commission regarding energy conservation standards. The project applicant shall incorporate the following In building plans: Solar or low- emission water heaters shall be used with combined spaoe/water heater units. Double -paned glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be used in all exterior windows. ' 4.3.4 Potential Impacts 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.3.4.1 Short -Term Air Quality Impacts Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources such as demolition, site grading, utility engines, on -site heavy -duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling. materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Table 4.3-4 identifies a representative set of emissions sources that represent a peak day during the most intense of the planned construction phases. It shows that construction equipment/vehicle emissions of criteria pollutants would remain below the SCAQMD emissions thresholds. Details of the emission factors and other assumptions are included in the Air Quality Analysis (refer to Appendix D). Table 4.3-4 Emissions from Construction Equipment Exhaust Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4313 Demolition 36 9.3 89 0.07 5.4 4.5 Site Preparation 37 10 78 0.07 8.6 4.7 Grading 40 11 92 0.08 7.7 5.1 Building 24 7.3 58 0.05 3.4 3.1 Architectural Coating and Asphalt Paving 25 32 62 0.05 3.8 3.5 SCAQMD Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 55 These Construction phases are not expected to overlap, so each phase is compared to the SCAQMD emissions thresholds separately. NOTE: PM2.5 is calculated from PM10 by assuming that the fraction of PM10 that is PM2.5 for off -road equipment exhaust is 0.89. SOURCE: LSA 2007; SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook 1993; and EPA, AP Fifth Edition, 1995 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4313 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Fuslitive Dust 4_3 ' Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut - and -fill grading operations. Dust generated during construction varies substantially on a project -by- project basis, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions at the time of construction. Construction emissions can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions, and other factors. The proposed project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to control fugitive dust. There are a number of feasible control measures that can be reasonably implemented to significantly reduce PM1a emissions from construction. Table 4.3-4 reflects total construction emissions (fugitive -dust emissions and construction- equipment exhausts) and shows that during all construction phases, daily total construction emissions with mitigation measures would not exceed the daily thresholds established by the. SCAQMD for the various pollutant constituents. Architectural Coatinas Architectural coatings contain VOCs that are similar to ROC and are part of the 03 precursors. At this stage of project planning, no detailed architectural coatings information is available. Compliance with the SCAQMD Rule 1113 on the use of architectural coatings should be considered sufficient to avoid significant impacts. An estimate was made based on the conversion of 350,000 square feet of existing general office/R &D space to medical office space. Using the SCAQMD estimate that each square foot of office floor space corresponds to 2.0 square feet of surface area to be coated and the SCAQMD VOC emission factor for nonresidential architectural coatings of 11.58 Ibs of VOC per 1,000 square feet of coating (assumes two 4-mil -thick coats), and accounting for the construction phasing anticipated for the proposed project, the total VOC emissions from all coating application will be approximately 8,100 lbs. The peak daily emissions are estimated by assuming that combining the architectural coating portions of the construction phases would total about 4 months and there will be 22 work days per month. The resulting peak daily emissions rate is 92 ibs/day. These emissions would occur after grading activities, near the end of each construction phase. Short-term impacts to air quality from architectural coating application would potentially exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold without compliance to SCAQMD Rule 1113. However, emissions associated with architectural coatings could be reduced by using pre - coated /natural colored building materials, using water -based or low -VOC coating, and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency. For example, a high - volume, low- pressure (HVLP) spray method is a coating application system operated at air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), with 65 percent transfer efficiency. Manual applications such as paintbrush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge have 100 percent transfer efficiency. With the use of the HVLP spray method, the VOC emissions would be reduced to 32 Ibs/day or lower and below the SCAQMD emission threshold. Localized Skinificance Analysis Table 4.3 -5 shows the construction - related emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 compared to the LSTs for the North Orange County Coastal at distances of 25 meters. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.3 -14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 Table 4.3-5 Summary of Construction Emissions Localized Significance Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Table 4.3 -5 shows that the calculated emissions rates for the proposed construction activities are below the LSTs for CO, NOx, PM,e, and PM2.e for all sensitive receptors (i.e., uses where there are people staying for prolonged periods of time, such as residences, schools, and hospitals). Therefore, the proposed construction activities would not cause any short -term, localized, slgntFmnt air quality impacts. 4.3.4.2 Long-Term Air Quality Impacts Long -term air emission. impacts are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources related to any changes from the proposed project. As previously indicated in Table 4.3-1, long -term exposure to elevated levels of criteria pollutants could result in potential health effects. However, as stated In the Thresholds of Significance, emissions thresholds established by the air district are used to manage total ' regional emissions within an air basin,. based on the air basin attainment status for, criteria pollutants. These emissions thresholds were established for individual projects that would contribute to regional emissions and pollutant concentrations that may affect or delay the projected attainment target year for certain criteria pollutants. Due to the conservative nature of the thresholds and the Basinwide context of an Individual project's emissions, there is no direct correlation of a single project to localized health effects. ' Stationary source emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed medical office uses would occur as a result of the consumption of natural gas and electricity. Based on the traffic study prepared for this project (Kunzman & Associates, July 2007), implementation of the proposed project would result in a net increase of 12,743 daily trips (compared to the currently approved project). Operational emissions (i.e., mobile and stationary sources) for the proposed project are reflected in Table 4.3 -6, which indicates that the long -term operational emissions of four criteria pollutants from the project would exceed the daily emissions thresholds established in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The proposed project would result in potentially significant air quality impacts. ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoeg Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.315 Demolition 22 44 3.2 2.5 Site Preparation 29 59 7.3 3.6 Grading 34 73 6.8 4:3 Building 22 49 3.0 2.7 Architectural Coating and Paving 18 36 2.5. 2.3 Localized Significance Threshold 964 345 14 1 9 Exceed Significance? No No I No I No 'These Construction phases are not expected to overlap, so each phase is compared to the SCAQMD emissions thresholds separately. SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (July 2007 Table 4.3 -5 shows that the calculated emissions rates for the proposed construction activities are below the LSTs for CO, NOx, PM,e, and PM2.e for all sensitive receptors (i.e., uses where there are people staying for prolonged periods of time, such as residences, schools, and hospitals). Therefore, the proposed construction activities would not cause any short -term, localized, slgntFmnt air quality impacts. 4.3.4.2 Long-Term Air Quality Impacts Long -term air emission. impacts are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources related to any changes from the proposed project. As previously indicated in Table 4.3-1, long -term exposure to elevated levels of criteria pollutants could result in potential health effects. However, as stated In the Thresholds of Significance, emissions thresholds established by the air district are used to manage total ' regional emissions within an air basin,. based on the air basin attainment status for, criteria pollutants. These emissions thresholds were established for individual projects that would contribute to regional emissions and pollutant concentrations that may affect or delay the projected attainment target year for certain criteria pollutants. Due to the conservative nature of the thresholds and the Basinwide context of an Individual project's emissions, there is no direct correlation of a single project to localized health effects. ' Stationary source emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed medical office uses would occur as a result of the consumption of natural gas and electricity. Based on the traffic study prepared for this project (Kunzman & Associates, July 2007), implementation of the proposed project would result in a net increase of 12,743 daily trips (compared to the currently approved project). Operational emissions (i.e., mobile and stationary sources) for the proposed project are reflected in Table 4.3 -6, which indicates that the long -term operational emissions of four criteria pollutants from the project would exceed the daily emissions thresholds established in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The proposed project would result in potentially significant air quality impacts. ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoeg Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.315 I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 Table 4.3 -6 Project Operational Emissions Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment • u t W.. T µ Currently Ap roved Develo ment Stationary Sources:. 5.8 2.9 2.8 0 0.01 Summer 0.01 3,329 Vehicular Traffic: 668 55 . 73 0.52 86 Summer 17 51,193 Subtotal Summer 674 58 76 0.52 86 17 54,522 Stationary Sources: 2.3 2.6 2.8 0 0 Winter 0 3,324 Vehicular Traffic: 644 60 88 0.44 86 Winter 17 46,452 Subtotal Winter 647 63 1 91 0.44 86 17 49,776 Prop osed Project Stationary . Sources: 3.6 2.4 2.4 0 0 Summer 0 2,803 Vehicular Traffic: 1,973 154 220 1.7 277 Summer 54 165,015 Subtotal Summer 1,977 156 223 1.7 277 54 167,817 Stationary Sources: 2.0 2.2 2.3 0.0 0 Winter 0 2,800 Vehicular Traffic: 1,919 175 266 1.4 277 Winter 54 149,615 Subtotal Winter 1,921 178 268 1.4 277 54 152,415 Net Project Change 1,303/ 99/115 147/ 1.2/ 191/ 37/ 113,295/ SummerMinter . 1,275 177 0.97 191 37 102,639 SCAQMD Threshold 550 55 55 150 150 55 No Threshold Exceeds Threshold? Yes/Yes Yes/Yes Yes/Yes No/No Yes/Yes No /No SummerMinter SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (July 2007 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 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.. ' Draft Environmental Impad Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA ' September 2007 Page 4.3 -16 ' I 1 1 1 1 1 L1 I Health Center Use Permit Amendment Environmental Impact Report Global Warming 4.3, Project impacts on global warming are difficult to determine because urban development is not classified as a distinct category of greenhouse gas emissions, apart from emissions from vehicle or energy consumption. Additionally, it is difficult to measure project - related GHG emissions due to the indirect relationship between urban development and GHG production; thus, project -level contributions to global warming cannot be determined with a high degree of certainty. However, the following analysis conservatively analyzes the project's potential impact on GHGs. The methodology used to analyze the project's potential affect on global warming includes a calculation of COZ emissions. The .purpose of calculating the emissions is for information purposes, as there is no quantifiable emissions threshold at the present time. Based on that analysis, the proposed project will generate COZ emissions, primarily in the form of vehicle exhaust and in the consumption of natural gas for heating. COZ emissions from the vehicles were calculated using URBEMIS2007 assumptions and EMFAC2007 emissions factors that are used in the URBEMIS2007 model. The COZ emissions are reflected in Table 4.3 -6; the project will emit 113,295 pounds per day of COZ during the summer and 102,639 pounds per day during the winter more than would have been emitted with the currently approved project. As previously indicated, there are no federal, State, or local emission thresholds established. for GHGs such as COZ. As a comparison, the entire State of California generated approximately 2.2 billion pounds of COZ per day in 2004, and the proposed project's net COZ emissions would be 0.0098 percent of that total. Thus, the proposed project is not expected to contribute significantly to global warming and the proposed project's GHGs emissions are not considered cumulatively considerable. Given the overwhelming scope of global warming, it is not anticipated that a single project, especially one of the small size as the proposed project, would have an individually discernable effect on global warming (i.e., that any increase in global temperature or sea level could be attributed to the emissions resulting from a single project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude the GHG emissions from the project will combine with emissions across California, the United States, and the globe to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Declaring an impact significant or not significant implies some knowledge of incremental effects that is several years away, at best. To determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact associated with global climate change, in light of the fact that there exists no numerical threshold for such an impact, would be speculative. For this reason, a determination of significance cannot be made. It should be noted, however, that the project, in mitigating for energy, traffic, and air quality impacts, has been designed to incorporate many of the identified mitigation measures to reduce GHGs identified by the California EPA's Climate Action Team Report to the Govern (March 2006). Among these measures are measures discussed elsewhere in this EIR to reduce vehicle trips and promote alternative transportation (refer to Section 4.2.4.2), programs to implement water conservation measures (refer to Section 4.5.1.3), and adherence to energy conservation standards (refer to Section 4.3.3). Localized SWificance Analvsis Table 4.3 -7 shows the calculated emissions for the proposed operational activities compared with the appropriate localized significance thresholds. The emissions shown include all stationary and one percent of the mobile sources ,3 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 pollution sources (i.e., stationary and mobile sources) in the URBEMIS model output. There is no methodology provided by the SCAQMD to determine what percentage of total project - related mobile source emissions occur onslte. Based on the project site size and the expected trip length, as well as many other projects analyzed for the SCAQMD, one rcent of the total project- related moblle sources is considered reasonable. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA Septemher2007 Page 4.3-17 Hoag Health Center Use Pem+@ Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 Table 4.3 -7 Summary of Operational Localized Significance Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Proposed Project 23 5.0 2.8 0.54 Localized Significance Threshold 964 345 4 2 Exceed Significance? No No No No NOTE: PMz5 is calculated from PMie by assuming that they are the same for the area sources; for the mobile sources, however, the fraction of PM1e that is PM2.5 is 0.71. SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (July 2007 Table 4.3-7 shows that all operational emission rates are below the LST thresholds'at 25 meters. Therefore, the proposed operational activity will not cause any localized significant air quality impacts. Screenina-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 on a monthly basis 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) between January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2008, and 0.01 g/hp -hr after January 1, 2008. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA) technique for estimating potential health risks, as described in the Air Toxiics 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 vicinity. (See Appendix D for details.) Table 4.3-8 shows that both the Cancer Risk and Chronic Risk are significantly less than their respective thresholds. No significant health risk impacts would occur to the residents as a result of the emergency generator exhaust. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.3 -18 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 J 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 Table 4.3-8 Screening Level Health Risk Assessment for Generator Exhaust Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analvsis 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 tragic. 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 4.3 -9 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pemrit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.3 -19 Nearest Residence 04070 04000044 Threshold 10 1 Significant Impact?. No No SOURCE: LSAAssociates,Inc. (August 2007 Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analvsis 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 tragic. 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 4.3 -9 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pemrit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.3 -19 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Oran Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 ' Table 4.3-9 Existing CO Concentrations° without and with the Project Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Superior/ Ave/ 24/24 0.3/0-2 8.0/8.3 5.3/5.5 No No West Coast 21/21 0.5/0.3 7.7/8.2 5.1/5.4 No No Hwy 21/21.. 0.2/0.1 7.7/7.9 5.115.2 No No 20/20 0.3/0.2 7.5/7.8 4.9/5.1 No No 14/14 0.3/0.2 6.8/7.1 4.4/4.6 No No Superior Ave/ 14/14 0.4/0.2 6.7/7.1 4.4/4.6 No No Placentia Ave 14/14 0.4/0.3 6.5/6.9 4.2/4.5 No 79oj 14/14 0.3/0.2 6.5/6.8 4.2/4.4 No No 15/17 0.5/0.3 6.3/6.8 4.1/4.4 No No - Superior Ave/ 14/17 0.6/0.4 6.2/6.8 4.0/4.4 No No 16th St 14/15 0.5/0.5 6.1/6.8 3.9/4.3 No No 14/14 0.5/0.4 6.1/6.6 3.9./4.3 No No 17/17 0.5/0.4 7.2/7.7 4.7/5.1 No No Superior Ave/. 17/17 0.5/0.3 7.0/7.5 4.6/4.9 No No 17th St 15/15 0.3/0.2 6.7/7.0 4.4/4.6 No No 14/14 0.4/0.3 6.6/7.0 4.3/4.6 No No 17/17 0.1/0.1 8.6/8.7 5.7/5.8 No No Newport Blvd/ .17/17 0.2/0.2 8.1/8.3 5.3/5.5 No No West Coast We We 15/15 0.3/0.2 7.9/8.2 5.2/5.4 No No Hwy 12/12 0.1/0.1 7.9/8.0 5.2/5.3 No No 19/17 0.3/0.2 7.7/8.0 5.1/5.3 No No Newport Blvd/ 17/17 0.2/0.1 7.6/7.8 5.0/5.1 No No Hospital Rd 17/17 0.3/0.2 7.4/7.7 4.9/5.1 No No 17/16 0.3/0.2 7.2/7.5 4.7/4.9 No No 22/22 0.4/0.3 8.6/9.0 5.7/6.0 No No Newport Blvd/ 21/21 0.2/0.1 8.6/8.8 5.7/5.8 No No: 17th St. 21/21 0.2/0.2 8.5/8.7 5.6/5.8 No No 21/21 0.2/0.1 8.0/8.2 5.3/5.4 No No 21/21 0.4/0.3 9.2/9.6 6.1/6.4 No No Newport, Blvd/ 21/21 0.3/0.2 8.819.1 5.8/6.0 No No Harbor Blvd 17117 0.3/0.2 8.719.0 5.8/6.0 No I No 15115 0.3/0.2 8.719.0 5.8/6.0 No No 14114 0.1/0.1 6.2/6.3 4.0/4.1 No No Placentia Ave/ 14114 0.010.0 6.2/6.2 4.014.0 No No 17th St 14/:14 0.0 /0.0 6.1/6.1 3.9/3.9 No No 14/14 0.0 /0.0 6.1/6.1 3.9/3.9 No No 17/17 0.4/0.3 6.3/6.7 4.1/4.4 No No Placentia Ave/ Hospital Rd 14/14 0.3/0.3 6.1/6.4 3.9/4.2 ND No 14/14 0.3/0.2 6.0/6.3 3.9/4.1 No No 10/10 0.3/0.2 6.0/6.3 3.9/4.1 No I No SOURCE: LSA Associates Inc. August 2007 Includes ambient one -hour concentration of 4.9 ppm and ambient eight -hour concentration of 3.1 ppm. Measured at the 2850 ' Mesa Verde Dr East, Costa Mesa, CA AQ Station In Orange County. 'The State one -hour standard Is 20 ppm and the eight -hour standard Is 9 ppm. . Draft EnvlronmentalImpact Report ' Hoag Heafh Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 Page 4.3 -20 , ' - Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environurental Impact Report Section 4.3 Although. 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 vlcinity. Table 4.3 -10 lists 2009 CO concentrations at the same 10 most affected intersections. Based on the Information presented in this table, none of the 10 intersections analyzed has ' one =hour or eight -hour CO concentrations that exceed federal and State standards under 2009 conditions (with or without the project .traffic). 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. Therefore, no significant ' microscale air quality impacts would occur as a result of project Implementation. Table 4.3 -10 l_1 1 1 1 2009 CO Concentratlons6 without and with the Project Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment e Includes ambient one-hour concentration of 4.9 ppm and ambient eight -hour concentration of 3.1 ppm. Measured at the 2850 Mesa Verde Dr Fast, Costa Mesa, CA AQ Station in Orange County. r The State one -hour standard is 20 ppm and the eight -hour standard is 9 ppm. ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.3 -21 24/24 042/041 844/846 546/547 No No Superior 21/21 044/043 841/845 543/546 No No Ave/West Coast Highway 21/21 044/043 749/843 542/545 No No 20/20 042/042 748/840 541 /543 No No- 14/14 042/041 649/741 445/446 No No Superior No 14/14 043/042 648/741 444/446 No Ave/Placentia 14/14 042/041 647/649 444/445 No No Ave 14/14 042/041 646/648 443/444 No No 17/17 044/042 644/648 442/444 No No Superior 17/17 043/042 644/647 442/444 No Ave/16th St. 15/15 043/042 643/646 441/443 No EN 14/14 0.3/0.2 6.3/6.6 4.1/4.3 No 17/17 046/044 742/748 447/541 No No Superior Ave. 17/17 045/043 740/745 446/449 No No and 17th St 15/15 0.410.2 647/741 444/446 No No 14/14 0.3/0.2 647/740 4.4/446 No No 17/17 0.1 /0.0 940/9.1 640/640 No No Newport Newport 17/17 0.2/0.2 8.5/8.7 5.6 /5.8 No No Hwy 15/15 0.0 /0.0 6.5/8.5 5.6 /5.6 No No Coast 12/12 0.110.1 8.2/8.3 5.4/5.5 No No 17/17 0.2/0.2 8.118.3 5.3/5.5 No No New 17/17 0.010.0 6.018.0 5.3/5.3 No No Blvd/Hosp'etal Rd 17117 0.210.2 7.8/8.0 5.115.3 No No 16/16 0.1/0.1 7.5/7.6 4.9/5.0 No No 22/24 0.1/0.0 9.0/9.1 6.0 /6.0 No No Newport 21/21 0.2t 0.2 8.8/9.0 5.8/6.0 No No Blvd/17th St 21/21 0.1/0.1 8.8/8.9 5.8/5.9 No No 21/21 0.1/0.1 8.2/8.3 5.4/5.5 No No 21/21 0.1 / 0.1 .9.5/9.6 6.3 / 6.4 No No Newport 21 / 21 0.1/0.1 9:1 / 9.2 6.0 / 6.1 No No Blvd/Harbor 17/17 0.1/0.0 9.0/9.1 6.0/6.0 No No Blvd 15/15 0.0 /0.0 9.0/9.0 6.0/6.0 No I No e Includes ambient one-hour concentration of 4.9 ppm and ambient eight -hour concentration of 3.1 ppm. Measured at the 2850 Mesa Verde Dr Fast, Costa Mesa, CA AQ Station in Orange County. r The State one -hour standard is 20 ppm and the eight -hour standard is 9 ppm. ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.3 -21 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact ReDat I Section 4.3 ' The proposed project would not contribute any measurable increase to the one -hour and eight -hour CO concentrations At these intersections. The proposed project would not have a significant impact on local air quality in terms of CO, and no mitigation measures would be required. Consistency with the AQMP In order to accurately assess the environmental impacts as a result of new or renovated developments, environmental pollution and population growth are projected for future scenarios and are the basis for the conclusions presented in this analysis. The proposed project is a medical office development. It is proposed to accommodate the growing need for such services. No population growth is anticipated with the proposed project. The project would not result in the exceedance of the City's estimate of population in this area. Therefore, the population growth associated with the proposed project would be within the City's General Plan projection. The project is consistent with the adopted AQMP. 1 H ' 4.3.5 Mitigation Measures Impact 4.3 -1 Construction activities necessary to implement the proposed project would be ' anticipated to generate fugitive dust and pollutant emissions associated with site preparation and the use of construction equipment. MM 4.3-1a The dust suppression measures identified in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook will be implemented to supplement the measures prescribed in Rule 403 (refer to SC 4.3- 1) 1 • Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as 14/14 0.0 /0.0 6.2/6.2 4.0/4.0 No No Placentia 14/14 0.0/0.0 6.2/6.2 4.0/4.0 No No Ave/17th St 14/14 0.0/0.0 6.1/6.1 3.9/3.9 No No 14/14 0.0 /0.0 6.1/6.1 3.9/3.9 No No Placentia 17/17 .0.3/0.2 6.4 / 6.7 4.2/4.4 No No Ave /Hospital 14/14 0.1/0.1' 6.2/6.3 4.0/4.1 No No Rd 14/14 0.2/0.2 6.1/6.3 3.9/4.1 No No 10/10 0.3/0.2 6.0/6.3 3.9/4.1 No No SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (August 2007 The proposed project would not contribute any measurable increase to the one -hour and eight -hour CO concentrations At these intersections. The proposed project would not have a significant impact on local air quality in terms of CO, and no mitigation measures would be required. Consistency with the AQMP In order to accurately assess the environmental impacts as a result of new or renovated developments, environmental pollution and population growth are projected for future scenarios and are the basis for the conclusions presented in this analysis. The proposed project is a medical office development. It is proposed to accommodate the growing need for such services. No population growth is anticipated with the proposed project. The project would not result in the exceedance of the City's estimate of population in this area. Therefore, the population growth associated with the proposed project would be within the City's General Plan projection. The project is consistent with the adopted AQMP. 1 H ' 4.3.5 Mitigation Measures Impact 4.3 -1 Construction activities necessary to implement the proposed project would be ' anticipated to generate fugitive dust and pollutant emissions associated with site preparation and the use of construction equipment. MM 4.3-1a The dust suppression measures identified in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook will be implemented to supplement the measures prescribed in Rule 403 (refer to SC 4.3- 1) 1 • Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil materials are carried to ' adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. Draft Environmental impact Report " Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment - Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.322 ' I ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 • All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically or ' chemically stabilized. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. ' MM 4.3 -1 b The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high - energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction ' equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. ' MM4.3 -1c The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline powered engines where feasible. MM4.3 -1d The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a ' statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended, which would decrease the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and ' equipment operating at the same time. MM.4.3 =1e The Construction Contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the ' site; if necessary, a flagger shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. ' MM 4.3 -1f The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. MM 4.3 -1g Architectural coatings will be applied using HVLP equipment and techniques to minimize ' ROC emissions. ImpactA3 -2 Project Implementation will result in pollutant emissions from both mobile and ' stationary sources that would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO, ROC, NOS, and PM o in both winter and summer months. Because there are no feasible measures that would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level, project- related operational pollutant emissions would remain a significant ' unavoidable adverse impact. 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 reduce the potentially significant mobile - source missions to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project- related ROC, NO., and PMie emissions will be unavoidable and significant. ' Neither the construction emissions nor the long -term project - related operational emissions of SOx and PM2.5 are projected to exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds and the LSTs established for each. No air emissions from the construction or long -term operation of the project will result in a significant health risk to any sensitive receptor and, although determining precise project - related impacts on global warming would be speculative, it is estimated that the operational emissions of COZ attributable to the project wilt not contribute significantly on cumulative basis to global warming. In addition, no significant CO hotspot impacts will occur as a result of project Implementation. ' Draft Envunmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.3 -23 I Hoag Heath Center Use Perm@ Amendment , Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 4.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed project would result in total daily mobile- and stationary -source emissions that, exceed the daily emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Because there are no feasible measures that would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level, project- related long -term (W., operational) pollutant emissions would remain a significant unavoidable adverse impact. 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Draft Environmental impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit, Amendment — Newport Beach, CA ' September 2007 Page 4.3 -24 ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 4.4 NOISE An acoustical analysis was prepared by LSA, Inc., to evaluate the potential project - related noise impacts. The analysis in the following sections focuses on the existing conditions in the study area, the analysis methodology, thresholds of significance, the potential short- and long -term noise impacts of the proposed expansion of Hoag Health Center project in the residential neighborhood, and mitigation as needed. The LSA acoustical analysis Is Included in Appendix E; the findings and recommendations of that analysis are presented below. 4.4.1 Existing Conditions Newport Beach Noise Element The City's Noise Element Identifies four zone categories: Zone A, "Clearly Compatible;" Zone B, "Normally Compatible;" Zone C, "Normally Incompatible;" and Zone D, "Clearly Incompatible:" These standards, identified in Table 4.4-1, are for the assessment of long -term vehicular traffic noise Impacts. For Commercial /Industrial /Institutional uses that include office buildings, R &D facilities, professional offices, and City office buildings, the City considers exterior noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL as Clearly Compatible and up to 75 dBA CNEL as Normally Compatible. Under the Normally Compatible category, new construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Interior noise levels up to 50 dBA CNEL are considered normally acceptable for office uses. Table 4A-1 Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ". Liihd4l S JjA .. - �.. -.1 ;},...t. Residential Single Family, Two Family. Multiple A A B C C D D Family Residential Mixed Use A A A C C C D Residential Mobile Home A A B C C D D Commercial Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging A A B B C C D Regional, District Commercial Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant A A A B B C Regional, Village Movie Theatre A District Special Commercial Office Building, Research and Industrial Development, Professional Offices, City A A A B B C R Institutional Office Building Commercial Recreational Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium, B B C C D D D Institutional Meeting Hall Civic Center Commercial Children's Amusement Park, Miniature Recreation Goff Course, Go-cart Track, Equestrian A A A B B Center Sports Club Commercial Automobile Service Station, Auto IL General, Special Dealership, Manufacturing, Warehousing, A A A A B Industrial, Wholesale, Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit - Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.4-1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4 4 v Institutional Ins.utlonal Hospital, Church, . Library, Schools' A A B C C Classroom O en S ace Parks A A A B C Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers A A A A B. tAA Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat A riculture A riculture A A A A A Zone A: Clearly Compatible — Specified land use Is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compatible ** —New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise Insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C: Normally Incompatible —New construction or development should generally be discouraged. if new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible —New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. SOURCE: Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element • 2006. The City also enforces the interior and exterior noise standards associated with stationary or non - transportation sources. Other noise impacts, including construction activities, are regulated by the Noise Control Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. These noise standards are summarized in Table 4.4 -2. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit - Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.4-2 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 Table 4.4.2 City of Newport Beach Noise Standards Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Ambient Noise Levels The primary existing noise sources in the project area are transportation facilities. Traffic on Newport Boulevard (State Route 55, or SR -55), Superior Avenue, Dana Road, and other local streets is a steady source of ambient noise. Takeoffs and landings at John Wayne Airport (JWA), a commercial airport located approximately 3.6 miles northeast of the project site, contribute to the aircraft noise in the project area. However, the project site is outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of JWA, based on the JWA Impact Zones map in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for that facility. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CanterAmended Use Permit— Newport Beady, CA September 2007 Page 4.4 -3 . .. o:.... v.. �: . Single Family, Two Family. 45 40 55 50 Residential Multiple Family Zone I Residential Portions of Mixed 45 40 60 50 Use Developments Zone III Commercial Zone 11 N/A N/A 65 60 Commercial or Industrial Industrial or Manufactudn N/A N/A 76 70 Zone IV Schools, Day Care Centers, Institutional Churches, Libraries, 45 40 55 50 Museums, Health Care Institutions Zone.l 'If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be'the standard. Zit shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such a person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed the following: • The noise standard for the applicable zone for any 15- minute period; • A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (measured using A- weighted slow response). • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the noise standard applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The noise standard for the residential portions of the residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property, if the intruding noise originates.from that commercial property. • If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level, standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. SOURCE: City of Newport Beach Noise Element LSAAssociates, Inc. (August 2007 Ambient Noise Levels The primary existing noise sources in the project area are transportation facilities. Traffic on Newport Boulevard (State Route 55, or SR -55), Superior Avenue, Dana Road, and other local streets is a steady source of ambient noise. Takeoffs and landings at John Wayne Airport (JWA), a commercial airport located approximately 3.6 miles northeast of the project site, contribute to the aircraft noise in the project area. However, the project site is outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of JWA, based on the JWA Impact Zones map in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for that facility. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CanterAmended Use Permit— Newport Beady, CA September 2007 Page 4.4 -3 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Repoli Section 4.4 An ambient noise survey was conducted at two representative noise - sensitive locations in the project vicinity as part of the noise analysis prepared by LSA. Ambient noise levels were measured for approximately 10. minutes each during the afternoon hours near two residential areas nearest to the project site. Table 4.4 -3 provides a summary of the noise levels measured at these two sites. Table 4.4-3 Ambient Noise Levels Hoag Health Center Amended Use Permit orJ M4769 Harbor Homes Entrance 1535 Superior Avenue 73 81 7 75 71 4305 Dana Road 60 77 3 57 1 55 SOURCE: LSA Associates (August 2007 At the Harbor Homes entrance, the sound level meter was placed approximately 5 feet from the edge of Superior Avenue. Steady and fairly busy traffic on Superior Avenue dominated the ambient noise at this location. Occasionally vehicles entering the Harbor Homes trailer park contributed to the noise level measured at this location. As shown in Table 4.4 -3, traffic noise measured was moderately high, reaching 73 dBA L,, over the entire measurement period. At the residence located at 4305 Dana Road, the sound level meter was placed at the driveway in front of the garage, approximately 5 feet from the edge of Dana Road and 40 feet from Onion Way. Approximately 10 vehicles passed through this segment of Dana Road during the measurement period. Steady traffic on Superior Avenue and occasional helicopter overflights also contributed to the measured ambient noise at this location. The ambient noise measured at this location was approximately 60 dBA Leq. Existing Roadway Noise Levels As indicated previously, the primary source of noise in the project environs is that resulting from the operation of automobiles along the adjacent and nearby circulation system. Traffic-related noise levels along the major roadways in the project vicinity were modeled based on the existing traffic volumes; these noise levels are summarized below in Table 4.4-4. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.4-4 1 1 LI 1 1 L Hoag. Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft En, Gmnmental impact Report Table 4.4-4 Existing Traffic- Related Noise Levels Hoag Health Center Amended Use Permit .Based on the guidelines presented in Table 4.4-2, existing mobile -source noise levels in the project h along are considered to be generally oast Highway ay where existing traffic volumes are higherethan along other Newport Boulevard and West Coast Hig way arterial roadways. Sensitive Land Uses Residential land uses west and south of the subject property. Harbor Homes trailer home park is located across Superior Avenue approximately 100. feet from the project boundary, and other residential uses are located to the south across Dana the existing g nsa levels approximately d5wou d be potentiallyjaffected by nose from sensitive uses are affected by the project site during construction of the project and from on -site operations. than 85 dBA. Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to .noise levels higher ure 5 Exposue to dBAr ncreasg g body tensllon affects hereby affecting blood prt ssure anddfunctionsxoff the heart xandsthe Of Draft Environmental impact Report Hoag Health Center Amended Use pemnt — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 page 4.4-5 Hoag Health Corder Use Permit Amendment Draft Eryronmental Impact Report Section 4.4 nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result In permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the "threshold of feeling.' As the sound reaches 140ABA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear and is called the "threshold of pain." A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dimness or loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying less developed areas. 4.4.2 ' Significance Criteria Off -site impacts from on -site activities, temporary and long -term, are measured against the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. As indicated previously, any activity on private property must comply with the noise ordinance. Noise levels resulting from activities that do not comply with the criteria prescribed in the noise ordinance are considered to be a significant noise impact. In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dB are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dB will not be discernible to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dB, residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. (It is Important to note that there is no scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dB as the significance threshold.) in laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dB. In a community noise situation, however, noise exposures occur over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dB, and 3 dB appears to be appropriate for most people. Determination of a significant noise impact associated with a development project is based on the criteria identified in Policy N 1.8 in the Newport Beach Noise Element. Based on that adopted policy, a significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. The CNEL increase is shown in the table below. 4.4.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.4-1 Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28:040 of the Newport Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise- generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., 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. I 1 1 1 1 1 rJ Draft Environmental lrripact Report y .R 55 3 60 2 65 1 70 1 Over 75 Any increase is considered significant SOURCE: Newport Beach Noise Element (Policy N 1.8); 2006 4.4.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.4-1 Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28:040 of the Newport Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise- generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., 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. I 1 1 1 1 1 rJ Draft Environmental lrripact Report ' Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.4-6 ' I ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental impact Report section 4.4 SC 4.4 -2 The project shall comply with land use compatibility guidelines for exterior noise prescribed ' - in Table 4.4 -1 for long -term vehicular traffic noise and the interior and exterior noise standards prescribed in Table 4.4 -2 for stationary or non - transportation sources. ' SC 4.4-3 The hours of truck deliveries to the project site shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., unless there is no feasible alternative. Any exemption shall require compliance With nighttime (i.e., 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. noise standards). ' 4.4.4 Potential Impacts Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups; temporary and long term. Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. Long -term impacts are further divided into impacts on surrounding land uses generated by the proposed project and those impacts that occur at the proposed project site. ' 4.4.4.1 Short-Term Noise Impacts Construction Noise ' Short-term noise impacts associated with project implementation are typically associated with excavation, grading, and erecting of buildings on site during construction of the proposed project. Construction related ' short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area; however, construction noise would end upon completion of the construction activities for each of the development and/or improvement phases. ' Noise levels from grading and other construction activities for the proposed project may range up to 84 dBA L,,,a„ at the closest residential uses, adjacent to the project site for very limited times when construction occurs near the project's boundary. Construction related noise impacts from the proposed ' project would be potentially adverse; however, compliance with the City's construction hours requirement would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. ' Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Although there would be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance (passing trucks at 50 feet would generate up to a maximum of 87 dBA), the effect on longer term (hourly ' or daily) ambient noise levels would be small. Therefore, short-term construction related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than ' significant. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading, and erection of the one new building on the project site and remodeling of existing, buildings. Construction is ' completed in discrete. steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various, sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the.site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the ' variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 4.4- 5 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical noise levels range up to 91 dBA L,,,e„ at 50 feet during the noisiest construction' phases. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Amended Use Permit— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.47 Hoag HeaM,Center Use Permit Amendment - Draft Environmental Impact Report _ Section 4.4 Table 4.4-5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 feet-lb/blow 81 -96 93 Rock Drills 83-99 96 Jackhammers 75-85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78-88 85 Pumps 74-84 ' 80 Scrapers 83-91 87 Haul Trucks 83-94 88 Cranes 79-86 82 Portable Generators 71-87 80 Rollers 75-82 80 Dozers 77-90 85 Tractors 77-82 80 Front -End Loaders 77-90 86 Backhoe 81 -90 86 -Hydraulic Hydraulic Excavators 81-90 86 Graders 79-89 86 Air Compressors 76-89 86 Trucks 81-87 86 S.OURGE: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full -power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, and water and pickup trucks. Based on the information In Table 4.4-5, the maximum noise level generated by each scraper on the proposed project site is assumed to be 87 dBA L. at 50 feet from the scraper. Each bulldozer would also generate 85 dBA " at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by water and pickup trucks is approximately 86 dBA L,,,a„ at 50. feet from these vehicles. Each doubling of the sound source with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each_ piece of construction .equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, the worst -case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA " at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area. As previously indicated, the closest existing noise - sensitive uses such as homes adjacent to the project site are approximately 100 feet from the project construction area. The nearest adjacent homes may be subject to short -term, intermittent, maximum noise generated by construction activities on site and reaching 84 dBA L,,,a,,. This range of construction noise would be compatible with traffic noise from Superior Avenue and Dana Road. Enforcement of SC 4.4 -1 will ensure compliance with the City's Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Amended Use Permft — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.48 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 General Plan Policy N5.1, which limits the hours of construction, which would be limited to the hours ' permitted.by the City as specified in the City's Municipal Code Noise Ordinance and would not result in any significant construction noise impacts. ' In addition to short-term noise impacts, construction activities could also result in potential groundborne vibration. Bulldozers and other heavy - tracked construction equipment generate groundborne vibration. Although such vibration may be perceptible to human receptors and result in potential annoyance at residences directly adjacent to the project. site, such vibration associated with standard construction ' practices such as those proposed, would not cause any damage to the buildings. Thus, impacts from the proposed project will be less than significant 4.4.4.2 Long -Tenn Operational Noise Impacts ' Off -Site Impacts ' Vehicular Noise Off -Site Impacts ' Based on the traffic study conducted for the proposed project (Kunzman & Associates, July 2007), the project- related daily Vehicular trips will be 12,743 trips per day. These additional daily trips would not result in any significant or measurable noise level increases along roadway segments in the project ' vicinity. in addition, the proposed on -site medical office use would not be exposed to noise exceeding the interior noise standard of 50 dBA CNEL for office use from Newport Boulevard to Superior Avenue. No mitigation measures are required. ' The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD -77 -108) was used to evaluate highway traffic- related noise conditions along.roadway segments in the project vicinity. A standard vehicle mix for Orange County roadways was used for traffic on these roadway segments. The modeled 24 -hour CNEL ' levels are shown in Table 4.4-8 for the existing plus project scenario. As indicated in Table 4.4 -6, most roadways segments would experience a noise increase of less than 1 ' dB. However, under the existing plus project scenario, project - related traffic would have a 1.1 to 1.3 dBA increase in traffic noise along three roadway segments, with the 65 CNEL noise contour extending beyond the roadway right -of -way. However, it is not expected that all project - related traffic would be added to these roads immediately under the existing conditions; thus, the analysis relevant to Tables 4.4- ' 7 and 4.44 is more representative of actual long -term conditions. Because conversion of the existing . non - medical office floor area to medical office floor area is projected to occur in several phases over several .years. The resulting gradual incremental increase over in project- related traffic onto the circulation system would be less than 1 dBA. In addition, this range of traffic level increase is less than the 3 dBA change threshold that its normally perceptible by the human ear. t Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CenterAmanded Use Permit— Newport Boach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.4-9 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment , Draft Environmental Impact Repoli Section 4.4 Table 4:4-6 Existing With Project Traffic Noise Levels Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment 1 1 1 Tables 4.4 -7 and 4.4 -8 show the traffic noise levels for the future year 2009 without and with project scenarios, respectively. These noise levels represent the worst -case scenario, which assumes no ' shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and model printouts are provided in Appendix E. , i 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 . Page 4.4-10 ' ry Superior Ave. between West Coast Highway and 16th St. 31,100 1 65 132 281 69.0 1.2 Superior Ave. between 16th St. and 17th St. 28,900 62 126 268 68.7 1.0 Newport Blvd: between West Coast Highway and 17th St. 58 000 117 242 516 1 72.3 0.3 Newport Blvd. between 17th St. and Harbor Blvd. 88,500 152 319 684 74.1 0.1 Newport Blvd. north of Harbor Blvd. 106,100 170 360 771 74.9 0.2 Placentia Ave. between Hospital Rd. and Superior Ave. 14,200 < 50' 81 168 65.6 1.1 Placentia Ave. between Superior Ave. and 17th St. 20,400 < 50 101 213 67.2 1.3 Placentia Ave. north.of 17th St. 18,900 < 50 96 202 66.9 0.2 West Coast Highway west of Superior Ave. 37,600 106 217 462 71.6 0.3 West Coast Highway between Superior Ave. and Newport Blvd. 43,000 114 237 1 505 1 72.1 0.0 West Coast Highway east of Newport Blvd. 52,300 129 269 1 575 73.0 0.2 'Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site - specific information. SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (August 2007 1 1 1 Tables 4.4 -7 and 4.4 -8 show the traffic noise levels for the future year 2009 without and with project scenarios, respectively. These noise levels represent the worst -case scenario, which assumes no ' shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and model printouts are provided in Appendix E. , i 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 . Page 4.4-10 ' I .' - _ Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 1 1 1 1 I I1 f] I Table 4.4 -7 2009 Without Project Traffic Noise Levels Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment As indicated in Table 4.4-8, under the future year 2009 scenario, project - related traffic would have no measurable (all less than 1 dBA) noise level increases along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Along Newport Boulevard north of Harbor Boulevard, the projected 2009 "with project' traffic noise would be 75.2 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerline of the outermost travel lane. Although the project would add 0.1 dBA to the ambient noise level, the uses along this segment of Newport Boulevard are commercial and are not considered to be sensitive receptors. The traffic noise level Increase is not considered to be a significant impact. Therefore, no significant long -term off -site traffic noise impacts would occur. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Amended Use Permit — Newport Beach. CA September 2007 'i •i i f Superior Ave. between West Coast Highway and 16th St. 27,100 60 121 257 68.4 Superior Ave. between 16th St. and 17th St. 24,600 57 114 241 6840 Newport Blvd.. between West Coast Hi hwa .and 17th St. 61,000 120 250 534 7245 Newport Blvd. between 17th St. and Harbor Blvd. ' 93,200 157 330 708 7444 Newport Blvd. north of Harbor Blvd. 110,100 174 368 791 7541 Placentia Ave. between Hospital Rd. and Superior Ave. 12,500 < 50' 75 154 6541 Placentia Ave. between Superior "Ave. and 17th St. 17,600 < 50 92 193 6646 Placentia Ave. north of 17th St. 18,900 50 96 202 6649 West Coast Highway west of Superior Ave. 39,600 109 224 478 7148 West Coast Highway between 'Superior Ave. and Newport Blvd. 48,600 123 256 548 7247 West Coast Highway east of Newport Blvd. 58,200 138 288 617 7345 'Traffic noise within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site - specific information. SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (August 2007 As indicated in Table 4.4-8, under the future year 2009 scenario, project - related traffic would have no measurable (all less than 1 dBA) noise level increases along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Along Newport Boulevard north of Harbor Boulevard, the projected 2009 "with project' traffic noise would be 75.2 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerline of the outermost travel lane. Although the project would add 0.1 dBA to the ambient noise level, the uses along this segment of Newport Boulevard are commercial and are not considered to be sensitive receptors. The traffic noise level Increase is not considered to be a significant impact. Therefore, no significant long -term off -site traffic noise impacts would occur. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Amended Use Permit — Newport Beach. CA September 2007 Page 4.4-11 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Olaf Environmental Impact Report Section 4,4 Table 4.4 -8 2009 With Project Traffic Noise Levels Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment On -Site Impacts 1 1 I 1 Ll 1l U 1 Table 4.4 -8 also Indicates that, under the worst -case future year 2009 with project scenario, portions of ' the project site along Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard would be exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding the City's Clearly Compatible level of 65 dBA CNEL but outside the Normally Compatible. level of 75 dBA CNEL for office and R &D uses. Under the Normally Compatible category, new construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements Is made and needed noise Insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction requirements, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. ' 1 Oran Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit — Newport Beach. CA September 2007 Page 4.4-12 pr .: F.��:.. fl Superior Ave. between West Coast Highway and 16th St. 32.000 66 135 286 69.2. 0.8 Superior Ave. between 16th St. and 17th St. 29.700 63 128 273 68.8 0.8 Newport Blvd. between West Coast Highway and 17th St. 61.400 121 251 536 72.5 0.0 Newport Blvd. between 17th'St. and Harbor Blvd. 96.100 160 337 722 74.5 0.1 Newport Blvd. north of Harbor Blvd. 113,100 177 375 805 75.2 0.1 Placentia Ave. between Hospital Rd. and Superior Ave. 14,500 < 501 82 170 65.7 0.6 Placentia Ave. between Superior Ave. and 17th St. 20.900 < 50 103 216 67.3 0.7 Placentia Ave: north of 17th St. 19.400 < 50 98 206 67.0 0.1 West Coast Highway west of Superior Ave. 41.200 111 230 491 72.0 0.2 West Coast Highway between Superior Ave. and Newport Blvd. 48,600 1 123 256 548 72.7 0.0 West Coast Highway east of Newport Blvd. 59,500 1 139 293 626 73.6 0.1 Jraft noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site - specific information. SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (August 2007 On -Site Impacts 1 1 I 1 Ll 1l U 1 Table 4.4 -8 also Indicates that, under the worst -case future year 2009 with project scenario, portions of ' the project site along Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard would be exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding the City's Clearly Compatible level of 65 dBA CNEL but outside the Normally Compatible. level of 75 dBA CNEL for office and R &D uses. Under the Normally Compatible category, new construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements Is made and needed noise Insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction requirements, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. ' 1 Oran Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit — Newport Beach. CA September 2007 Page 4.4-12 Cl 1 I f i 1 1 1 Hoag Heath Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmentat Impact Report Superior Avenue Section 4.4 The project site Is directly adjacent to Superior Avenue. Based on the project's site plan, no outdoor active use areas are proposed that would be within 134 feet of the Superior Avenue centerline. Therefore, no noise barrier would be required. In addition, the on -site building along Superior Avenue is approximately 65 feet from the Superior Avenue centerline and would be potentially exposed to traffic noise reaching 70 dBA CNEL. Based on the EPA's standard building noise attenuation (Protective Noise Levels, Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document, EPA 550/9 -79 -100, November 1978) in warm climate areas (including southern California), with windows open, the building provides 12 dBA exterior - to- interior noise attenuation, and the interior noise levels at the medical offices would be reduced to. 58 dBA CNEL (i.e., 70 dBA - 12 dBA = 58 dBA) or lower. With windows closed, the exterior -to- interior noise attenuation is 24 dBA, and the interior noise levels in these medical offices would be reduced to 46 dBA CNEL (i.e., 70 dBA - 24 dBA = 46 dBA) or lower and below the 50 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for office uses. It is expected that double -paned windows will be used for these medical offices and that they would .provide a sound transmission Gass (STC) rating of 24 (STC -24) .or better. No building facade enhancements would be required for traffic noise from Superior Avenue. However, an air - conditioning system, a form of mechanical ventilation, would be required to ensure that windows can remain closed for prolonged periods of time and meet the 50 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for office use. Newport Boulevard The project site is directly adjacent to Newport Boulevard. Table 4.4 -8 shows that, under the future year 2009 scenario, the 70 and 65 dBA CNEL contours along Newport Boulevard adjacent to the project site would extend to 124 and 258 feet, respectively, from the roadway centerline. The 60 dBA CNEL would extend to 551 feet from the roadway centerline. The proposed medical offices along Newport Boulevard are approximately 150 (north end) to 250 (south end) feet from the centerline of Newport Boulevard and would be exposed to traffic noise between 65 and 69 dBA CNEL. Based on the EPA's standard building noise attenuation, with windows or doors open, interior noise levels at the frontline medical offices would be exposed to 57 dBA CNEL (i.e., 69 dBA - 12 dBA = 57 dBA). With windows closed, interior noise levels in these frontline medical offices would be reduced to 45 dBA CNEL (69 dBA - 24 dBA = 45 dBA) and below the 50 dBA CNEL Interior noise standard for office uses. Building facade enhancements would not be required for traffic noise on Newport Boulevard. However, an air conditioning system, a form of mechanical ventilation, would be required to ensure that windows can remain closed for prolonged periods of time and meet the 50 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for office uses. Stationary Source Noise ' Potential. long-term stationary noise impacts would be associated primarily with operations on the project site from rooftop, mechanical units, truck delivery, and other activities at the parking lot. These activities are potential point sources of noise that could affect noise - sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site such as the existing residential uses to the northeast and southeast. As noise spreads from a source it loses energy, so the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dBA reduction in the noise level for each doubling of. distance from a single -point source of noise, such as an idling truck, to the noise - sensitive receptor of concern. Although individual activity may generate relatively high and intermittent noise, when added to the typically lower ambient noise and averaged over a longer period of time, the cumulative noise level would be much lower and would be considered a less than significant impact. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit- Newport $each, CA September 2007 Page 4.4 -13 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 Truck Delivery and Loading/Unloading Activities Delivery trucks for the proposed on -site medical office uses would result in a maximum noise similar to noise readings from loading and unloading activities for other projects with similar operations, which generates a noise level of 75 dBA L,. at 50 feet and is used in this analysis. Normal deliveries, usually by United Parcel Services (UPS) or Federal Express (FedEx) trucks, are once in the morning and sometimes once in the afternoon. Based on the site plan, it is assumed that the medical office use loading area .(near the front entrance of the buildings). is at least 350 feet ( -17 dBA) from the nearest residences to the south and 250 feet ( -14 dBA) from the residences to the west. These loading/unloading areas are also blocked by the existing. on-site' building along Superior Avenue that provides at least 10 dBA noise reduction to the residences west of Superior Avenue. Therefore, with the distance divergence and /or building attenuation, loadinglunloading noise would potentially reach up to 58 dBA L. at ground level of the nearest residences to the south and up to 51 dBA L, at ground level of the nearest residences to the west. This range of maximum noise levels would not exceed the typical exterior noise standards of 75 dBA L., for any period of time (20 dBA plus the 55 dBA baseline level for exterior noise in residential area during daytime hours as reflected in Table 4.4 -3), but would be potentially higher than the 55 dBA, L25 (daytime noise standard for residential zone for any 15- minute period as indicated in Table 4.4-3) standard at the nearest residences to the south if the loading/unloading noise lasts more than 15 minutes in any hour. Although a typical truck unloading process takes an average of 10-15 minutes, this maximum noise level occurs in a much shorter period of time, in a few minutes. It is not expected that truck delivery/loading /unloading activities would result in this. maximum noise level lasting more than 15 minutes in any hour when it occurs. In addition, this range of noise levels is lower than or compatible to the maximum noise levels generated by traffic on Superior Avenue and Dana Road. Therefore, noise associated with truck delivery/loading/unloading activities at the medical office buildings would not result in noise levels exceeding the typical noise standards at the nearest residences to the west or south of the project site. No mitigation measures-are required. " Rooftop Mechanical Equipment It is anticipated that there will be rooftop heating, ventilating and air- conditioning (HVAC) units at the medical buildings, each with a capacity of 4 to 5 tons. According to Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants (Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.), these HVAC units would generate a noise level of up to 89 dBA at 5 feet. All rooftop. mechanical (Le., HVAC) equipment would be placed at least 10 feet from the edge of the roof /parapet. The roof edgelparapets would provide at least 5 dBA in noise attenuation for ground floor receptors. The residences to the west are approximately 125 feet from the closest rooftop HVAC units and would receive 28 dBA noise reduction from distance divergence compared to the noise level at 5 feet. The residences to the south are approximately 175 feet from the closest rooftop HVAC units and would receive 31 dBA noise attenuation compared to the noise level at 5 feet. Combining the noise reduction from distance divergence and roof edge /parapets, noise from the rooftop HVAC units would be reduced to 56 dBA at residences to the west and 53 dBA at residences to the south. This range of noise levels is lower than the traffic noise associated with Superior Avenue and Dana Road and Is below the City's exterior noise standard for residential uses during daytime hours (the operation hours for the medical offices are from 7:00 a.m..to 10:00 p.m., which coincide with the daytime hours defined in the City's Noise Ordinance). With the EPA - recommended 12 dBA and 24. dBA exterior - to-interior noise reduction provided by standard building construction in warm climate areas (including" southern California) for open and closed window scenarios, respectively, noise from the rooftop mechanical units would be reduced to 44 dBA and 32 dBA inside the residences to the west of the project site and to 41 dBA and 29 dBA inside the residences to the south of the project site. These noise levels are much lower than the City's interior noise standards for residential uses. No significant noise impacts would occur from the rooftop mechanical units at the proposed medical office buildings. . Draft Environmental Impact Report .Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.4.14 .1 1 I ,' I I I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Other Parking Lot Activities Section Representative parking activities such as employees conversing, engine startup -, slow - moving vehicles, or car door slamming would generate approximately 60 to 70 dBA L. at 50 feet. Wieland Associates, Inc. conducted. an ambient noise survey at an existing medical office building on Booth Circle (in the City of Irvine) on the northwest side of the SBC building on July 18, 2006. Table 4.4 -9 summarizes the parking lot activity noise levels measured by Wieland Associates, Inc. Table 4.4-9 Measured Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment w� L 32.5 dBA 34.5 dBA L25 36.0 dBA 38.0 dBA L5 40.5 dBA 40.5 dBA L2 44.0 dBA 43.0 dBA Lmmc 69.0 dBA 69.0 dBA ' SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., July 18. 2006 Based on the ambient noise measurement results in Table 4.4 -9, it is assumed that the parking lot activity ' noise levels derived from the existing medical building on Booth Circle would be typical of those that will be generated at the proposed Hoag Health Center medical office buildings. The activities at the proposed medical office buildings will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m, to 10:00 p.m. n I I I The nearest residences to the west are approximately 100 feet (-6 dBA) from the nearest driveway /parking area on the project site. The nearest residences to the south are approximately 150 feet ( -9 dBA) from the nearest driveway /parking area on the project site. With the distance factor, Table 4.4 -10 summarizes the potential parking lot activity noise levels at the nearest residences. As indicated in the table, all exterior noise levels at adjacent residences would be below the City s exterior noise standards for residential uses. No significant noise Impacts would occur from on -site parking lot activities. Table 4.4-10 Projected Exterior Parking Lot.Activity Noise Levels at Residences Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.4-15 Wieland Associates, 00• LSA Associates, • 00 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.4-15 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 Based on the EPA - suggested exterior -to- interior noise attenuation for standard building construction in warm climate areas (which include Souther California), the interior noise level at these nearest residences is listed in Table 4.4 -11 for the open windows scenario. The projected interior noise levels for the windows closed scenario are also presented in Table 4.4 -11. Table 4.4 -11 Projected Interior Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels at Residences Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Table 4.4 -11 shows that interior noise levels at the nearest residences, attributable to the parking lot activities on the project site, would not exceed the City's interior noise standards for residential uses. Vibration Impacts Because the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on -road vehicles provide vibration isolation, it is unusual for on -road vehicles to cause groundbome noise or vibration problems. When on- road vehicles cause effects such as rattling of windows, the source Is almost always airborne noise. Most problems with on -road vehicle- related vibration can be directly related to a pothole, bump, expansion joint, or other discontinuity in the road surface. Smoothing the bump or filling the pothole will usually solve the problem. Project implementation will not result In any significant mobile- source vibrations because project - related vehicles are expected to be equipped with rubber tires and adequate vehicle suspension systems. Aircraft Noise The proposed project would not contribute to any measurable long -term aircraft activity. The proposed on -site medical office uses would be exposed to noise levels well below 60 dBA CNEL from John Wayne Airport. The County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) uses the current Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA, as the basis for determining potential aircraft noise impact from JWA. The project site Is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours, where the AELUP defines the noise exposure to be "Moderate Noise Impact' (i.e., an impact that would require some kind of mitigation to reduce the aircraft noise) within Noise Impact Zone "2." The AELUP also recognizes that individual sensitivities to annoyance can vary from person to person. Because the project site is located outside of this noise impact zone, no significant noise Impacts from aircraft activities would occur and no mitigation measures are required. F 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 11 I I Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit — Newport Beach. CA September 2007 Page 4.416 ' Windows O en L25 45 dBA 20 dBA 17 dBA L 65 dBA 51 dBA 48 dBA Windows Closed L25 45 dBA 8 dBA 5 dBA L 65 dBA 39 dBA 36 dBA SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., July 18. 2006. LSA Associates, Inc: (August 2007 Table 4.4 -11 shows that interior noise levels at the nearest residences, attributable to the parking lot activities on the project site, would not exceed the City's interior noise standards for residential uses. Vibration Impacts Because the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on -road vehicles provide vibration isolation, it is unusual for on -road vehicles to cause groundbome noise or vibration problems. When on- road vehicles cause effects such as rattling of windows, the source Is almost always airborne noise. Most problems with on -road vehicle- related vibration can be directly related to a pothole, bump, expansion joint, or other discontinuity in the road surface. Smoothing the bump or filling the pothole will usually solve the problem. Project implementation will not result In any significant mobile- source vibrations because project - related vehicles are expected to be equipped with rubber tires and adequate vehicle suspension systems. Aircraft Noise The proposed project would not contribute to any measurable long -term aircraft activity. The proposed on -site medical office uses would be exposed to noise levels well below 60 dBA CNEL from John Wayne Airport. The County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) uses the current Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA, as the basis for determining potential aircraft noise impact from JWA. The project site Is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours, where the AELUP defines the noise exposure to be "Moderate Noise Impact' (i.e., an impact that would require some kind of mitigation to reduce the aircraft noise) within Noise Impact Zone "2." The AELUP also recognizes that individual sensitivities to annoyance can vary from person to person. Because the project site is located outside of this noise impact zone, no significant noise Impacts from aircraft activities would occur and no mitigation measures are required. F 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 11 I I Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit — Newport Beach. CA September 2007 Page 4.416 ' I 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Section 4.4 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4.5 Mitigation Measures Short Term Construction Noise Impacts ' Impact 4.4-1 Construction activities will result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Although not significant, the increase in noise associated with construction activities (e.g., demolition, grading and excavation, and construction) will constitute a short - term adverse Impact to sensitive uses in the vicinity of the subject property. MM 4.4 -1 The following measures shall be implemented during all phases of construction. • During all project site excavation and grading, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. • The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted 'noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site • (existing trailer park to the west and apartments to the south). The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction- related noise sources and noise - sensitive receptors (existing trailer park to the west and homes and condominiums to the south) nearest the project site during all project construction. Long -Term Operational Noise Impacts Impact44-2 The new 20,586 square foot building proposed on the subject property along Superior Avenue is approximately 65 feet from the Superior Avenue centerline and would be potentially exposed to traffic noise reaching 70 dBA CNEL. MM 4.4 -2 Prior to the issuance of the building permit, a form of mechanical ventilation, such as an air - conditioning system, shall be implemented as a project design feature for the medical office buildings located directly adjacent to Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue. This feature shall be included in the project's architectural drawings, and shall.be in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. �. As Indicated in Section 4.4.4, short-term noise impacts resulting from construction will be less than significant because the project will comply with the City's noise ordinance, which prescribes construction hours. Increases in noise levels associated with vehicular traffic will be less than significant. Further, long -term off -site noise impacts will also be less than significant because the project will comply with the interior and exterior noise standards prescribed for stationary or non - transportation sources. No noise impacts associated with aviation operations at J WA will occur. 4.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation With. implementation of the standard condition identified for the project (i.e., comply with the City's Noise .Control Ordinance) and the mitigation measures identified in Section 4.4-5, no significant Impacts will occur. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health CenterAmended Use Permit — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.4.17 Hoag Heaith Center Use Permit Amendment ' ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 4.5 UTILITIES Sewer and water demand studies were prepared by RBA Partners, Inc (RBA) Inc., to evaluate the potential project - related water and sewer facilities impacts. The analysis in the following sections focuses on the existing conditions in the study area, thresholds of significance, the potential short and long-term sewer and water facilities impacts of the proposed expansion of Hoag Health Care Center project, and mitigation as needed. The RBA , analyses are included in Appendix F; the findings and recommendations of those assessments are presented below. 1 4.5.1 Water Facilities and Service 4.5.1.1 -Existing Conditions Water Service and Supplies The City of Newport Beach provides water service to approximately 36 square miles within the Newport Beach Planning Area identified in the General Plan Update, Including the subject property that is located adjacent to a small area in the City serviced by the Mesa Consolidated Water District west of Superior Avenue. The City provides water service to nearly 75,600 people and a variety of land uses with water that is purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC)' groundwater pumped ' from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and reclaimed water. Water for domestic use is delivered via transmissions mains and distribution lines ranging in size from one to 36 inches, with the majority of the lines ranging from 8 to 12 inches in diameter. The Citys water infrastructure includes five pump stations and 43 pressure reducing stations located within the five major pressure zones that service elevations from sea level to about 725 feet above sea level. The City stores water in three reservoirs, including Big Canyon Reservoir, Zone 4 Reservoir, and 16th Street Reservoir. These facilities have 'a combined capacity of approximately'100 million gallons (MG), based on the average water level at the Big Canyon Reservoir of 286 feet, which as a maximum capacity of 196 MG at a surface elevation of 302 feet. The Zone 4 Reservoir has a capacity of 1.5 MG, and the capacity of the 16th Street Reservoir, which also serves as a holding tank for well water, is 1 MG According to the Citys 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the total water demand (including recycled water) will increase from 18,648 acre feet per year (afy) for 2005 to 21,716 afy in 2030. This 16.5 percent increase over that 25 -year period can be accommodated by the supplies that will be available to the City from MWDOC, OCWD, and recycled water sources. Although the City is highly_ dependent on water purchased from OCWD and MWD to meets its needs during dry years, MWD has indicated that the agency does not anticipate any shortages in the dry-year scenarios analyzed and, ' further, that during both normal water and single dry precipitation years, the City would have sufficient water to meet its customers' needs through 2030. Water Quality The domestic water supply for the. City is a blend of mostly groundwater from the Orange County groundwater basin and also surface water Imported by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), which is mostly Colorado River water that is augmented by the State Water Project from Northern California. The City's imported surface water supply is treated at either the MWD Diemer Filtration Plant located in Yorba Linda or the Weymouth Filtration Plan located in the San Gabriel Valley. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 " Page 4.5-1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 The City's groundwater supply is treated at the City's Utility yard, located at 949 West le Street, and consists of five pumps and two chamber reservoirs that: can accommodate up to 1.6 MG each. The groundwater is blended with surface water and treated with sodium .hypochlorite (the equivalent of household bleach), which is a typical application to achieve a potable water supply, before eventually being pumped through the water distribution system. In addition, the new Big Canyon Reservoir Disinfection Facility was put into service December 2004. Fire Flows The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) is responsible for fire suppression within the City. The ' NBFD relies on the area's infrastructure, including the adequacy of nearby water supplies to suppress fire. Fire flows in Newport Beach are based on the 2001 California Fire Code, which mandates the minimum required fire flow and flow durations for buildings of different floor areas and construction types. ' Existing Water Facilities As indicated above, the subject property is located in an area of the City that is served by the City of Newport Beach. The City owns and maintains a 12 -inch water main in Superior Avenue to the west and an 8 -inch main in Dana Road along the propertys southerly boundary. A 104nch lateral extends into the site from the 12 -inch lateral located in Superior Avenue. 4.5.1.2 Significance Criteria , Implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on water systems within the City if it would result in any of the following: • Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of water supply facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. • Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would require new or expanded entitlements. 4.5.1.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.5.1 -1 The applicant shall submit water utility plans to the City, which shall review the completed 'to plans prepared by the Applicants engineer ensure that water facilities, supplies, water , pressure, and fire flows are,adequate to.meet projected water service demands both during construction and operation of the proposed project. SC 4.5.1 The -2 proposed project shall incorporate the water conservation measures prescribed in Chapter 14.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Water Conservation) and other measures determined to be feasible in order to minimize the consumption of domestic water. ' SC 4.5.1 -3 The proposed project shall incorporate feasible water conservation measures identified in Chapter 14.17 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Water - Efficient Landscaping) to promote the conservation and efficient use of water. , I Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA .. September 2007 Page 4.5-2 I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment !raft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 4.5.1.4 Potential Impacts Short-Term Construction Impacts Water usage.will occur during site watering for dust control and incidental construction vehicle washing to minimize the off -site transport of dirt and fugitive dust. Combined with other incidental uses, the amount of water to be used for construction activities is difficult to quantify; however, this standard use of water during construction activities is expected to be less than significant. In addition,,water for fire suppression during the construction phase would also be required. As prescribed in SC 4.5.1 -1, the applicant will prepare a water supply plan that addresses construction needs and, in particular, fire suppression during construction. The water utility plan will ensure that adequate supplies and facilities are ,available. ' Therefore, no short-term impacts are anticipated and not mitigation measures are required. Long -Term Operational Impacts As identified and described in the environmental analysis conducted for the General Plan Update,. additional development accommodated by the Land Use Element would result in increased water demands In Newport Beach, which could increase the need for water treatment services. The proposed ' project includes the conversion of existing non - medical floor area to medical office floor area and also includes an increase of 20,586 square feet of additional medical office floor area for a total of 350,000 square feet. That figure is consistent with the development intensity and maximum floor area permitted by the General Plan. As previously indicated, MWD can meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs until the year 2030; however, after than date, improvements associated with the State Water Project supply, additional local projects, water conservation, and additional water transfers would be needed to provide the City with an adequate supply of domestic water. OCWD, which provides the groundwater supply to the City, anticipates that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet projected future demand requirements in Newport Beach'. The General Plan Update goals and policies direct the City to implement water conservation measures to limit water consumption and meet. the current and projected future dally and peak water demands of the City. These goals and policies will be met by the proposed project through SC 4.5.1 -2 and SC 4.5.1 -3. Other policies direct the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by infrastructure, including water treatment and conveyance facilities. As ' such, adequate water infrastructure would be provided for all development under the adopted General Plan land uses, Including the proposed project. As a result, no significant Impacts are anticipated. Based on the water system demand study prepared by RBA Partners, Inc., project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts either to the domestic water system or fire suppression water system at the site. Flow tests were conducted at the site of the water demand imposed on the domestic water ' system by the proposed building improvements. That study concluded that fire water lines were protected by two 8 -inch double check detector assemblies that comply with standards prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. The domestic water line was protected with a single 6 -inch Watts Series 909 reduced pressure backflow device. The study also concluded that the existing backflow devices for both the fire and domestic water systems meet or exceed the requirements prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project will not modify these existing protective devices. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. I LJ ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 Page 4.5- Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5.1.5 Mitigation Measures Based on the water supply analysis presented in the EIR prepared for the Newport Beach General Plan Update, adequate water supplies and facilities will be available to accommodate future development proposed in the City that are consistent with the adopted long -range plans. The proposed project is consistent with these long -range plans (i.e., General Plan). As a result, both project - related and cumulative project demands for domestic water are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 4.5.1.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the standard conditions identified for the project in Section 4.5.1.3 (i.e., submit water utility plans) combined with the City's ability to meet the long -tens goals and objectives through the implementation of relevant policies in the General Plan will ensure that no significant unavoidable adverse impacts will occur as a result of the development of the Hoag Health Center as proposed. 4.5.2 Sewer Facilities and Service 4.5.2.1. Existing Conditions Wastewater Collection Facilities Wastewater service within the City of Newport Beach Is provided by the City, the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and the Costa Mesa Sanitation District (CMSD). Similar to the boundaries of the City's domestic water system, the City provides sewer service to most of Newport Beach, for a total service area of approximately 13.5 square miles, Including the subject property. The City currently, owns and maintains an 8 -inch sewer main in Dana Road and an 8 -in sewer main in Superior Avenue. The existing sewer collection system in the City of Newport Beach consists of over 200 miles of gravity and force flow sewer mains, varying in size from 2 to 42 inches in diameter. Residential and commercial wastewater collected by the City's wastewater collection system is transported, using a system of 20 pump stations, for treatment at two Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) treatment facilities. In addition, OCSD trunk sewer and force mains also receive sewage flows from Newport Beach sewers at many locations throughout the City. The OCSD trunk sewers, which vary in size from 18 to 42 inches in diameter, substantially reduce the size and number of sewers needed to built and operated by the City. The OC$D also operates seven pump stations in the City. Wastewater Treatment Wastewater collected in the City is transported via transmission facilities that range in size from 18 to 42 Inches in diameter to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Wastewater Treatment Plants No. 1 and 2. The OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 currently maintains a'design capacity of 174 million gallons per day (mgd) and treats an average of 90 mgd (i.e., 52 percent of the design capacity). Treatment Plan No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 mgd and currently treats an average flow of 153 mgd. (i.e., 55 percent of the design capacity). The OCSD wastewater treatment plans are divided Into several operating systems that work together. The major processes are preliminary treatment, primary treatment, anaerobic digestion, secondary treatment, and solids handling. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoeg Health Center Use Permit Amendment - Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.54 I I I I I In I I I I I I 1 I I I U I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 Wastewater treated by the OCSD is discharged into the ocean through a 120 -inch diameter ocean outfall �. pipe that extends five miles offshore to a discharge point 180 feet below the ocean surface. The treatment levels meet all current State and federal requirements. OCSD also reclaims up to 10- MG of treated wastewater each day, which is conveyed for further processing and then used for landscape irrigation and for injection into the groundwater seawater intrusion barrier. Planned Improvements/Existing Deficiencies ' The City has prepared and adopted a Master Plan of Sewers (1996), which identified portions of the City's collection system that are in, need. of Improvement or replacement. The plan also surveyed the City's pumping system, which was found to have adequate capacity, although some pump cycling problems were identified that required operational adjustments. Other problems were also identified in ' the plan, which indicated that pump station upgrades would be required for a majority of the City's pump stations: Other sewer collection deficiencies identified in the plan included the need to replace several thousand feet of sewer mains, manholes, pipe joints, etc. 4.5.2.2 Significance Criteria ' Implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on the City's wastewater system if it would result in any of the following: 1 Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. • Require or result in the construction/expansion of wastewater treatment facilities or recycled water conveyance systems that could cause significant environmental effects. 4.5.2.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.5.1 -1 The applicant shall submit sewer utility plans to the City, which shall review the completed plans prepared by,the Applicants engineer to ensure that sewer facilities are adequate to accommodate the increase in raw sewage generated by the proposed project. 4.5.2.4 Potential Impacts Short-Term Construction Impacts, ' Portable septic facilities will likely be available for construction personnel during the construction phase of the project. The use of such facilities will not present a significant Impact either to local wastewater generation/collection or treatment facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation �. measure are required. Long -Term Operational Impacts Wastewater Collection Facilities 1 A sewer system demand study was prepared by RBA Partners, Inc., Consulting Civil Engineers (RBB), for the Hoag Health Center to determine the effect of the potential Increase in raw sewage generated on the subject property by the conversion of professional office floor area to medical office floor area on the 8- ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.5-5 I Hoag Health Center Use Pertnft Amendment [raft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 , inch sewer main that serves the site. Based on that study, it was determined that the average sewage bad of the existing development is 0.15 cubic feet per second (cfs), which equates to a peak sewage load of 0.45 cfs based peak factor of 3.0 of existing flows. With the conversion of the non - medical floor 1 area to medical office and the addition of 20,584 square feet of additional medical office floor area, the 350,000 square feet of medical offices would generate an average sewage flow of 0.16 cis; the peak flow is estimated to be 0.48 cis, based on the peak'factor of 3.0. This increase represents a small incremental increase in sewage flows generated on the site. Therefore, the proposed improvements will not result in a significant impact on the existing sewer system serving the site because the difference between the existing peak sewage load (i.e., 0.45 cfs) and the proposed peak sewage load (i.e., 0.48 cfs) is negligible. Further, the existing and proposed sewage flow depths and velocities in the 8 -inch sewer main serving ' the site meet industry standards. Finally, the existing sewage treatment facilities operated by the OCSD have available capacity to accommodate the small increase in sewage flows projected for the site. Therefore, no significant Impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. , Wastewater Treatment As indicated in the EIR prepared for the General Plan Update, buildout of the City based on the land uses and intensities of development projected by the General Plan would result in the generation of additional demands on the existing sewer system from increased sewage flows. Based on sewer flow generation factors provided in the Newport Beach Master Plan of Sewers, the future development permitted by the , General Plan is anticipated to generate an estimated additional wastewater flow of approximately 4.12 mgd. However, as previously indicated, the two treatment plants operated by the OCSD are operating below their design capacities and, therefore, can accommodate the incremental increase in raw sewage generated by the development anticipated from General Plan buildout, including that resulting from the ' implementation of the proposed project. Proposed project impacts are less than significant regarding wastewater treatment capacity. , 4.5.2.5 Mitigation Measures Based on the sewer facility analysis presented in the EIR prepared for the Newport Beach General Plan Update, adequate sewer facilities and treatment capacity will be available to accommodate future development proposed in the City that are consistent with the adopted long -range plans. Further, the sewer demand study revealed that adequate facilities and capacity are available to accommodate the proposed ' project. As' a result, both project - related and cumulative project impacts to sewer facilities are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 4.5.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the standard condition identified for the project in Section 4.5.2.3 (i.e., submit sewer utility plans) combined with the City's ability to meet the long -term goals and objectives through the implementation of relevant policies In the General Plan will ensure that no significant unavoidable adverse impacts will occur as a result of the development of the Hoag Health Center as proposed. , I I Draft Environmental Impact Report , Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.5-6 1 r�i 1 I I 1 1 1 1 F I 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment . Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 4.6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Iris Environmental (Iris) completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on February 1, 2006 for the proposed project site in order to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with the historic use of the subject property. As part of the Phase I. ESA, Iris interviewed staff of the California Regional Water Quality Control board and Department of Toxic Substances Control to ascertain current site status. In addition, Iris also conducted soil gas and Indoor air monitoring and related surveys to- determine the nature and extent of potential health hazards that may occur as a result of implementing the proposed project. The findings and recommendations presented in the various reports prepared by Iris, as well as recommendations of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Santa Ana Region (i.e., the responsible agency) are summarized in the following sections. 4.6.1 Existing Conditions Site History Based on a review of aerial photographs, historic topographic maps, a City Directory, and previous environmental investigations, it appears that the site was undeveloped as early as 1927; however, by 1938, the site was being used for agricultural production. Initial development of the site occurred In the mid 1950s. Five buildings were eventually constructed on the site during the prior ownerships and operations. Three were constructed between 1953 and 1957 and two were constructed in 1982. A small hazardous waste storage building was also constructed in 1984. Although the exact use of the site by the initial industrial user (Helipot) is not known, it is believed to be a former division of Beckman Instruments and/or Honeywell. Hughes Aircraft Company acquired the property in 1958; Raytheon acquired Hughes in 1997. Manufacturing operations that took place during the approximately 40 years of ownership of the site by Hughes and Raytheon can be categorized as: Manufacture of semiconductors and other electronic components Packaging of microelectronic devices Electronics assembly Electronic manufacturing and assembly activities were conducted to varying degrees in each of the buildings. In 2000, the property was sold to a commercial developer, who redeveloped the site into a commercial office park. Redevelopment activities resulted in the demolition of two of the older buildings (i.e., those constructed between 1953 and 1957); the remaining buildings were remodeled to accommodate the commercial office uses. In addition, all concrete slab and asphalt located around the buildings were removed and replaced. Hazardous wastes generated at the facility during the Raytheon/Hughes operations included waste solvents, waste coatings, volatile organic compound (VOC) bearing solid wastes, waste corrosives, waste oils, and metal- bearing wastes. Waste solvents were stored in bulk storage tanks located east of the two buildings. Current Use The majority of the buildings at the site are currently vacant. The primary operations in the occupied portions of the buildings include office use's, although a geotechnical soils testing laboratory is located in one of the buildings (510 Superior Avenue) that processes soils for various testing procedures, which can involve the use of small quantities of acids. A small amount of fuel appeared to be stored in that space that is probably used for running small motors. The parking structure Is currently leased to Hoag Hospital for parking. Draft Environmental impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pam* Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.6.7 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment - Draft Envbnnmental impact Report Section 4.6 Phase IESA As indicated. previously, Iris conducted a Phase I ESA. in order to characterize-the existing site conditions. The findings of the Phase I ESA, which is incorporated by reference, are summarized in the following text. The Phase I ESA prepared for the site included a data base search to determine whether the site or any nearby properties are under investigation for potential environmental Issues or have been identified as conducting operations that could potentially impact the environment. Searches of several Federal and State databases were conducted during the preparation of the Phase I ESA. The results of those database searches are summarized in Table 4.6 -1, followed by a summary of the on -site and off -site findings. Table 4.6 -1 Results of Database Searches Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Graff Environmental Impact Report Hoag, Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.6-2 I 1 1 I I 11 H 1 I u Federal Environmental Record Sources National Priorities List (NPL) 1.0 Mile X X Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 0.5 Mile X X Information S tem. CERCLIS CERCLIS (No Further Remedial Action 0.25 Mile X X Planned Corrective Action Report CORRACTS 1.0 Mile X X RCRAInfo_ (Treatment, Storage and 0.5 Mile X X Disposal Facilities RCRAInfo Generators Lists 0.25 Mile X X Emergency Response Notcation System NIA X X ERNS California Environmental Record Sources Annual Work Plan (AWP) 1.0 Mile X X CalSites 0.5 Mile X X California Solid Waste Inventory System _ SW IS 0.5 Mile X X California Waste Management Unit X X Database MUDS Leaking Underground Storage Tank 0.5 Mile X X X LUST UST and Historical UST and.Facility Inventory Database CA FID UST 0.35 Mile X 'Target Site only. SOURCE: Iris Environmental (February 1 2006 Graff Environmental Impact Report Hoag, Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.6-2 I 1 1 I I 11 H 1 I u I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I J I I 1 I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 Target Property (On -Site) UST Raytheon Systems Company, located at 500 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA is listed on the UST database as having one tank. No other information was available from the listing. CERCLIS — NFRAP Hugest Aircraft Company, located at 500 Superor Avenue, Newport Beach, CA is listed on the CERCLIS — NFRAP database. The listing indicates that the site is not on the NPL. The assessment history indicates that discovery occurred on August 1,1980, a site inspection, preliminary assessment and HRS package all occurred on June 1, 1983. On August 18, 1983, a unilateral Administrative Order was issued. The site was inspected again on March 12, 1990 and archived on the same date. CORRACTS Hughes Aircraft Company, located at 500 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA is listed on the CORRACTS database. The listing indicates that on August 18, 1983, the corrective action was an RFI Imposition. On August 15, 1990, the facility was assigned a high corrective action priority. On March 9, 2001, the site was listed as having unacceptable migration of contaminated groundwater, and that current human exposures are not under control. The listing for September 23, 2005 indicates that current human exposures are under control. RCRAInfo — TSD Hughes Aircraft Company, located at 500 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA is listed on the RCRAlnfo — TSD database. Between 1988 and 1993, there were nine violations at the site, including: Four (4) violations listed as "TSD — Other Requirements (Oversightp Two (2) violations listed as'TSD — Land Ban Requirements" Two (2) violations listed as "Generator — Land Ban Requirements" One (1) violation listed as "TSD — Closure/Post-Closure Requirement' Compliance was achieved on all nine violations listed above. LUST Hughes Aircraft Company,. located at 500 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA is listed twice on the LUST database. The first listing indicates that a solvent leak that affected groundwater was discovered January 1, 1978 and was stopped on January 1, 1981. The Regional Board is the lead agency for the release. Pollution characterization was conducted on January 30, 1998, and remedial action began on January 1, 2000. The remedial action employed was groundwater pump and treat and soil vapor extraction. The second listing indicates that a diesel leak that affected the sal only was discovered during tank closure on May 1, 1991. The lead agency for this release is listed as local agency." The case was dosed on August 7. 1991. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.6-3 I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 Vicinity Properties (Off -Site) No facilities in the vicinity of the site were identified in the following databases within the specified radii: NPO, , Proposed NPL, CERCLIS, ERNS, AWP, and CalSites. Because the groundwater flow direction is to the south - southeast, only sites that are upgradient of the subject property are discussed below. CERCLIS — NFRAP Two facilities within one -half mile of the subject "property are listed on the CERCKLIS — NFRAP database. The Newport Beach Corporate Yard (592 Superior Avenue) is located approximately one - eighth mile northeast of the site. The 8.174 -acre yard has been operated since 1950, and has administrative offices, equipment warehouses, storage buildings, an auto repair shop, a refuse transfer station, equipment wash racks, and fuel pumping stations. Three monitoring wells were installed at the facility as part of the on -going investigation at 500 Superior Avenue. Discovery at the facility was completed on September 24, 1990; and preliminary assessment and site archival occurred on March 31, 1992. The U.S. EPA recommended No Further Action under CERCLA on March 31, 1992 because the facility produces low quantities of hazardous , waste, no drinking water wells exist within four files, there are no known releases of hazardous substances, and the facility is paved and fenced. On June 29, 1992, the.facility was referred to the RW QCB. The Hixson Metal Finishing fire Location (829 Production Place) is located approximately 0.26 mile west of the site. A fire at a metal finishing facility posed the threat of uncontrolled chemical releases, particularly hydrocyanic gas (HCN). The listing indicates that PRP removal was completed on March 14, 1987, Cost recovery was completed on June 25, 1991, and the site was archived on January 23, 1996. RCRAInfo — LOG One facility within one - quarter mile of the site is listed on the RCRAlnfo — LQG database. Resinart , Corporation (1625 Placentia Avenue) is located approximately 0.24 mile west of the site. The listing indicates that no violations have been recorded. RCRAlnfo — SQG 1 Seven facilities within one - quarter mile of the site are listed on the RCRAlnfo — SQG database. The listings for these facilities indicate that no violations have been recorded. , SWIS Two facilities are located within one -half mile of the site. Both of the listings have the same address of 592 ' Superior Avenue; however, one of the listings is in the downgradient direction of the site. The Newport Beach Corporate Yard is located approximately 0.18 mile northeast and upgradient of the site. The listing indicates that the facility was operated by the City of Newport Beach as a solid waste disposal site, and that it ' is now dosed. WMUDS One facility within one -half mile of the site is listed on the WMUDS database. Entin Metals No. 2 (1701 Pomona) is located approximately 0.36 mile north - northwest of the site. The listing indicates that there is a solid waste assessment test program. No other information is available in the listing. Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Hoag Health Center Use PemR Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.64 I ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 LUST ' Twenty-one (21) facilities are located within one -half mile of the subject property. Eleven of the 21 facilities have received case closure and seven of the 21 facilities only have soil contamination. Of the remaining three facilities, there are two unique addresses. R.C. Auto Service of Orange County/Weber Family Trust (1640 Superior Avenue) is located approximately 0.51 mile northeast of the site. The listing indicates.thata gasoline leak to groundwater was discovered during tank closure on June 5, 1996. The lead agency is listed as "local agency." . Remedial action was t underway as of March 8, 2001. ' C. Carter Co., Inc., is located 0.4 mile north - northeast of the site. The listing indicates that a release of trichlorethylene (TCE) was discovered on March 27, 1987 during tank closure. Groundwater has been affected, and the lead agency for the case is the RWQCB. A preliminary assessment was submitted on' February 28, 1990. On August 9, 1996, a work plan was approved to conduct further characterization. The abatement method is listed as free product removal. Groundwater sampling data from October 12, 1999 indicates a methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) concentration of 1.7 parts per billion (ppb). UST Seven facilities within 0.25 mile of the site are listed on the UST database. All seven facilities are listed as having one tank each. In addltion, 24, 'orphan" sites were also identified; however, none of these sites were observed within the vicinity of the subject property. Phase l ESA Site Characterization ' Polychlodnated B/phenyls (PCBs) and Asbestos PCBs tDuring the site visit conducted prior to the preparation of the Phase I ESA, no PCBs were observed; however, a prior report from 1999 prepared by ENVIRON indicated that former equipment (Varian ion implanters) were ' suspected to be PCB - containing and were never sampled. The equipment was subsequently removed from the site and the area was decontaminated. During the site visit for the Phase I ESA, three transformers were noted, including two located along the western side of the parking structure; the third is located on the east side of 520 Superior Avenue. Although the age of the transformers owned by Souther California Edison Company is not known, no evidence of spills or leaks was noted, nor was there evidence of stressed vegetation surrounding the transformers. ' Elevators are located in all four current buildings and in the parking structure. The elevator equipment in three of the former buildings was removed during the demolition and remodeling that occurred in 2001. it was reported that the elevator equipment that was reinstalled did not contain PCBs. The elevator equipment in the parking structure is the original equipment that was installed in the early 1980s and it is not known as to whether it contains PCBs; however, no evidence of spills or leaks was noted on the concrete floor surrounding the equipment and no cracks were present in the concrete floor. Asbestos An asbestos survey was conducted In 1999, which identified asbestos - containing materials (ACMs) in all five former buildings; no ACMs were identified in the parking structure. However, all of the current buildings existing on the subject property were either constructed or renovated between 2001 and 2002, resulting in Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.65 Hoag Health Center Use Permit.Amandment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 the removal of any ACM. No ACM was observed at the site during the most recent site visit conducted for the Phase I ESA. Hazardous Materials Use and Storage Hazardous Material Use Hazardous materials utilized on -site noted during the site visit conducted for the Phase I ESA included small quantities of acids that were stored in a storage locker labeled as containing corrosive materials. In addition, four small cylinders of gases and some fuel were also stored in the soils testing laboratory at 510 Superior Avenue.. A variety of hazardous materials were stored and used on the site prior to 2000 when the site was occupied by Hughes/Raytheon. These hazardous materials included freons, solvents, cyanide, a variety acids (e.g., sulfuric, hydrofluoric, nitric and phosphoric), toxic gases and halocarbons, and metals (copper and silver), and various other materials. A hazardous waste storage area, constructed in 1984, was used to store drummed hazardous wastes. Five neutralization pits/tanks also existed on the site. Four of the five pits/tanks were abandoned or removed prior to 1984, when the most recent system was installed. That system received wastewater that was treated to raise the pH to an acceptable range for discharge into the sanitary sewer. Underground Storage Tanks Although several USTs did exist at one time or another on the subject property, there are not USTs that currently exist on the site and no evidence of current or former USTs was noted during the site visit. However, historical records indicate that USTs were formerly located at the site, including the USTs identified in Table 4.6 -2. Table 4.6 -2 Inventory of USTs Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ✓ J.. �.� 3,000 gallons East of Building C Waste Solvent Put out of Service in 1981 due to Leakage . East of Building C Waste Solvent Removed in 1986 860 gallons East of Building C Waste Solvent Removed In 2000 5,000 gallons East of Building B Removed in 1983 West of Building A I Gasoline I Removed in 1982 10,000 gallons East of Buildin2 B Gasoline Removed in 2000 East of Building A Diesel Fuel Removed in 1988 8,000 gallons East of Building A Diesel Fuel Removed in 2000 'A remediation program was conducted to address the contamination and the case was closed in 1991. SOURCE: Iris Environmental (February 1, 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Nawport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.6-6 I 11 1 I 11 J I r— u I ' Hoag Haafth Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 Aboveground Storage Tanks ' According to prior surveys conducted on the site (ENVIRON, 1999), an aboveground storage tank (AST) farm, which stored hydrogen, liquid oxygen, helium, liquid nitrogen, and argon, was formerly located in the northwest end of the west parking lot. Drums and Small Containers ' Small containers used for storage of chemicals, Including acids, gases and fuel were noted during the Phase IESA ' Hazardous and Non- Hazardous Waste The only non - hazardous waste generated at the site is office waste, which is collected in waste storage bins located along the southeastern property boundary. The waste is transported from the week on a weekly basis by CR &R, the contract waste hauler. There is no evidence to indicate that hazardous waste is currently generated at the site (Iris; February 1, 2006). According to a prior environmental assessment prepared by ENVIRON in 1999, hazardous wastes that were formerly generated at the site consisted of waste solvents, ' waste coatings, VOC- bearing solid wastes, corrosive wastes, waste oils, and metal- bearing wastes. Air Emissions The only current potential sources of air emissions at the site are the boiler stacks; however, the boilers are r not required to be permitted with the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Wastewater ,Although previous operations, at the site generated industrial wastewater, no evidence of the current generation of industrial wastewater was observed during the site visit conducted for the Phase 1 ESA. ' Previous operations at the site have generated industrial wastewater. Sanitary wastewater is generated from the restrooms and kitchens located in the buildings. Storm water is collected from the roofs of the buildings And channeled into roof drains that discharge into the storm sewer; storm drains are located in the parking ' lots throughout the site. Soil and Groundwater Contamination ' The Phase I ESA has revealed the following Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), on the subject property. ' Soil and groundwater contamination at the site has resulted from operations conducted by former site occupants (i.e., Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon Company). The primary contaminants identified volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including: ' - Trichloroathylene (TCE) - Ethylbenzene - 1,1,1 - trichloroathane (1,1,1 -TCA) m,p- xylenes - o- xylene methylene chloride - tetrachloroethylene (PCE) ' - cis -1,2- dichloroethene (cis- 1,2 -DCE) Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 4.6-7 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 Subsurface investigations at the site. were initiated after the waste solvent UST located to the east of Building C (refer to Table 4.6 -2) was discovered to be leaking in 1981. Preliminary investigations of on -site groundwater quality revealed the presence of VOCs in the perched water zone and in the underlying regional groundwater system. The principal contaminants were detected in the perched zone, indicating that solvents previously stored In.the tank had leaked into the subsurface. Efforts since 1981 have included the removal of various USTs and contaminated soil, the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, the installation of soil vapor probes and soil vapor extraction systems, and the implementation of enhanced bioremediation remedies. Environmental conditions at the site appear to have been adequately characterized and appropriate remedial measures are currently being implemented to ensure that on -site soil and groundwater contamination is properly, ameliorated. The RWQCB continues to provide active oversight for site investigation and remediation activities. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has historically provided advice and guidance to the RWQCB in its oversight of the site. Soil Gas Analysis Iris Environmental also performed a soil gas investigation at the former Raytheon facility (i.e., Newport Technology Center) to supplement prior surveys and to identify chemicals of potential concern (COPCs).that would be included in a subsequent indoor air sampling program. The findings of that analysis, which is incorporated by reference, are summarized below. The results of the soil gas investigation revealed that the concentrations of chemicals of concern in the soil gas collected were found to be at relatively low levels. With the exception of tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and vinyl chloride (VC), all compounds detected at least once during the investigation had concentrations below the approved residential risk based concentrations (RBCs). PCE, TCE, and VC were detected in soil gas at the site above residential RBCs, with maximum concentrations for these compounds documented as indicated in Table 4.6-3. Table 4.63 Maximum Concentrations of COPCs Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment WINE LJ J& 11 . mac_ as =7: -I ,r • •i 11 SOURCE: • r. 11 In addition, methane was detected above the LEL for methane of five percent by volume in one location. Methane was detected at 62,000 parts per million of volume (ppmv), 6.2 percent) near the northwestern property boundary. As indicated in Section 4.6.1, the elevated methane concentration is likely the result of the use of the Newport Beach Corporate Yard as a former landfill. Methane was detected at three other locations at concentrations that were orders of magnitude lower than the noted detection and well below the LEL. Draft Environmental Impact Report .. Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment - Newport Beach, CA. September 2007 Page 4.6.8 I 1 E I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 I r- L u !J ' Hoag Health Canter Use Permit Amendment (raft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.8 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern ' Project Site Twenty-one (21) areas of potential environmental concem have been identified as a result of the Phase I ESA. These areas are illustrated on Exhibit 4.6 -1 and summarized in Table 4.6-4. Table 4.6.4 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.6 -9 1 North of Building 530 Former Neutralization UST 2 Beneath Building 530 Former Neutralization Pit 3 North of Building 530 Former Neutralization System 4 Building 530 Former Acid Pit 5 Building 530 Former Drain Lines 6 Building 530 Abandoned Drains 7 East of Building 530 Former Neutralization Pit 8 Building 530 Former Solvent Tank and Former Solvent UST /Pit 9 Beneath Building 510 Former Neutralization Tank No. 1 10 Beneath Building 510 Former Gasoline UST 11 Between Buildings 510 and 520 Former Solvent Drain Lines 12 Between Buildings 510 and 520 Former Floor Drains 13 Between Buildings 510 and 520 Former Plating Shop 14 Between Buildings 510 and 520 Beneath Building 520 Former Acid Drain Line 15 Building 520 Former Acid Pit 16 South of Building 520 Former Diesel UST 17 South of Building 530 Former Hazardous Materials Storage Area 18 South of Building 530 Solvent Storage Area/Secondary Containment Tank 19 East of Building 520 Former Hazardous Waste Storage Area 20 South of Building 530 Former Gasoline UST 21 East of Building 520 Former Solvent Pit . SOURCE: Iris Environmental (February 1, 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.6 -9 Hoag Heafth Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 Adjacent Properties As indicated previously, the Newport Beach Corporate Yard (592 Superior Avenue) is located adjacent to the , site and is listed on the CERCLIS -NFRAP and SW IS databases. Based on the information collected from the three monitoring wells, methane concentrations exceed the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) of five percent in two locations near the northeast boundary of the subject property adjacent to the Newport Beach Corporate Yard. Because the City's Corporate Yard was formally operated as a landfill, the elevated methane detections in " the vicinity of that area are likely due to its prior usage as a landfill. Methane. concentrations detected on other portions of the site were orders of magnitude lower. Therefore, methane is not a site -wide issue. , Indoor Air Monitornq Because VOCs are present in the subsurface beneath the site (refer to prior discussions), the migration of ' chemicals, through the vadose zone (i.e., layer above the permanent groundwater zone) and into the indoor air of onsite buildings "through cracks or conduits in the building foundations is of potential concern. Therefore, an air quality investigation (i.e., indoor air monitoring) was conducted to evaluate whether vapor , intrusion is occurring, and to determine if VOCs are present in indoor air at levels of concern to future building occupants. The results of the indoor air monitoring investigation are summarized below.. Three compounds were defected in at least one sample above indoor air screening levels [i.e., California ' Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs)] for residential land use: tetrachloroethylene, benzene, and vinyl chloride. The remaining compounds were not detected above indoor air screening levels in any primary 8- hour composite sample. During the most recent indoor air sampling round, tetrachloroethylene was detected above the air screening level of 0.41 pg /m3 in five of 11 indoor air samples and none of the four outdoor air samples. The highest tetrachloroethylene concentrat ion detected during this sampling round was 1.5 pg/m at 510 Superior , Avenue. Benzene was detected in all of the indoor and outdoor air samples at levels that exceed the threshold of 0.084 pg /m3. Concentrations of benzene ranged from 0.93 to 2.2 Ng/m3 in 11 indoor air samples, and from 0.83 to 0.96 Ng /m3 in four outdoor air samples. The highest concentrations of benzene were ' observed at 510 Superior Avenue. Vinyl chloride was detected above the laboratory reporting limit in only one sample, fro m 510 Superior Avenue, at a concentration of 0.065 Ng/m3. The remaining eight chemicals of potential concern were not detected at or above indoor air screening levels in any of the 8-hour composite samples. Four chemicals were not detected in any sample at any level, including 1,1- dichloroethane, 1,1- dichloroethylene, trans1,2- dichioroethylene, and 1,1,1 4richloroethane. 4.6.2 Significance Criteria The proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if the project results in one or more of the following conditions: ' • Creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. , • Creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. • Emission of hazardous substances or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. ' Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.6-10 ' I 1 1 11 1 1 I u Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report, Section A6 • Location on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962:5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. • Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death Involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized. 4:6.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.6-1 The City of Newport Beach will require all plans for proposed uses with the project site to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the use of toxic and/or hazardous materials. SC 4.6-2 If lt 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 the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). 4.6.4 . Potential Impacts 4.6.4.1 Short -Term Impacts Creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials Project implementation will not result in the creation of any potential impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. As part of the prior approval for the subject property, one of the existing buildings will be demolished and a new four -level parking garage will be constructed in its place. Implementation of the proposed project will involve some remodeling of the remaining existing structures to accommodate the proposed use of the office buildings for medical offices, which will replace the general office space and research and development, and construction of a new building between the two parking structures to accommodate the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space. As previously indicated, a survey was conducted to determine if asbestos - containing materials (ACM), lead - based paint (LBP), or other hazardous materials exist in that structure or other structures to be remodeled. Based on that survey, it was determined that ACM was identified in all five former buildings; no asbestos was identified in the parking structure. However, all of the existing buildings at the site were either constructed or renovated between 2001 and 2002, resulting in the removal of ACM in all of the buildings. No ACM was observed during the most recent Phase I ESA. LBP abatement is regulated by the Orange. County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and/or the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). If LBP is present, it will be removed prior to demolition of the existing office building. Therefore, demolition of that structure would not result in the emission and dispersal of any hazardous materials and /or contaminants within the project area. Draft Environmental impact Report Haag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.6-11 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment . Draft Environmental impact Report Section 4.6 In addition to the potential LBP remediation, contaminated soils would also be excavated from the site and would require landfilling. Based on prior sampling data, the soil does not require classification or , management as hazardous wastes and would likely be accepted as Class II or Class It waste at landfills In the region. Although none of the soil exceeds waste characterization criteria, certain landfills may have SCAQMD requirements that preclude the use of these soils as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) due to the ' presence of VOC. Nonetheless, excavation of these soils would require hauling to a landfill certified to accept it. Due to the possibility of elevated ambient air concentrations of TCE and PCE, ambient air monitoring will likely be required to ensure protection of worker health and safety during excavation of the soil: If monitoring indicates elevated concentrations of VOCs in ambient air, additional health and safety ' measures have to be implemented. Conversion of the non - medical office floor area to medical offices will result in additional medical. supplies and medical waste would be stored within the structures located on the project site. The proposed ' medical offices would be required to register with the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and would also be required to prepare a Medical Waste Management Plan (MWMP) that includes an Emergency Action Plan, which delineates the procedures for properly handling on -site spills and releases of medical waste. This plan also addresses surface cleanup, protective clothing and equipment to be ' used, and disinfecting procedures. Any such materials will be stored and used in the prescribed manner by the Orange County .Health Care Agency. Compliance with the MWMP and related OCHCA and related Public Health and Safety Code requirements will ensure that no significant Impacts would occur. ' 4.6.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release'of hazardous materials into the environment The proposed site development will not utilize hazardous materials, either during construction or , operation of the project. Although conversion of the remaining non - medical office floor area to medical offices would necessitate tenant improvements that would affect the interior spaces, ACM abatement would not be required because all of the ACM was removed in 2001 and 2002 when the existing buildings were renovated or constructed. LBP abatement, if determined necessary for the .demolition of the ' existing office building, would occur pursuant to regulatory requirements prescribed by the SCAQMD and OCHCA. Therefore, implementation of the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the potential release of hazardous materials as a result of an accident. No ' significant impacts are anticipated as a "result of project implementation. Emission of hazardous substances or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school ' No schools are located within one - quarter mile of the subject property. Nonetheless, although project implementation will result in activities that could affect sensitive receptors (e.g., dust and particulate , emissions, etc.), the release of airborne contaminants would be appropriately addressed through standard conditions and regulations prescribed by the regulatory agencies having jurisdiction (AQMD and OCHCA). No other potential release of hazardous materials would occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. ' Location on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a signfcant hazard to the , public or the environment Subsequent to the preparation of Phase I ESA, which determined that the site contained areas of potential environmental concern (e.g., former underground waste solvent tanks, etc.), a soils remediation ' program was undertaken as a conservative measures even though the measured soil contaminant Draft Environmental impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 Page 4.6-12 ' I ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment - Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 concentrations did not pose a health risk to future users of the properly (i:e., construction workers and future occupants of the site). in addition to the sal remediaton program, a remedial action plan (RAP) was prepared that detailed the approach for addressing impacted groundwater. With the exception of groundwater contamination identified at that time, it was determined that the site would be fully remediated. However, because the groundwater is not suitable for domestic use, contamination would have not impact on future users of the property, and remediation will continue, regardless of site occupancy. Efforts to remediate the site since 1981 have included the removal of various underground storage tanks (USTs) and contaminated soil, the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, the installation of soil vapor probes and soil vapor extraction systems, and the Implementation of enhanced bioremediation remedies. Environmental conditions at the site appear to have been adequately characterized and appropriate remedial measures are being implemented to ensure that on -site soil and ' groundwater contamination is properly remediated. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) continue to provide active oversight for the site investigation and remediation activities. Chemical vapors resulting from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the subsurface at the site could degrade indoor air quality until the site remediation is completed by the responsible party (Raytheon). Property building management measures will be implemented to control vapor intrusion into buildings at ' the site. The assessment and management of indoor air quality is currently being conducted under the oversight of the RWQCB. Prior approvals for the subject property authorized the demolition of the existing office building located closest ' to this location and its replacement with a parking garage. This will result in the two northernmost buildings on the site (i.e., those closest to the elevated methane concentrations) being open air parking garages and, consequently, much less susceptible to a buildup of dangerous levels of methane. Indoor and outdoor air samples were collected at 500, 510, and 520 Superior Avenue to evaluate whether vapor intrusion of volatile chemicals. The results of the monitoring indicated that benzene is present indoors at all three buildings above levels of concern for future site occupants, though not above ' background levels. Tetrachloroethylene was detected at elevated levels in nearly all air samples collected during the first monitoring event, however, at much lower levels during the second monitoring event. Vinyl chloride was also detected in some air samples above levels of concern, but at concentrations consistentwith background. Outdoor chemical sources appear to be the dominant sources impacting indoor air quality at the site and likely account for the majority of the human health impacts associated with elevated concentrations of ' chemical in indoor air. The onsite SVE system is a potentially significant nearby outdoor source of tetrachloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and benzene. A conservative comparison of results of Indoor air samples, outdoor air samples, and previously collected sal gas samples suggests that vapor intrusion may be occurring at the three buildings, however, at levels that result in de minimis incremental impact to ' human health. Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if located within two miles ' of a public airport or public use airport The subject properly is not located within the limits of the John Wayne Airport land use plan or other. public airport. Neither that commercial airport nor any other public airport is located within two miles of ' the site. As a result, project implementation will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project Implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. 1 ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport 8oacrm, CA September 2007 Page 4.6.13 11 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' !haft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan , The City of Newport Beach has prepared an Emergency Operations` Plan that designates procedures to be followed in case of a major emergency. Pacific Coast Highway is designated as an evacuation route ' in the City; in addition, Superior. Avenue and Newport Boulevard east of the site are also designated evacuation routes. The project site is not designated for emergency use within the 'Emergency Operations Plan. The primary concern of the Public Safety Element and the City of Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the site is subject to potentially severe seismic ' shaking and fires, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The site is not located within a flood hazard area or subject to such potential disasters. Development of the subject property as proposed will ' not adversely affect either the evacuation. routes or the adopted emergency operations planning program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, project implementation will not physically, interfere with the City's emergency planning program. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. ' Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized , The subject property is located within an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. No natural vegetation and /or habitat exists on the site and the site is not subject to the potential risk of wildland fires. There are no major urban or wildland fire.hazards that pose a significant threat to the development. No ' significant impacts as a result of wildland fires will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation measures are necessary. 4.6.5 Mitigation Measures Construction ' Impact 4.64 The elevated concentrations of VOCs In soil gas suggest the possibility of VOC- contaminated soil. Personnel Involved In excavating soils to potential health hazards , may be exposed to potential health hazards If it is determined .that elevated ambient air concentrations of VOC exist MM 4.6 -1a Prior to and during excavation, soil shall be monitored for concentrations of VOCs. A mitigation plan as outlined in Appendix A of SCAQMD Rule 1166 shall be submitted to the , SCAQMD for review and approval prior to excavation. Excavation may begin only after a minimum 24 -hour notification to the SCAQMD and must proceed in accordance with the mitigation plan and Rule 1166, which includes continuous VOPC monitoring, segregation of non -VOC contaminated stockpiles from VOC- contaminated stockpiles, spraying water and/or approved vapor suppressants on VOCcontaminated stockpiles, and covering VOC- contaminated stockpiles with plastic sheeting. ' MM 4.6 -1b If.monitoring indicates elevated concentrations of VOCs in ambient air, additional health and safety measures may have to be implemented. Specific measures will be identified and submitted to the RWQCB for review and approval prior to implementation and will be , designed and implemented to ensure persons are' not exposed to significant levels of hazardous materials that would create a potential health hazard. !haft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA , September 2007 Page 46-14 I t Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 Operation ' Impact 4.6-2 Soil and groundwater contamination at the site has resulted from operations conducted by former, site occupants (i.e., Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon Company). ' The primary contaminants at the site are volatile organic compounds. Chemical vapors resulting from VOCs in the subsurface at the site could degrade indoor air quality until site remediatton is completed by the responsible party ( Ratheon Company). ' MM 4.6-2 Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall prepare and submit a corrective action plan to implement measures to control potential vapor intrusion into ' Building 510 and other buildings proposed for occupancy, If determined necessary. The corrective action plan shall include a timetable to implement the corrective measures as well as a timetable to conduct additional indoor sampling. ' Impact 4.6-3 Methane concentrations detected in the northwest portion of the site exceed the LEL for methane. Concentrations that exceed the LEL could result in potential safety impacts to future site development ' MM 4.6 -3 During excavation on the northeastern boundary of the site, soil shall be monitored for concentrations of methane. A methane mitigation plan shall be submitted to the RW QCB for review and approval prior to excavation. Excavation may begin only after approval of ' the methane mitigation plan. If monitoring indicates elevated concentrations of methane in ambient air, additional health and safety measures may be required as delineated in the methane mitigation plan. 1 1 1 1 LJ 1 Implementation of the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the potential release of hazardous materials as a. result of an accident. No other potential release of hazardous materials would occur as a.result of project implementation. In addition, the proposed project will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards associated with aviation operations at JWA, to people residing or working in the project area. Finally, the project would not expose the site and /or development to the potential for wildland fires and would not result in impacts to the City's emergency response plan. 4.6.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above will ensure that all potential impacts, including short- and long -term effects of site development, will be reduced to a less, than significant level. No significant; unavoidable adverse impacts will occur is a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 4.6-15 I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 CHAPTER 5.0 IMPACTS FOUND.NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ' The environmental process requires the Lead Agency for a proposed project, in this case the City of Newport ' Beach, to prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) which describes the proposed project and summarizes the potential environmental impacts which could result from the implementation of a proposed project. An initial study (IS) checklist, which defines area's of concern, was completed as part of this process. The IS discussed what topics were going to be analyzed further in the EIR. The results of the IS for the proposed Hoag Health Care Center project focused the topics that were going to be studied in the EIR down to several topical areas. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to assess certain potential impacts associated with this project. The IS, which was circulated with the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and the supporting documentation for the proposed Hoag Health Care Center project are provided in Appendix A ' of this EIR. This section summarizes those potential impacts of the proposed Hoag Health Care Center Use Permit ' Amendment project that were determined in the IS to be below a level of significance or which could be mitigated to below a level of significance based on mitigation measures Incorporated in the IS. 5.1 Land Uses and Planning The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, ' because the area of the City in which the subject property is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The subject property encompasses approximately 13.7 acres that are currently developed as Newport Technology Center. The site has been entirely altered in order to accommodate the existing development. As a result, no natural features ' and/or habitat that would support sensitive species exist on the site. In particular, neither the Site nor the surrounding areas is located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and /or ' resources. No significant Impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation 5.2 Agriculture Project implementation will not result in the conversion of any prime or otherwise significant farmland. No agricultural use of the property presently occurs. The subject property is developed with medical and related professional offices. According to the Orange County Important Farmland Map, the entire area, ' including the subject property, is designated as "Urban and Built Up Land," which encompasses land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one dwelling unit to one and one -half acres. ' Development of the site as proposed will not result in any significant impacts to farmland or other agricultural resources. The subject property is not zoned for agricultural uses and /or included in a Williamson Act contract. ' Project implementation will not require changes either to the existing zoning classifications or land use designations reflected in the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no conflicts with the adopted short- and long -range plans will occur and no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated to occur to existing agricultural uses as a result of project implementation. ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Heafth Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page &I Hoag Hea/M Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 5.3 Population and Housing The proposed development will not result in the elimination of any residential dwelling units or residents. Therefore, no existing housing or residents will be displaced If the project Is approved and constructed and no significant impacts will occur. Further, project implementation does not include the development of the site for residential or other land uses that would be considered directly growth- inducing. Further, ail of the existing infrastructure' exists in the area and is available to accommodate the proposed development. Adequate capacity exists in all of the infrastructure systems that serve the site (e.g., sewer, water, storm drainage, roadways, etc.) and no new or expanded facilities are required to provide service to the project. No significant additional growth would be anticipated to occur as a direct result of the proposed medical office development. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. 5.4 Geology and Soils The Project is located In the seismically active southern California region. Primary ground rupture or fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. However, other faults without surface expression (i.e., blind faults) or other potentially active seismic sources also capable of generating an earthquake may be present under the site at depth but not yet identified. Implementation of the Project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to fault rupture during a seismic event. As indicated above, the site is located in a seismically active region. The potential for severe damage and loss of life resulting from earthquake activity exists within the City of Newport Beach. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone), it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The Property and environs are located within an area designated as Category 2 by the Newport Beach Public Safety Element (Newport Beach Public Safety Element °Potential Seismic Hazards Areas "). Areas in Category 2 are characterized by stronger shaking potential than Category 1, which is the lowest ground shaking category identified in the City. All of the structures and facilities proposed by the applicant will be designed and constructed in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code to ensure that potential damage to seismic shaking will be minimized. Further, design level geotechnical studies will be conducted to ensure that on -site characteristics can be evaluated and the proposed buildings properly designed to address the existing soils and geologic conditions. Implementation of proper grading and design measures will ensure that significant potential impacts associated with groundshaking will not occur. 5.5 Hydrology and Water Quality The subject site is located in an area that is completely developed. Although'site alteration will occur, implementation of the project will not affect any existing groundwater recharge activities. No groundwater Wells are located on the site or in the vicinity of the project that would be adversely affected by the Project.. Site development as proposed will not result in any impacts to nearby wells that would affect any domestic water well capacity or their ability to provide adequate water service to the existing and planned land uses in the City. In addition, project implementation will not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns, either on the site or in the vicinity of the property. No alterations to existing watercourses are proposed by the applicant. Surface runoff currently flows from the site to the perimeter streets (i.e., Superior Avenue, Dana Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport aeach,.CA September 2007 ' Page 5-2 I 1 1 1 li J 11 I 1 I 1 7 J I� j� F L Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chaptor ao Road). The proposed site plan will maintain the existing grades and will not substantially change the volume and rate of surface flows emanating from the site. The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. No residential development is proposed by the applicant for the Property. Therefore, development of the site as proposed will not result in the placement of housing within a flood -prone area identified by FEMA or the City of Newport Beach. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Demolition and construction activities associated with the implementation of the Project would result in a potential temporary increase in erosion and the release of sediment and construction pollutants into storm water runoff. Although project implementation will result in the exposure of the site soils to the elements during the construction phase, appropriate erosion control techniques prescribed in the WQMP will address the speck nature of any potential erosion. Upon completion of construction, potential erosion of the site soils will be eliminated. The incorporation of the mandated BMPs will ensure that potential erosion of the site soils remain less than significant. No potential erosion of off -site soils will occur as a result of project' implementation. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant changes in the quality of surface water that could affect water quality at'other nearby locations because the site is currently developed and nearly completely impervious. Nonetheless, the applicant is proposing uses that are consistent and compatible with the existing land uses and those reflected in the adopted long -range plans for the site. The types and concentrations of pollutants are similar to those resulting from the same uses that exist on the site and those in other areas in the City and include: silt (during construction), petroleum hydrocarbons from parking areas, pesticides and fertilizers, and other pollutants common to urban development. It is important to note that no unusual contamination or pollutant is anticipated as a result of implementing the Project and, further, that the increases in pollutant and /or contaminant concentrations will be addressed in the requisite BMPs and other standard conditions that have been prescribed for the. Project. Therefore, the potential Impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. 5.6 Transportation and Circulation The subject property is currently developed as a technology center, which is located approximately three miles southwest of John Wayne Airport. Project implementation, which includes the conversion of all of the remaining nori- medical office floor area to medical office uses (i.e., 232,414 square feet) and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area, will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. Therefore, no significant impacts to air traffic patterns are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Access to the site is adequate to accommodate project - related traffic as well as provide emergency access.. The existing project north driveway currently provides full access to Superior Avenue with stop sign control. A two -way left turn median is currently provided on Superior Avenue for left turns into the project site and a right tum,lane is striped on Superior Avenue at the project central driveway, which as previously mentioned, is recommended to provide a traffic signal. The existing project south driveway is proposed to accommodate right turns in /out only access to Superior Avenue with stop sign control. As indicated above, future construction of the additional medical office floor area would be designed to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. As a result, no significant impacts would occur. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 5.3 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft EnvlronmentelImpact Report Chapterao 5.7 Air Quality Objectionable odors are not currently present within the project site or environs. Approval of the proposed project would not ultimately result In the creation of objectionable odors, as there is no change In the nature.of the land use. Although some of the equipment may emit some odors, they would not be significant during construction. 5.8 Noise It is unlikely that any activities occurring as a result of project implementation will expose the area to excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels. As indicated above, potential noise impacts,wiii result from typical construction activities and will not require unusual grading or construction techniques that would cause excessive groundborne vibrations (i.e., pile drivers). Further, no use proposed on the site would result in such impacts, which will be less than significant. 5.9 Biological Resources The subject property is located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach. No sensitive species (or candidate species) inhabit the site and no significant, valuable habitat presently exists at the project site. The site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No portion of the subject property contains federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Specifically, no marshes, vernal pools or other wetlands defined by either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Game are located within the limits of the project she, which has been extensively altered and is devoid of natural habitat and does not support sensitive species. Finally, the developed site is not included in the Southern Orange County NCCP and, therefore, is not protected by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, development pursuant to the proposed she development plan will not conflict with local, regional or State resource preservation and conservation policies. Although intensification of the existing land uses will result in some short-term construction impacts, including dust and pollutant emissions that may have some minor effect on plant species throughout the region, no direct impacts to sensitive species will occur as a result of project implementation due to the proximity of the nature center and mitigation of short-term, construction- related air emissions. Therefore, no significant impacts to biological resources are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. 5.10 Aesthetics The Property is located west of Newport Boulevard and is bounded by Superior Avenue on the west, and Dana Road on the south. Neither Newport Boulevard nor Superior Avenue is designated as a scenic roadway. The subject property and surrounding area are characterized by higher density development, including the City's Corporate Yard to the north, a care and rehabilitation center to the east, multiple - family residential and medical care center to the south, and a mobile home park and medical center on the west. Hoag Hospital and related medical facilities are located south of the subject property. Building 3 (520 Superior Avenue) and Building 4 (530 Superior Avenue) are visible from Newport Boulevard. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 5-4 1 1 1 11 11 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 F 1 I 1 1 1 1 I L Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter B 0 In 2001, the City granted a Use Permit to exceed the maximum permitted height of 32 feet to 50 feet in conjunction. with the remodel of the then existing industrial development.' The Project consisted of the demolition and reconstruction of approximately 214,210 square feet of existing buildings and the remodel of another 201,283 square feet. It was noted at the time that, since 1981, the site has historically had buildings exceeding the 32 feet minimum, with an existing parking structure of 46 feet to the top of the parapet and 50 feet to. the top of the elevator. The office/laboratory building was 32 feet to the top of the parapet with its mechanical penthouse structure taking it up to 41 feet. Additionally, the Increased height was approved based on a finding that it resulted in more public visual open space between buildings and reduced site coverage, than otherwise could have been achieved without the increased height. Although future construction. of the 20,586 square feet of additional medical office floor area could result in axeduction in the public visual open space, any future expansion occurring on the subject property must be in substantial conformance with the approved Use Permit to ensure that it complies with the intent of that Use Permit for height. If not, an amendment to the Use Permit would be required. Most recently (December 2006), the City approved UP 2006 -010 for the site that allows the demolition of one existing building and the construction of an additional_ parking structure and the conversion of existing office/R &D space to 97,000 square feet of medical office space. The aesthetic impacts associated with the demolition of the existing parking structure and its replacement with a new office building were evaluated in the Initial Study prepared for that project, which concluded that the no significant visual impacts would occur as a result of that project. The parking structure approved to replace Building No. 4, which will be demolished, will be substantially the same height as the building it will be replacing. Design of the proposed parking structure would not result in any significant visual impacts. As previously indicated, the proposed project will result in the addition of 20,586 square feet of new medical office floor area, whlch.will be' constructed between the parking structures and not be visible from Newport Boulevard. Although the existing structures and the approved but yet -to-be constructed parking structure would be visible from Newport Boulevard, views of the development would be the same as the views of the views identified and described in the prior environmental analysis for the new parking structure from locations along that roadway. Redeveloped medical office floor area will be constructed on the interior of existing buildings and will not change views of the buildings from Newport Boulevard. The east elevation of the parking structure, which would be visible from Newport Boulevard, has been designed to be compatible with the existing structures and, therefore, would not result in any significant adverse effect on the existing views. A series of views from the north and east is included in Appendix A, which illustrates the existing and post- development views from three locations along Newport Boulevard. As indicated in those views, the proposed parking structure appears to encroach into the same visual envelope as the existing office building that currently occupies the site. As reflected in those views, the proposed parking structure Is primarily designed as a concrete shear-wall, with metal panels and a metal trellis. Other elements on the east elevation include storefront glazing with aluminum mullion and perforated metal panels. The combination of these features and design of the structure, which does not exceed the height of the existing office building, will not significantly alter views from Newport Boulevard. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The property does not possess any unique aesthetic features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, or historic structures or features. In addjtion, the Property is not located along a state scenic highway. As indicated above, two existing structures are visible from Newport Boulevard; however, this arterial highway is. not designated as a scenic condor. ,Although the proposed project includes the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area on the subject property, it is not anticipated that the addition of this floor area would create a significant visual impact to scenic resources. As previously indicated, the subject property is devoid of native trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings or other amenities that constitute a visual resource. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required., Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Wwport Beach, CA September 2007 ' page 5-5 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter5.0 ' The area surrounding the property is also intensively developed with a variety of commercial, industrial, residential and medical office uses. The conversion of the remaining non - medical office space to medical , office uses. and the construction of the additional 20,566 square feet of medical office floor area on the site will not significantly change the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. Any additional structure(s) proposed on the site to accommodate the additional floor area would be designed ' to be compatible not only with the existing office buildings and parking structures but also the surrounding non - residential development. In particular, the new structure would not exceed the height of the existing buildings and would not be an intrusive element within the area. Therefore, less than significant visual impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are'required. ' 5.11 Cultural /Scientific Resources ' The Property encompasses several structures comprising the Newport Technology Center. The site was developed in the late 1950s. Since that time, buildings have been added and remodeled as needs evolved. All of the existing structures are contemporary in nature and do not possess historic value or ' significance. Further, there are no identified structures and/or other historical resources currently known to exist within the immediate project vicinity that would be affected as a result of implementing the proposed parking structure and related facilities. Neither the subject site nor the surrounding properties ' are identified as historic resources in the City's General Plan. No significant adverse changes to any historical resources will occur. Project implementation will necessitate some grading and site alteration in order to implement the proposed structure; however, it is not anticipated that any historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources will be affected. Therefore, no significant impacts to these resources will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. 5.12 Recreation ' Project implementation includes the conversion of existing office/R &D floor area to medical office uses and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area on the site. The ' Project will result in an increase of approximately 6 percent over the currently entitled floor area. No residential development is proposed that would create a new demand, or increase an existing demand, for recreational facilities. Existing parks in the vicinity of the project site will not be physically altered nor ' will their total acreage be reduced as a result of project implementation. Further, given the nature of the Project (i.e., non - residential), a greater demand for parks and recreation would not occur because the Project would not result in an increase in population that would necessitate new or expanded recreational facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts to City -wide recreational opportunities are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required 5.13 Mineral Resources ' Neither the City's General Plan nor the State of California has identified the site or environs as a potential location for mineral resources of State -wide, regional, or local significance. No mineral resources are ' known to exist. Therefore, development of the subject property as proposed will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource recovery site. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach. CA . Sepiember 2007 Page 5.5 ' I [l .1 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment (haft Environmental Impact Report Chapter SA 5.14 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The subject property is not located within the limits of the John Wayne Airport land use plan or other public airport or private airstrip. Neither that commercial airport nor any other public airport or private airstrip is located within two miles of the site. As a result, project implementation will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. 5.15 Public Services Project implementation will result in the intensification of the site development to allow an additional 20,588 square feet of floor area on the site, for a total of 350,000 square feet of medical offices. This Increase in development will not result in significant impacts to the ability' of the Newport Beach Fire Department or Newport Beach Police Department to provide an adequate level of protection. The site must comply with Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and California Building Code (including all local amendments) requirements and will be subject to review by the NBFD. The provision of educational services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. The proposed project will not directly result in potentially significant impacts to the District's educational facilities and /or existing capacity because no school -age students would be generated as a direct result of the medical office development proposed by the applicant. Implementation of the proposed project will result In the intensification of the use of the site. Although site development as proposed will not significantly change the use of the site, the increased intensity will not have any significant adverse effects on other public services, including libraries or administrative services provided by the City. 5.16 Utilities Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of demolition and construction debris during the construction phase. In addition, solid waste will be generated at the site associated with the proposed land uses. The applicant is proposing to convert some of the existing floor area to medical offices. The addition of the medical office floor area could result in the generation of some medical/bibhazard waste; such waste would be disposed properly at facilities certified to accept it.' Further, the County landfill system (i.e., three landfill sites) has a capacity in excess of 30 years. The City is required to comply with AB939, which requires reducing the amount of solid waste by 50 percent: Site development will be subject to the requirements established in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element. (SRRE) that reflect the manner in which solid waste reduction will occur. Compliance with the SRRE will ensure that such reductions occur, not only at the project site but also throughout the City of Newport Beach. It is possible that some of the demolition debris could be recycled, which would result in a reduction in the amount of construction debris that would be landfilled. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. The project site will remain subject to this provision. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. (raft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 Page 5-7 ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 6.0 CHAPTER 6.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS, ' amendment to the Use Permit for the Hoag Health Center. Specifically, Section 15126(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR): "'Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated, but not reduced to a' level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, ' notwithstanding their effect, should be described .n ' 6.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Section 4.0 (Environmental Analysis) documents the analysis of the potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project (i.e., Use Permit Amendment allowing for a total of 350,000 ' square feet of medical office floor area). Several potentially significant adverse impacts have been identified in Chapter 4.0 of the Draft EIR. As a result, in each case where such an impact occurs, specific mitigation measures have been prescribed. Implementation of these mitigation measures, which will be ' ensured through the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will either eliminate, avoid, or reduce the potentially impacts to a level of insignificance. As indicated in Chapter 4.0, with the exception of traffic impacts at the Newport Boulevard /le Street - Rochester Street intersection and long -term (i.e., operational) air pollutant emissions resulting from the proposed project, all of the ' remaining potential impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures, which have been prescribed to alleviate the significant impacts identified in the preceding analysis. the following impacts anticipated as a result of project implementation cannot be reduced to a less than significant level, Impact 4.2-3 Project implementation will result In signlNcant cumulative impacts to the Newport Boulevard1181h Street/Rochester Street intersection, which is forecast to operate at ' LOS E (ICU 0.941) during the p.m. peak hour with the addition of project- related traffic. ' Impact 4.3-1 Project implementation will result In pollutant emissions from both mobile and stationary sources that would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO, ROC, NO. and PM /0 in both winter and summer months. ' Because there are no feasible measures that would reduce the traffic and air quai l Impacts identified above to a less than significant level, the traffic impacts at the Newport Boulevard/18 Street - Rochester Street Intersection and the project- related operational pollutant emissions would remain a significant unavoidable ' adverse impacts, necessitating the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the project is approved by the City of Newport Beach. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 ' Page r-1 6.1. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) This Section summarizes the unavoidable adverse Impacts associated with the approval of the ' amendment to the Use Permit for the Hoag Health Center. Specifically, Section 15126(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR): "'Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated, but not reduced to a' level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, ' notwithstanding their effect, should be described .n ' 6.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Section 4.0 (Environmental Analysis) documents the analysis of the potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project (i.e., Use Permit Amendment allowing for a total of 350,000 ' square feet of medical office floor area). Several potentially significant adverse impacts have been identified in Chapter 4.0 of the Draft EIR. As a result, in each case where such an impact occurs, specific mitigation measures have been prescribed. Implementation of these mitigation measures, which will be ' ensured through the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will either eliminate, avoid, or reduce the potentially impacts to a level of insignificance. As indicated in Chapter 4.0, with the exception of traffic impacts at the Newport Boulevard /le Street - Rochester Street intersection and long -term (i.e., operational) air pollutant emissions resulting from the proposed project, all of the ' remaining potential impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures, which have been prescribed to alleviate the significant impacts identified in the preceding analysis. the following impacts anticipated as a result of project implementation cannot be reduced to a less than significant level, Impact 4.2-3 Project implementation will result In signlNcant cumulative impacts to the Newport Boulevard1181h Street/Rochester Street intersection, which is forecast to operate at ' LOS E (ICU 0.941) during the p.m. peak hour with the addition of project- related traffic. ' Impact 4.3-1 Project implementation will result In pollutant emissions from both mobile and stationary sources that would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO, ROC, NO. and PM /0 in both winter and summer months. ' Because there are no feasible measures that would reduce the traffic and air quai l Impacts identified above to a less than significant level, the traffic impacts at the Newport Boulevard/18 Street - Rochester Street Intersection and the project- related operational pollutant emissions would remain a significant unavoidable ' adverse impacts, necessitating the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the project is approved by the City of Newport Beach. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 ' Page r-1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 7.0 CHAPTER 7.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Approval and implementation of the proposed Use Permit Amendment that would allow for the conversion of the existing remaining professional offices floor area to medical office floor area and an increase of 20,586 square feet of additional medical office floor area (for a total of 350,000 square feet on the 13.7 -acre site) will require the commitment of a relatively small amount of additional energy resources (e.g., oil, gas, diesel and related petroleum products) on a daily basis -since the nature of the project does not encompass construction activities that result in the commitment of building supplies. Further, no development is proposed that would directly affect biological, cultural /scientific, mineral, or other valuable resources. Therefore, there would only be an irretrievable commitment of energy resources such as gasoline and diesel fuel for the operation of landfill equipment. Because these types of resources are available in sufficient quantities in this region and the proposed projects encompass a very limited scope, these impacts are not considered significant. 1 1.1 1 I 1 I I I I I Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use PermltAmendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 7 -Y I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 8.0 CHAPTER 8.0 GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS 8.1 Definition of Growth- Inducing Impacts Section 15126.2(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact. Report (EIR) describe the potential growth inducing impacts of a proposed project. Specifically, Section I5126.2(d) states: "Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic development or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.... Also discuss the characteristics of some projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could substantially affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the environment." Normally to assess whether the proposed project may foster spatial, economic or population growth, several questions are considered: • Would the proposed medical office conversionlexpansion project result in the removal of an impediment to growth such as the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area? • Would the proposed medical office conversionlexpansion project result in economic expansion or growth such as changes in the revenue base or employment expansion? • Would the proposed medical office conversionlexpansion project result in the 1 establishment of a precedent setting action such as an Innovation, a radical change in zoning or a General Plan amendment approval? 1 Would the proposed medical office conversionlexpansion project result In development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space, as opposed to an infill type of project in an area that is already largely developed? 8.2 Analysis of Growth - Inducing Impacts Potential project - related growth- inducing impacts related to each of the questions cited above are discussed below. Would the proposed medical office conversionlexpansion project result in the removal of an impediment to growth such as the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area? ' As indicated previously, the.proposed project is located in an area of the City where all of the essential public service and/or utilities and other features exist. Further, the existing public facilities and services, including police and fire protection services, sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities, and parks and recreational facilities, are adequate to serve the proposed medical office conversion and expansion project. This is due largely to the fact that although a minor increase in floor area is proposed, the proposed use of the site will remain virtually the same. As a result, there would not be any significant Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 8 -1 I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmentai impact Report. Chapter 8.0 .� new demands that would result in the necessity to expand an existing service or create a new service, which would eliminate an existing impediment to growth. Would the proposed medical office conversion /expansion project result in economic expansion or growth such as changes in the revenue base or employment expansion? ' Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant economic growth or expansion in either the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange or larger southern California region. In addition to the short-term construction jobs that would be created by the conversation of existing non - medical office floor, area to medical offices and the construction of approximately 20,500 square feet of additional medical office floor area, project implementation would also result in the creation of additional employment; however, it is important to note that with the exception of the proposed increase in floor area, the employment potential already exists. The conversion of the remaining non - medical office uses and minor expansion of medical office floor area, which will eliminate the existing professional office and R &D office floor area, is intended to facilitate the health care programs currently available through Hoag Hospital. No significant increase in staffing is anticipated. Although some retail floor area could be improved on the site, it would be minor in nature; no other revenue - generating uses are intended to reach beyond the immediate limits of the project area are proposed that could stimulate unanticipated growth and development in, the City of Newport Beach. Further, no residential development is proposed and none would be expected to occur as either a direct or indirect result of the proposed expansion project. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts of the proposed project are anticipated. Would the proposed medical office conversion /expansion project result in the establishment of a precedent setting action such as an innovation, a radical change in zoning or a General Plan amendment approval? Although the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Use Permit previously approved for the property that establishes the maximum floor area, land uses, building heights, etc., all of the existing infrastructure serving the site and area have adequate capacity and will not necessitate any additional expansion. The City s General Plan was updated in 2006 "and Included a maximum floor area of 350,000 square feet of medical offices for the subject property. The potential impacts were evaluated in the Program EIR prepared for the General Plan Update. The proposed project reflects a request only to increase the floor area on the property to the maximum floor area permitted by the adopted ,subject General Plan. Therefore, no changes to the land use adopted for the site is proposed. The proposed project is entirely consistent with the land use and intensity of development permitted by the long -range plan's adopted for the project by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, approval of the amendment to the Use Permit that allows for expansion of the existing facilities will not set a precedent in the use of the site. Would the proposed medical office conversion/expansion project result in development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space, as opposed to an in611 type of project in an area that is already largely developed? Generally, growth- inducing projects possess such characteristics as being located in isolated, undeveloped or under developed areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water facilities, roadways, etc.) or those that could encourage the "premature" or unplanned growth in an area not planned for development (i.e., "leapfrog" development). The subject property is a developed site located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach (West Newport Mesa). As such, it is important to, note that the proposed conversion and intensification of the existing development will not ' remove an obstacle to population growth since the project site is located in an area that is urbanized. As indicated above, all of the essential infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities, storm drainage facilities; electricity and .natural gas, and related utilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed expansion, which will not result in significant increases in demands on the infrastructure. Therefore, no significant growth - inducing impacts are anticipated Draft Environmental impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 - Page 8 -2 1. I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapterao 8.3 Conclusion The answer to each of the questions cited above as they relate to the proposed Hoag Health Center Use Permit project is "no." The proposed project includes only the intensification and partial conversion of an existing, established land use that is not characterized by features that attract or facilitate new, unanticipated development, which would ordinarily be considered growth inducing. Conventionally, growth inducement is measured by the potential of a project or a project's secondary effects (i.e. provision of new infrastructure ' which supports housing or creation of jobs) to facilitate development of housing. Slnce the proposed conversion and expansion of the Hoag Health Center only facilitates the efficient use of the subject development, the standard variables associated with the development of housing, commercial or industrial land uses do not apply very well. Further, all of the infrastructure that exists in the project area is adequate to provide an adequate level of service, including sewer, water, and storm drainage. As previously indicated, project implementation will not result in any significant direct or indirect addition of residential development that would generate new residents or employment that would be an "attractor' of residents to the area that ' are not already anticipated in the General Plan. The site is not located in an isolated area that is constrained by the absence of infrastructure where the provision of infrastructure would promote further development. None of the accepted standards that distinguish growth- inducing projects characterize the proposed project; therefore, no significant growtl inducing impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. .I I I I C 1 I Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 8-3 I ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment . Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 CHAPTER 9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 9.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as: "...two or more individual effects which when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental Impacts." Section 15355 further describes potential cumulative impacts as:_ "(a) The individual- effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impacts from several projects are the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of Ems.' Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual Impacts which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or from a number of projects. A cumulative impact refers to the degree of change in the environment resulting from a particular project, plus the incremental impacts created by other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts may reveal that relatively minor impacts associated with a particular project may contribute to more significant impacts when considered collectively with other projects taking place over a period of time. 9.2 Cumulative Projects Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines provides two options for considering potentially significant cumulative adverse Impacts. This analysis can be based on either: "(A) A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted and certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency." The cumulative impacts analysis requires consideration of other projects In an area, in conjunction with the proposed project, to assess the potential for significant adverse cumulative impacts. For this Draft EIR, the potential environmental effects of the proposed Hoag Health Center project were considered in conjunction with the potential environmental effects of buildout anticipated for the project area. Several projects were identified by the City of Newport Beach as "approved" projects (but were less than 100 percent constructed), which were evaluated in the traffic analysis conducted for the proposed project. These projects are identified below. 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 9 -1 i Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental impact Report Section 9.0 • Fashion Island Expansion Ci of Newport Beach • Temple Bat Yahm Expansion Residential • Ford Redevelopment Retail • CIOSA— Irvine Project Professional Office • Newport Dunes Mormon Temple • 1401 Dove Street ' • 4941496 Old Newport Boulevard Residential 401 Old Newport Boulevard TAZ 2 — Newport Coast • Newport Technology Center 1,644 Dwelling Units • 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center , • Hoag Hospital Phase III Residential Newport Lexus • Birth Medical Office Complex TAZ 4 — Newport Coast • Saafar Fine Indian Cuisine 971 Dwelling Units • St. Mark Presbyterian Church Residential • St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Commercial • Corporate Plaza West Phase TAZ 2 — Newport Ride • MarinWs Mile Gateway 1,055 Dwelling units • Land Rover NB Service Center Residential • OLQA Church Expansion Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update In addition to these projects, the several other projects have been proposed (although not approved) or approved (although not completed) in the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, which have also been considered in the cumulative analysis and, specifically, in the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment project. The proposed projects are listed in Table 9 -1. Table 9 -1 Cumulative Projects List Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 9 -2 Ci of Newport Beach 2300 Newport Boulevard' Residential 27 Dwelling Units Retail 19,300 Square Feet Professional Office 16,700 Square feet Mormon Temple Church 17,560 Square Feet TAZ 1 — Newport Coast Residential 1,599 Dwelling Units TAZ 2 — Newport Coast Residential 1,644 Dwelling Units State Park 2,807 Acres TAZ 3 — Newport Coast Residential 846 Dwelling Units TAZ 4 — Newport Coast Residential 971 Dwelling Units TAZ 1 — Newport Ridge Residential 1,413 Dwelling Units Commercial 102,959 Square Feet TAZ 2 — Newport Ride Residential 1,055 Dwelling units TAZ 3 — Newport Ride Residential 920 Dwelling Units Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Hospital/Medical Office 1 1,343,238 Square Fee City of Costa Mesa Pacific Medical Plaza Medical Office 76,650 Square Feet Ocean Lofts Residential 218 Dwelling Units Commercial 1 .12 975 Square Feet Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 9 -2 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I i Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment . Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 Because implementation of the projects identified above are anticipated to have the greatest affect on traffic and circulation, the potential cumulative associated with them have been evaluated in the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project and summarized in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR. However, with the exception of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update, which proposes only to shift existing approved floor area within the site (no additional development is proposed for that project), construction of these projects does not occur within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project and do not affect the same resources and amenities as those affected by the Hoag Health Center project. Nonetheless, the potential cumulative impacts are identified and described in Section 9.3. 9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis 9.3.1. Land Use and Planning As previously indicated, the proposed project is entirely consistent with the adopted Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any changes to the adopted land use designation, which allows for the "development' of up to 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area on the subject property. In addition, the proposed project would not change or affect any long -term land use and population projections forecast for the City. Each of the projects identified in Section 9.2 has undergone or will undergo the same project review process as the proposed project in order to preclude potential land use compatibility issues and planning policy conflicts. It is assumed that development of the related projects in the City of Newport Beach will progress in accordance with the Land Use Element to ensure that land use compatibility and General Plan consistency is achieved. Projects outside the City of Newport Beads would also be subject to the development and environmental review process to ensure that land use consistency /compatibility is achieved and potential adverse environmental consequences are minimized or eliminated. Consequently, each project will be analyzed both independently of other land uses as well as within the context of existing and planned development to ensure that the goals, objectives, and policies of the applicable General Plan are upheld. As indicated in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals, policies and objectives articulated in the Newport Beads Land Use Element and other elements. Where some of the approved and proposed projects may result in the reduction of open space resources and/or undeveloped property as they presently existing and an increase in the appearance of and effects from urbanization, the proposed project is currently developed and does not possess any natural open space. As a result, the proposed project will not contribute to that incremental loss of open space. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to land use will occur as a result of project implementation. Draft EmOonmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beech, CA September 2007 Page 9-3 f 5,561 Square Feet Retail Residential 156 Dwelling Units West Side Lofts Professional Office 42,000 Square.feet Plaza Residences Residential 174 Dwelling Units 'Approved projects. 2 N additional development is proposed. This project includes only the reallocation of approved medical office floor area from the Hoag Hospital lower campus to the upper campus to allow for greater fle=xibility in the placement of land uses on the Hoag Hospital Campus. SOURCE: Newport Beach Planning Department Kunzman Associates 2007 Because implementation of the projects identified above are anticipated to have the greatest affect on traffic and circulation, the potential cumulative associated with them have been evaluated in the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project and summarized in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR. However, with the exception of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update, which proposes only to shift existing approved floor area within the site (no additional development is proposed for that project), construction of these projects does not occur within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project and do not affect the same resources and amenities as those affected by the Hoag Health Center project. Nonetheless, the potential cumulative impacts are identified and described in Section 9.3. 9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis 9.3.1. Land Use and Planning As previously indicated, the proposed project is entirely consistent with the adopted Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any changes to the adopted land use designation, which allows for the "development' of up to 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area on the subject property. In addition, the proposed project would not change or affect any long -term land use and population projections forecast for the City. Each of the projects identified in Section 9.2 has undergone or will undergo the same project review process as the proposed project in order to preclude potential land use compatibility issues and planning policy conflicts. It is assumed that development of the related projects in the City of Newport Beach will progress in accordance with the Land Use Element to ensure that land use compatibility and General Plan consistency is achieved. Projects outside the City of Newport Beads would also be subject to the development and environmental review process to ensure that land use consistency /compatibility is achieved and potential adverse environmental consequences are minimized or eliminated. Consequently, each project will be analyzed both independently of other land uses as well as within the context of existing and planned development to ensure that the goals, objectives, and policies of the applicable General Plan are upheld. As indicated in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals, policies and objectives articulated in the Newport Beads Land Use Element and other elements. Where some of the approved and proposed projects may result in the reduction of open space resources and/or undeveloped property as they presently existing and an increase in the appearance of and effects from urbanization, the proposed project is currently developed and does not possess any natural open space. As a result, the proposed project will not contribute to that incremental loss of open space. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to land use will occur as a result of project implementation. Draft EmOonmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beech, CA September 2007 Page 9-3 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 9.32 Population and Housing While several of the projects identified in Section 9.2 encompass residential development, implementation of the proposed project will not result in either the elimination of existing housing and related displacement of residents or, conversely, the addition of residential dwelling units and an increase in population. Therefore, the proposed expansion of conversion of the existing R&D and professional office. development to medical office uses (and the addition of approximately 20,000 square feet of additional medical office on site for a total of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area will not adversely affect the housing stock in the City of Newport Beach or population projections estimated for the City. Further, the increase in floor area proposed for the medical office conversion project will not adversely affect the jobs/housing balance because the increased floor area was anticipated with the adoption of the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing. 9.3.3. Geology and Soils The site is currently developed with over 300,000 square feet of R &D and professional office floor area. The site and existing development are currently exposed to potential groundshaking associated. with seismic activities occurring on one of the active regional faults. Although the proposed project will increase the intensity of development on the site with the additional medical floor area that is proposed to be constructed, the potential exposure to the effects of seismic activity and/or soil conditions will not increase substantially and project implementation will not result in potential cumulative impacts because the existing structures meet current building codes and the new medical office floor area proposed to be constructed will be required to meet applicable structural design requirements. Similarly, other development proposed in the City of Newport Beach and elsewhere in the region must also comply with the specific building design parameters prescribed in the applicable regulations to ensure that potential loss of life and structural damage is minimized. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. 9.3.4 Hydrology and Water Quality With the exception of the landscaped areas on the site, the subject property is covered almost entirely with impervious surfaces. Construction of the new building to accommodate the additional medical, office floor area will not result in a significant increase in storm runoff. Similarly, the types and quantities of pollutants will be the same as those that are currently generated on the site. As a result, no significant changes in either storm runoff or a material effect on the quality of the water will occur if the project is implemented.. The existing facilities in the vicinity of the site have adequate capacity to accommodate any slight increase in surface runoff, which would be less than significant. In addition; the applicant will be required to implement Best Management Practices and related measures in accordance with the NPDES requirements to ensure that both storm water runoff and quality meet the requisite criteria. With the exception of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update, all of the projects identified in Section 9.2 are located outside the project area. As previously indicated, no additional development is proposed by the Hoag Hospital Master Plan, which proposes only to permit the redistribution of the approved floor areas within the existing hospital campus. Additionally, each of the approved or proposed projects, should they be implemented, will be required to implement similar stormwater collection and conveyance facilities and water quality structural and non- structural measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce and avoid water quality impacts. Implementation of these measures, which would be prescribed in the WQMP prepared for the proposed project (and other projects in the City and watershed), must comply with the requirements established by the City and County of Orange in the Drainage Area Master Plan, which have been developed to address the cumulative impacts of development in the watershed. These measures are intended to ensure that water quality objectives are achieved and /or maintained. Therefore, project implementation will not result in significant cumulative impacts to either hydrology or water quality. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 94 I I 1] I 1 I I I I I I I I i I I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Repoli Section 9.0 9.3.5 . Air Quality The proposed .project will result in the generation of potentially significant operational emissions (i.e., those resulting:from the operation of automobiles and trucks), which will be emitted into the air basin. Similarly, the construction of other projects will also contribute to the pollutant burden within the basin, which is identified as a "non - attainment" area 'for.ozone (1 -hour standard) and PM1e and PM2.5. Although, the project's contribution of construction emissions (primarily fugitive dust) is short -term and because adequate mitigation measures Will be implemented, these impacts will not be significant on a cumulative basis. However, the long -term (i.e., operational) emissions associated with the proposed project are the result the incremental increase in vehicular traffic generated by the project and on demands for natural gas and electricity. Because these incremental operational emissions exceed significance thresholds and, because the South Coast Alr Basin is designated as a "non- attainment" area for certain pollutants, the incremental addition of the project's mobile - source emissions, when combined with other emissions resulting from the development of other projects within the City and larger air basin, will be significant on a cumulative basis. These impacts are determined to be significant and unavoidable and, if the project is approved, will necessitate the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations by the Newport Beach Planning Commission. 9.3.6 Traffic and Circulation The 2009 traffic scenario analysis conducted for the proposed project evaluated future projects beyond the City of Newport Beach corporate limits that are located within the vicinity of the project site and may contribute to future traffic conditions in the study area. As indicated in Table 9 -1, several projects are proposed or approved in the two cities that could contribute to future traffic conditions, which contribute to potential cumulative traffic impacts. In addition to the cumulative projects, traffic anticipated as a result of regional growth was also estimated, based on a one percent per year growth rate, and was also added to the traffic volumes identified for the "existing' and approved projects. Based on project buildout (i.e., 2009 traffic scenario), all of the intersections in the City of Newport Beach are forecast to operate at LOS D or better (i.e., acceptable) in 2009 with the addition of project - related traffic; however, Intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E (i.e., unacceptable) without the addition of project - related traffic in 2009. These intersections, which are located in the City of Costa Mesa, include: Superior Avenuell th Street (LOS E during the a.m. peak hour) Newport Boulevardtle Street - Rochester Street (LOS E during the p.m. peak hour) Therefore, project implementation will contribute to the cumulative degradation of the two intersections located in Costa Mesa forecast for the 2009 traffic scenario. However, as indicated in Section 4.2.5, the incorporation of mitigation measures by the project applicant will ensure that the adverse impacts resulting from the increase in project - related traffic at Superior Avenue/17t° Street w {II be reduced to a less than significant level. Cumulative impacts at Newport Boulevard /le Street - Rochester Street will remain significantand unavoidable due to a lack of feasible mitigation for this intersection. ■ 9.3.7 Biological Resources The subject property and surrounding area are devoid of any significant areas that support natural vegetation and /or species of wildlife. Conversion of the existing R &D and professional office floor area as proposed will not result in impacts to any direct significant sensitive plants or animals. Further, none of the related projects identifled in Section 9.2 are located in the vicinity of either sensitive habitat or species. Dust and particulate matter generation associated with the renovation and future building improvements that occur concurrently with the project - related construction activities that could be dispersed in the area would be minimized through the implementation of the requisite SCAQMD conditions to reduce the emissions and would not, therefore, result in potential adverse impacts to existing sensitive species. No significant cumulative impacts to the biological resources will occur as a result of project implementation and no additional mitigation measures are necessary._ Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Alewport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 9-5 I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 9.3.8 Mineral Resources As indicated above, the site and surrounding areas have been developed. No mineral resources exist on the subject property that would be adversely impacted by developed of the site as proposed. Further, project implementation would not directly impact any existing mineral resource areas either in the City of Newport ' Beads, region, or State of California. Although the proposed project would require the use of mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, wood, etc.), many are renewable. Further, the project encompasses the conversion of an existing development, which does not require a commitment of a significant amount of additional natural resources. Therefore, when compared to other projects in the area, no significant cumulative impacts to mineral resources will occur. 9.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials , Although the subject property has been used for any activities that have resulted contamination of the site. Remediation programs have been identified and are currently being implemented to ensure that use of the site as proposed would not result in hazardous conditions that could affect occupants of the buildings or the surrounding area. As previously indicated, the site has been altered and currently supports urban development; which does not involve the use of hazardous materials in the daily operations. As previously evaluated, demolition of the one of the existing structures in order to construction a parking structure could yield some asbestos containing materials or lead -based paint. However, demolition will require that appropriate measures are implemented that comply with AQMD and other regulatory requirements to ensure that no significant emissions of potentially hazardous materials occurs. Similarly, other projects identified in Table 9 -1, would also be required to comply with these same requirements so that no significant emissions occur. If determined necessary, each of the projects would be required to remedlate an existing or potential source of contamination. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts would occur when compared to other projects that have been approved or proposed in the City of Newport Beach or surrounding areas. 9.3.10 Noise The noise analysis conducted for the proposed project addresses cumulative noise in the area through the methodology utilized to evaluate noise. As previously identified (refer to Section 4.4), the proposed project - related traffic would contribute to small increases in the ambient noise levels along the nearby and adjacent roadways. Most of the roadways segments would experience a noise increase of less than 1 dB. However, under the existing plus project scenario, project- related traffic would have a 1.1 to 1.3 dBA increase in traffic noise along three roadway segments, with the 65 CNEL noise contour extending beyond the roadway right -of -way. However, it is not expected that all project- related traffic would be added to these roads immediately under the existing conditions. Because conversion of the existing non- medical office floor area to medical office floor area is projected to occur in several phases over several years. The resulting gradual incremental increase over In project- related traffic onto the circulation system would be less than 1 dBA, as estimated under the future year 2009 scenario. Based on that analysis, project- related traffic would have no measurable (all less than 1 dBA) noise level increases along roadway segments in the project Vicinity. Along Newport Boulevard north of Harbor Boulevard, the projected 2009 "with project' traffic noise would be 75.2 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerline of the outermost travel lane. Although the project would add 0.1 dBA to the ambient noise level, the uses along this segment of Newport Boulevard are commercial and are not considered to be sensitive receptors. The traffic noise level. increase is not considered to be a significant impact. Therefore, no significant cumulative noise impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. , - Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 9-6 1 11 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment . Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 9.3.11 Public Services The project site is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach that is adequately served by public services and facilities, including police and fire protection. The.conversion of the existing uses to medical office floor area and the increase in the intensity of use of the subject property will not significantly affect the existing level of service of either police or fire protection. The potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the proposed project would not alter the ability of either the Newport Beach Police Department or Fire Department from providing an adequate level of service to the site, even when compared ' to the approved and proposed development other areas of the City. The related projects identified in Section 9.2 have been evaluated by both the Newport Beach Police and Fire Departments to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided and no significant impacts would occur. These projects are within the long-. ' range projections identified in the Citys General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the Citys ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Because the project is not residential in nature, project implementation will not result in any impacts on schools and /or parks and recreational facilities. As a result, no significant cumulative impacts will occur to public facilities and services. 9.3.12 Utilities and Service Systems The site and surrounding area are,adequately served by utilities (i.e., sewer, water and storm drain facilities, solid waste disposal, electricity and natural gas). Of the related projects identified previously, only the Hoag Hospital Master. Plan Update project is located within the immediate project area; however, because that project proposes only to shift approved floor areas within the hospital campus without an Increase in the intensity of development approved for the site, it would not affect the ability of the existing service systems to provide .adequate utilities to the subject property. While there will be a minor, incremental increase in the demands utilities as a result of converting the non - medical uses to medical floor area as well as the increase ' in intensity proposed for the.for the site consisting with the adopted General Plan, the existing utilities have capacity to provide an adequate level of service. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 9.3.13 Aesthetics With the exception of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update (which does not include a significant change in the approved intensity of development on the hospital campus), none of the projects identified in Table 9 -1 are located In the vicinity of the proposed project. While one or more of those projects may affect views and/or viewsheds that may be characterized. by aesthetic resources and /or important views, and may contribute to the cumulative degradation of a particular viewshed, implementation of the proposed project will not contribute to the degradation of any significant aesthetic resources and/or important views identified by the City of Newport Beach that may be adversely affected by other projects that have been approved or are proposed. Al of the major structures that accommodate the 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area either exist or have been approved (i.e., parking structure). Although the proposed project includes the additional of 20,586 square feet, that configuration and design of that structure would not materially affect significant views and /or visual resources. As indicated on the Conceptual Site Plan (refer to Exhibit 3 -7), the proposed structure would be located between two existing structures and, thus, would not be visible from nearby residences, and new building would be designated to be compatible with the existing character of the existing development. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts would occur to those caused by other projects in the City. L 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use PemNt Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 9 -7 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment I Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 9.3.14 Cultural /Scientffic Resources The site is currently developed and no significant cultural, historic or scientific resources are known to be located on the subject property. Although it is possible that other proposed and approved development. could result in impacts to cultural, historical or scientific resources, appropriate mitigation will be required to ensure that such impacts are less than significant. While limited grading and excavation are required to prepare portions of the site for construction, no cultural, historical or scientific resources would be affected and no impacts would occur. Therefore, project implementation will not result in significant impacts, either individually or on a cumulative basis. , 9.3.15 Recreation As indicated previously, the proposed project does not include residential development and, therefore, would ' not result in an increase in population. As a result, no additional demands for recreational facilities would be generated by the project that would be added to the cumulative projects listed above. Therefore, no significant project- related or cumulative impacts to recreational facilities are anticipated. LJ I I 1 F7 I I _ I I Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 9-8 , I i 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Envinaimental Impact Report Section 10.0 SECTION 10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 10.1 Introduction 10.1.1 Purpose and Scope CEQA requires that an EIR describe a "reasonable" range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. This chapter sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them as required by CEQA. Section 15126.6(c) directs that an EIR should focus on alternatives capable of: (1) eliminating or reducing significant adverse environmental effects of a proposed project and (2) feasibly accomplishing most of the basic project objectives. The discussion of alternatives in this Draft EIR reviews a range of alternatives, including the "No Project" alternative as prescribed by the State CEQA Guidelines, which satisfies this requirement. This section analyzes several potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including: • No Project (Existing General Plan) • No Development/Existing Amended "Use Permit • Reduced Intensity • Non - Medical Offices 10.1.2 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives The alternative selection process included participation by the Newport Beach Planning Department and project environmental consultant to identify policy- related constraints (e.g., Newport Beach Land Use Element, zoning, etc.), site development constraints (existing land use), project objectives, and the ability of to mitigate significant impacts. With the exception of the No Project alternative which is prescribed by the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Alternative Site, each of the alternatives identified above reflects the these criteria and are feasible. 10:1.3 Evaluation of Project Alternatives ' According to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[a]), an EIR must "... describe a range of reasonable alternatives for the project, or to the location of the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The Guidelines go on to indicate that ' alternatives that are capable of substantially lessening any significant' effects of the Project must be examined, "... even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly." The Guidelines further indicate "... that the EIR need examine in detail only the alternatives that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]). Thus the ability of an alternative to attain most of the basic Project oblectives is central to the consideration of alternatives to the proposed project. ` Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use PemJt Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September=7 ' 10-1 Hoag. Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 For each alternative, the analysis presented In this section: Describes the alternative; Discusses the impacts of the alternative and evaluates the significance of those impacts; and, Evaluates the - alternative relative to proposed project, specifically addressing project objectives and the elimination or reduction of potentially significant impacts. 10.1.4 Identification of Impacts After describing the alternative, this Draft EIR evaluates the impacts of the alternative. The major resource areas included in the detailed impact analysis in Section 4.0 are included in this section. The potential environmental consequences are identified and described in the analysis for each of the alternatives identified in Section 10.1.1. 10.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the alternatives considered, including the proposed project. The No Development alternative identified and analyzed in Chapter below will eliminate the potentially significant long -term unavoidable adverse air quality impacts that would occur as a result of project implementation. However, CEQA requires that if the "no project" alternative Is the environmental superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives shall be identified. Based on the comparative analysis of alternatives provided in this chapter, the Non - Medical Office Alternative would be considered to be environmentally superior in that its implementation would result in the least adverse environmental impacts. In particular, the significant unavoidable air quality impacts would be avoided with the implementation of this alternative; however, many of the project objectives would not be achieved by the Non - Medical Office alternative. 10.3 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration The City of Newport Beach completed a General Plan Update process that began in 2001, which culminated in the adoption of the updated General Plan in November 2006. That update included an extensive review of existing land uses throughout the City, including that that are not achieving their full potential. As a result of the General Plan Update, the subject property was redesignated CO -M (Medical Commercial. Office) from the General Industrial land use designation that previously existed. The evaluation concluded that because Hoag Hospital is a major activity center in the area, a strong market for the 'development of uses that support the hospital's medical activities, including doctors' offices, convalescent and care facilities, etc., exists. Therefore, the most appropriate uses for the site that would be those that achieve the objective of supporting the hospital/medical activities. In view of these land use changes associated with the subject property and, further, based on the goals and objectives adopted for the West Newport Mesa planning district, land uses that would not be consistent with the CO -M land use designation were rejected from further consideration as an alternative to the proposed project. Land uses such as residential, retail commercial, public /quasi public, and open space, uses have been rejected because they are inconsistent with the CO -M land use designation and they would not achieve any of the project objectives. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach,,CA September2007 10-2 1 Hoag Health Center Use Pemtit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 40.0 10.3.1 Alternative Site ' An alternative for the site for the proposed uses was researched and no available parcels of a similar size I were available. However, use of the existing Hoag Hospital campus was considered and rejected as infeasible. The purchase by the applicant of the proposed project was motivated by the need to meet the growing demand for physician offices, as well as out - patient services, including imaging, urgent care, rehabilitation, and health education programs as noted in the Project Objectives articulated in Chapter 3'.0. Because these activities do,not depend on adjacency to the in- patient activities, they can be located nearby but do not have to be physically on the hospital campus. The limit on floor area imposed by the General Plan on the hospital campus and the projected uses for the hospital campus over the next 20 ' years, including expanded in- patient and specialty services, precludes the Hoag Health Center uses on the main hospital campus. 10.4 Analysis of Alternatives 10.4.1 No Project Alternative ' The No Project Alternative is required by CEQA in order to establish a comparative basis for understanding the Impacts of the project and other alternatives to the proposed project. Although the No Project appears to be the proposed project, it is maximum buildout of the site as permitted in the Newport Beach General Plan (i.e., 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area); however, the implementation of this alternative would be extended over a longer period of time, compared to the proposed project. The long -term buildout of this alternative is based on the assumption that the applicant is not proposing the ' project at the present time; however, the site would ultimately be converted entirely to medical office floor area, and the 20,586 square feet of floor area would also be constructed to achieve the maximum permitted floor area of 350,000 square feet, over a longer period of time than proposed by the project ' applicant. All of the impacts identified in Chapter 4.0 (Environmental Analysis) would occur as a result of implementing the "No, Project" Alternative. Specifically, the project would result in the same increases in ' traffic, which could affect the same intersections identified in the analysis; however, depending on when the conversion of floor area occurs, coupled with the potential future development in the area (including regional growth), potential project- related traffic impacts could be more significant, if the project - related trips, when added to the baseline conditions, exceed the desired acceptable levels of service established by the cities in which the intersections are located. 10.4.2 No Development/Existing Amended Use Permit ' The No Development Alternative allows for developmenttredevelopment of the site in accordance with Use Permit 2006 -010, which was approved by the City of Newport Beads in December 2006. Implementation of this alternative will result in a reduction in the overall building area wflh the demolition of one of the existing buildings located at 530 Superior Avenue (the "Existing Building "). 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 97,000 square feet of medical office use. The remaining floor area would be divided into general office totaling 136,000 square feet and research and development totaling 96,414 square feet. This alternative is consistent with the maximum permitted floor area ratio applicable to the project site. Project implementation will result in the elimination of 44 surface parking spaces. With the construction of the 697 -space parking ' garage, the site will accommodate a total of 1,985 parking spaces (49 percent increase), which exceeds the Citys adopted parking requirements for these types of uses. ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 ' 4tF.? Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 This' potential . impacts associated with this alternative were evaluated in an initial study in 2006. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was approved by the City of Newport Beach in December 2006. The relevant findings and recommendations presented in that analysis, which is incorporated by reference, are summarized below 10.4.2.1 Land Use and Planning The project will result in a total floor area of 329,414 square feet, which is less than the precise development allocation of 350,000 square feet established for the site by the Land Use Element. Project implementation is consistent with the policies articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan, which are intended to" ensure that future development is compatible within a mixed -usq area and the proposed land uses complement and support the major medical activity (Hoag Hospital) in the area. The proposed parking structure has been designed to be consistent and compatible with the existing development through the building height, massing, and architectural character. The proposed structure will not exceed the 32 -foot maximum building height prescribed in the M -1 -A zoning district. In addition, the structure will be similar in size and mass as the building that is proposed for demolition. Finally, the architectural character Is compatible with the architectural treatment of the existing structures within the existing Newport Technology Center. As previously indicated, although a new parking structure will replace one of the existing office buildings (approximately 86,000 square feet), this alternative will result In a reduction in the intensity of development occupying the site. The location of the new parking structure is such that it backs up to the existing City Yard and can be screened from Newport Boulevard with trees and landscaping along the slope. As a. result, the project will appear to remain much the same as the existing development and would not be perceived as additional 'bulk" on the site. The proposed parking structure is located farthest from the existing residential development to the south and is separated by abutting streets, 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. Finally, the provision of adequate parking through the addition of the new parking structure, which will result in a parking ratio of more than six parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, exceeds the City's current parking code requirement of five spaces per 1,000 square feet. The excess parking will address parking concerns in the neighborhood and facilitate the use of an underutilized group of buildings. As indicated In the prior analysis, this alternative would not compromise the character and/or integrity of the mixed uses with the West Newport area. 10.4.2.2 Traffic and Circulation Implementation of the No Development Alternative world result in the generation of approximately 5,784 trips per day, including 570 trips during the morning peak hour and 668 trips during the afternoon. peak hour. Based on the traffic associated with this alternative, potentially significant impacts would occur at three intersections as indicated Table 10-1. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 ?44 L 1 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 40.0 Table 10 -1 Potential Traffic Impacts — No Development Alternative Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment As indicated above, two intersections are forecast to operate at an unacceptable level of service; however, one intersection (Superior Avenue/17th Street) is forecast to operate at LOS E and F without the proposed project. Implementation of this altemative would result in an Increase in the LOS at that intersection and would, therefore, contribute to the unacceptable level of service forecast during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, the traffic generated by this alternative would also contribute to the deficient intersection operations at the Newport Boulevard/18th Street - Rochester Street intersection forecast during the p.m. peak hour. Although the traffic associated with this alternative would increase its ICU values during the p.m. peak hours, the Newport Boulevard/19P Street and Newport Bopulevard/17" Street intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of serve (i.e., LOS D or better). 10.4.2.3 Air Quality Dust is normally the primary concem during grading and construction activities as well as the construction of new structures and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions ". Emission rates vary as a function of.many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, ' depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). These parameters are not known with any reasonable certainty prior to Project development and may change from day to day. Any assignment of specific parameters to an unknown future date is speculative and conjectural.. Other construction emissions are the result of the use of construction equipment (e.g., graders, bull dozers, scrapers, trucks, etc.), which are necessary to prepare the site /project area and aid in the construction of the improvements. As calculated for this altemative, potential emissions associated with construction activities would not exceed the daily significance thresholds prescribed by the South Coast AQMD. In addition to the construction emissions, soil hauling will also be necessary to implement the proposed parking structure Therefore, potential construction Impacts will be less than significant. By far, the greatest air quality concem related to this altemative centers on the approximately 2,917 new ' vehicle trips that will be generated at project completion. Over 16,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated as a result of implementation of this altemative based on an average trip length of 5.5 miles (Urbemis Model). ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 ' 40 -5 .. Superior Avenue (NS) at: 17°i Street EW 1.0471F 0.9201E 1.0471E 0.9461E +0.001 +0.026 Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 19°i Street (EW) 0.715/C 0.797/C 0.715/C 0.799/C +0.000 +0.002 18°i Street/Rochaster Street (EW) 0.793C 0.9271E 0.7921C 0.9301E -0.001 +0.003 17°i Street EW 0.80811) 0.853/D 0.808/D 0.85611) +0.000 +0.003 BOLD type identifies deficient intersection. SOURCE: Kunzman Associates (September 6, 2007 As indicated above, two intersections are forecast to operate at an unacceptable level of service; however, one intersection (Superior Avenue/17th Street) is forecast to operate at LOS E and F without the proposed project. Implementation of this altemative would result in an Increase in the LOS at that intersection and would, therefore, contribute to the unacceptable level of service forecast during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, the traffic generated by this alternative would also contribute to the deficient intersection operations at the Newport Boulevard/18th Street - Rochester Street intersection forecast during the p.m. peak hour. Although the traffic associated with this alternative would increase its ICU values during the p.m. peak hours, the Newport Boulevard/19P Street and Newport Bopulevard/17" Street intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of serve (i.e., LOS D or better). 10.4.2.3 Air Quality Dust is normally the primary concem during grading and construction activities as well as the construction of new structures and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions ". Emission rates vary as a function of.many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, ' depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). These parameters are not known with any reasonable certainty prior to Project development and may change from day to day. Any assignment of specific parameters to an unknown future date is speculative and conjectural.. Other construction emissions are the result of the use of construction equipment (e.g., graders, bull dozers, scrapers, trucks, etc.), which are necessary to prepare the site /project area and aid in the construction of the improvements. As calculated for this altemative, potential emissions associated with construction activities would not exceed the daily significance thresholds prescribed by the South Coast AQMD. In addition to the construction emissions, soil hauling will also be necessary to implement the proposed parking structure Therefore, potential construction Impacts will be less than significant. By far, the greatest air quality concem related to this altemative centers on the approximately 2,917 new ' vehicle trips that will be generated at project completion. Over 16,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated as a result of implementation of this altemative based on an average trip length of 5.5 miles (Urbemis Model). ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 ' 40 -5 Hoag Health Center Use Pemdt Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 Th e California ARB land use and. air pollution emissions computer mode( URBEMIS2002, was run for year 2006 project build -out. The mobile source emissions burden related to. this alternative, along with a comparison of SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds, were evaluated in the initial study prepared for Use Permit 2006 -010. As indicated in Table 4 of that document, none of the significance thresholds will be exceeded. Compliance with standard conditions established by the SCAQMD (i.e., implementation of the best available control measures) will ensure that construction impacts are minimized. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that results in emissions that are or can be mitigated to less than the daily criteria is not significant on a Cumulative basis. As such, while the generation of emissions is adverse, it does not add to a cumulatively significant impact. Furthermore, short-term construction impacts will not exceed either daily or quarterly emissions thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and the construction- related impacts would be reduced further through the implementation of watering and other required conditions prescribed in requisite SCAQMD rules and by the City of _Newport Beach. Therefore, the cumulative impacts related to this alternative are anticipated to be less than significant. 10.4.2.4 Noise Construction noise is generally high level, short-term duration noise, which represents a potential short- term impact to the ambient noise levels near the site. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. The alternative calls for the demolition of structures that exist on the subject property to make way for redevelopment of the site. Demolition noise is usually.short duration noise that has the potential to reach very high levels. Noise from bulldozers and skip loaders can be exceeded by the impact noise generated by pneumatic equipment, falling debris, and the collapse of the structure(s) being demolished. Although these events have the potential to generate noise and vibration levels that can impact nearby land uses, any vibration anticipated to occur would not adversely affect adjacent properties. It is estimated that impact noise. from falling debris and the pneumatic hammers used to break concrete and asphalt could reach maximum levels as high as 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The amount of construction equipment used, the density of heavy equipment, the proximity to the nearest land use, and the duration of the grading and construction process will dictate the degree of impact. It is possible that residents located in the vicinity of the subject property (i.e., south of Dana Road) may be subjected to short-term noise associated with grading and construction; however, the Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance addresses construction noise. Section 10.26.035.D of the Newport Beach Municipal Code exempts construction equipment from the provisions of the Noise Ordinance and requires them to comply with Section 10.28 of the Code. - Section 10.28.040 of the Code restricts hours of noise- generating construction to between the. hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., 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. Because the alternative will be required to comply with Section 10.28.040 of the City's Noise Ordinance, the short-term noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative will result in an increase in daily traffic. This increase in traffic, when distributed onto the surrounding circulation system, will not result in a significant long -term increase in ambient noise levels. The traffic levels projected by the City in the adopted Noise Element reflect future buildout of the general plan land uses. As a result, this alternative will neither contribute to significant mobile- source noise in the vicinity and /or City of Newport Beach nor exceed any long -term noise projections for the area. Therefore, less than significant long -tens vehicular noise impacts are anticipated as a result of implementation of this alternative. 11 L 7 L I u u J I I 1 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA Septemlier2007 10-6 , I Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 40.0 10.4.2.5 Putilic Health and Safety ' Implementation of this alternative will be similar to those identified for the proposed project in Section 4.6. Specifically, this alternative will not result in the creation of any potential impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing building on the subject property and construct a four -level parking garage in its place. In addition, some remodeling of the remaining existing structures is also proposed to accommodate the proposed use of the office buildings for medical offices, general office space and research and development. ' Due to the proposed medical office use of a portion of the site, some medical supplies and medical waste would be stored in the proposed medical office component of the alternative. The proposed medical ' offices would be required to register with the OCHCA and would also be required to prepare a Medical Waste Management Plan (MWMP) that includes an Emergency Action Plan, which delineates the procedures for properly handling on -site spills and releases of medical waste. This plan also addresses surface cleanup, protective clothing and equipment to be used, and disinfecting procedures. Any such ' materials will be stored and used in the prescribed manner by the OCHCA. Compliance with the MWMP and related OCHCA and related Public Health and Safety Code requirements will ensure that no significant impacts would occur. ' Phase I and Phase II investigations have determined that elevated concentrations of VOCs in soil gas exist on the site, which suggest the possibility of VOC- contaminated soil. Personnel involved in excavating soils to potential health hazards may be exposed to potential health hazards if it is determined that elevated ambient air concentrations of VOC exist. Soil and groundwater contamination at the site has resulted from operations conducted by former site occupants (i.e., Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon Company). The primary contaminants at the site are volatile organic compounds. Chemical vapors resulting from VOCs in the ' subsurface -at the site could degrade indoor air quality until site remediation is completed by the responsible party. Mltigatlon measures prescribed for the alternative would also be required to ensure that potential health and safety hazards associated with this alternative are also eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level. 10.4.2.6 Utilities Implementation of the No Development alternative will not result in any direct discharges that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements. All of the raw sewage generated by the alternative would be similar to that currently generated by the existing facilities and can be accommodated and adequately treated by existing facilities owned and operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). ' Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of implementation of this alternative. The.City of Newport owns and maintains several water and, sewer mains in the vicinity of the subject ' property. Implementation of this project alternative will result in a decrease in floor area (when compared to the proposed project) and a different mix in use, including medical offices. Although this alternative would intensify the demand for City water and an increase in the generation of raw sewage caused by the increase in floor area associated with the proposed uses, the increase is less than that resulting from the proposed project. It is anticipated that the existing water and sewer mains and sewage treatment plant capacity are adequate to accommodate the potential demands for domestic water and potential increase in raw sewage that would be generated by the Project based on studies submitted to the City of Newport ' Beach. Sewer collection and conveyance and treatment facilities are adequate to accommodate this alternative. Similarly, domestic water facilities are Also adequate. to meet both the existing and proposed fire demands for the alternative. As a result, potential impacts would be less than significant. i Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September2007 ' 40.7 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report , Section 10.0 Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Although some of the project, objectives would be achieved, implementation of this alternative would not achieve several important objectives, including the provision of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area. However, this alternative would not permit the expansion of medical office floor area on the site beyond that already approved by the City. Therefore, objectives such as proving the highest quality health available, support of Hoag Hospital level of care, and providing much needs office space for physicians would be limited by the amount of medical office floor area approved by the City with Use Permit 2006 -010 Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts As Indicated in the analysis above, the No Project Alternative would not result in the improvement of all of the environmental conditions forecast for the proposed project, based on the prior environmental analysis conducted for Use Permit 2006 -010. Specifically, no significant air quality impacts would occur and other impacts, similar to the proposed project, would remain less than significant. Virtually all of the project - related impacts would be the less than those identified for the project. This alternative is environmentally superior when compared to the proposed project. Comparative Merits While implementation of the No Development alternative, when compared to the proposed project, is environmentally superior, would eliminate the significant air quality, impacts associated with the proposed project and further reduce other impacts determined to be less than significant, this alternative would not fulfill several of the important development objectives desired by the project applicant. 10.4.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the conversion of the remaining non - medical office floor area to medical office; however, this alternative does not include the additional floor area proposed by the project applicant (i.e., 20,586 square feet). This alternative would allow for a total of 329,414 square feet of medical 'office floor area on the 13.7 -acre property. 10.4.3.1 Land Use and Planning Like the proposed project, this alternative is consistent with the General Plan, which allocates a maximum of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area, and the zoning adopted for the subject property. Similarly, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would also be generally consistent with the goals and policies articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan. The reduction in floor area would result in a decrease in some of the short- term nuisances created by construction (e.g., fugitive dust, construction noise, construction traffic); however, these short-term conflicts are addressed through appropriate conditions and mitigation measures. Finally, the'character of development would be consistent with the existing site design and character and would not conflict with the existing uses that are located in the project environs. These potential effects are essentially the same as those identified and described for the proposed project. No significant impacts would occur if this alternative were implemented. Draft Envronmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 10.8 1 I H 1 1 1 1 I L� 11 I 1 �J 1 .. I Hoag Health Center Use. Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 10.4.3.2 Traffic and Circulation The Reduced Intensity Alternative will result in a total of 11,902 vehicle trips per day, including 817 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 1,225 trips during the p.m. peak hour. Although the number of vehicle trips would be reduced by approximately six percent (i.e., total daily trips), potential impacts resulting from this alternative would be similar to those identified for the proposed project. Specifically, all of the intersections adversely affected by the proposed project would also be adversely affected by the traffic generated by this " alternative, even though the ICU values would be slightly reduced when compared to the ICU values at those intersections forecast for the proposed -project. Therefore, mitigation measures for the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be the same as those prescribed for the proposed project. Table 10 -2 reflects the ICU/LOS values for this alternative. Table 10 -2 Potential Traffic Impacts — Reduced Intensity Alternative Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment 10.4.3.3 Air Quality This alternative. would result in a reduction in the short-term (i.e., construction) impacts because the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area would not be constructed. Implementation of this alternative would reduce the short-term impacts, which were determined to be less than" significant. As Indicated above, this atemative will result in approximately six percent fewer vehicle trips per day at buildout (i.e., 11,902 trips per day versus 12,646 trips per day for the proposed project). Long -term emissions are directly related to the number of project- related trips (mobile-source impacts) and the floor area that would create a demand for electricity and natural gas (stationary-source impacts). Therefore, the six percent decrease in vehicle trips and reduction in floor area (would result in a concomitant decrease in mobile- and stationary -source air emissions. However, this decrease would not reduce the long -term emissions sufficiently to reduce the significant air quality impacts identified for the proposed project. Therefore, the air quality impacts occurring from the implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would remain significant and unavoidable, necessitating the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Draft Envronmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 10-9 ''�_;+ ".:� � •.:.,'',r.'" of e,` ..� USAW ''a Superior Avenue (NS) at: Street. EW 1.0471F 0.9201E 1.0951F 1.0411E +0.048 +0.12051 Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 192' Street (EW) 0.715/C 0.797/C 0.718/C 0.8051D +0.003 +0.008" 182' Street/Rochester Street (EW) 0.793/C 0.9271E 0.801/D 0.9391E +0.008 +0.012 17' Street EW 0.808/1) 0.853/D 0:817/D 0.8751D +0.009 +0.022 BOLD type identifies deficient Intersection. SOURCE: Kunzman Associates (September 6, 2007 10.4.3.3 Air Quality This alternative. would result in a reduction in the short-term (i.e., construction) impacts because the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area would not be constructed. Implementation of this alternative would reduce the short-term impacts, which were determined to be less than" significant. As Indicated above, this atemative will result in approximately six percent fewer vehicle trips per day at buildout (i.e., 11,902 trips per day versus 12,646 trips per day for the proposed project). Long -term emissions are directly related to the number of project- related trips (mobile-source impacts) and the floor area that would create a demand for electricity and natural gas (stationary-source impacts). Therefore, the six percent decrease in vehicle trips and reduction in floor area (would result in a concomitant decrease in mobile- and stationary -source air emissions. However, this decrease would not reduce the long -term emissions sufficiently to reduce the significant air quality impacts identified for the proposed project. Therefore, the air quality impacts occurring from the implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would remain significant and unavoidable, necessitating the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Draft Envronmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 10-9 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Dian Environmental Impact Report Saction 40.0 ' 10.4.3.4 Noise , Although some construction impacts associated with the conversion of the existing non - medical office floor area to medical offices would occur because this alternative does not include the construction of the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area, no significant construction- related impacts would be anticipated. Similar to air quality impacts, the six percent reduction in medical office floor area associated , with this alternative would result in a slight decrease in noise caused by the increase in vehicular traffic generation (over the existing conditions). However, as indicated in Section 4.4, project - related noise impacts caused by the increase in traffic generated by the project would not exceed 1 dBA and would be inaudible. While it is possible that the reduction in vehicle trips would further reduce future mobile -source noise levels in ' the project area, the small reduction in traffic would not result in significant reductions in future noise levels associated with this alternative. , 10.4.3.5 Public Health and Safety All of the impacts associated'with the proposed project would occur if the Reduced Intensity Alternative and would necessitate the same level and degree of remediation in order to mitigate the potential health hazard posed by the historic use of the site. As previously indicated, remediation of the air and soil contamination is underway and would be expanded to include the mitigation measures prescribed for the proposed project. , Therefore; this alternative would not result in any reduction in the potential impacts to public health and safety. 10.4.3.6 Utilities 1 The existing sewer and water facilities that serve the site are adequate to accommodate future development and, in particular, conversion of the non - medical office floor area to medical offices. However, the reduction , in floor area with this alternative when compared to the proposed project would not result in a significant reduction. Adequate supplies of domestic water are available and there is adequate sewer collection and treatment capacity in the existing facilities. • Ability to Achieve Project Objectives , With the exception of maximizing the developable area by providing 350,000 square feet of , medical office floor area as allowed by the General Plan, the Reduced Intensity alternative would achieve all of the project objectives. This alternative would allow for a, significant increase in medical office space that would facilitate higher quality health care facilities, support Hoag Hospital's level of care, and increase the amount of office space in proximity to the hospital. ' • Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts This alternative would 'result in a small reduction in the potential traffic, noise, and air quality , impacts; however, the reduction in impacts would not eliminate the requirement for mitigation. In the case of air quality, the 6 percent reduction in trips would not be sufficient to reduce the air quality impacts to a less than significant and is not, therefore, environmentally superior when , compared to the proposed project. • Comparative Merits , As indicated above, this project will not significantly improve the environmental impacts and will require the same mitigation measures in order to reduce the potential impacts. However, virtually all of the project objectives would be realized, with the exception of that related to maximizing the , medical office floor area permitted by the Newport Beach General Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report , Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment— Newport Beach, CA September2007 40.40 ' ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report, Section tao 10.4.4 Non - Medical Office Alternative This alternative encompasses a total of 329,414 square feet of office floor area, including the 97,000 square feet of approved medical office floor area (Use Permit 2006 -010); however, the remaining 232,414 ' square feet of floor area would be dedicated to general office uses. 104.4.1 Land Use and Planning ' The Non - Medical Office alternative would be generally consistent with the long -range plans for the area adopted by the City of Newport Beach and reflected in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Although the Medical Commercial Office (CO -M) land use district is intended "... primarily for medical- related offices and other professional offices ... " the CO -M land use designation could also accommodate the general office uses included in this alterative. With the exception of the 97,000 square feet of medical office floor area that were approved in 2006 (Use Permit 2006 -010), the remaining floor area would be dedicated to general office -uses, which could accommodate a variety of professional and administrative services. While the proposed uses are consistent with the land use and zoning applied to the site, the Implementation of non - medical office uses would not be consistent with the policies articulated in the Land Use Element that ".. . emphasize the accommodation of medical- related and supporting facilities on properties abutting the ' Hoag Hospital complex." 10.4.4.2 Traffic Circulation 1 With the exception of the No Development alternative, this alternative will result in the fewest additional vehicular trips. The Non - Medical Office alterative would generate 6,064 daily vehicle trips, including 600 a.m. peak hour trips and 707 p.m. peak hour trips. This alternative would result in an increase of less than 300 trips per day over the existing use permit approved for the site. Nonetheless, the traffic generated by this alternative would contribute to the cumulative degradation of two intersections, as indicated in Table 10-3. Table 103 Potential Traffic Impacts.— Non - Medical Office Altemative Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 10-11 Superior Avenue (NS) at: 174' Street EW 1.0471F 0.9201E 1.053/F 0.9521E +0.006 +0.032 Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 19'" Street (EW) 0.715/C 0.797/C 0.715/C 0.799 /C +0.000 +0.002 1EP Street/Rochester Street (EW) 0.793/C 0.9271E 0.794/C 0.9301E +0.001 +0.003 17a' Street EW 0.808 /D 0.853 /D 0.809 /D 0.858 /D +0.001 +0.005 BOLD type identifies deficient intersection. SOURCE: Kunzman Associates (September 6, 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 10-11 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 10.4.4.3 Air Quality The significant reduction in daily vehicular trips associated with the Non - Medical Office alternative (Increase of 280 trips per day) when compared to the proposed project (Increase of 6,862 trips per day) would result in a significant decrease in daily pollutant emissions associated with site development. The additional trips, which equate to less than 5 percent of the project- related trip Increase, would decrease all of the pollutant emissions to levels that do not exceed the significance thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD. For example, the 1,303 pounds of CO generated by the proposed project on a daily basis in the summer would be reduced to approximately 65 pounds per day, well below the 550 pounds per day threshold. Similarly, the emissions of ROC, NOx and PM10 would also be reduced by 95 percent based on the trip reduction associated with this altemative when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would not result in any exceedances in the SCAQMD significance thresholds established_ for the pollutants. Therefore, no significant air quality impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 10.4.4.4 Noise Both construction and operational noise impacts resulting from "this alternative would be reduced when compared to the proposed project. Construction noise would be limited to any activities occurring as a result of the conversion /remodeling of R &D uses to create the general office uses; no new floor area would occur as a result of this alternative. The significant reduction in vehicle trips associated with this project would have only minimal impacts on the long -term noise environment in the vicinity of the project. Although some additional trips would be added to the roadway network (i.e., 280 trips per day), the resulting net increase on both ambient and future mobile -source noise levels would not be significant. 10.4.4.5 Public Health and Safety All of the Impacts associated with the proposed project would occur if the Non - Medical Office aftemative, which would necessitate the same level and degree of remediation in order to mitigate the potential health hazard posed by the historic use of the site. As previously indicated, remediation of the air and soil contamination is underway and would be expanded to include the mitigation measures prescribed for the proposed project based on the use of the site for general offices (and 97,000 square feet of medical offices that was approved with Use Permit 2006 -010). Therefore, this alternative would not resat in any reduction in the potential impacts to public health and safety identified for the proposed project. 10.4.4.6 Utilities The existing sewer and water facilities that serve the site are adequate to accommodate future development and, in particular, conversion of the R &D floor area to general office floor area. It is anticipated that the demand for domestic water and generation of wastewater may be incrementally less when compared to the proposed project; however, the conversion of the R &D floor are to generally offices, when compared to the proposed project would not result in a significant reduction. Adequate supplies of domestic water are available and there is adequate sewer collection and treatment capacity in the existing facilities. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives The Non- Medical Office alternative will not achieve any of the project objectives, including providing a maximum of 350,000 square feet of floor area permitted by the General Plan. Draft Environmental impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 10 -12 �l 1 I 1 .1 1 i 1 1 [1 L 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts With the No Development alternative, this alternative is considered to be environmentally superior when compared to the proposed project. The small increase in vehicular traffic (compared with the proposed project) would eliminate the potentially significant unavoidable adverse air quality impacts associated with the proposed project, which would also eliminate the requirement to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Comparative Merits As indicated above, this alternative would be considered environmentally superior; however, none of the project objectives would be achieved. 10.5 Summary of Alternatives An EIR is. required to identify the "environmentally superior" alternative among those, evaluated from the reasonable range of alternative analyzed. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines mandates that in the event "... the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. In addition, alternatives identified and evaluated are also intended to achieve project objectives, which include: 1'. To provide 350,000 square feet of medical office space that can be utilized to meet the growing demand for outpatient health care services, including imaging, urgent care, rehabilitation and health care education programs. 2. To provide the highest quality health care available. 3. To support Hoag Hospital's delivery of patient centered care for those hospitalized as an inpatient and by providing additional outpatient care and services. 4. To recognize that as Orange Countys population ages, and expands, so grows the need for increased health care services. 5. To have medical office space conveniently. located near the hospital, and supported by imaging, rehabilitation and educational programs allowing the hospital to attract new physicians to the community. 6. To provide the much needed space for physician offices. There is in great need for primary care and specialty physicians. it is Hoag's objective to provide the space for them to practice. Implementation of the No Development Alternative (approved UP 2006 -010) is identified as the "environmentally superior" alternative when compared to the proposed project and other alternatives evaluated because the potentially significant air quality impacts identified for the proposed project would be avoided. As summarized in Table 10-4 and the preceding analysis, the No Development Altemative is able to achieve some of the project objectives, which are identified above. In addition to the No Development alternative, the Non - Medical Office alternative is also considered to be environmentally superior due to the significant reduction in vehicular trips that would be generated and the ability of that alternative to avoid potentially significant air quality impacts. However, neither of these alternatives would achieve several of the project objectives related to the provision of adequate health care service. Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September2007 10.13 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 , Table 10-4 Summary of Project Alternatives Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA Septemher2007 10-14 ' 'p lii�ds " No 1.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 No Pro act No None None No Development' Yes Air Quali None Yes 3,5 Reduced Intensity Yes None None No 2,3,4,5,6 Non- Medical Office Yes Air Quality None Yes None Altemative Site 'Numbers refer to Project Objectives identified in Section 10.5. .2 Approved Use Permit 2006 -010 (December 2006) 3This alternative includes 97,000 square feet of medical office floor area approved as part of Use Permit 2006 -010; the remaining existing R &D floor area (96,414 square feet) would be converted to general office floor area. °Although potential pollutant emissions would be reduced when compared to the proposed project, the impacts would not be reduced to a less than significant level. SAtthough all of the project objectives would be achieved, given the indeterminate timing of implementation of this alternative, the objectives may not be achieved in the same time frame as anticipated by the project applicant. Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA Septemher2007 10-14 ' H H Hoag Health Center use Permit amendment Draft EnWronmental impact Report Section 11.0, SECTION 11.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department James Campbell, Senior Planner Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Public Works Department ' Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager' Tony Brine, Transportation and Development Services Manager Dave Keely, Associate Traffic Engineer CITY OF COSTA MESA ' Planning Department Kimberly Brandt, AICP,.Principal Planner Public Works/Transportation Services ' Peter Naghavi, P:E., CMS, Manager Raja Sethuraman, P.E., Project Manager /Associate Engineer KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal ' KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES ' William Kunzman, Princlpai Carl Ballard, Project Manager LSA, INC. Tony Chung, Project Manager ' Ronald Brugger' ''No longerr at the City of Newport Beach. ' (haft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 ' Page 11-1 Hoag Health Center Use Pemrlt Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 97.0 IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Rob Balas GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. Carol Mentor McDermott, Principal Coralee Lee Newman, Principal Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 99 -2 7 F_ iL F C 1 1 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental impact Report - Section 420 SECTION 12.0 REFERENCES The references listed below in this preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Hoag Health Center project. Each of these documents is available at the City of Newport Beach at the address listed below. City of Newport Beads Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 ATTN: Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Santa Ana Region; Results of Indoor Air Sampling and Future Use of Facilities — Future Newport Healthcare Center Facility (Former Raytheon site) (April 16, 2007). City of Newport Beach; General Plan Land Use Element; adopted July 25, 2006. City of Newport Beach; Municipal Code. Iris Environmental; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment — Newport Technology. Center (February 1, 2006. Iris Environmental; Sampling and Analysis of Soil Gas — Newport Technology Center (June 2, 2006). Iris Environmental; Summary Results for Rounds One and Two of Indoor Air Monitoring — Newport Technology Center (November 6, 2006. Iris Environmental; Summary of Issues Associated with Soil Handling during Construction of the Proposed Parking Garage at 530 Superior Avenue (April 11, 2007). Keeton Kreitzer Consulting; Mitigated Negative Declaration; Hoag Health Center (October 13, 2006); Adopted December 2006. Kununan Associates; Traffic Impact Analysis — Hoag Healthcare Center; September 5, 2007. Kununan Associates; Supplemental Traffic Analysis — Hoag Health Center, September 6, 2007. LSA, Inc.; Air Quality Assessment for Hoag Healthcare Center, August 2007. LSA,'Inc.; Noise Assessment for Hoag Healthcare Center, September 2007. RBA Partners, Inc.; Water System Demand Study —Hoag Memorial Hospital; April 12, 2007. RBA Partners, Inc.; Sewer System Demand Study — Hoag Memorial Hospital; April 5, 2007. . Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 12 -1 ' Hoag Health Center Use Permit amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report SECTION 13.0 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways NOZ Nitrogen dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation NOx Nitrogen oxides NPDES Nation Pollution Discharge and Elimination System Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amondment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 43 -4 Section 410 AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard /Standards ADT Average Daily Traffic ANSI American National Standards Institute AQMD Air Quality Management District ' AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMP Best Management Practices ' CAA Federal Clean Air Act CARB California Air Resources Board CCAA California Clean Air Act CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide ' CWA Federal Clean Water Act DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan dB Decibel ' dBA A- weighted decibel EA Environmental Assessment ' EIR EPA Environmental Impact Report Environmental Protection Agency F Fahrenheit ft Feet ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization IS Initial Study Leq Equivalent noise level Lmax Maximum noise level Lmin Minimum noise level ' LOS Level of service MCLs Maximum content levels MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways NOZ Nitrogen dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation NOx Nitrogen oxides NPDES Nation Pollution Discharge and Elimination System Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amondment — Newport Beach, CA September 2007 Page 43 -4 Section 410 I Hoag. Health Center Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 13.0 03 Ozone PA Planning Application PRC Public Resources Code PM2.5 Particulates 2.5 microns or less in diameter PM10 Particulates ten microns or less in diameter ppm parts per million RAP Remedial Action Plan ROC Reactive Organic Compounds ROG Reactive organic gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAMP Special Area Management Plan SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District sf Square feet S02 Sulfur Dioxide SWPPP Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Program sox Sulfur oxides TDM Transportation Demand Management TDS Total Dissolved Solids TPD Trips per Day USGS United State Geological Survey WC Volume /Capacity VOC Volatile Organic Compounds VPD Vehicles per Day WQMP Water Quality Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Hoag Health Center Use Pemit Amendment — Newport Beach, CA ' September 2007 Page 13 -2 I 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Appendix A 1 . Initial Study and Notice of Preparation 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I i0-9 See NOTEbeluw NOTICE OF COMPLETION SCH# Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 916/445 -0613 Project Tide: Hogg Health Care Center Project Lead Agency: I City of Newport Beach Contact Person: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Street Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard I Phone: I (949) 644-3209 City: Newport Beach County: Oran e Project Location: County: orange I Ci /Nearest mmuni : Newport Beach Cross Streets: Superior Avenue/Dana Road . ' Zip Code: 192663 1 Total Acres: 1 13.7 Assessor's Parcel No.: 425 - 181 -01 ction: T : Range Base: Within State . #: SR -1 4 W Iwe s: Newport Ba /Pacffic Ocean 2 Miles: Airports: Railways: Schools: Document Type (Check one) Local Action Type (Check all that apply) CE QA I NEPA 0774ER X NOP X Supplement/Subsequent NOI General Plan Amendment Joint Document Master Plan Early Cons Prezone Prior EIR SCH # EA • Final Document X N5N Dec X Other Draft EIS Coastal Permit Other Archaeo /History ,De Minerals FONSI Land Division subdivision Local Action Type (Check all that apply) Development Type (Check all that apply) General Plan LI date UnitslSq Ft Specific Plan Employees Rezone X Annexation • General Plan Amendment Residential Master Plan Prezone X Redevelopment • General Plan Element X Planned Unit Dev. X Use Permit X Coastal Permit Transportation Archaeo /History X Minerals Commercial Land Division subdivision X Other Community Plan Mineral: Site Plan Industrial parcel, tract maps etc.) X Traffic Phasing X Power I X Watts X Educational X Ordinance Development Type (Check all that apply) Project Issues Discussed in Document (Check all that aooly) X AestheticsNisual UnitslSq Ft Acres Employees Schools /Universities X Type • Agricultural Land Residential Forest Land /Fire Hazard Septic Systems X Water Facilities • MGD X Office 350,000 13.7 X Wetland/Ri rlan Transportation Archaeo /History X Minerals Commercial Soil Erosion/Compaction X Wildlife Mining Mineral: Noise Industrial Solid Waste X Growth Inducing X Power I X Watts X Educational X Land Use Waste Treatment Economic/Jobs I X Public Services/Facilities Recreational TraffieXirculation X Hazardous Waste Fiscal I X Recreation/Parks X 1 Vegetation Other. Project Issues Discussed in Document (Check all that aooly) X AestheticsNisual X I Flood Plain/Flooding X Schools /Universities X Water Quality • Agricultural Land X Forest Land /Fire Hazard Septic Systems X Water Supply /Ground Water • Air Quality X Geologic/Seismic X Sewer Capacity X Wetland/Ri rlan • Archaeo /History X Minerals X Soil Erosion/Compaction X Wildlife Coastal Zone X Noise X Solid Waste X Growth Inducing X Drainage Absorption I X Population Housing Balance X Toxic/Fiazardous X Land Use Economic/Jobs I X Public Services/Facilities X TraffieXirculation X I Cumulative Effects Fiscal I X Recreation/Parks X 1 Vegetation I Other ' Present Land UsefZoning/General Plan Designation: Existing Land Use: Newport Technology Center (415,493 sf of RID and professional office floor area); Newport Beach General Plan: Medical Commercial Office; Newport Beach Zoning: M -1-A (Controlled Manufacturing District). Project Description: Newport Beach Healthcare Center, L-C, is requesting the approval of an amendment to Use Permit No. 2006-010 to allow. ' (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet of general office/R &D floor area, of the total 329,414 square feet of floor area currently permitted on -site, to medical office use within the M-1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district and (2) the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office and ancillary medical uses on -site, for a total of 350,000 gross square feet of medical office floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. The request is consistent with the City's ' General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site for Medical Commercial Office (CO -M) land uses and establishes a precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area. This land use designation is intended to provide primarily medical - related uses. Additionally, approval of a traffic study Is being requested pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). A total of 1,985 parking spaces previously approved In Use Permit 2006 -010 are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces in two ' parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum onslte parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's parking code. I IReviewing Agencies Checklist I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I LJ 1 Resources Agency Boating & Waterways Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy Colorado River Board Conservation Fish & Game Forestry Office of Historic Preservation Parks & Recreation Reclamation S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm. Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation & Housing Aeronautics California Highway Patrol S CALTRANS District # 12 Dept. of Transportation Planning (Hq) Housing & Community Development Food & Agriculture Health & Welfare Health Services State Consumer Services General Services OLA (Schools) Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date March 26, 2007 Signature Lead Agency (Complete if applicable) City of Newport Beach Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard City /State/Zip: Newport Beach, CA 92658 Contact: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Phone: (949) 644 -3209 Applicant: Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC Address: P. O. Box 6100 City /State/Zip: Newport Beach, CA 92658 Contact: Mr. Langston Trigg Phone: (949) 764 -8250 KEY S = Document Sent by Leac Agency X = Document Sent by SCH 4 = Suggested Distribution Cal -EPA Air Resources Board S APCD /AQMD California Waste Management Board SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Delta Unit SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB: Water Rights S Regional WQCB #9 San Diego Region Youth & Adult Corrections Corrections Independent Commissions & Offices Energy Commission Native American Heritage Commission Public Utilities Commission Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy State Lands Commission Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Other: Ending Date April 24, 2007 Date March 22. 2007 For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH: Date Review Starts: Date to Agencies: Date to SCH: Clearance Date: Notes: NOTICE OF PREPARATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project: Hoag Health Center Project Location: 500 — 540 Superior Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3689 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Pursuant to Section 15082(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach will be the lead agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project described below. The City needs to know your agency's views as to the scope and content of the environmental information related to your agency's statutory authority with respect to the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering any applicable permits for the project. The project description and location are described herein. The potential environmental effects of the project are described in the initial study that is included as an attachment. Pursuant to Section 15103 of the State CEQA Guidelines, your response must be sent at the earliest date but received by our agency no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of this notice. Should you have any questions regarding the project or Notice of Preparation, please call Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner with the City of Newport Beach, at (949) 644 -3209. Please mail your written response, including any comments you may have on this project to: ' Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Center Drive P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Applicant: Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC Description: The applicant, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is proposing to increase the intensity of development that currently entitled on the 13.7 -acre property. Hoag Health Center, currently known as Newport Technology Center, is located at 500- 540 Superior Avenue (the "Property"). In 2001, the City granted a Use Permit to exceed the maximum permitted height of 32 feet to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of the then existing industrial development. Most recently (December 2006), the City approved UP 2006-010 for the site that allows the demolition of one existing building (Building 4) and the construction of an additional parking structure (Structure 2) and the conversion of 97,000 square feet of existing office/R &D space to medical office space, resulting in a I I total of 232,414 square feet of Office/R &D floor area and 97,000 square feet of medical office floor area. The amended UP approved by the City in 2006 also included an increase in on -site parking from 1,332 combined parking spaces (i.e., surface and structure parking) to 1,985 combined parking spaces, including 697 spaces in the new parking structure that was approved to replace Building 4. Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is now requesting the approval of an amendment to Use Permit No. 2006 -010 to allow: (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet of general office /R &D floor area, of the total 329,414 square feet of t floor area currently permitted on -site, to medical office use within the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district; and (2) the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office and ancillary medical uses on -site, for a total of 350,000 gross square feet of medical office floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site for Medical Commercial Office (CO -M) land uses and establishes a precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area. This land use designation is intended to provide primarily medical - related uses. Additionally, approval of a traffic study is being requested pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). A total of 1,985 parking spaces previously approved in Use Permit 2006 -010 are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces in two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on -site parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's parking code. I I I I I I i I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Hoag Health Center 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jaime Murillo, Planning Department (949) 644 -3209 4. Project Location: 500 — 540 Superior Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mr. Langston Trigg Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC P. O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, CA 92658 1 6. General Plan Designation: Medical Commercial Office 7, Zoning: M-1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing District) 8. Description of Project: ' Hoag Health Center, currently known as Newport Technology Center, is located at 500 -540 Superior Avenue (the "Property'). Recently (December 2006), the City approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 for the site that allows the demolition of one existing office building (Building 4) and the construction of an additional parking structure (Structure 2). The approval also authorized the conversion of 97,000 square feet of existing general officelresearch and development (R&D) space to medical office space, resulting in a total of 232,414 square feet of office(R&D floor area and 97,000 square feet of medical office floor area. The Use Permit also included an increase in on -site parking from 1,332 combined parking spaces (i.e., surface and structure parking) to 1,985 combined parking spaces, including 697 spaces in the new parking structure that replaced Building 4. The previous Use Permit approval also provided for a shuttle service that will consist of a 20- passenger van that will transport physlclans 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 shuttle service is limited 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 Clty'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. No ancillary parking will be allowed to occur at Hoag Health Center for Hoag Hospital except during a one -year interim period to facilitate completion of Hoag's construction of its Lower Campus. I CHECKLIST Pagel Table 1 Land Use Summary Hoag Health Center .fit A)proved ' 4�A„ . }•.� �� Use Permit No. 2000 -010 Building 1 100,407 48'6" Building 2 117,027 32'5" Building 3 111,980 48'6" Structure 1 Parking Structure 467 Structure 2 Parking Structure 327 Total R &D 96,414 Total Office 136,000 Total Medical Office 97,000 Total Gross Floor Area 329,414 Proposed Project - 2007 Building 1 100,407 487 Building 2 117,027 32'5" Buildinq 3 111,980 487 Structure 1 Parking Structure 467 Structure 2 Parking Structure 327 Total R &D Removed Total Office Removed Total Medical Office 329,414 Additional Medical Office 20,586 327 max Total Gross Floor Area 350,000 SOURCE: Planning Activity No. 2007 -013 (January 18 2007 . Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is now requesting the approval of an amendment to Use Permit No. 2006 -010 to allow: (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet of general office /R &D floor area, of the total 329,414 square feet of floor area currently permitted on -site, to medical office use within the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district; and (2) the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office and ancillary medical uses on- site, for a total of 350,000 gross square feet of medical office floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site for Medical Commercial Office (CO -M) land uses and establishes a precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area. This land use designation Is intended to provide primarily medical - related uses. Additionally, approval of a traffic study is being requested pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). A total of 1,985 parking spaces previously approved in Use Permit 2006 -010 are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces in two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on -site parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's parking code. CHECKLIST Page 2 I I 11 I I 1 I I I I 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vicinity Ma .T.1.n..• � J i — - � X4, Ul A IMSTW V Mft- "K q. Proiect Location �• n i1 CHECKLIST Page 3 Newport Technology Center, consisting of 4 buildings encompassing 415,493 Current Development: square feet with a four -level above grade parking garage and surface parking having a combined total of 1,332 arkin s ces' To the northeast City of Newport Beach Corporate Yard To the southeast: Sunbrid a Care and Rehabilitation Center To the southwest: Multiple-Family Residential and Flagship Medical Care Center To the northwest: Harbor Homes Trailer Park and Superior Medical Center 1 Existing development does not reflect land uses modifications approved in UP 2006 -010. CHECKLIST Page 3 I Land Use Development of the Property has resulted in the elimination of any significant topographic features as well as native habitat and native plant and animal species. The area in the vicinity where the Property is located is intensively developed with a variety of land uses, including medical facilities, industrial and office uses and residential development. As indicated above, a variety of land uses exist in the Project environs, including commercial development and the City of Newport Beach Corporate Yard on the north and northeast, respectively; a medical center and mobile home park on located northwest of the site. Apartments and a healthcare center are located south of the Property, townhomes are located to the southeast, and Newport Boulevard is located east of the Property. No significant undeveloped land is located within the immediate vicinity of the Property. The Property is devoid of natural vegetation and has urban landscaping and introduced plant materials. Climate and Air Quality The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600 square mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. A persistent high - pressure area that commonly resides over the eastern Pacific Ocean largely dominates regional meteorology. The distinctive climate of this area is determined primarily by its terrain and geographic location. Local climate is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Ozone and pollutant concentrations tend to be lower along the coast, where the constant onshore breeze disperses pollutants toward the inland valley of the SCAB and adjacent deserts. However, as a whole, the SCAB fails to meet national standards for several criteria pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and PM10, and is classified as a "non - attainment' area for those pollutants. Geology and Seismicity The project site is located in the seismically active southern California region. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (and the site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone), it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the Newport- Inglewood, Norwalk, and Raymond Faults. The Newport- Inglewood fault, which is the only active fault within or immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, could generate a 7.0 magnitude or greater maximum credible ' earthquake. Although the subject property is devoid of slopes, the site is bounded by a 25- to 30 -foot manufactured descending slope along the eastern property boundary. The proposed parking structure is located approximately 60 feet from the top of the manufactured slope at its nearest point. Therefore, the potential for gross instability of the slope affecting the parking structure is low. Drainage and Hydrology ' As previously indicated, the entire site is currently developed. Impervious surfaces cover the vast majority of the site, which is adequately served by the City's storm drain system located in the roadways that surround the site. The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. Further, neither the subject property nor the surrounding residential development is located in an area of the City that is subject to flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. Transportation and Circulation Three public streets abut the subject property, including Superior Avenue on the west, Newport Boulevard on the east, and Dana Road on the south. Newport Boulevard is classified as a major road on the City s Circulation Element/Master Plan of Streets & Highways. Direct vehicular access to the project site is currently available at three entrances along Superior Avenue. The existing Newport Technology Center CHECKLIST Page 4 1 I currently generates traffic throughout the week. Approximately 1,332 on -site parking spaces are currently provided on the property both within a parking structure and in surface parking lots to accommodate employees and visitors to the site. ' Public Services and Utilities Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The NBFD operates and maintains six fire stations to respond to emergency calls throughout the City. Fire Station No. 2 is located on the Balboa Peninsula at 32 n Street, near City Hall and is approximately 1.5 miles from the site. In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal mutual aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the subject property. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." I I i I II I I The City of Newport Beach owns and maintains several sewer and water mains in the vicinity of the subject property, including those in Superior Avenue, Dana Road, and Newport Boulevard. Sewer collection and wastewater treatment services are provided by the City of Newport Beach (local collection) and the Orange County Sanitation District (conveyance and treatment). In addition, all of the utilities (i.e., electricity , natural gas, and telephone) are currently available and serve the existing development. The project site receives electrical and natural gas service from Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, respectively. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Regional Water Quality Control Board ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Water H Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards 0 Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of El Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation CHECKLIST Page 5 H I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ' I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached Sheets, if the effect is a "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" or "potentially significant." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. El I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ by Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Date Planning Department 3 1s o by lKeeton K Kreitzer, Con nt Date Keeton Kreifzer Consu ing F:IUSERSIPLN1Shared\PA's1Pas - 2008- 1131Env\Hoog Initial Study.doc I CHECKLIST Page 6 I L7 I I i I I I I I I I I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Potentially Leas than Less than Significant Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 13 13 0 13 The Property is located west of Newport Boulevard and is bounded by Superior Avenue on the west, and Dana Road on the south. Neither Newport Boulevard nor Superior Avenue is designated as a scenic roadway. The subject property and surrounding area are characterized by higher density development, including the City's Corporate Yard to the north, a care and rehabilitation center to the east, multiple - family residential and medical care center to the south, and a mobile home park and medical center on the west. Hoag Hospital and related medical facilities are located south of the subject property. Building 3 (520 Superior Avenue) and Building 4 (530 Superior Avenue) are visible from Newport Boulevard. In 2001, the City granted a Use Permit to exceed the maximum permitted height of 32 feet to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of the then existing industrial development. The Project consisted of the demolition and reconstruction of approximately 214,210 square feet of existing buildings and the remodel of another 201,283 square feet. It was noted at the time that, since 1981, the site has historically had buildings exceeding the 32 —foot height limitation, with an existing parking structure of 46 feet to the top of the parapet and 50 feet to the top of the elevator. The officeAaboratory building was 32 feet to the top of the parapet with its mechanical penthouse structure taking it up to 41 feet. Additionally, the increased height was approved based on a finding that it resulted in more public visual open space between buildings and reduced site coverage, than otherwise could have been achieved without the increased height Although future construction of the 20,586 square feet of additional medical office floor area could result in a reduction in the public visual open space, any future expansion occurring on the subject property must be in substantial conformance with the approved Use Permit to ensure that it complies with the intent of that Use Permit for height. If not, an amendment to the Use Permit would be required. Most recently (December 2006), the City approved UP 2006 -010 for the site that allows the demolition of one existing building and the construction of an additional parking structure and the conversion of existing officafRBD space to 97,000 square feet of medical office space. The aesthetic impacts associated with the demolition of the existing parking structure and its replacement with a new office building were evaluated in the Initial Study prepared for that project, which concluded that the no significant visual impacts would occur as a result of that project. As previously indicated, the proposed project will result in the addition of 20,586 square feet of new medical office and ancillary floor area. The additional square footage is proposed to be located between the existing and new parking structures, and will be designed to be compatible with the existing architecture and to comply with the 32 -foot height limitation for the district. Given its location and height, the new construction will be screened from view from Newport Boulevard, Superior Avenue, and Dana Road, by the three existing office buildings and two parking structures on -site. The redeveloped medical office floor area within the existing structures will be visible from Newport Boulevard; however, views of the development would be the same as the views identified and described in the prior environmental analysis for the new parking structure from locations along that roadway. CHECKLIST Page 7 Potentially Less than Less than No Signlflcant w h n flgant Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact The parking structure will be substantially the same height as the office building It will be replacing and the design of the proposed parking structure has been determined to not result in any significant visual impacts. The east elevation of the parking structure, which would be visible from Newport Boulevard, has been designed to be compatible with the existing structures and, therefore, would not result in any significant adverse effect on the existing views. A series of views from the north and east is included in Appendix A, which Illustrates the existing and post - development views from three locations along Newport Boulevard. As indicated in those views, the proposed parking structure appears to encroach into the same visual envelope as the existing office building that currently occupies the site. As reflected in those views, the proposed parking structure is primarily designed as a concrete shear -wall, with metal panels and a metal trellis. Other elements on the east elevation include storefront glazing with aluminum mullion and perforated metal panels. The combination of these features and design of the structure, which does not exceed the height of the existing office building, will not significantly alter views from Newport Boulevard. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur with the construction of the additional 20,586 square feet of floor area and no mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, . trees, rock outcroppings, and historic ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 buildings within a state scenic highway? The property does not possess any unique aesthetic features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, or historic structures or features. In addition, the Property is not located along a state scenic highway. As indicated above, two existing structures are visible from Newport Boulevard; however, this arterial highway Is not designated as a scenic corridor. Although the proposed project includes the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area on the subject property, it is not anticipated that the addition of this floor area would create a significant visual impact to scenic resources. As previously indicated, the subject property is devoid of native trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings or other amenities that constitute a visual resource. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ and its surroundings? The area surrounding the property is also intensively developed with a variety of commercial, industrial, residential and medical office uses. The conversion of the remaining non - medical office space to medical office uses and the construction of the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area on the site will not significantly change the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. The additional square footage proposed on the site is proposed to be located between the existing and new parking structure, and would be designed to be compatible not only with the existing office buildings and parking structures but also the surrounding non - residential development. In particular, the new structure would not exceed the height of the existing buildings and would not be an intrusive element within the area. Therefore, less than significant visual impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ day or nighttime views in the area? CHECKLIST Page 8 V 1 I LJ IJ 'J I I I I I 1 I I M I I i I I I i_ J I 1 I L7 I I Potentially Significant 5 m Less than No Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated impact 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. As indicated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for CUP 2006 -010, 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 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. Mitigation Measures 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. 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 Department. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Californ ia Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? Project implementation will not result in the conversion of any prime or otherwise significant farmland. Although the majority of the site is undeveloped, the subject property is located in an area that has been developed with urban uses. According to the Orange County Important Farmland Map, the entire area, including the subject property, is designated as "Urban and Built Up Land," which encompasses land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one dwelling unit to one and one -half acres. Improvements proposed for the site will not result in any significant impacts to significant farmland. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 contract? The subject property is not zoned for agricultural uses and/or included in a Williamson Act contract. Project implementation will not require changes either to the existing zoning classifications or land use designations reflected in the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no conflicts with the adopted short- and long -range plans will occur and no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated to occur to existing agricultural uses as a result of project implementation. CHECKLIST Page 9 Implementation of the proposed medical office Improvements will not result in the conversion of existing agricultural uses or prime farmland to non - agricultural uses. No portion of the subject property or areas within the project environs are currently designated for agricultural purposes or are in an agricultural use. The subject property neither contains prime farmland nor supports existing agricultural uses. The site is not located in proximity to existing agricultural uses that would be affected if the project were approved. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ❑ ❑ ❑ of the applicable air quality plan? The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan. However, the newly adopted General Plan was not utilized by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to prepare the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Project implementation does not include land use changes that would conflict with the long -range air quality projections. Specifically, the Project proposes the conversion of 232,414 square feet of R & D and office floor area to medical office uses. In addition, the Project also includes 20,586 square feet of new medical office floor area for a total of 350,000 square feet of medical office space. As a result, the increase in traffic associated with the conversion of existing floor area and the increase in medical office floor area could result in significant air quality impacts that could adversely affect the implementation of applicable air quality plans and /or programs. The EIR will address the potential conflicts with the adopted AQMP and related policies and programs. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air ® ❑ ❑ ❑ quality violation? Approval of the Project would be in conformance with the City's General Plan and, further, the Project will be consistent with the relevant policies and requirements established by the Land Use Element. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not result in any land use conflicts with existing, surrounding development. As indicated above, the proposed improvements are consistent with the adopted long -range plan adopted by the City for the site. However, it is possible that the increase in vehicular traffic generated by the proposed project would result in significant air quality impacts, including violations of air quality standards. The air quality analysis prepared for the project will address both short- term (i.e., construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) air quality impacts. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal ❑ ❑ ❑ or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? CHECKLIST Page 10 I I J I I U I I I U C� 1 I 1 1 I Potentially mess `ran Significant Less than No Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated impact c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? Implementation of the proposed medical office Improvements will not result in the conversion of existing agricultural uses or prime farmland to non - agricultural uses. No portion of the subject property or areas within the project environs are currently designated for agricultural purposes or are in an agricultural use. The subject property neither contains prime farmland nor supports existing agricultural uses. The site is not located in proximity to existing agricultural uses that would be affected if the project were approved. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ❑ ❑ ❑ of the applicable air quality plan? The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan. However, the newly adopted General Plan was not utilized by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to prepare the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Project implementation does not include land use changes that would conflict with the long -range air quality projections. Specifically, the Project proposes the conversion of 232,414 square feet of R & D and office floor area to medical office uses. In addition, the Project also includes 20,586 square feet of new medical office floor area for a total of 350,000 square feet of medical office space. As a result, the increase in traffic associated with the conversion of existing floor area and the increase in medical office floor area could result in significant air quality impacts that could adversely affect the implementation of applicable air quality plans and /or programs. The EIR will address the potential conflicts with the adopted AQMP and related policies and programs. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air ® ❑ ❑ ❑ quality violation? Approval of the Project would be in conformance with the City's General Plan and, further, the Project will be consistent with the relevant policies and requirements established by the Land Use Element. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not result in any land use conflicts with existing, surrounding development. As indicated above, the proposed improvements are consistent with the adopted long -range plan adopted by the City for the site. However, it is possible that the increase in vehicular traffic generated by the proposed project would result in significant air quality impacts, including violations of air quality standards. The air quality analysis prepared for the project will address both short- term (i.e., construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) air quality impacts. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal ❑ ❑ ❑ or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? CHECKLIST Page 10 I I J I I U I I I U C� 1 I 1 1 I 11 A I I I I I I I I I A I I i i Potentially ` ° °° " leas than "' ° Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Project Implementation would result in increases in the number of vehicular trips and, therefore, in the amount of pollutants emitted into the air basin, which currently is a "non- attainment" area for ozone and PM1e and PM2.5. If not adequately mitigated, the increased pollutant emissions would contribute to the regional degradation of the air basin and could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts. The EIR will evaluate the potential for significant cumulative impacts. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? The sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site are the occupants of residential dwelling units, mobile homes, and a convalescent center located in the vicinity of the subject Property. The greatest amount of pollutants generated by the Project will occur during the construction phase. The emissions will comprise mostly of dust and particulate materials that will be dispersed in the area of operations. However, such emissions will be controlled through the implementation of standard conditions and rules prescribed by the SCAQMD. The use of dust control measures can substantially reduce the generation of fugitive dust. Watering reduces dust generation by up to 50 percent when implemented in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Rather than representing a significant adverse air quality impact, fugitive dust would represent a temporary annoyance in the immediate vicinity of the project sites as the dust settles on automobiles, homes and other outdoor structures. However, with the implementation of the dust - reducing measures described above, which are standard conditions, the potential impacts are not considered to be significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? Odors are one of the most obvious forms of air pollution to the general public. Odors can present significant problems for both the source and the surrounding community. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can cause agitation, anger and concern to the general public. Most people determine an odor to be offensive (objectionable) if it is sensed longer than the duration of a human breath, which is typically 2 to 5 seconds. Land uses that result in or create objectionable odors typically include agriculture (e.g., livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, etc.). The Project includes only the conversion of existing non - medical office floor area to medical office uses and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office uses. The only potential odors associated with the project are from site construction during the application of asphalt and paint. Any asphalt and paint odors, if perceptible, are common in the environment and would be of very limited duration. Therefore, any odor impacts would be considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in ❑ ❑ ❑ local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. CHECKLIST Page 11 Potentially Less than han Significant Significant Less than Less tcant No Impact With Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated The Property and the surrounding environs are developed with urban uses and circulation facilities. Neither the site nor project environs support any native species of plants or animals. The site is developed with the existing technology center that supports office and research and development uses, including a large parking structure and surface parking lot. All of the vegetation that exists on the site and within the project area is introduced (i.e., non - native) plant materials that are common in urban landscapes. There are no species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species within the limits of either the site or in the immediate project area, which has been completely altered by development. Therefore, no significant Impact would occur to any sensitive species designated by the resources agencies as a result of project implementation. Further, the Project is not directly affected by any regional plans, or policies of other resource agencies. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? As indicated above, the Property is located within an urbanized area and does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Although some small rodents and mammals that adapt to urban development may exist on the site, no native habitat or grasslands exist on the subject property that would represent an important source of foraging for raptors and other sensitive or protected species. No significant biological resources are identified in the Newport Beach General Plan either for the site or for the immediate project area. Due to the location and nature of the Project, implementation will not result in significant adverse impacts to riparian or other sensitive natural community; no mitigation measures are required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? There are no federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act located within the subject property. Further, no marshes, vemal pools, or coastal habitats exist in the project area according to the Coastal Land Use Plan or the Recreation and Open Space Element adopted by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with 11 11 ❑ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or Impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? I I J I I I I J i I I I Y� A I I CHECKUST Page 12 I I I I I I I 1 I I J i I u I I I Potentially LeSsthan Lessthan Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated As previously indicated, the site is located in an area of the City that is largely urbanized and devoid of natural habitat and/or species. The site is entirely developed and does not serve as a wildlife migratory corridor. Development of the site as proposed would not alter the existing character of the area. The Project would result in intensifying the development that exists on the site, which currently supports an existing office and research and development technology center. Therefore, implementation of the project will not interfere with the movement of any native resident species of wildlife or with the migratory patterns of fish or other wildlife species. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Implementation of the Project will result in physical changes to the Project site (i.e., reduction in the intensity of development); however, project Implementation will not result in significant Impacts to biological resources. The City's General Plan does not identify the Property as one that supports sensitive habitat and/or important biological resources. The Project is consistent with the goals and policies adopted by the City of Newport Beach as articulated in the General Plan (refer to Section IX). Although some large trees exist on the property, all of the mature trees on the subject property are non- native species that have been introduced to the site when the Newport Technology Center was constructed. Several trees (i.e., sugar gums, coolibah trees, New Zealand Tea trees, American sweet gum trees, Canary Island pine trees, and ornamental pear trees will be removed as a result of constructing the proposed parking structure. The City does not have an ordinance that identifies and/or regulates heritage trees on private property. However, the proposed landscape plan will Incorporate all of the 15 existing palm trees as well as the 19 Giant Bird of Paradise trees into the projects landscape design. While some of the existing introduced landscaping may be eliminated as a result of project implementation (i.e., construction of the parking structure), the landscape concept plan prepared for the Project will offset the loss of any existing non -native landscape species. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The Project site and vicinity are urbanized and do not support any sensitive habitat and/or species that are protected by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Project Implementation will not conflict with local, regional, or state resource preservation and /or conservation policies. Therefore no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 as defined in §15064.5? CHECKLIST Page 13 Potentially `tlS5 °r°° less than Significant Sign M flgatlon Significant I pad Impact Incorporated Impact The Property encompasses several structures comprising the Newport Technology Center. The site was developed in the late 1950s. Since that time, buildings have been added and remodeled as needs evolved. All of the existing structures are contemporary in nature and do not possess historic value or significance. Further, there are no identified structures and/or other historical resources currently known to exist within the immediate project vicinity that would be affected as a result of implementing the proposed parking structure and related facilities. Neither the subject site nor the surrounding properties are identified as historic resources in the City's General Plan. Although Project implementation includes the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area on the site, no significant adverse changes to any historical resources will occur. Project implementation will necessitate some grading and site alteration in order to implement the new office structure; however, it is not anticipated that any historic resources will be affected. Therefore, no significant impacts to historical resources will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a'substantial adverse change In the significance of an archaeological ❑ ® ❑ ❑ resource pursuant to §15064.5? The 13.7 -acre property that is the subject of the proposed development application, as well as the surrounding area, is urbanized and is characterized by development that involved extensive grading and significant landform modification In order to accommodate that development. Any archaeological sites near the surface of the ground would have been disturbed and/or destroyed by past grading activities that were necessary to accommodate the existing development. No additional significant impacts to cultural or archaeological resources are anticipated as a result of project Implementation. Grading and excavation associated with UP 2006 -010 adequately addressed potential impacts to cultural resources through the requirement to providing monitoring during grading and excavation for the parking structure. implementation of the proposed project will not result in any additional impacts to cultural resources. Nonetheless, project implementation will be subject to the mitigation measure identified below prescribed for UP 2006 -010. Mitigation Measures MM -3 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 appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the 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 approval of the Planning Director. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ unique geologic feature? CHECKLIST Page 14 I I I 1 11 I 11 I I I 11 I j I I I I H, I I I C] I I 1 I 1 LJ I I I I Potentially `5 `mm less than No Significant S ni With Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact As indicated above, the Project area is located within an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach and has been previously graded and developed. Any near - surface paleontological resources that may have existed at one time have likely been disturbed and /or destroyed by prior development activities. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Although it is not likely that implementation of the project will result in any potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources because of the prior development activities that have taken place on the site and in the surrounding area, grading and excavation required for the parking structure previously approved by the City may have the potential to encounter paleontological resources. Therefore, monitoring by a qualified paleontologist will be required as prescribed below. However, the proposed project will not result any additional potentially significant impacts beyond those previously identified. MM4 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 the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate. If major paleontological 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. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ cemeteries? The Project will not affect any sites or properties that possess known cultural values. As previously indicated, the subject property was developed in the late 1950s and currently supports office and research and development floor area of the Newport Technology Center. It is not utilized by any Native Americans for religious or other culturally important rites. Further, no formal cemeteries are located on the site or in the project environs and no human remains are known to exist in the project area. Although project implementation will require grading and excavation to implement the proposed improvements (i.e., parking structure remodeling of existing office buildings), the discovery of human remains is not anticipated. The applicant will be responsible for implementing the mitigation measure prescribed for UP 2006 -010 (i.e., notification in accordance with public resource code requirements in the event human remains are encountered during grading and /or construction). Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated with the implementation of the mitigation measure identified below. MM -5 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 notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative shall then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: CHECKUST Page 15 Potentially a u %nun Less than No Significant With-Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on ❑ ❑ ❑ m other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. The Project is located in the seismically active southern California region. Primary ground rupture or fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. in addition, the project site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. However, other faults without surface expression (i.e., blind faults) or other potentially active seismic sources also capable of generating an earthquake may be present under the site at depth but not yet identified. Implementation of the Project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to fault rupture during a seismic event. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. it) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ Ef ❑ As indicated above, the site is located in a seismically active region. The potential for severe damage and loss of life resulting from earthquake activity exists within the City of Newport Beach. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone), it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The Property and environs are located within an area designated as Category 2 by the Newport Beach Public Safety Element (Newport Beach Public Safety Element "Potential Seismic Hazards Areas "). Areas in Category 2 are characterized by stronger shaking potential than Category 1, which is the lowest ground shaking category identified in the City. The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the Newport- Inglewood, Norwalk, and Raymond Faults. The Newport- Inglewood fault, which is the only active fault within or immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, which is located less than two miles southwest of the subject property, is classified as a 'Type B° fault (i.e., a seismic sources fault that has a magnitude 6.5 :5M <7.0 and slip rate between 2 mm and 5 mm /year). Proximity of the site to this earthquake fault system would subject the subject property to potentially severe groundshaking associated with seismic activity occurring along that feature. In addition, the Norwalk fault, approximately 15 miles from the site, may be capable of generating a 6.3 magnitude earthquake. The northeast - southwest trending Raymond Fault Zone has a length of approximately 16 miles and extends from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Sierra Madre to the Adams Hill area of Glendale. The maximum credible earthquake expected from the Raymond fault is 6.8. Other causative faults in the region include the San Andreas and San Fernando Fault Zones and the San Jacinto Fault. Seismic activity on one of these faultstfault zones could range from 6.0 to over 8.0. All of the structures and facilities proposed by the applicant will be designed and constructed in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code to ensure that potential damage to seismic shaking will be minimized. Further, design level geotechnical studies will be conducted to ensure that on -site characteristics can be evaluated and the proposed buildings properly designed to address the existing soils and geologic conditions. Implementation of proper grading and design measures will ensure that significant potential impacts associated with groundshaking will not occur. I I I L_J I i I i I 1 I I I CHECKLIST Page 16 , I I I J LJ I I I I LJ L_7 I I Potentially Lessthan Lessthan Significant Significant Significant No Impact With Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated iii) Seismio•related ground failure, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ including liquefaction? The probability of occurrence of ground failure associated with severe ground shaking (e.g., landsliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching, shallow ground rupture, liquefaction, and soil strength loss) depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from the causative fault, topography, subsoils and groundwater conditions, and other related factors. Based on Information presented in the City's Public Safety Element, the site is not susceptible to the potential effects of liquefaction as a result of groundshaking. Therefore, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Although the subject property is devoid of slopes and/or unstable soils, the site is bounded by a 25- to 30- foot high 1 ' /z:7 (horizontal to vertical) manufactured descending slope at the eastern side of the property. None of the existing structures or the approved parking structure are located adjacent to the top of the slope. Therefore, the potential for gross slope instability of slope affecting the parking structure is considered low. No significant slopes exist on the site and none are proposed that would be subject to potential failure. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of potential landsliding. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 11 11 0 ❑ loss of topsoil? With the exception of the construction of the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area, implementation of the Project will not necessitate grading and excavation beyond that previously approved in UP 2006 -010 that would expose on -site soils while the proposed conversion project takes place. The applicant will be required to prepare and submit a Notice of Intent for coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit to the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to initiation of construction activities. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) Intended to reduce sedimentation and erosion (refer to Section VIII — Hydrology). As indicated above, It is anticipated that some grading and landform alteration may be necessary to accommodate the construction of the additional medical office proposed by the applicant. As a result, it is possible that potential erosion could occur without the Incorporation of appropriate measures; however, Implementation of the mandatory BMPs for construction activities and other related to project operational activities will avoid potential erosion impacts associated with site grading and development. Further, the proposed site will be engineered to ensure that surfaceisubsurface drainage does not contribute to erosion or adversely affect the stability of project Improvements. Therefore, the potentially significant erosion impacts will be avoided. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence liquefaction or collapse? CHECKLIST Page 17 Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact With Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Subsurface exploration of the site revealed that groundwater, which appears to be perched on top of the underlying bedrock, was encountered between 29 and 40 feet below ground surface (bgs). According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, the historical high groundwater level at the site has been mapped at a depth of approximately 30 feet bgs. Liquefaction occurs when saturated, loose gravels, sands, and silty soils are subjected to strong shaking resulting from earthquake motions. The soils typically lose a portion or all of their shear strength, and regain strength sometime after the shaking stops. Soil movements (both vertical and lateral) have been observed under these conditions due to consolidation of the liquefied soils. However, the site is not located within a State designated Seismic Hazard Zone for Liquefaction. Furthermore, the bedrock materials of the Capistrano formation below the historic high groundwater levels are not considered liquefiable; therefore, the potential for liquefaction and the associated ground deformation occurring beneath the site is considered to be low. In the event that unstable soil conditions occur on the site due to previous grading, excavation, or placement of fill materials, these conditions will be effectively reduced by measures identified in the site specific geotechnical evaluation that addresses speck design and construction measures for the proposed buildings and subterranean parking garage. Any such required measures will be incorporated into the project design through routine implementation of the Building and Grading Codes, which will minimize any potential structure damage. As a result, potential Impacts will be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform 0 Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The soils underlying the site are characterized as moderately to highly expansive in nature (Newport Beach Public Safety Element — "Expansive and Collapsible Soil Hazard Areas "). However, the proposed development will be required to comply with the design parameters mandated in the 1997 Uniform Building Code and 1997 "Greenbook" to address expansive soils as well as other soils and geologic conditions. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project Implementation. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The subject property and environs are currently served by a sanitary sewer system. Sewer facilities, which are located in the adjacent streets, will continue to serve the existing development. Raw sewage generated on the site by the medical office uses will continue to be collected and conveyed by the existing sanitary sewage collection and conveyance system and not a septic system or other alternative means of collecting and treating raw sewage. As a result, potential impacts associated with a septic system are not anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of 1Z 11 CHECKLIST Page 18 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i I I 1J I LJ I I I I A LJ I Potentially Significant Less than No Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Project implementation will not result in the creation of any potential impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The applicant is proposing to convert the remaining non - medical office floor area to medical office uses (i.e., 232,414 square feet) and construct and additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area on the site, for a totals of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area. The project includes remodeling the remaining the non - medical office floor area to accommodate the proposed use of the office buildings for medical offices. A survey was conducted to determine if asbestos - containing materials ( "ACM "), lead -based paint ( "LBP"), or other hazardous materials exist in that structure or other structures to be remodeled. Based on that survey, it was determined that both ACM and LBP exist. ACM and LBP abatement is regulated by the Orange County Health Care Agency ( "OCHCA ") and /or the SAQMD. The LBP and ACM detected in Building 530 have been abated. The LBP and ACM that may exist in the buildings that will remain will be removed prior to remodeling that will be undertaken to implement the proposed project and demolition of the existing office building. Therefore, neither demolition of that structure nor remodeling necessary to convert the existing floor area to medical office floor area would not result in the emission and dispersal of any hazardous materials and/or contaminants within the project area. Due to the proposed conversion of the entire remaining existing floor area to medical office use, some medical supplies and medical waste would be stored in the proposed medical office component of the Project. The proposed medical offices would be required to register with the OCHCA and would also be required to prepare a Medical Waste Management Plan (MWMP) that includes an Emergency Action Plan, which delineates the procedures for properly handling on -site spills and releases of medical waste. This plan also addresses surface cleanup, protective clothing and equipment to be used, and disinfecting procedures. Any such materials will be stored and used in the prescribed manner by the OCHCA. Compliance with the MWMP and related OCHCA and related Public Health and Safety Code requirements will ensure that no significant impacts would occur. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 conditions Involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? As indicated above, with the exception of the potential ACM that may be present in the existing office structure that will be demolished, the proposed site development will not utilize hazardous materials, either during construction or operation of the project. ACM abatement will occur pursuant to regulatory requirements prescribed by the SCAQMD and OCHCA. Therefore, implementation of the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the potential release of hazardous materials as a result of an accident. No significant Impacts are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ one - quarter mile of an existing or CHECKUST Page 19 Potentially Significant e s sh Less than No Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact No schools are located within one - quarter mile of the subject property. Nonetheless, although project implementation will result in the potential construction of an additional structure on the site to accommodate the 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area proposed, or other activities that could affect sensitive receptors (e.g., dust and particulate emissions, etc.), the release of airborne contaminants such as ACM would be appropriately addressed through standard conditions and regulations prescribed by the regulatory agencies having jurisdiction (AQMD and OCHCA). No other potential release of hazardous materials would occur as a result of Project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Subsequent to the preparation of Phase I and Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessments that were prepared for the subject property, which determined that the site contained areas of potential environmental concern (e.g., former underground waste solvent tanks, etc.), a soils remediation program was undertaken by the former occupant (Raytheon) as a conservative measure even though the measured soil contaminant concentrations did not pose a health risk to future users of the property (i.e., construction workers and future occupants of the site). In addition to the soil remediation program, a remedial action plan ( "RAP ") was prepared that detailed the approach for addressing impacted groundwater. With the exception of groundwater contamination identified at that time, it was determined that the site would be fully remediated. However, because the groundwater is not suitable for domestic use, contamination would have no impact on future users of the property, and remediation will continue, regardless of site occupancy. Efforts to remediate the site since 1981 have included the removal of various underground storage tanks ( "USTs ") and contaminated soil, the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, the installation of soil vapor probes and soil vapor extraction systems, and the implementation of enhanced bioremediation remedies. Environmental conditions at the site appear to have been adequately characterized and appropriate remedial measures are being implemented to ensure that on -site soil and groundwater contamination is properly remediated. The Regional Water Quality Control Board ( "RWQCB ") continues to provide active oversight for the site investigation and remediation activities. As indicated In the environmental analysis prepared for UP 2006 -010, chemical vapors resulting from volatile organic compounds ( "VOCs ") in the subsurface at the site could degrade indoor air quality until the site remediation is completed by the responsible party (Raytheon). Proper building management measures will be implemented to control vapor intrusion into buildings at the site. The assessment and management of indoor air quality is currently being conducted under the oversight of the RWQCB. A subsequent 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 former site occupants. As indicated above, investigation efforts since 1981 have revealed the removal of various USTs and contaminated soil, the Installation of groundwater monitoring wells, the installation of soil vapor probes and soil vapor extraction systems, and the implementation of enhanced bioremediation remedies. Environmental conditions at the site have been adequately characterized and appropriate remedial measures are being implemented to ensure that on -site soil and groundwater contamination is properly ameliorated. 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. Chemical vapors resulting from the VOC in the subsurface at the site could degrade indoor air quality until site remediation is completed by the responsible party (Ratheon). As a result, proper building management measures would be required to understand and control vapor intrusion into buildings at the site. CHECKLIST Page 20 I �l I I I LJ I I I LJ F1 I 1 i I J I I u Potentially nifiant Less than No SI Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact In addition, soils excavated during site development as proposed (i.e., excavation necessitated for the foundation of the proposed parking structure) could contain chemicals associated with past industrial activities at the site. Therefore, these soils, if encountered, should be properly profiled and managed before they are reused or hauled off the site for disposal. Several measures were prescribed when UP 2006 -010 was approved, including (1) the preparation of a plan that prescribes appropriate building management measures to control vapor intrusion Into the buildings at the site; (2) preparation of a soil profile that characterizes the excavated soils that would be reused or removed from the site; and (3) compliance with the California Hazardous Substances Control Law in the event hazardous wastes are encountered during site preparation and /or construction. Implementation of these measures, as determined applicable for the proposed project, will ensure that potential public health and safety Impacts will be less than significant. MM-6 The applicant shall prepare a plan that prescribes appropriate building management measures to control vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site. The Building Management Plan shall be submitted to either the RWQCB, the Orange County Health Care Agency, and /or DTSC for approval prior to the issuance of the building permit for the Project. MM -7 The applicant shall prepare a soil profile plan that characterizes the excavated soils that would be reused or removed from the site. This plan shall be submitted to either the RWQCB, the Orange OCHCA, and /or DTSC for approval prior to the issuance of the building permit for the Project. MM -8 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 by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, 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. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The subject property is not located within the limits of the John Wayne Airport land use plan or other public airport. Neither that commercial airport nor any other public airport is located within two miles of the site. As a result, project implementation will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The subject property is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Development of the site as proposed will not result in potential adverse impacts, Including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST Page 21 The City of Newport Beach has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan that designates procedures to be followed In case of a major emergency. Pacific Coast Highway is designated as an evacuation route in the City; in addition, Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard east of the site are also designated evacuation routes. The project site is not designated for emergency use within the Emergency Operations Plan. The primary concern of the Public Safety Element and the City of Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the site is subject to potentially severe seismic shaking and fires, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The site is not located within a flood hazard area or subject to such potential disasters. Development of the subject property as proposed will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency operations planning program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, project implementation will not physically interfere with the City's emergency planning program. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The subject property is located within an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. No natural vegetation and /or habitat exists on the site and the site is not subject to the potential risk of wildland fires. There are no major urban or wildland fire hazards that pose a significant threat to the development. No significant impacts as a result of wildland fires will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation measures are necessary. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The area of impervious surfaces and the types and quantities of pollutants generated by the proposed project, which includes only the conversion of existing office /R &D floor area to medical office floor area and a small increase in medical office floor area (i.e., 20,586 square feet), will be virtually the same as that which exists on the current site. Nearly the entire site is currently covered with buildings and /or parking (i.e., impervious surfaces). Project implementation would not result in a potentially significant increase in the amount of impervious surfaces over that previously identified in UP 2006-010; therefore, no increase in either the volume or rate of surface runoff that occurs at the present time is associated with the proposed project. The applicant will be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP") that is Intended to satisfy the City's requirements. This plan will prescribe appropriate structural and non - structural Best Management Practices ( "BMPs ") that will address the manner in which pollutants generated by the project will be addressed to ensure that no violations of water quality standards will occur. As a result, no significant water quality impacts are anticipated. CHECKLIST Page 22 i [1 I I 11 I I E] 1 Potentially gl nificant 1ess than Significant WithMlflgation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The City of Newport Beach has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan that designates procedures to be followed In case of a major emergency. Pacific Coast Highway is designated as an evacuation route in the City; in addition, Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard east of the site are also designated evacuation routes. The project site is not designated for emergency use within the Emergency Operations Plan. The primary concern of the Public Safety Element and the City of Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the site is subject to potentially severe seismic shaking and fires, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The site is not located within a flood hazard area or subject to such potential disasters. Development of the subject property as proposed will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency operations planning program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, project implementation will not physically interfere with the City's emergency planning program. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The subject property is located within an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. No natural vegetation and /or habitat exists on the site and the site is not subject to the potential risk of wildland fires. There are no major urban or wildland fire hazards that pose a significant threat to the development. No significant impacts as a result of wildland fires will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation measures are necessary. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The area of impervious surfaces and the types and quantities of pollutants generated by the proposed project, which includes only the conversion of existing office /R &D floor area to medical office floor area and a small increase in medical office floor area (i.e., 20,586 square feet), will be virtually the same as that which exists on the current site. Nearly the entire site is currently covered with buildings and /or parking (i.e., impervious surfaces). Project implementation would not result in a potentially significant increase in the amount of impervious surfaces over that previously identified in UP 2006-010; therefore, no increase in either the volume or rate of surface runoff that occurs at the present time is associated with the proposed project. The applicant will be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP") that is Intended to satisfy the City's requirements. This plan will prescribe appropriate structural and non - structural Best Management Practices ( "BMPs ") that will address the manner in which pollutants generated by the project will be addressed to ensure that no violations of water quality standards will occur. As a result, no significant water quality impacts are anticipated. CHECKLIST Page 22 i [1 I I 11 I I E] 1 I I I LJ I I u 1 LJ I I I I F Potentially Lese than Less than Significant Significant Significant No With Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The subject site is located in an area that is completely developed. As previously indicated, no significant site alteration will occur beyond that identified for the demolition of the existing building and construction of the parking structure approved in UP 2006 -010. Although some minor increase in floor area (i.e., 20,586 square feet) is proposed, implementation of the Project will not significantly affect any existing groundwater recharge activities. No groundwater wells are located on the site or in the vicinity of the project that would. be adversely affected by the Project. Site development as proposed will not result In any impacts to nearby wells that would affect any domestic water well capacity or their ability to provide adequate water service to the existing and planned land uses in the City. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Project implementation will not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns, either on the site or in the vicinity of the property. No alterations to existing watercourses are proposed by the applicant. Surface runoff currently flows from the site to the perimeter streets (i.e., Superior Avenue, Dana Road). The proposed site plan will maintain the existing grades and will not substantially change the volume and rate of surface flows emanating from the site. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? As indicated above, site alteration will not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns in the area. Although the amount of impervious surfaces may Increase slightly as a result of the addition of 20,586 square feet of floor area, neither the amount nor rate of runoff emanating from the site will be significantly increased. The potential minor increase in surface runoff generated by the Project will not result in the exposure of either people or property to potential flooding, either on- or off -site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ systems or provide substantial CHECKLIST Page 23 Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Lesstca No Impact With Mitigation Impact impact Incorporated The area to be developed consists of approximately 85 percent impervious surfaces. Project implementation includes only the conversation of existing developed office /R &D floor area to medical office floor area. In addition, the applicant is proposing an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area within the limits of the subject property that could result in an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces on the site. The area drains in an easterly direction to existing storm drain catch basins located south and east of the existing and proposed Improvements. The catch basins are connected into on -site storm drains that discharge into Newport Boulevard. The existing storm drainage and flood control facilities located in the vicinity of the site have adequate capacity to accommodate the minor increase anticipated by the additional floor area and potential increase in impervious surfaces. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant increase in and /or change in the amount or direction of drainage because the proposed footprint of the proposed parking structure approximates that of the existing office building. Although pollutants in the form of petroleum hydrocarbons residue, pesticides and herbicides, and detergents will continue to be generated on -site as a result of automobile usage and on -going landscape maintenance activities; however, neither the'types nor concentrations of these pollutants will change. As previously indicated, the applicant will be required to prepare a WQMP that will identify speck features and /or programs to ensure that pollutants are minimized. As a result, potential impacts will remain less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ❑ quality? Implementation of the Project would not result in any significant changes in the quality of surface water that could affect water quality at other nearby locations because the site is currently developed and nearly completely impervious. Nonetheless, the applicant is proposing uses that are consistent and compatible with the existing land uses and those reflected in the adopted long -range plans for the site. The types and concentrations of pollutants are similar to those resulting from the same uses that exist on the site and those in other areas in the City and include: silt (during construction), petroleum hydrocarbons from parking areas, pesticides and fertilizers, and other pollutants common to urban development. It is important to note that no unusual contamination or pollutant is anticipated as a result of implementing the Project and, further, that the increases in pollutant and/or contaminant concentrations will be addressed in the requisite BMPs and other standard conditions that have been prescribed for the Project. Therefore, the potential impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ❑ ❑ ❑ Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. No residential development is proposed by the applicant for the Property. Therefore, conversion of the existing office/R &D floor area to medical office floor area as proposed will not result in the placement of housing within a flood -prone area identified by FEMA or the City of Newport Beach. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 redirect flood flows? As indicated above, the site is not located within the limits of the 100 -year flood plain. No habitable structures are proposed on the site and no structures are proposed to be placed within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. CHECKLIST Page 24 I 1 1 I C� E 11 I 1 I I 1 LJ I 1 I `] I I I 1 Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The subject property is not located in an area of the City that is subject to flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project Implementation. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 1-1 1-1 1-1 0 mudflow? A seiche involves the oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, storage tank, or lake. According to the City s General Plan, no enclosed bodies of water are located in the immediate vicinity of the site. A tsunami, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, is a sea wave generated by submarine earthquakes, major landslides, or volcanic action. Great magnitude waves have not historically been recorded in Orange County because the coastline is somewhat protected from the north by the coastal configuration (Palos Verdes Peninsula and Point Conception) and the offshore islands (Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands). Although Newport Beach is a coastal community, the subject property is located approximately one mile from the coastline. These conditions, combined with the fact that the potential for a tsunami is considered extremely remote in the City of Newport Beach, minimize the potential for damage and /or inundation from that phenomenon. Implementation of the improvements proposed for Hoag Health Center will not expose people or structures to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ following construction? Although no new sources of water pollution will result from the Project, pollutant discharges from the existing and proposed uses will continue to enter receiving waters from the project site, if not adequately addressed, both during and after construction. The types of pollutants that have the potential to be transported downstream are those that occur at the present time and include the use of pesticides and herbicides to maintain the proposed landscaping and abate and control weeds and undesirable vegetation, petroleum hydrocarbons washed from the parking lot and garage structures, and other sources typical of urban development. As previously indicated, the applicant will be required to incorporate appropriate features to improve the quality of surface runoff associated with the development approved in UP 2006 -010 that may contain such pollutants. However, development as currently proposed will not result in any changes to the surface runoff conditions. Therefore, the BMPs that will be implemented during construction of the parking structure previously approved by the City will be described in the WQMP and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). Some BMPs that address these pollutants include, but are not limited to, the use of sediment and erosion control; non - storm water management; and material management. The implementation of the SWPPP and the indicated BMPs during construction will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. (It should be noted that the city previously approved a WQMP for the original development, which is on file at the City.) Development of the subject property as proposed includes not only the conversation the existing non - medical floor area to medical office space but also the potential construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of new medical office uses. As indicated above, the potential increase in pollutants associated with the expansion, including the potential for erosion during the construction phase, would be addressed through compliance with the SW PPP. Therefore, incorporation of the BMPs prescribed in the SW PPP will ensure that no significant water quality impacts occur. CHECKLIST Page 25 As previously described, a SWPPP will be developed by the applicant that will address the appropriate BMPs that will need to be implemented in order to mitigate the alteration of receiving water quality during construction of the previously approved parking structure. Implementation of erosion and sediment control, non - stormwater management, and material management BMPs will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, operational impacts may also occur (e.g., landscape maintenance that results in the use of pesticides and herbicides, use of parking lots, etc.). However, the City of Newport Beach requires the implementation of several post - construction BMPs that will be prescribed in the WQMP to address pollutant transport in the storm water system. These BMPs may include such structural features as the incorporation of fossil filters or directing runoff to landscaped areas, etc. All site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs will be considered, and the appropriate BMPs to address mitigation of receiving water quality will be selected for incorporation into the WQMP. The implementation of these standard conditions will ensure that potential impacts will remain less than significant. m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ of the receiving waters? The potential increase in impervious surfaces on the site that may be associated with the construction of the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area may result in a slight increase in the volume of runoff leaving the subject property. However, it is unlikely that any potential increase in the volume of that runoff would contribute to erosion downstream from the subject site (runoff from the site occurs as surface runoff into the adjacent streets, which enters an underground pipe prior to being discharged into the bay). Nonetheless, the City will ensure that any potential for erosion is minimized or avoided through the implementation of on -site features (e.g., directing surface runoff to landscaped areas, etc.) that would achieve the intended goals and objectives prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. Implementation of these standard conditions, prescribed in a WQMP, will ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant. n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume ❑ ❑ 11 of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? As previously indicated (refer to VIIIA and Vlll.e), project implementation would result in a potentially small increase in impervious surface that currently exist on the site. As a result, no significant increase in the potential volume and rate of runoff generated on the site would occur. Continued implementation of the BMPs and other features that will be identified in the WQMP and SWPPP, will effectively ensure that no significant impacts will occur. o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ areas? CHECKLIST Page 26 1 I L�J I I 1 �l I E i I 11 I I Potentially Less Leant Less than No Significant Impact With Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? As previously described, a SWPPP will be developed by the applicant that will address the appropriate BMPs that will need to be implemented in order to mitigate the alteration of receiving water quality during construction of the previously approved parking structure. Implementation of erosion and sediment control, non - stormwater management, and material management BMPs will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, operational impacts may also occur (e.g., landscape maintenance that results in the use of pesticides and herbicides, use of parking lots, etc.). However, the City of Newport Beach requires the implementation of several post - construction BMPs that will be prescribed in the WQMP to address pollutant transport in the storm water system. These BMPs may include such structural features as the incorporation of fossil filters or directing runoff to landscaped areas, etc. All site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs will be considered, and the appropriate BMPs to address mitigation of receiving water quality will be selected for incorporation into the WQMP. The implementation of these standard conditions will ensure that potential impacts will remain less than significant. m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ of the receiving waters? The potential increase in impervious surfaces on the site that may be associated with the construction of the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area may result in a slight increase in the volume of runoff leaving the subject property. However, it is unlikely that any potential increase in the volume of that runoff would contribute to erosion downstream from the subject site (runoff from the site occurs as surface runoff into the adjacent streets, which enters an underground pipe prior to being discharged into the bay). Nonetheless, the City will ensure that any potential for erosion is minimized or avoided through the implementation of on -site features (e.g., directing surface runoff to landscaped areas, etc.) that would achieve the intended goals and objectives prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. Implementation of these standard conditions, prescribed in a WQMP, will ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant. n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume ❑ ❑ 11 of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? As previously indicated (refer to VIIIA and Vlll.e), project implementation would result in a potentially small increase in impervious surface that currently exist on the site. As a result, no significant increase in the potential volume and rate of runoff generated on the site would occur. Continued implementation of the BMPs and other features that will be identified in the WQMP and SWPPP, will effectively ensure that no significant impacts will occur. o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ areas? CHECKLIST Page 26 1 I L�J I I 1 �l I E i I 11 I I I 1 1 1 I I Potentially SI s man ant Less than No Significant yykh Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Potential construction activities associated with the implementation of the Project could result in a potential temporary increase in erosion and the release of sediment and construction pollutants into storm water runoff. Although project implementation may result in the exposure of the site soils to the elements during the construction phase associated with the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area, appropriate erosion control techniques prescribed In the WOMP will address the specific nature of any potential erosion. Upon completion of construction, potential erosion of the site soils will be eliminated. The Incorporation of the mandated BMPs will ensure that potential erosion of the site soils remain less than significant. No potential erosion of off -site soils will occur as a result of project implementation. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The 13.7 -acre property is currently developed as the Newport Technology Center, and integrated research and development office complex with both surface parking and a parking structure. The site is bounded by Superior Avenue on the west, Newport Boulevard on the east, and Dana Road on the south. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed, which Includes the City's Corporate Yard to the north, a care and rehabilitation center to the east, multiple - family residential (apartments) and a medical care center to the south, and a mobile home park and medical center on the west. All of the development proposed for the Hoag Health Center would occur within the limits of the subject property and would not directly affect adjacent properties. In particular, project implementation would not divide or otherwise adversely affect or change and established community. No significant Impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? According to the General Plan (adopted in November 2006), the 13.7 -acre site, located within the West Newport Mesa area is designated as CO -M (Medical Commercial Office). Within the West Newport Mesa area of the City, existing development is characterized by residential, office, retail, industrial, and public uses. Hoag Hospital, which is a major activity center that continues to affect development in the area, generates a strong market for the development of uses that support the hospital's medical activities, including medical offices, convalescent and care facilities, medical supply, pharmacy, and similar uses. Retail commercial uses serve both the medical and residential uses in the area. The CO -M land use designation is intended to provide 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. CHECKLIST Page 27 Potentially Significant less than No Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact The General Plan includes goals and policies related to development within the City. Land Use Goal 6.6 (LU 6.6) specifically relates to the West Newport Mesa area and reflects the City's desire to maintain the high level of medical services that support Hoag Hospital and to ensure the continuation of residential development in the area. Policy LU 6.6.1 (Hospital Supporting Uses Integrated with Residential Neighborhoods) states: LU 6.6.1: Prioritize the accommodation of medical- related and supporting facilities on properties abutting the Hoag Hospital complex [areas designated as "CO -M (0.5)° (Figure LU 18, Sub Area A)] with opportunities for new residential units [areas designated as "RM (18 /ac)'J and supporting general and neighborhood- serving retail services [CG (0.75]" and "CN (0.3)], respectively. The proposed development addresses the policy identified above. Specifically, the project includes the conversion of existing general office and research & development floor area to medical office floor area to support Hoag Hospital. Project implementation is consistent with the policy that is intended to ensure that future development is compatible within a mixed -use area and the proposed land uses complement and support the major medical activity (Hoag Hospital) In the area. The proposed parking structure has been designed to be consistent and compatible with the existing development through the building height, massing, and architectural character. The proposed structure will not exceed the 32 -foot maximum building height prescribed in the M-1 -A zoning district. In addition, the structure will be similar in size and mass as the building that is proposed for demolition. Finally, the architectural character is compatible with the architectural treatment of the existing structures within the existing Newport Technology Center, and the additional parking will provide sufficient parking for the use, address parking concerns in the neighborhood and facilitate the use of an underutilized site. Therefore, implementation of the project would not compromise the character and/or integrity of the mixed uses with the West Newport area and is consistent with the Land Use Element. Although project implementation is consistent with the long -range plans, programs and policies articulated in the General Plan, the Draft EIR will include a land use analysis to ensure that no significant land use conflicts or incompatibility occurs as a result of project implementation. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 conservation plan? The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the subject property is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The subject property encompasses approximately 13.7 acres that are currently developed as Newport Technology Center. The site has been entirely altered in order to accommodate the existing development. As a result, no natural features and/or habitat that would support sensitive species exist on the site. In particular, neither the site nor the surrounding areas is located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and/or resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result In the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1 I I1 CHECKLIST Page 28 ' I 1 I 11 i C� F potentially L °� r ri Less than Significant Significant Significant No With Impact Inc Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated The project site is currently developed as the Newport Technology Center. Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) nor the State of California has Identified the project site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, project implementation will not result in any significant impacts. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ❑ ❑ ❑ general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? As indicated above, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. Project implementation (i.e., conversion of the remaining office floor area to medical office and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area) as proposed will not result in the loss of any locally Important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur. M. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The project site and vicinity are located within an urbanized area. John Wayne Airport is located north of the subject property; however, noise from that aviation facility does not affect the site. Ambient noise levels on the Property and in the project environs is the result of vehicular traffic utilizing Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard as well as of Dana Road. The 60 dBA CNEL noise contour associated with vehicular travel along those roadways extends Into the property. According to the City's Noise Element, office buildings, including R &D, professional offices, etc., are "clearly compatible" uses up to 65 dBA CNEL and "normally compatible" uses up to 75 dBA CNEL. However, the generation of a significant number of vehicular trips could result in an increase in ambient noise levels that could expose nearby residents to noise levels that exceed City adopted standards. An acoustical analysis will be prepared that evaluates the potential noise impacts that may be anticipated from project implementation. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ groundborne noise levels? Construction noise is generally high level, short-term duration noise, which represents a potential short- term impact to the ambient noise levels near the site. Noise generated by construction equipment, Including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. The Project calls for an increase in the amount of medical office floor area (i.e., 20,586 square feet), necessitating the potential for some additional construction, in addition to the conversion of the existing non - medical office floor area to medical office uses as previously described. Although construction activities have the potential to generate noise and vibration levels that can impact nearby land uses, any CHECKLIST Page 29 Potentially Less than Less than Significant W h M Significant gation Significant P� Impact Incorporated Impact Therefore, It is possible that residents located in the vicinity of the subject property (i.e., south of Dana Road) may be subjected to short-term noise associated with grading and construction; however, the Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance addresses construction noise. Section 10.26.035.D of the Newport Beach Municipal Code exempts construction equipment from the provisions of the Noise Ordinance and requires them to comply with Section 10.28 of the Code. Section 10.28.040 of the Code restricts hours of noise - generating construction to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., 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. Because the Project will be required to comply with Section 10.28.040 of the City's Noise Ordinance, the short-term noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 1Z 11 11 project? As indicated in Section XV (Transportation/Traffic), project implementation will result In an increase in daily traffic. The potential increase in traffic associated with the conversion of the non - medical office floor area and the increase in floor area to 350,000 square feet could generate a significant number of daily trips which, when added to the existing and future traffic volumes along the arterial roadway system, may result in noise levels that exceed City standards. Therefore, an acoustical analysis will be prepared to evaluate to potential mobile- source noise impacts associated with the conversion of the existing development to medical office space. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels existing 1Z 11 without the project? As indicated above, it is possible that short-term noise levels may increase during the grading, site preparation and construction of the additional medical office floor area (i.e., 20,586 square feet). These events have the potential to generate noise and levels that can affect nearby sensitive land uses (e.g., residential development) in the vicinity of the project site. Residential development exists In the vicinity of the project site (i.e., south of Dana Road). Therefore, it is possible that the adjacent residents could be subjected to short-term construction noise. The severity of the construction noise impacts will be dictated by the type and amount of construction equipment used, the density of heavy equipment, the proximity to a noise sensitive land use area (e.g., residential), and the duration of the grading and site development process. Noise levels may reach 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source for such equipment as pneumatic hammers. These short-term noise levels are permitted by the City during normal working hours established by the Noise Control Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed development must comply with the City's Noise Element and Noise Control Ordinance to ensure that construction- related noise does not extend beyond the normal working hours. The City's Noise Control Ordinance is used to protect people from noise generated by people or machinery on adjacent property. Specifically, the ordinance addresses construction noise by regulating construction hours. Although grading and construction hours Will be restricted to those hours established by the Noise Control Ordinance, it will be necessary to further minimize the potential construction noise impacts by strategically locating staging areas away from the residential development. Implementation of such measures will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. 1 1 FJ I I 1 11 i I 1 r i l_ CHECKLIST Page 30 ' I 1 1 J 1 F L_ 1 u Potentially SI rdficaM Less than No Significant Significant With Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 use airport, would the project expose people residing or working In the project area to excessive noise levels? No portion of the project site is located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located over three miles northeast of the subject property. Conversion of the existing Newport Technology Center to medical office floor area and the construction of 20,586 square feet of additional medical office floor area as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at either JWA or other such facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the project area to excessive noise levels? No portion of the project site is located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Development of the subject property as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at such a facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other Infrastructure)? Project implementation will result in additional development on the site, resulting in a total of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area (i.e., conversion of 232,414 square feet of non - medical office floor area to medical office space). Other improvements include remodeling interiors of the buildings to accommodate medical office uses throughout the property. The subject property is not currently zoned for residential development and no residential structures exist on the site; no residential development is proposed. Development of the site as proposed would result in an increase in floor area from 329,414 square feet that are currently entitled as a result of the approval of UP 2006 -010 to 350,000 square feet (i.e., 6 percent), the maximum allocation permitted by the Newport Beach General Plan. Because the site is currently developed, it is not anticipated that the Project would serve to stimulate growth in the City. Further, no additional infrastructure would be required to be extended that could serve to foster unanticipated growth in the northern portion of the City. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ❑ 13 ❑ 0 construction of replacement housing CHECKLIST Page 31 Potentially Significant Lesa than No Imp act Significant t With Mitigation significant Impact Imp Incorporated Impact The project site Is occupied by the Newport Technology Center, which currently encompasses over 415,000 square feet of office and research and development uses as well as a parking structure and surface parking facilities. Although one building would be demolished in order to accommodate the an additional parking structure approved by the City in UP 2006 -010, Implementation of the Project would not result in the elimination of any residential dwelling units and would not, therefore, require replacement housing. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of replacement housing elsewhere? As indicated above, the site does not contain any residential dwelling units and none will be eliminated from the existing inventory of housing within the City as a result of Project implementation. Therefore, no residential occupants will be displaced or otherwise affected by the proposed project that Includes the conversion of the existing office floor area to medical office floor area and the construction of 20,586 square feet of additional medical office floor area, for a total of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area on the 13.7 -acre site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The NBFD operates and maintains six fire stations to respond to emergency calls throughout the City. Fire Station No. 2, located on the Balboa Peninsula at 475 32nd Street, is the fire station closest to the project (approximately 1.5 miles from the site). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. Project implementation will result in an increase in the floor area on the site (i.e., 350,000 square feet versus 329,414 square feet that are currently entitled for the site). Neither the increase in development intensity nor proposed conversion of the entire site to medical office uses would result in significant Impacts to the ability of the NBFD to provide an adequate level of protection. The Project must comply with Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and UBC requirements and will be subject to review by the NBFD. In addition, several standard conditions have been prescribed by the Newport Beach Fire Department to ensure that an adequate level of fire protection can be provided. Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 I Cl J 1 [1 1 CHECKLIST Page 32 , I 1 1 1 1 1 I potentialty Significant e s than Impact Less than No Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the subject property. The NBPD currently has a ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." Project implementation will result in a small increase in the development intensity of site based on the City's approval of UP 2006 -010. Project Implementation will result in a change in the mix of uses and an increase of 20,586 square feet, for a total of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area over the entire site. Use of the site will remain the virtually the same and would not adversely affect the ability of the NBPD to provide an adequate level of service. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The provision of educational services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport- Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State - mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. However, the Project will not directly result in potentially significant impacts to the District's educational facilities and/or existing capacity because no school -age students will be generated by the medical office and related uses proposed by the applicant. No significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Implementation of the Project includes a net increase in entitled floor area of 20,586 square feet to reach the maximum permitted allocation of 350,000 square feet for the 13.7 -acre site, and the construction of a new parking structure on the existing Newport Technology Center site. However, site development as proposed (i.e., conversion of all of the existing office/R &D floor area to medical office uses) will not significantly change the use of the site and, therefore, will not have any significant adverse effects on other public services, including libraries or administrative services provided by the City. XIV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Project implementation includes the conversion of existing office/R &D floor area to medication office uses and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area on the site. The Project will result in an increase of approximately 6 percent over the currently entitled floor area. No residential development is proposed that would create a new demand, or increase an existing demand, for recreational facilities. No mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? CHECKLIST Page 33 Potentially Less than Less than Significa nt Significant Significant No Impact With Mitigation gn Impact Impact Incorporated Existing parks in the vicinity of the project site will not be physically altered nor will their total acreage be reduced as a result of project implementation. Further, given the nature of the Project (i.e., non- residential), a greater demand for parks and recreation would not occur because the Project would not result in an increase in population that would necessitate new or expanded recreational facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts to City-wide recreational opportunities are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street ❑ ❑ ❑ system (i.e., result in a substantial increase In either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Conversion of the existing development to medical office uses, combined with the addition of 20,586 square feet of additional medical office floor area for a total of 350,000 square feet of medical office uses could result in a substantial increase in traffic that could impacts roadways and intersections In the project environments and surrounding areas. A TPO /Cumulative Traffic Analysis will be conducted that evaluates several key intersections to determine the nature and extent of potential project related and cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of project Implementation. The findings and recommendation of this analysis will be presented in the Draft EIR. b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? As Indicated above, project implementation will result in an increase in the land use entitlement approved for the 13.7 -acre property. The conversion of the site to medical office uses with 350,000 square feet of gross floor area could result in individual and/or cumulative impacts to area roadways and/or intersections. The detailed traffic analysis will be prepared in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) to address potential traffic impacts. In addition, a cumulative traffic analysis will also be conducted for intersections located in and outside the City of Newport Beach. The findings and recommendations in the TPO /Cumulative Traffic analysis will be presented in the Draft EIR. c) Result in a change in air traffic pattern s, including either an increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The subject property Is currently developed as a technology center, which is located approximately three miles southwest of John Wayne Airport. Project implementation, which includes the conversion of all of the remaining non - medical office floor area to medical office uses (i.e., 232,414 square feet) and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area, will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. Therefore, no significant Impacts to air traffic patterns are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. i 1 i 1 1 1 1] 1 �I 1 CHECKLIST Page 34 , �l 1 11 1 1 11 i 1 i 1 Potentially Less than Less than Significant Impa t with Mitigation Significant impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Several improvements were identified in the approval of Use Permit 2006 -010 by the City to avoid conflicts related to on -site circulation and site access. Drive aisles are required to align with parking aisles and the entrance to the parking structure to prevent back -up and to eliminate potential conflicts at T- intersections. The existing project central driveway is required for full access to Superior Avenue with a traffic signal. In order to ensure that no circulation hazards occur, sight distance will be established at the time the final grading, landscaping, and street improvements plans are submitted. Sight distance with comply with City of Newport Beach standards. In addition, on -site traffic signing and striping will be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project as approved by the City of Newport Beach, and the City will periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the project is constructed to ensure that both traffic operations are adequate and no significant conflicts occur. The additional 20,586 square feet of medical office and ancillary floor area are proposed to be located between the existing and new parking structure and will not Impact the approved site circulation or result in access conflicts or additional hazards. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ access? Access to the site is adequate to accommodate project - related traffic as well as provide emergency access. The existing project north driveway currently provides full access to Superior Avenue with stop sign control. A two -way left turn median is currently provided on Superior Avenue for left turns into the project site; a right turn lane is striped on Superior Avenue at the project north driveway. A two -way left turn median is currently provided on Superior Avenue for left turns into the project site and a right turn lane is striped on Superior Avenue at the project central driveway, which as previously mentioned, is recommended to provide a traffic signal. The existing project south driveway is proposed to accommodate right turns in /out only access to Superior Avenue with stop sign control Signing and striping should be provided at the project south driveway to restrict vehicles to right turns only. As indicated above, future construction of the additional medical office and ancillary floor area is proposed to be located between the existing and new parking structure and will not impact the approved site circulation and emergency access provided. As a result, no significant impacts would occur. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The Newport Technology Center currently accommodates a total of 1,332 parking spaces, consisting of 471 surface parking spaces and 861 structure spaces. The current parking ratio for the existing 415,493 square feet of mixed office /research and development uses is about 3.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. As previously indicated, the property is currently entitled for 329,414 square feet of office /R &D and medical office uses as a result of the approval of CUP 2006 -010. Project implementation will result in the conversion of 232,414 square feet of R &D and office uses to medical office and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area on the site. Based on the City's parking code requirement of one parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area for medical office space, the proposed project would necessitate a total of 1,750 parking spaces. Approval of UP 2006 -010 Included the construction of a second parking structure that would create a total of 1,985 parking spaces on the subject property, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 parking spaces in two parking structures. Implementation of the project will result in a parking ratio of 5.67 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of medical office floor area. The proposed on -site parking, which exceeds the required parking by approximately 13 percent, will be adequate to serve the Project. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. CHECKLIST Page 35 The City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance requires projects to reduce the number of peak - period vehicle trips by promoting and encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles and walking; and provide facilities that support such alternate modes. Employers with large work forces can utilize all of these techniques. As indicated in the project description, the project proposes a shuttle service that will consist of a 20- passenger van that will provide shuttle service for physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The shuttle will be used only by physicians who have offices in Hoag Health Center and patients at Hoag Hospital. Additionally, the shuttle will be used 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. In addition, the project includes bicycle racks to accommodate bicyclists. As a result, project implementation is consistent with the City's desire to reduce reliance on the automobile through by including these elements within the project design. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control 13 13 13 1Z Board? Implementation of the Project will not result In any direct discharges that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements. All of the raw sewage generated by the proposed project would be similar to that currently generated by the existing facilities and can be accommodated and adequately treated by existing facilities owned and operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which 1Z 13 13 13 could cause significant environmental effects? The City of Newport Beach owns and maintains several water and sewer mains in the vicinity of the subject property. Implementation of the Project will result in an increase in medical office floor area (i.e., from approximately 97,000 square feet to 350,000 square feet through the conversion of existing non- medical office floor area and construction of additional medical office space on- site). It is anticipated that the Project may intensify the demand for City water and an increase in the generation of raw sewage caused by the increase in medical office floor area associated with the proposed uses. Although it is anticipated that the existing water and sewage treatment plant capacity are adequate to accommodate the potential demands for domestic water and potential increase in raw sewage that would be generated by the Project, some existing water and sewer mains may not have adequate capacity to accommodate I� I J 1 i 1 1 F L CHECKLIST Page 36 ' Potentially `ass `nun less than No Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative 13 13 13 1Z transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance requires projects to reduce the number of peak - period vehicle trips by promoting and encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles and walking; and provide facilities that support such alternate modes. Employers with large work forces can utilize all of these techniques. As indicated in the project description, the project proposes a shuttle service that will consist of a 20- passenger van that will provide shuttle service for physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The shuttle will be used only by physicians who have offices in Hoag Health Center and patients at Hoag Hospital. Additionally, the shuttle will be used 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. In addition, the project includes bicycle racks to accommodate bicyclists. As a result, project implementation is consistent with the City's desire to reduce reliance on the automobile through by including these elements within the project design. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control 13 13 13 1Z Board? Implementation of the Project will not result In any direct discharges that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements. All of the raw sewage generated by the proposed project would be similar to that currently generated by the existing facilities and can be accommodated and adequately treated by existing facilities owned and operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which 1Z 13 13 13 could cause significant environmental effects? The City of Newport Beach owns and maintains several water and sewer mains in the vicinity of the subject property. Implementation of the Project will result in an increase in medical office floor area (i.e., from approximately 97,000 square feet to 350,000 square feet through the conversion of existing non- medical office floor area and construction of additional medical office space on- site). It is anticipated that the Project may intensify the demand for City water and an increase in the generation of raw sewage caused by the increase in medical office floor area associated with the proposed uses. Although it is anticipated that the existing water and sewage treatment plant capacity are adequate to accommodate the potential demands for domestic water and potential increase in raw sewage that would be generated by the Project, some existing water and sewer mains may not have adequate capacity to accommodate I� I J 1 i 1 1 F L CHECKLIST Page 36 ' u F 1 i [1 1 1 11 1 I Potentially `� `ean Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Therefore, applicant will be required to prepare and submit a water system and sanitary sewer system demand study on the existing facilities. Potential impacts to the existing City or Sanitation District's ability to provide adequate water and sewer service and sewage collection and treatment will be addressed by the requisite studies and the findings and recommendations presented in the Draft EIR. The water and sanitary sewer system demand studies will identify the need to upgrade any of the existing facilities currently serving the site. Domestic water facilities would be required to meet both the existing and proposed fire demands for the Project. If required, individual fire connections will be made to the domestic water laterals to serve the subject site. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the o 0 0 El construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? As indicated in Section VIII (Hydrology and Water Quality), the subject property is intensively developed and is covered by impervious surfaces (i.e., asphalt, concrete, structures, etc.). Implementation of the Project will not result in any significant changes to the amount of Impervious coverage and, therefore, to the existing surface runoff conditions associated with the 13.7 -acre property. Although on -site facilities may be necessary, the runoff will be directed to the same storm drain facilities that exist in the adjacent street system, which have adequate capacity to accommodate the post - development runoff generated by the Project. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, 0 0 0 El or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The conversion of existing non - medical floor area to medical offices and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office uses as proposed could create demands for water that exceed the parameters upon which the water supply and distribution are based. The City owns and maintains facilities in the vicinity of the subject property that serve the existing development in the vicinity of the Project. Although project implementation will not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities (new laterals may be required), existing supplies may not be adequate to ensure the provision of adequate fire flows and domestic water service to the site. As indicated above, It will be necessary to determine the potential increase in water demand associated with the proposed conversion and increase in medical office floor area. Therefore, the results of a water demand study will be presented in the Draft EIR. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the D D E 0 project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The OCSD has adequate capacity at the existing treatment facilities to provide sanitary treatment to the raw sewage that will be generated by the Project. The type of development proposed Is consistent with the City's long range plans for the area and will not exceed the sewage generation rates prescribed for the site. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required as a result of project implementation. CHECKLIST Page 37 Implementation of the Project would result in the generation of construction debris during the conversion and construction phases of the Project. In addition, solid waste will be generated at the site associated with the proposed land uses. However, the applicant is proposing to convert all of the existing floor area to medical offices and add an additional 20,586 square feet for a total of 350,000 square feet of medical office space, which is less than the floor area that currently exist on the subject property (415,493 square feet of office/R &D uses). The addition of the medical office floor area could result in the generation of some medical /biohazard waste, such waste would be disposed properly at facilities certified to accept it Further, the County landfill system (i.e., three landfill sites) has a capacity in excess of 30 years. The City is in compliance with AB 939, which requires a 50 percent reduction in the amount of solid waste. The project site will remain subject to this provision. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 waste? As Indicated above, the City is required to comply with AB939, which requires reducing the amount of solid waste by 50 percent. Site development will be subject to the requirements established in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) that reflect the manner in which solid waste reduction will occur. Compliance with the SRRE will ensure that such reductions occur, not only at the project site but also throughout the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, ❑ ❑ ❑ constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? Although BMPs will be incorporated into the project design, none of the features would result in the creation of any potentially significant environmental impacts. As previously indicated (refer to Section VIII — Hydrology and Water Quality), a WQMP must be prepared and submitted to the City that identify structural and non - structural BMPs, which may include low maintenance features such as absorptive filters in storm drain inlets. These features will not result in potentially significant impacts. Because it is anticipated that no significant increase in surface runoff would be generated as a result of project implementation, implementation of the project would not require the inclusion of any facilities that would result in significant adverse environmental Impacts. I 11 1 1 1 1 I I I I I CHECKLIST Page 38 ' Potentially L"" ` "° Less then No Significant Mitigation Significant g Impact im Incorporated impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate ❑ ❑ ❑ the project's solid waste disposal needs? Implementation of the Project would result in the generation of construction debris during the conversion and construction phases of the Project. In addition, solid waste will be generated at the site associated with the proposed land uses. However, the applicant is proposing to convert all of the existing floor area to medical offices and add an additional 20,586 square feet for a total of 350,000 square feet of medical office space, which is less than the floor area that currently exist on the subject property (415,493 square feet of office/R &D uses). The addition of the medical office floor area could result in the generation of some medical /biohazard waste, such waste would be disposed properly at facilities certified to accept it Further, the County landfill system (i.e., three landfill sites) has a capacity in excess of 30 years. The City is in compliance with AB 939, which requires a 50 percent reduction in the amount of solid waste. The project site will remain subject to this provision. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 waste? As Indicated above, the City is required to comply with AB939, which requires reducing the amount of solid waste by 50 percent. Site development will be subject to the requirements established in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) that reflect the manner in which solid waste reduction will occur. Compliance with the SRRE will ensure that such reductions occur, not only at the project site but also throughout the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, ❑ ❑ ❑ constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? Although BMPs will be incorporated into the project design, none of the features would result in the creation of any potentially significant environmental impacts. As previously indicated (refer to Section VIII — Hydrology and Water Quality), a WQMP must be prepared and submitted to the City that identify structural and non - structural BMPs, which may include low maintenance features such as absorptive filters in storm drain inlets. These features will not result in potentially significant impacts. Because it is anticipated that no significant increase in surface runoff would be generated as a result of project implementation, implementation of the project would not require the inclusion of any facilities that would result in significant adverse environmental Impacts. I 11 1 1 1 1 I I I I I CHECKLIST Page 38 ' 11 11 h 1 1 [J 1 I I Potentially Less man Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporated XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? The site is currently designated as Medical Commercial Office on the Newport Beach Land Use Element and is zoned M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing District). The project site has been impacted by past activities that have modified the existing site features. Project Implementation will not result in the loss of any sensitive habitat or species. Further, no cultural or scientific resources are known to be located on the site and important historic resources would not be adversely affected by the Project. Project implementation will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. Nonetheless, although Implementation of the Project will result in a reduction in the floor area that currently exists (although an increase in the amount of floor area entitled for the site with the approval of UP 2006 -010), it is anticipated that potential increases in traffic volumes associated with the medical office uses could result in potentially significant environmental impacts, including increases in air pollutant emissions that contribute to the degradation of the ambient air quality and increases in noise levels that also could affect the ambient noise levels in the project area. b) Does the project have impacts that are Individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a ❑ ❑ ❑ project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Because the site is intensively developed, no native habitat or other important or sensitive species and /or culturaltscientific resources would occur. However, implementation of the Project could result in significant cumulative impacts. In particular, incremental traffic, noise and air quality impacts could exceed significance thresholds identified ether by the City of Newport Beach or other responsible agency. The Project does have the potential to generate other project- related impacts that may be cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? CHECKLIST Page 39 Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact With Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Although construction and operation of the additional medical office floor area and parking structure will be consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and zoning adopted for the subject property, preliminary analysis of the proposed development concluded that potentially significant impacts may occur that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, including traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. Based on that evaluation, the proposed development has the potential to generate significant environmental effects which could cause adverse effects on humans, either directly (e.g., traffic and circulation, etc.) or indirectly (e.g., contribute to deficiencies in utilities). Therefore, potential significant impacts are anticipated to be potentially significant, necessitating the preparation of a focused Draft EIR. XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the City of Newport Beach for UP 2006 -010 in December 2006. That document is available for review at the City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Each of the environmental issues analyzed in this document for the proposed project are based on the prior analysis conducted for UP 2006 -010. Where necessary, additional analysis has been provided to adequately document the determination of significance. In addition, for impacts identified as `less than significant unless mitigation incorporated,' the mitigation measures from the prior environmental analysis have been prescribed and included, as indicated below. C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. Several mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project based on the prior analysis. Mitigation measures for fighting (refer to Section 1), cultural resources (refer to Section V), and hazards/hazardous materials (refer to Section VII) have been Incorporated into this document based on the prior environmental analysis. XVIII. SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. Final Program EIR— City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. i 11 1 1 1 I I CHECKLIST Page 40 ' 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration for Use Permit No. 2006 -010; Adopted December 2006. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City Excavation and Grading Cade, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ' 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 8. Geotechnical Study; Proposed Parking Structure - Newport Health Center Superior Avenue and ' Dana Road; Newport Beach, California; Kleinfelder. August 1, 2006. 9. Iris Environmental, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Newport Technology Center, ' February 1, 2006. 1 1 r-, IL I! CHECKLIST ' Page 41 H 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B NOP Comment Letters I 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Barr, CA 9176511182 e m (909) 396 -2000 • www.agmd.gov '�Mp el' March 28, 2007 4 �9Rty 0 ?OHr W. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner 6•'�/ O�� 0? City of inNewportBeach 3 0�g t Newport Center 33 Drive P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 ' Dear Mr. Murillo: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for ' Hose Health Center The South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above- mentioned document. The SCAQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that-should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please send the SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. In addition, please send with.the Draft ElR all appendices or technical documents rctated to the air quality analysis and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and health risk assessment files. Without all files and supporting air quality documentation, the SCAQMD will be unable to complete its review of the air quality analysis in a timely manner. Any delays In providing as supporting air quality documentation will req rt) additional time for revkw beyond the end of the comment period. Air Oua*v Analysis The SCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1999 to assist ' other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available fiom the SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396 -3720. Alternatively, the lead agency may wish to consider using the California Air Resources Board (CARS) approved URBEMIS 2002 Model. This model is available on the SCAQMD Website at: www agr9d govltena/mgdol html }- ILL -ola3 F ' The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from bath construction (including demolition, if arty) and operations should be calculated. Construction -related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy -duty equipment from grading, earth -load Wunloadn g, paving, ' architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (o.g., heavy -duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation - related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g, boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis. The SCAQMD has developed a methodology for calculating PM2.5 emissions from construction and operational ' activities and processes. In connection with developing PM2.5 calculation methodologies, the SCAQMD has also developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. The SCAQMD requests that the lead agency quantify PM2.5 emissions and compare the results to the recommended PM2.5 significance thresholds. Guidance for 1 Mr. Jaime Murillo -2- March 28, 2007 calculating PW.5 emissions and PM2.5 significance thresholds can be found at the following intemet address: httoJ /wwwamnd.eov /ceaa/handbooktPM2 51PM2 $ htm1 In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts the SCAQMD recommends calculating localizedi air quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). L.ST's can be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document. Therefore, when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed project, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a localized significance analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at httn:/ /www.acmd.gm&Malimxlook/ ST/LST htrd. It is recommended that lead agencies for projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy -duty diesel - faeled vehicles, perform a mobile source heift risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile son= health risk assessment ("Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Aaalysis'� can be farad on the SCAQMD's CEQA webpages at the following intemet address: bM: / /www agmdeovlceaa/handbook/mobile mxic/mnbite to;d0itail. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. mtimtion Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that an feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized dining project construction and operation to m;nimi or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, please refer to Chapter 11 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures Additional mitigation measures can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA webpages at the following internet address: www agmd ggv /ceaa/handbookfmitiaatiom/MM intro html Additionally, SCAQMD's Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction - related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Other measures to reduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be found at the following internet address: htm•//www aamd.aov/nrdas/anmr iidelogmide html. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses can be found in the Califumia Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective, which can be found at the following imemet address: jttp://www.arb.ca aov /dia=dboak mdt Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (axl)(D), any impacts resulting firm mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality repeals and data are available by calling the SCAQMD'a Public information Center at (909) 396 -2039. Much of the information available trough the Public Information Center is also available via the SCAQMD's World Wide Web Hamepage (firm: //www.%Wd.&U). The SCAQMD is willing to work with the lead Agency to ensure that project-related emissions are accurately Identified, categorized, and evaluated. Please call Charles Blankson, Ph.D., Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at (909) 396 -3304 if you have any questions regarding tlris letter. Sincerely, Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources SS:CB:Ii ORC070327 -031,L Control Number I I I I I I I I I I Lf I L s SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017.3435 t(213)236-1800 f (213) 236 -1825 April 11, 2007 Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Center Drive P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Y�Y�C. -n1 ID3 l'/ RECENID BY p1ANNING DEPAR'IMlNY APR 13 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120070166 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 OMlme president Ynur 8 Beke, Les AyMn(oomyFgLVkeP,Ndem:(aryhgt consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This Rkliml p;; A °," activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization PnsdenL3ree9nypMNuemem, pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by Imperial Wom Imperial these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take Lan Angles Qnmyr. Yawan a Bndn. in actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies MIM•Tedd hmr Beene . Los Angeles.. Sun fared, In Magner Pads reserved - parar a Nmy Doslap, GandM.LargBUth -DPW • (rk 6suld. Los Marks . empties • Isadr, Hall (ampeu • telm VC ILI" Aam • kM Rmea[ Las Angeles • gM IaBonge. Lee Mpdes•Pads Lame, Pomona• Pa�ANatllo.kmna• pam 0'(mm San, Less PM. In Anr - W Rarer, Las Andn, . Ill Los Angeles • Ng SMILe La Cmitles -Tom SYMn.MVlni. Mdi p l 5.6 Paaklu Lug Bs •idw Reyes Leanga, xd Mulio VNUnigpp, Loy Anglin • pampa %billamem' Ir. n• AnnV6Lm.Dermh • NHBLeieU IM Angeles'•DendstA,, l,Angeks hope (duds: LHds N64 0samp (army Unhtlee games la pain • John Bemwn, 8. - Lou Brine. TaH DM k • hk Cone, Rummplen Buse • Leslie Datyk, NenpaM Ben.Im,m Bedeul :F Lawny A- Lw A W. • hM (Varb, raga! Nyud Spamn ORl, Fukr,n Blaaddeownry:kBs,e. ReeNde(nnry • Human ImIft Lake LNinse • Bennie RIIMagn. MOM bley • less LMMdg4 BMnide • 6reg Peak, (adndul (0, • R. Rokm, lemMea San Be rdlna (oeMy: Gary pan sell BennedhN Meme• Lamle Wknersuw. pad Fang AknmsD • d An 6amb 6und bnn •tnnlaspv kwaaUypkYetey W ry MdalonHraWnd•Deho,hRobenwn.AeOo •AMnYRpxtdNUb Yams (mmp: Herb parts, Yenlm (army • Gan Baem, sera Valley •fad rbehdne. San Bumemmirs •(anarbi Mal Hueneme emerge (wq Treupor,tkn AulBasleya ArtBmnm,Bueu Park FWV*b(A"Treupor B" Calaalelm: Aabin lwn. Hearin Vaerailm, TemQaanr iM Comeinknr I(dlh MMUre, Monrya ik aria We have reviewed the Hoag HeaM Center, and have determined that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovemmental 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 was published in SCAG's March 1631, 2007 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment. THe project, We :and' 'SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all coiresporidence with SCAG concerning this Project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236 -1856. Thank you. Sincerely, .PILL EGERMA� Associate Environmental Planner Intergovemmental Review. Doc 6134388 )eACL�b103 F ROSAMOND U. HALL R. E. Hall Family Limited Partnership P.O. BOX 2450 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8972. March 27, 2007 PiANNFh b�iCrtr Jaime Murillo Planning Department APR 44 2007 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Ctv OF NE R T pEO RE: Applicant Name: Hoag Healthcare Center Traffic Study No.: Use Permit No.: 2006 -010 (AMENDMENT] Property Location: 500 -540 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA Dear City Council members, It is our understanding that there is a request to amend the approved Use Permit 2006 -10 to increase/reclasstfy the building area from R & D to medical offices. As I stated in my letters dated November 7, 2006 and December 20, 2006, we would be severely impacted by the above Use Permit Changes/Amendment and would like you to consider the following: We did not support the change in designation from research and development uses to general office uses, then to medical offices and now, we definitely do not support the increased amount of 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 the Hospital Road intersection and in addition, the traffic signal and intersection at Newport Blvd. and 1P. The lanes there are very confusing with the amount of traffic that exits currently. A better organized master plan for this intersection Is desperately needed. Just try and navigate through this intersection during the current periods of increased use. With the reclassification along with the increased amount of medical offices there will come a significantly increased amount of employees, visitors and clients to and from these off oes. There have already been numerous accidents at this intersection with pedestrians and vehicles without any solutions W existing problems. Please be aware that this condition will already have been exacerbated by the Pacific Medical Plaza (a multistoried building with a parking tower) now nearing completion on Old Newport Blvd prior to the above conversion to medical offices. ' It is my understanding from the written materials we have received that there were traffic studies in 2003 and 2006 and now another is scheduled for 2007. Endless studies are to no purpose if there are no mitigation occurs. We should not be adding traffic to our streets and intersections until the current problems have been addressed and resolved. ' Sincerely, �gy '46�& Rosamond U. Hall r MThe Gas Company A *Sempra Energy utility- March 28, 2007 PO Box 3334 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92806-6114 RECEIVED BY PLANNING PBPARTMINT APR 04 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Subject: Notice of Preparation for E.I.R. for Hoag Health Center, 500 -540 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to your preparation of an E.I.R. (Environmental Impact Report) Request. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in portions of the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. In areas where we do not have facilities, when the area is served by our facilities, the service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. Gas service to some of the project area can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service also will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual coraautment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non - utility laws and regulations (such as emirontoental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. rEstimates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial- IndustriaMsidential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -20DO (Commer6al/Industrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact :tbis office for assistance. ncerel �, .� Michael R. Harriel Technical Services Supervisor Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim MRA/ NE.doc City of Newport Beach- Planning Dept. ' 3300 Newport Center drive PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Attention: Jaime Murillo PO Box 3334 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92806-6114 RECEIVED BY PLANNING PBPARTMINT APR 04 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Subject: Notice of Preparation for E.I.R. for Hoag Health Center, 500 -540 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to your preparation of an E.I.R. (Environmental Impact Report) Request. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in portions of the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. In areas where we do not have facilities, when the area is served by our facilities, the service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. Gas service to some of the project area can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service also will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual coraautment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non - utility laws and regulations (such as emirontoental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. rEstimates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial- IndustriaMsidential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -20DO (Commer6al/Industrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact :tbis office for assistance. ncerel �, .� Michael R. Harriel Technical Services Supervisor Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim MRA/ NE.doc Department of Toxic Substances Control Maureen F. Gorsen, Director Linda S. Adams 5796 Corporate Avenue R9CfP4r) lily Arnold Scftwarzenegger Secretary for Cypress, California 90630 G DEPARTMEW Governor Environmental Protection iApril 19, 2007 APR 20 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. Jaime Murillo Associate Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 33000 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -010 AT HOAG HEALTH CENTER, CURRENTLY KNOWN AS NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER, 500 - 540 SUPERIOR AVENUE Dear Mr. Murillo: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has been made aware of your I Notice of Preparation of an Environmental impact Report (EIR) for the above - mentioned project. The following project description is stated: "Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is now requesting the approval of an amendment to Use Permit No. 2006 -010 to allow: 1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet of general office /R &D floor area, of the total 329, 414 square feet of floor area currently permitted on -site, to medical office use within the M -1 -A zoning district; and 2) the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office and ancillary medical uses on -site, for a total of 350,000 gross square feet of medical office floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. A total of 1,985 parking spaces previously approved in Use Permit 2006 -010 are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces in tow parking structures." IBased on the review of the submitted document, DTSC has the following comments: 1) The EIR should identify the current or historic uses at the project site that may have resulted in a release of hazardous wastes /substances. ® Printed on Recycled Paper �c -o[ 03 i Mr. Jaime Murilio April 19, 2007 Page 2 2) The EIR should identify and summarize the status of any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the EIR 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. • 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) Your document states: "MM -6 The applicant shall prepare a plan that prescribes appropriate building management measures to control vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site. The Building Management Plan shall be submitted to either the RWQCB, the Orange County Health Care Agency, and or DTSC for approval prior to the issuance of the building permit for the Project. MM -7 The applicant shall prepare a soil profile plan that characterizes the excavated soils that would I L I I I I I I I I I �.1 i I Mr. Jaime Murillo April 19, 2007 Page 3 be reused or removed from the site. This plan shall be submitted to either the RWQCB, the Orange OOCHCA, and/or DTSC for approval prior to the issuance of the building permit for the Project. MM-8 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 by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5)..." The EIR 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. 4) Your document states: " Environmental conditions at the site appear to have been adequately characterized and appropriate remedial measures are being implemented to ensure that on -site soil and groundwater contamination is properly remediated. The RWQCB continues to provide active oversight for the site investigation and remediation activities. All environmental investigations, sampling and /or remediation for the site should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, including Phase I and 11 investigations, should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found above health risk levels should be clearly summarized in a table for clarification. 6) Your document states: "A survey was conducted to determine if asbestos - containing materials ("ACM"), lead -based paint ( "LBP ") or other hazardous materials exist in that structure or other structures to be remodeled. The LBP and ACM that may exist in the buildings that will remain will be removed prior to remodeling that will be undertaken to implement the proposed project and demolition of the existing office building." If buildings or other structures, asphalt or concrete -paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted forthe presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. 7) The project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas. Sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import I I Mr. Jaime Murillo April 19, 2007 Page 4 soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 8) "As indicated in the environmental analysis prepared for UP 2006 -010, chemical vapors resulting from volatile organic compounds in the subsurface at the site could degrade indoor air quality until the site remediation is completed by the , responsible party (Raytheon). Proper building management measures will be implemented to control vapor intrusion into buildings at the site. The assessment and management of indoor air quality is currently being conducted under the oversight of the RWQCB." Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. If it is determined, a study of the site overseen by the appropriate government ' agency and qualified Risk Assessor should be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 9) 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 the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5), and the facility should , obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618 -6942. 10) 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. 11) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. 12) If the project plans include discharging wastewater to a storm drain, you may be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 13) If during construction /demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction /demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. I 7 L ;1 I Mr. Jaime Murillo April 19, 2007 Page 5 14) If the site was used for agricultural production, cattle or animal activities, onsite soils and groundwater may contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or other related residue.. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a Igovernment agency at the site prior to construction of the project. 15) Envirostor (formerly CalSites) is a database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and is accessible through DTSC's website. 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 or VCA, please see www. dtsc. ca.gov /SiteCleanup /Brownfields, or contact Maryam Tasnif - Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484 -5489. 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. Sint, 'Z4 4V'4;;��7 Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office cQ: Governor'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 # 1620 I I I I April 23, 2007 E CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. 00X 7200 • 77 FAIR ORNE • CALIFORNIA 02020.1200 DEVULQPVMT $r;RMe0 DIPARTUMT Mr. Jamie Murilio, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 W -oto'v SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR EWRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HOAG HEALTH CENTER AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT NO. 2006-0'10. 600440 SUPERIOR AVENU9 ' Dear Mr. Murillo: The City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the Notice of Preparation for Environmental Impact Report for the Hoag Heailh Center amendment to Use Permit No. 2008 -010. The proposed project consists of: (1) an amendment to Use Permit No. 2008010 to convert the remaining 232,414 square feet of general office/R&D floor area to medical office for a total of 329,414 square feet of.medical office area; and (2) the constncction of an additional 20,588 square feet of medical office and ancillary medical uses on -site; for a total of 350,000 gross square feet of medical office floor area. Following are the City's comments on the proposed amendments. TRANSPORTATlONAVRCULATION 1) The City would appreciate an analysis of the following intersections. The traffic study would identify any significant Impacts to these Intersections resulting from the project Implementation. 8� FAX (714)1544M 776OU247- *W*Atd� 0R020R p1a}7645213 Zd W680:60 LM on 'adt! 9SBb OSL VU: 'U4 XtiJ t�W Wsoo d0 U13: WMA • Newport Boulevard —191' Street • Newport Boulevard — Broadway • Newport Boulevard — Harbor Boulevard • Newport Boulevard —181i Street achesierAvenue • Newport Boulevard —1711 Street - Newport Boulevard —181' Street • Newport Boulevard — Industrial Way • Superior Avenue —le Street • Superior Avenue —17U1 Street • Placentia Avenue —1711 Street • Placentia Avenue —190 Street • Placentia Avenue — Victoria Street • Harbor Boulevard —1911 Street • Harbor Boulevard — Victoria Street • Santa Ana —1711 Street 8� FAX (714)1544M 776OU247- *W*Atd� 0R020R p1a}7645213 Zd W680:60 LM on 'adt! 9SBb OSL VU: 'U4 XtiJ t�W Wsoo d0 U13: WMA Mr. MutiAa, Page 2 7 Tustin Avenue —17^ Street Orange Avenue —17'' Street • Irvine Avenue —17'" street 2) Analysis should Include the following scenarios: , Existing conditions (AM & PM) Project Opening Year — with and without project (AM & PM) 2025 Conditions —with and without project (AM & PM) At the time of the study, please verity the list of projects that should be Included for the Project Opening year. Additional projects may need to be added by our , Development services Department, Planning Division. Please check with the Planning Division before the start of the study. The City of Costa Mesa will provide the project Information and trip generation for these projects. Distribution and assignment also may be available. 8) For Year 2025, the City encourages that the analysis be conducted under the following assumptions; ' L SR-55 Freeway is not extended south of f SP Street ti. 19* Street bridge over the Santa Arm River Is not constructed The City will be able to provide 2025 traffic volumes at all locations. However, it may not incorporate some of the new projects. The City will Identify projects that need to be added and requests that you coordinate the data collection at the time of your project Initiation. The City recommends that all mitigation measures be conditioned based on these assumptions. 4) The City recommends the Project identify appropriate feasible mitigation measures and mechanism for participate in funding of the mitigation measures. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. The City of Costa Mesa is very interested in the Hoag Health Center Use Pemvt amendment and we hope to continue to have close communication on this project and an opportunity to fully understand any significant Impacts to the transportation system. If you have any quesWns or need additional htormation, please contact me at (714) 764 -5245. r a ly, ; CHAEL ROBINSON ant Dev elopment Svs. Director rx Donald D. Lamm, Deputy City Mgr., Dev. Sve. Director Kimberly Brandt, Pr1n*d Planner Peter NagheN, Tranepatadon SeMces Manager Raja Sethuraman, Associate Eng61ew N wd60 ;60 L00Z 7Z '-+du 9587 7SL 7U: 'ON XUA USEW VISES M .11Iz): WMU Response to Notice of Preparation Project: Hoag Health Center, 500 -540 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 To: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner City Of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Center Drive P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 EXCERPT FROM NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN VISION STATEMENT: COMMUNITY' CHARACTER We have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods. We value our colorful past, the high quality of life, and our community bonds. The successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors has been accomplished with the recognition that Newport Beech is primarily a residential community. We have a conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of life —a strategy that balances the needs of the various constituencies and that cherishes and nurtures our estuaries, harbor, beaches, open spaces, and natural resources. Development and revitalization decisions are well conceived and beneficial to both the economy and our character. There is a range of housing opportunities that allows people to live and work in the City. Design principles emphasize characteristics that satisfy the community's desire for the maintenance of its particular neighborhoods and villages. General Plan Land Use Element 6.6 (West Newport Mesa District): Policy Overview The General Plan provides for a mix of land uses for West Newport Mesa that include office, research, convalescent care, and retail facilities supporting Hoag Hospital, a consolidated light industrial district where non water- dependent marine - related businesses would be encouraged to locate, enhanced housing opportunities, and Supporting retail commercial services. While distinct sub - districts are defined by the Land Use Plan, the assembly and planning of multiple parcels across these districts to create a unified center that is linked by Redesttian vcaat_kffM park9_ ds, and oLhef amenities is encouraged. I Let me describe the character of the residential communities in West Newport Mesa Health Center, so that the Planning Commission can ensure that the General Plan is honored by the Hoag Health Center's proposed enormous expansion project. While a 13.7 –acre parcel of the Hoag Heahh Center site may be developed to up to 350,000 square feet of floor area according to the General Plan, the Planning Commission must balance that request with its responsibility to retain the character of Newport Beach's Primarily residential communities. The residential communities in the vicinity of the Hoag Health Center are not exceptions to the Newport Beach General Plan Vision Statement which describes maintaining the "charm of its residential communities" during the city's development. It is important that issues relating to "preserving the neighborhood character" are addressed during the Hoag Hospital Expansion project. PiANhANGNAR�TMENI APR 26 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH K,Vcc -bl b3 , Response to Notice of Preparation Project: Hoag Health Center, 500 -540 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Character of West Newport Mesa residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of Hoag Health Center: Pedestrian. Bicycle and JoaQers Thoroue to the Beach Hazardous sidewalk The 400 -500 Block of Superior Avenue is part of a thoroughfare used by bicycle riders, joggers, and pedestrians to get to and from the beach. All of these types of residents utilize the sidewalk directly in front of Hoag Health Center site, to their own Hazard. Cars exiting the Hoag Health Center site do not stop before the driveway sidewalk. ' There are already many close calls of cars almost hitting pedestrians, bicycle -riders and joggers as they exit the driveways of the Hoag Health Center. Many drivers only look to their left while exiting the driveways, and they do not stop their automobiles before the sidewalk when exiting the site's driveways. In summary, automobiles exiting the Hoag Health Center site are not yielding to sidewalk traffic. There will be casualties in the driveways of this site with the increased density proposed. , Park and Skateboard Facilities Current Lacking for the Youth of West NoTmort Mesa Besides bicycle - riding, youth of the West Newport Mesa are skateboard enthusiasts. It is common for youth to ride their skateboards in the parking lot and parking structure of 1501 Superior Medical Offices, until they are chased away by security guards. There ise good dedicated, well-lit place for youth to skateboard in the West Newport Mesa neighborhood other than on the private properties of medical office facilities. Thus, one might reasonably conclude that the neighborhood is in need of a park that includes it skate park for the youth of this neighborhood The West Newport Mesa neighborhood is plagued by commercial vehicles parked along ' the 400 -500 block of Superior Avenue. The commercial vehicles that park in front of the Park Lido Townhomes are an eyesore. Furthermore, commercial vehicle parking along the residential portion of Superior Avenue is a traffic hazard due to the limited visibility , created for automobiles turning from Dana Road or from the Hoag Health Center site onto Superior Avenue. Ironically, no commercial vehicle parking is permitted in front of the commercial buildings along Superior Avenue. The commercial vehicles are only permitted in firnrt of the Park Lido Townhomes, and Newport Beach parking enforcement is doing a poor job of enforcing the 72-hour parking limit of vehicles along Superior Avenue. Recent calls to the Parking Supervisor, (Karen Warren), regarding issues along Superior Avenue have not been returned, and the current parking ' laws are being poorly enforced. Traffic Issues ' The expansion of the Hoag Health Center will create an enormous traffic burden. The intersection of 17'" Avenue and Newport Blvd is already the worst traffic problem in Newport Beach. It will get even worse by adding more traffic flow onto Superior Avenue, which flows into this intersection. Ifthe site wafts to maximize its 350,000 square foot capacity, creating a drastic traffic problem, the site should be required to take the drastic step of creating an entrancelexit directly to Newport Blvd. i F YV,bv d»3 Response to Notice of Preparation Project: Hoag Health Center, 500 -540 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Character" preservation to amendments of site density allowances If the Planning Commission grants the request to expand the Hoag Health Center to its maximum allowed capacity under the City's General Plan, resolution of the following issues should be tied to the expansion: Pedestrian. Bicycle and Joggers Thor ualAw -to-t to Beach Hazanious c;dew t�k Since the current automobile traffic at the Hoag Health Center site along Superior Avenue puts bike - riders, pedestrians, and joggers at unnecessary risk, which will worsen with increased occupancy at the site, traffic flow from the site, crossing the sidewalk, should be controlled I recommend installation of parking arm gates at the driveways of the site. Parking arms can he sensor - responsive. The purpose of the parking arm gates is to require each vehicle exiting the site to stop before crossing the sidewalk, and thus reduce the number of pedestrian casualties that will undoubtedly occur in fivnt of an expanded Hoag Health Center she. In addition, I recommend installation of wheelchair - accessible curbs at the driveway to Union Bank of California, where the sidewalk currently is not wheelchair - accessible at the cross- streets of Placentia and Superior. Perhaps a parking arm gate is also needed at this driveway, where automobiles also do not stop before crossing the sidewalk, and put pedestrians at unnecessary risk. I recommend the Hoag Health Center fund the building of a skateboard park in the West Newport Mesa neighborhood, to support the "neighborhood character" of youth who love to skateboard and who currently have no sanctioned place to do so. Perhaps the park can be built on part of the property where expanded occupancy is proposed, at 500 Superior Avenue, especially if Hoag Health Center donates some of its land to the City of Newport Beach expressly for this purpose. ' Commercial Vehicle Parking_ is Traffic Hard. and Evemre in Residential Neiahborhood The City of Newport Beach should re -zone parking along 400 -500 Superior Avenue, so that Commercial Vehicle is not allowed in front of Park Lido Townhomes. The Parking Enforcement ofNewport Beach is not enforcing current 72 -hour parking limit laws, the Parking of large vehicles along the block is a hazard to traffic exiting Dana Road and the Hoag Health Center site, and the irony of ironies is that Commercial Vehicles are currently only permitted in front of residences and not in front of Commercial properties along Superior Avenue. Please correct this affront to the neighborhood charm, and tie it to the proposed site expansion of 500 Superior Avenue. Furthermore, require Hoag Health Center to provide access to its Parking Structures to the neighborhood residents on major holidays, such as Independence Day. There is a dearth of street parking spaces on Independence Day, and yet the Parking Structures in the neighborhood are empty, and access is cut off. There is nothing worse than having to park a mile away from home when there is an empty parking structure next door. I 1 3 �c,I bl D3 Response to Notice of Preparation Project: Hoag Health Center, 500 -540 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Traffic Issues The proposed increase in occupation density at the Hoag Health Center site is a dramatic increase from the current status of the site. The current scams is that there is already too much traffic flowing from Superior Avenue to 17th Street and onto Newport Boulevard. If a dramatic occupancy increase is approved, require the dramatic step of creating a direct access of the site to Newport Boulevard, which will best preserve the Neighborhood Charm of West Newport Mesa Otherwise, do not allow an increase to 350,000 square feet of floor space occupancy at the site. Also, the current approved use of parking shuttles is being violated by the Hoag Health Center. Parking shuttles are supposed to be limited to two round -trips per how and the parking shuttles are not supposed to drive on Dana Road. Both of these limitations are already being violated. If the City cannot enforce the current Hiles for the Hoag Health Center site, it definitely cannot enforce rules for an expanded site, and thus the site should not be expanded. Thank you for hearing and considering my concerns and responses to the proposed expansion of the Hoag Health Center site. Sincerely, G4�2 Richard Smith Resident of 450 Bolero Way, Newport Beach, CA 92,663 Phone: 949 -515 -0720 I—/ I I II d i I 1 I I 1 1 I I I Y -oio3 F Mr. Jaime Murillo City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92686 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 24, 2007 MAY o 1 2o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ui 111. [oil P71 1"T 9 dot -. Gf!•1 +I •1][ c11 lhl II =IR: p,:.^ K,. :4 • � L' I!1- e • lr=_l' �LLC ii9. ❑ l21,;•!l. i �I 6Y: LL'= .11 Dear Mr. Murifiu: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above•referenoed document The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that Includes archeological resources, is a bignificartaffact' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR per CEQA guidelines § =84.6(b)(c). In orderto comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project Wit have an adverse Impact an these resources within the'area of potential effect (APE),' and If so, to mitigate that effect To adequately assess the project - related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following action: d Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources information Center (CHRIS). Contact information for the'larormatlon Center' nearest you is available from the State Otflce of Historic Preservation In 3acremento (9161653. 7278). The record search will determtric • If a part or the entire (APE) has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. • If any known cultural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE. • If the probability Is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. • If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present d If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage Is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remake, and associated funerary objects should be In a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure. • The final written report should be submitlad within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center. d Contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)for. A Sacred Lands Vgle (SLF) search of the project area and Information on tribal contacts in the project vicinity who may have information on cultural resources In or nearthe APE. Please provide us sits Identification as follows: UWA 7.5- minute ouadrando citation i th name. townshln, ginae and section. This will assist to with the SLF. • Also, we recommend that you contact the Native American contacts on the attached list to got their input on the effect of potential project (e.g. APE) Impact d Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface ebstance. • Lead agendas should include In their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of acclderdally discovered archeological rescurcea, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §16064.6M. In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affilretad Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor all ground-disturbing activities. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the dtspoedlon of recovered artifeds, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Ameriwfe. 11 1 J Lead agendes should include provisions fordiscovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries In their mitigation Plana CEQA Guidelines, Section IMM.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains ' within the APE. CEQA Guidefines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens. J Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.99 and Sec. §15054.5 (d) of the CEQA , Guidelines mandate procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other then a dedicated cemetery. Please feel free to co me at ( 915) 653.6251 if you have any questions. Sin e Singleton Program Analyst Ca State Clearingho Attachment List of Native American Contacts I� I 1 1 I I I F Native American Contacts Orange County i April 24, 2007 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aclachemen Nation David Belardes, Chairperson Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager & Guttural Resources 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno San Jum camno , CA 92675 San Juan Capftano , CA 92675 (949) 493 -0959 (949) 493 -0959 (949) 493 -1601 Fax (949) 493 -1601 Fax i Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Chairperson P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 sonia.johnstongsbcglobal.net (949) 462 -0710 (714) 323 -8312 (Cell) (949) 462 -9451 Fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians . Anita Espinoza 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno Anaheim , CA 92807 (714) 779 -8832 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Anthony Rivera, Chairman 31411 -A La Matanza Street Juaneno San JUan Oapletrano , CA 92675 -2674 9r49 -488 -3484 no.COm 949 - 488 -3294 Fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana CA 92799 714 - 998-0721 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Joe Ocampo, Environmental Coordinator P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana CA 92799 949462 -0710 949 -462 -945 Fax This llat to cunn,d Ody as of dw data of tlds docwront. Diet button of this tlst does not a►tlaveany person atats ftry waporrolbllity as dallned In 8e011on 7059.9 of go MOM and Safety Coda 8actlen SM54 of d,e Publia Ras wwo Code arcs Section 5097.99 of the Pubila Resources Code, I F I u i I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I LJ Appendix C Traffic Impact Analysis CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOAG HEALTH CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (REVISED) Prepared by: Carl Ballard and William Kunzman, P.E. September 5, 2007 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES 1111 TowN & COUNTRY RLIAO. SUITE 34 ORANGE, CA 92868 -4667 PHONE: (714) 973 -8383 FAX. (714) 073 -8821 EMAIL: .\IA IL@Tr Arf IC -ENC I V EER.0 AAI WEB: WWW.TRAFFIC-ENGINEER.COM u 3 �. TR0056 � z i *.A Tq F4 wQ` i Table of Contents 1. Findings .............................................................................. ..............................4 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................ ..............................4 TrafficSummary ........................................................... ..............................6 Recommended Improvements .................................... .............................10 Required Improvements .............................................. .............................11 2. Project Description ........................................................... .............................12 Location....................................................................... .............................12 Proposed Development ............................................... .............................12 3. Existing Traffic Conditions .............................................. .............................16 Study Area Intersections ............................................. .............................16 Existing Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls ......... .............................17 Existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways ................... .............................17 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................. .............................18 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization ..................... .............................18 4. Project Traffic .................................................................... .............................26 TrafficGeneration ....................................................... .............................27 Traffic Generation Comparison ................................... .............................28 Traffic Distribution and Assignment ............................. .............................28 Project - Related Traffic ................................................ .............................29 5. TPO Analysis ..................................................................... .............................38 ApprovedProjects ....................................................... .............................38 RegionalGrowth ......................................................... .............................39 One - Percent Methodology .......................................... .............................39 Intersection Capacity Utilization .................................. .............................40 6. CEQA Analysis .................................................................. .............................51 Cumulative Projects .................................................... .............................51 Intersection Capacity Utilization .................................. .............................51 7. Delay Analysis ................................................................... .............................62 DelayMethodology ..................................................... .............................62 DelayCalculations ...................................................... .............................62 8. Year 2025 Traffic Conditions ............................................ .............................65 9. Site Access and On -Site Circulation ............................... .............................66 SiteAccess ................................................................. .............................66 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis ................................... .............................66 Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis .................... .............................66 SynchroAnalysis ......................................................... .............................67 10. Conclusions ..................................................................... .............................69 Existing Traffic Conditions ........................................... .............................69 TrafficSummary .......................................................... .............................71 Recommended Improvements .................................... .............................74 Required Improvements .............................................. .............................75 Appendices Appendix A Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B Year 2003/2005/2006/2007 Worksheets Appendix C Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization Appendix D Approved Project Data Appendix E TPO One - Percent Analysis Calculation Worksheets Appendix F Cumulative Project Data Appendix G Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Delay Appendix H Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheet Appendix I Synchro Worksheets ' List of Tables Table 1. Existing (Year 2007) Intersection Capacity Utilization and Levels ofService .............................................................. ............................... 19 Table 2. Traffic Generation Rates ...................................... ............................... 30 Table 3. Project Traffic Generation .................................... ............................... 31 Table 4. Traffic Generation Comparison ............................ ............................... 32 Table 5. Approved Project List ................................................... I...................... 42 Table 6. TPO Analysis One- Percent Threshold ................. ............................... 43 Table 7. TPO Analysis Intersection Capacity Utilization and Levels of Service 44 Table 8. Cumulative Project List ........................................ ............................... 54 Table 9. CEQA Analysis Intersection Capacity Utilization and Levels of Service................................................................ ............................... 55 Table 10. Intersection Delay and Level of Service Summary .............................. 64 Table 11. Superior Avenue /Project Central Driveway Intersection Capacity Utilization and Levels of Service ......................... ............................... 68 ' List of Figures Figure 1. Project Location Map ........................................... ............................... 14 Figure2. Site Plan ............................................................... ............................... 15 Figure 3. Existing Through Travel Lanes ............................ ............................... 20 Figure 4. Existing Intersection Controls ............................... ............................... 21 Figure 5. City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element .................. 22 Figure 6. City of Newport Beach General Plan Roadway Cross - Sections ......... 23 Figure 7. Existing (Year 2007) Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ............................................. ............................... 24 Figure 8. Existing (Year 2007) Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ............................................. ............................... 25 Figure 9. Project Traffic Distribution .................................... ............................... 33 Figure 10. Project (Total) Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes.............................................................. ............................... 34 Figure 11. Project (Total) Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes.............................................................. ............................... 35 Figure 12. Project (Net Increase) Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ............................................. ............................... 36 Figure 13. Project (Net Increase) Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ............................................. ............................... 37 Figure 14. Approved Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ............................................. ............................... 45 Figure 15. Approved Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ............................................. ............................... 46 Figure 16. Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ................................. I......... 47 Figure 17. Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............ ............................... 48 Figure 18. Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ... ............................... 49 Figure 19. Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects + Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes .... ............................... 50 Figure 20. Cumulative Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ............................................. ............................... 56 Figure 21. Cumulative Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ............................................. ............................... 57 Figure 22. Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes........... 58 Figure 23. Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes........... 59 Figure 24. Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes.............................................................. ............................... 60 Figure 25. Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes.............................................................. ............................... 61 Figure 26. Circulation Recommendations ............................. ............................... 77 I I 1 11 I I I I I I 1 0 11 City of Newport Beach Hoag Health Center Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised) This report contains the revised traffic impact analysis for the Hoag Health Center project. Hoag Health Center (currently known as Newport Technology Center) is located at 500 -540 Superior Avenue. The property is a fully developed office and research & development center. it currently consists of 4 buildings totaling 415,493 square feet with a four -level above grade parking garage. Current approvals allow for 57% research & development, research & develop menttindustrial uses (236,832 square feet) and 43% office uses (178,661 square feet). On December 7, 2006 the Newport Beach Planning Commission adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration Sch. No. 2006 - 101105 and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006 -001 to allow for 97,000 square feet of medical office uses on the site. The approval also allowed for the demolition of an existing 86,079 square foot building to be replaced with a four -level parking garage. The site was proposed to consist of 97,000 square feet of medical office, 136,000 square feet of general office, and 96,414 square feet of research & development. The approval of the 97,000 square feet of medical office is not taken into account in this study because the proposed project is within two years of the most current approval. Therefore, the trips credited for the most recent approval are not taken into account pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). In order to accommodate medical office uses on the site, the project proposes to reduce the overall square footage with the demolition of Building 4, addressed as 530 Superior Avenue (86,079 square feet). The applicant, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is requesting the approval of an amendment to the existing Use Permit (UP2006 -010) to allow: (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet general office and research & development floor area, of the existing 329,414 square feet of existing floor area, to medical office use within the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district; and (2) the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space on -site, for a total of 350,000 square feet of gross floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Pen-nit amendment is 253,000 square feet. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site as CO -M (Commercial Medical Office) and the precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area. This land use designation is intended to provide primarily medical- related uses. The project is expected to open in Year 2008; therefore the traffic analysis is one year after opening year (2009). Currently, the site has 1,332 parking spaces. For site planning purposes, 44 of the existing spaces are to be removed. A total of 1,985 parking spaces are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces in two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on- site parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's parking code. The project also proposes a shuttle service that will consist of a 20 passenger van that will provide shuttle service for physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. The shuttle will be limited to 2 round trips per hour between the two facilities. The shuttle shall be used only by physicians who have offices in the Hoag Health Center and patients at Hoag Hospital. The shuttle shall be used 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. No ancillary parking will be allowed to occur at Hoag Health Center for Hoag Hospital except during a one - year interim period to facilitate completion of Hoag Hospital's construction of its Lower Campus. The shuttle route will be to exit the project central driveway on Superior Avenue and turn right, travel north to Industrial Way and turn right, travel east to Newport Boulevard and turn right, and travel south to Hospital Road and turn right for drop - offs at various locations on the Hoag Hospital campus. The shuttle route will then be reversed. The shuttle route will have no access to Flagship Road /Dana Road and avoids travel adjacent to residences, convalescent homes, and non - signalized intersections. 3 I n J I I� n JI J J 7 11 r� ' The traffic report contains documentation of existing traffic conditions, traffic generated by the project, distribution of the project generated traffic to the ' surrounding roadway network, and an analysis of future traffic conditions. Each of these topics is contained in a separate section of the report. The first section is "Findings ", and subsequent sections expand upon the findings. In this way, ' information on any particular aspect of the study can be easily located by the reader. ' Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A. 1 1 1 1 H 1 11 1 1 3 1. Findings 1 This section summarizes the existing traffic conditions, project traffic impacts, and , the proposed mitigation measures. ' Existing Traffic Conditions Newport Beach Intersections: a. The property is a fully developed office and research & development center. , It currently consists of 4 buildings totaling 415,493 square feet with a four - level above grade parking garage. Current approvals allow for 57% , research & development, research & development/industrial uses (236,832 , square feet) and 43% office uses (178,661 square feet). , On December 7, 2006 the Newport Beach Planning Commission adopted ' Mitigated Negative Declaration Sch. No. 2006 - 101105 and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006 -001 to allow for 97,000 square feet of medical office uses on the site. The approval also allowed for the demolition of an existing 86,079 square foot building to be replaced with a four -level parking garage. The site was proposed to consist of ' 97,000 square feet of medical office, 136,000 square feet of general office, and 96,414 square feet of research & development. The approval of the 97,000 square feet of medical office is not taken into account in this study , because the proposed project is within two years of the most current approval. Therefore, the trips credited for the most recent approval are not taken into account pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). , In order to accommodate medical office uses on the site, the project proposes to reduce the overall square footage with the demolition of ' Building 4, addressed as 530 Superior Avenue (86,079 square feet). b. The project site currently has access to Superior Avenue. , C. Pursuant to discussions with Cities of Newport Beach /Costa Mesa staff, the study area includes the following study area intersections: ' Newport Beach Intersections: Orange Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) , Prospect Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) , Superior Avenue (NS) at: Project Driveway (EW) — With Project Condition Only n i I [_1 1 1 Hospital Road (EW) West Coast Highway (EW) Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) Hospital Road (EW) Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Road (EW) West Coast Highway (EW) Via Lido (EW) 32nd Street (EW) Riverside Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Tustin Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Irvine Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW)l Dover Drive (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Costa Mesa Intersections: Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Victoria Street (EW) 19th Street (EW) 17th Street (EW) Harbor Boulevard (NS) at: Victoria Street (EW) 19th Street (EW) Superior Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) 16th Street (EW) ' Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 19th Street (EW) Broadway (EW) Harbor Boulevard (EW) 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) Cities of Newport Beach /Costa Mesa intersection. 17th Street (EW) 16th Street (EW) Industrial Way (EW) Orange Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) Santa Ana Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) Tustin Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) d. For existing (Year 2007) traffic conditions, the study area intersections are currently operating at Level of Service D or better during the morning /evening peak hours. Traffic Summary a. On December 7, 2006 the Newport Beach Planning Commission adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration Sch. No. 2006- 101105 and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006 -001 to allow for 97,000 square feet of medical office uses on the site. The approval also allowed for the demolition of an existing 86,079 square foot building to be replaced with a four -level parking garage. The site was proposed to consist of 97,000 square feet of medical office, 136,000 square feet of general office, and 96,414 square feet of research & development. The approval of the 97,000 square feet of medical office is not taken into account in this study because the proposed project is within two years of the most current approval. Therefore, the trips credited for the most recent approval are not taken into account pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). In order to accommodate medical office uses on the site, the project proposes to reduce the overall square footage with the demolition of Building 4, addressed as 530 Superior Avenue (86,079 square feet). The applicant, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is requesting the approval of an amendment to the existing Use Permit (UP2006 -010) to allow: (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet general office and research & development floor area, of the existing 329,414 square feet of existing floor area, to medical office use within the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district; and (2) the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space on -site, for a total of 350,000 square feet of gross floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates 0 I 1 1 1 1 E 11 I I 1 I the 13.7 -acre site as CO -M (Commercial Medical Office) and the precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area. This land use ' designation is intended to provide primarily medical - related uses. The project is expected to open in Year 2008; therefore the traffic analysis is one year after opening year (2009). ' b. Based upon City of Newport Beach (NBTAM) rates (see Table 3), the current approval for the project is projected to generate a total of ' approximately 4,757 daily vehicle trips, 601 of which would occur during the morning peak hour and 666 of which would occur during the evening peak hour. The proposed project is projected to generate a total of approximately 17,500 daily vehicle trips, 1,050 of which would occur during the morning peak hour and 1,750 of which would occur during the evening peak hour. Based upon the difference in trips generated between the current approval and proposed project, the proposed project is projected to generate a total of approximately 12,743 more daily vehicle trips, 449 more of which would occur during the morning peak hour and 1,084 more of ' which would occur during the evening peak hour. The City of Newport Beach intersections will use the trips generated above. ' Based upon City of Costa Mesa required ITE rates (see Table 3), the current approval for the project is projected to generate a total of approximately 3,888 daily vehicle trips, 571 of which would occur during the ' morning peak hour and 523 of which would occur during the evening peak hour. The proposed project is projected to generate a total of approximately 12,646 daily vehicle trips, 868 of which would occur during ' the morning peak hour and 1,302 of which would occur during the evening peak hour. Based upon the difference in trips generated between the current approval and proposed project, the project is projected to generate a total of approximately 8,758 more daily vehicle trips, 297 more of which would occur during the morning peak hour and 779 more of which would occur during the evening peak hour. The City of Costa Mesa intersections will use the trips generated above. c. The Cities of Newport Beach /Costa Mesa staff provided the approved and ' cumulative projects in the study area. The approved projects consist of development that has been approved but are not fully completed. Cumulative projects are known, but not approved project developments that ' are reasonably expected to be completed or nearly completed at the same time as the proposed project. d. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis resulted in the following City of Newport Beach study area intersections exceeding the one - percent ' threshold and requiring additional analysis: 7 Orange Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Prospect Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Superior Avenue (NS) at: Hospital Road (EW) West Coast Highway (EW) Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) Hospital Road (EW) Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Road (EW) West Coast Highway (EW) Via Lido (EW) 32nd Street (EW) Riverside Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Tustin Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Irvine Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) Dover Drive (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) e. For existing (Year 2009) + approved projects traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the morning /evening peak hours. f. For existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the moming /evening peak hours. g. A traffic signal is projected to be warranted at the following study area intersection for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + project traffic conditions (see Appendix H): Superior Avenue (NS) at: Project Central Driveway (EW) K l 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ' This traffic signal is a project design feature. h. For existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the morning /evening peak hours, except for the ' following study area intersections that are projected to operate at Level of Service E during the peak hours: ' Superior Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) — Moming /Evening Peak Hours ' Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) — Evening Peak Hour For existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects + project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the morning /evening peak hours, except for the following study area intersections that are projected to operate at Level of Service E during the peak hours: Superior Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) — Moming /Evening Peak Hours ' Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) — Evening Peak Hour j. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis (this part of the analysis is consistent with CEQA) included analysis of the same City of ' Newport Beach study area intersections as the TPO analysis. Comparison of the one - percent increase in the CEQA Intersection Capacity ' Utilization values between the without project and with project traffic conditions (see Table 8) resulted in the following two study area intersections exceeding the one - percent threshold: ' Costa Mesa Intersections: Superior Avenue (NS) at: ' 17th Street (EW) - To alleviate the project's significant impacts, restripe to ' provide a westbound left turn lane, shared left/through lane, through lane, and right turn lane. This improvement would require modification to the traffic signal phasing and ' interconnect with the Newport Boulevard /17th Street intersection. 1 Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) - To alleviate the project's significant impacts, provide a southbound through /right turn lane. The southbound improvement would require street widening. k. Based upon the delay methodology required by the California Department of Transportation, the delay and Level of Service summary for the study area intersections are shown in Table 9. With the improvements listed above or alternative mitigation measures determined to be appropriate (providing equal or better effectiveness) by the City of Costa Mesa, the project is projected to not have a significant impact at the study area intersections. A Synchro operational analysis has been conducted on the study area intersections along Superior Avenue (see Appendix 1). The study area intersections along Superior Avenue are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects + project traffic conditions. The proposed traffic signal at Superior Avenue /Project Central Driveway is not projected to adversely impact adjacent traffic signal operations. Recommended Improvements a. Site - specific circulation and access recommendations are depicted on Figure 23. b. On -site parking shall be provided to meet City of Newport Beach parking code requirements. C. Sight distance at the project accesses shall be reviewed with respect to City of Newport Beach standards in conjunction with the preparation of final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans. d. On -site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project and as approved by the City of Newport Beach. I 1 11 11 e. A traffic signal is projected to be warranted at the following study area ' intersection: Superior Avenue (NS) at: Project Central Driveway (EW) This traffic signal is a project design feature. 10 I� I II 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a. As shown in Table 8 the project - generated traffic resulted in a significant impact at the following study area intersections (increase of one -percent or more at a study area Intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D during the morning /evening peak hours); therefore, the project should contribute its fair share toward the following improvements or alternative mitigation measures determined to be appropriate (providing equal or better effectiveness) by the City of Costa Mesa are recommended at the following study area intersections: Costa Mesa Intersections: Superior Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EVV) To alleviate the project's significant impacts, restripe to provide a westbound left turn lane, shared left/through lane, through lane, and right tum lane- This improvement would require modification to the traffic signal phasing and interconnect with the Newport Boulevard /17th Street intersection. Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) - To alleviate the project's significant impacts, provide a southbound through/right turn lane. The southbound improvement would require street widening. Based upon the delay methodology required by the California Department of Transportation, the delay and Level of Service summary for the study area intersections are shown in Table 9. With the improvements listed above or altemative mitigation measures determined to be appropriate (providing equal or better effectiveness) by the City of Costa Mesa, the project is projected to not have a significant impact at the study area intersections. 11 2. Project Description This section discusses the project's location, proposed development, and traffic characteristics of such a development. Figure 1 shows the project location map and Figure 2 illustrates the site plan. Location The Hoag Health Center (currently known as Newport Technology Center) is located at 500 -540 Superior Avenue. The project site currently has access to Superior Avenue, Proposed Development The property is a fully developed office and research & development center. It currently consists of 4 buildings totaling 415,493 square feet with a four -level above grade parking garage. Current approvals allow for 57% research & development, research & development/industrial uses (236,832 square feet) and 43% office uses (178,661 square feet). On December 7, 2006 the Newport Beach Planning Commission adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration Sch. No. 2006 - 101105 and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006 -001 to allow for 97,000 square feet of medical office uses on the site. The approval also allowed for the demolition of an existing 86,079 square foot building to be replaced with a four -level parking garage. The site was proposed to consist of 97,000 square feet of medical office, 136,000 square feet of general office, and 96,414 square feet of research & development. The approval of the 97,000 square feet of medical office is not taken into account in this study because the proposed project is within two years of the most current approval. Therefore, the trips credited for the most recent approval are not taken into account pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). In order to accommodate medical office uses on the site, the project proposes to reduce the overall square footage with the demolition of Building 4, addressed as 530 Superior Avenue (86,079 square feet). The applicant, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is requesting the approval of an amendment to the existing Use Permit (UP2006 -010) to allow: (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet general office and research & development floor area, of the existing 329,414 square feet of existing floor area, to medical office use within the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district; and (2) the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space on -site, for a total of 350,000 square feet of gross floor area. The total new 12 ' medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site as CO -M (Commercial Medical Office) and the precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area. This land use designation is intended to provide primarily medical- related uses. The project is ' expected to open in Year 2008; therefore the traffic analysis is one year after opening year (2009). ' Currently, the site has 1,332 parking spaces. For site planning purposes, 44 of the existing spaces are to be removed. A total of 1,985 parking spaces are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and ' 1,558 spaces in two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on- site parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's parking code. ' The project also proposes a shuttle service that will consist of a 20 passenger van that will provide shuttle service for physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. The shuttle ' will be limited to 2 round trips per hour between the two facilities. The shuttle shall be used only by physicians who have offices in the Hoag Health Center and patients at Hoag Hospital. The shuttle shall be used 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. No ancillary parking will be allowed to occur at Hoag Health Center for Hoag Hospital except during a one- ' year interim period to facilitate completion of Hoag Hospital's construction of its Lower Campus. ' The shuttle route will be to exit the project central driveway on Superior Avenue and turn right, travel north to Industrial Way and turn right, travel east to Newport ' Boulevard and turn right, and travel south to Hospital Road and turn right for drop - offs at various locations on the Hoag Hospital campus. The shuttle route will then be reversed. The shuttle route will have no access to Flagship Road /Dana Road ' and avoids travel adjacent to residences, convalescent homes, and non - signalized intersections. I I I I 13 14 Figure 1 Project Location Mop victoria Street N 9 01 4 � o m c �5 U O � Z CL 19th Street 18th Street /Broadway Rochester Orange Street -� Avenue 17th Street �o 16th Street Industrial �� a0 Orange way @ o e Street Prospect ` i P Street Newport Boulevard ad+� P �\ Hospital Riverside Road Avenue Tustin Avenue Balboa Boulevard Dover Yo Lido Drive sf host Hi wa SR -1 32nd Street Kunz7aan Associates 3568d/i 14 w Figure 2 Site Plan 15 3%8d/2 I 3. Existing Traffic Conditions Superior Avenue (EW) The traffic conditions as they exist today are discussed below and illustrated on Figures 3 to 7. Study Area Intersections ' Pursuant to discussions with the Cities of Newport Beach /Costa Mesa staff, the study area includes the following study area intersections: Newport Beach Intersections: Orange Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Prospect Street (NS) at: ' West Coast Highway (EW) Superior Avenue (NS) at: , Project Driveway (EW) — With Project Condition Only Hospital Road (EW) West Coast Highway (EW) Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) Hospital Road (EW) Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Road (EW) West Coast Highway (EW) Via Lido (EW) 32nd Street (EW) Riverside Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) ' Tustin Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Irvine Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW)1 Cities of Newport Beach /Costa Mesa intersection. I 16 1 I Dover Drive (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Costa Mesa Intersections: Figure 3 identifies the existing intersection controls and Figure 4 illustrates the existing number of through lanes for the study area intersections. Existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways Figure 5 exhibits the current City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element. Both existing and future roadways are included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and are graphically depicted on Figure 5. This figure 1 17 Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Victoria Street (EW) 19th Street (EW) N17th Street (EW) Harbor Boulevard (NS) at: Victoria Street (EW) 19th Street (EW) Figure 3 identifies the existing intersection controls and Figure 4 illustrates the existing number of through lanes for the study area intersections. Existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways Figure 5 exhibits the current City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element. Both existing and future roadways are included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and are graphically depicted on Figure 5. This figure 1 17 Superior Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) 16th Street (EW) Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 19th Street (EW) Broadway (EW) Harbor Boulevard (EW) 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) ' 17th Street (EW) 16th Street (EW) Industrial Way (EW) Orange Avenue (NS) at: ' 17th Street (EW) Santa Ana Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) Tustin Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) Existing Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls Figure 3 identifies the existing intersection controls and Figure 4 illustrates the existing number of through lanes for the study area intersections. Existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways Figure 5 exhibits the current City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element. Both existing and future roadways are included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and are graphically depicted on Figure 5. This figure 1 17 shows the nature and extent of arterial highways that are needed to serve adequately the ultimate development depicted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Figure 6 shows the City of Newport Beach General Plan roadway cross - sections. Existing Traffic Volumes The Cities of Newport Beach /Costa Mesa staff provided the Year 2003120051200612007 morning and evening peak hour approach volumes at each study area intersection, in addition to traffic counts obtained by Kunzman Associates (see Appendix B). To account for regional growth on roadways, existing (Year 2007) traffic volumes have been calculated based on a 1 percent annual growth rate. The 1 percent growth rate factor is for designated roadways within the City of Newport Beach. The regional growth rate has been obtained from the Cities of Newport Beach /Costa Mesa. Existing (Year 2007) morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures 7 and 8, respectively. Existina Intersection Capacity Utilization The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization. The Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology (see Appendix C) is not the only method to analyze a signalized intersection, but the preferred method per the City of Newport Beach TPO. To calculate an Intersection Capacity Utilization value, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. An Intersection Capacity Utilization value is usually expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. The Levels of Service for existing (Year 2007) traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 1. Existing (Year 2007) Intersection Capacity Utilization worksheets are provided in Appendix C. For existing (Year 2007) traffic conditions, the study area intersections currently operate at Level of Service D or better during the morning /evening peak hours. 18 Table 1 Existing (Year 2007) Intersection Capacity Utilization and Levels of Service ICU -LOS = IMersecgdn Capecey Mraallon - Leval of SerwC& 2 When a NM turn lone is denigneted, the Was can ether W striped or unatnped. To function me a 09M turn lane. there met M s lmm vndth W nght teeing vMNtles to hovel oNLde the through lanes L a Leh: T = Through: R = singer: » v Fore RIM Turn: > = Rehr Turn Over ap 3 T =TreMCSknal 19 Intersection A oproach Lanes" Peak Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound I Westbound Traffic ICU -LOS' Intersectron Control' L T R L T R L T R L T R Morning Evening Newport Beach Intersections Orange Street (NS) at West Coast Highway EVV) TS 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 0.66 -B 0.70 -B Prospect Street (NS) at West Coast Highway E TS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.77 -C O.B &B Superior Avenue (NS) at Hospital Road (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1.5 0.5 0 0.87 -B 0.4 6-A West Coast Highway EW TS 1.5 1.5 0 1 1.5 1.5 2 2 3 1 1 1 4 0 0.70 -C I 0.63 -B Placentia Avenue (NS) at; Supenor Avenue (EW) TS 0,5 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.60 -A 0.68 -B Hospital Road E TS 0 1 1 1.5 0.5 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.34 -A 0.41 -A Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Road (EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 0.50 -A 0.67.8 West Coast Highway (EW) TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1» 0 3 1» 0.76 -C 0.66 -8 Via Lido (EW) TS 0 3 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 041 -A 0.43 -A 32nd Street fEM TS 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 J1.5 0.5 1» 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.44 -A 0.78 -C Riverside Avenue (NS) at West Caast Highway E TS 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 0.74 -C 0.77 -C Tustin Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway EW) TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 0.74 -C 0.59 -A Irvine Avenue (NS) at 17th Street TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 0.53 -A 0.71 -C Dover Drive (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) TS 1 1 2 0 3 1 1 2 3 0 1 3 1>> 0.74 -C 0.7 8-C Costa Mesa Intersections Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Victoria Street (EW) TS 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.801C 0.85 -D 19th Street (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 1 0.47 -A 0.53 -A 17th Street (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.3 &A 0.51 -A Harbor Boulevard (NS) at: Victoria Street (EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 0.73 -C 086 -D 19th Street IWO TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 0 1 3 1 0.40 -A 0.75 -C Superior Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) TS 1 0.5 1.5 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.89 -0 0.81 -D 16th Street (EM TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1» 1 1 0 0.39 -A 0.36 -A Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 19th Street (EW) TS 1 3 1 1 2.5 1.5 2.5 1.S 1 1 2.5 1.5 0.79 -C 0.83 -D Broadway (EW) TS 1 3 0 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0.59 -A 0.6 &B Harbor Boulevard (EW) TS 2 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 2> 0 0 0 0.66 -B 0.74 -C 18th StreeVRochester Street (EW) TS 1 3 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0.73 -C D 8 &D 17th Street (EW) TS 1 3 1 2 3 D 3 2 D 2 3 1 0.79 -C 043 -D 16th Street (EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 D D 1 1 D 1 1 0.47 -A OAM Industrial Way E TS 1 3 D 1 3 D 1 D 1 1 1 1 1 0.57 -A 0.55 -A Orange Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street E TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.5 8-A D.64 -13 Santa Ana Avenue (NSI at: 17tH Street E TS 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 D.+1-A().664-B Tustin Avenue (NS) at. 17th Street E TS 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 D 1 2 D 0. ICU -LOS = IMersecgdn Capecey Mraallon - Leval of SerwC& 2 When a NM turn lone is denigneted, the Was can ether W striped or unatnped. To function me a 09M turn lane. there met M s lmm vndth W nght teeing vMNtles to hovel oNLde the through lanes L a Leh: T = Through: R = singer: » v Fore RIM Turn: > = Rehr Turn Over ap 3 T =TreMCSknal 19 I Figure 3 Existing Intersection Controls 4D 6D 15 Vctoria Street 0 4D 4D 4D 18 d 9 d o m 6D o z 22 6D 4D 4D 19th Street 5D 19 60 O 16 16th 4D •'• 2 SD Street 2U Broadway 250 hoc ester 4D 2D Street _ Orange 2U Avenue 2U Q46D $ �& 2U 17th Street 2 2U 2U 62U Qc° 17 16th 40 4D D 2U 4D �° o` — 29 zu Street 27 P 1 �JS JZ 0 Indust al 2U 30 4D P 2U 2U Orange Street ,z 40 4D 1� 2U 40 31 2U Prospect ` Site r 228 Newport 6D 60 O Street 5 Boulevard 4U 13• 40 2U 1 2U 6 4D L% 6D .fFJO 4U 2U 2 a 7 Riverside 6D ospital 5° 6D Avenue 4 4p Road Tustin Avenue � 11 4U / 4D Balboa Boulevard 4D 7D 8 5D 2U Dover 6D Via 5D Drive ' Lido 12s7 4D 9 Caost lii hW SR-1 r 5D : 2nd 40 6D 6D14 4U Street 4D 10 2U Lqgend 0 = Traffic Signal ��= Stop Sign 4 = Through Trove] Lones D = Divided U = Undivided >>= free Right Turn > = Right Turn Overlap Kunzman Associates 3568d/3 I Figure 4 Existing Through Travel Lanes db4�1 dbb�+ db4�1.5 dbb�, �bb�1 dbb�+ i db4�, '-9°IYP 1 -90I�P o-9h4P z-9hYP 1�hYP +�hYP z-9�YP Orange Street/ Prospect Street/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Aveme/ PlaWHIa Avenue/ Placentia Amue/ Newport Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Road West Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Rand Hospital Rood Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Rlwside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Irvine Avenue/ Dover Drive/ West Coast Hwy Via Lido 72nd Street West Corm Hwy West Coast Mrs 17th Streel/ West Coact Hwy Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Amm/ Harbor Boulevard/ Harbor Boulevard/ Superior Avervae/ Superior Avenue/ Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street Vittorio Street 19th street 17th Street t6th Street Newport Boulevard/ Newport Bouevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ 19th Street Broadway Harbor Boulevard ,8th Streel/Rodrestcr St 17th Street 16th Street Industrial Way orange Avenue / Santo Am Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street Ku�n2man Associates intersection reference numbers ore in upper left comer of fuming movement boxes. 3568d /bbas 21 29 4-1 �1 3i �0 dbbsi B �U> 9 4-2 10 �1» 11 a1 72 �1 f3 ap 14 4-U> db4sp a-2 db4�+ a-2 a�bbsos a-1 dbb�+ a-2 dbb�o db4�1 db4�1 a-3 o-9hYP p-9hYP 16 -9hYP 1 -9'IYP 1-9hYP z-9hYP z-9hYP 3� —.�0 +-9hYP zs°tYP t�°tYP zshtP — zs9YP —^— 1-9hYP —�•+ 1s°IYt' 1—p —ro 2� 2� ^' 3� 2� 0� 21 29 4-1 �1 3i �0 dbbsi 5 =1 16 4-1 17 2p 16 4-1 z— �e°IYI° dbbsl a-2 db4�z a-2 db4�, a-1 dabs, a-2 dbksz a�bbsp dabs+ dais, p9hYP j9hYP db4�z SshYP p90IYP os°IYP +-9hYP zs°tYP t�°tYP zshtP — zs9YP —^— 1-9hYP —�•+ 1s°IYt' 1—p —ro 2� 2� ^' 3� 2� t� Oa 0� 0� 21 29 4-1 �1 3i �0 dbbsi 22 £-1.5 21 4-p 21 ap 5 �p z— �e°IYI° dbbsl dais, dbbsp dabs, a-1 dbksz a�bbsp dabs+ as9ryYP p9hYP j9hYP zs°IYP SshYP p90IYP os°IYP 1-0 — ^O 21 29 4-1 �1 3i �0 dbbsi ddbsi dabs z— se %YI° Z�°IgI° z— �e°IYI° 21 Figure 6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Roadway Cross — Sections 128' MIN ROW OB' MIN 10' 46' ELI MAJOR NIGNWAY 104' MIN ROW 84' MIN 10' 34' 8' - -Y-- 8' 34' 10' MAJOR STREET 84' MIN ROW 64' MIN 10' 32' 32' 10' i PRIMARY STREET 60'MIN ROW 40'MIN 10' 20' — -20' 10' i SECONDARY STREET 56' MIN ROW 36' MIN 10' 78'-- -� -18' 10' i LOCAL STREET Source: City of Newport Beach 3568d/6 23 Figure 7 Existing (Year 2007) Moaning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 48 0 1 a R alb 1032 1z g 4 150 0 z dbbs5 C -1118 4 506 v 3 X dbba3z �p °�O 4 9 0 f m FI 2 dbkss X508 4 76 v 5 `� = X260 a52 '`i 4 SB3 0 6 '_ '" dbb�laa X115 4 1599 v DI 7 M= yi dbbs63 4-224 ° 4 ° 199 289�� %YP 2 °„^, ° 139�YP 325/ eI , ° �'4 446�1y& 45� °�i °9 2gffl %YP ^X� D PO2 f � ° 40� ^�^ 259 6x324 72 n 6 n 764 n 618 291 n 106 o f orange Street / Prospect Street/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy West Coast Hey Hospital Road West Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Road Hospnd Road 738 0 dbbso 4 1 43 o dlbz9 4 gA o 6 r, �'" dbbzl D 295 5z� 13� 4-25 4-33 141 qpl 0 1 si 61-9 4 -1249 14 I T 52 v 12 1 9161za D 279°I�!j 2263 0� 4-36 4 -1246 - 4 ° 825 o 13 dbbssz ° j9411P 484 ::Aar- 201 4-59 ` 14 I If v 'e 9�bbzzg D ,zs9gYP 31� 4-885 4-1293 - 4 D o9°IYI° 645 405 0 ° p90IYP 0� v �$= t 21109 �90IYP 2110 I6� 0 D 879 1531 -D 467 0 915 �'4 446�1y& 45� 166 Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Irvine Avenue/ Down Drive/ West Coast Hwy Via Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street/ West Coast Hwy 552 v 15 7R x e 4116 4-57 4-435° ^ 4 690 v 16 m b b 4-102 4-211 - 4 634 0 17 d 110 4 55 4 -159 4 7262 o 4-119 4-562 s133 mi 4 629 0 9 ^r 4� b b 4-168 4-j6j 4 405 0 4-27 4 -436 m 4 v 4-17 6-0 829 4 8 >R = d b b F F," d b b 21 _ ° e b b D 879 1531 -D 467 yx1p81 I I P ,°may F4 ° �'4 446�1y& 45� 4sp99 1 I P D 32� IMF< gs45 I Y P g D 262 1311 --l> 41 P !g ° 2689 746�^,�HO gslps I I P P 11s M 631 -02N 3I� 6x324 n 2� 0� _ n 731 n spy o 46 o f < 30 n W73 n 43 I Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Hater Boulevard/ Superior Avenue / Superior Avenue/ ` Victoria Street 191h Street 17th Street Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street 16th Street 3055 0 22 �„ w _ 5; _ db10 4-279 4-142 36 4 2419 23 ° dbbs3 4-65 4-5 - a 2355 - 4 .'Pi 0 dbIs ap 4-D -D ° 4 2825 0 dbbsl 4-50 4-69 R a 4-42 4-118 4-,86 sl3g 4 1518 0 27 n n dbar37 4-39 4-34 _ = 4 1489 0 28 _ - f � dbb�3 4-51 4-711 4 D 7769IT 4 ° 69QYD s38 4 z7s41g1° D 249941YP D R-Z IfP ° j19°IYP ° 90 °1 113� n 3� ° 530 -rya ifi/��Fl^ W =W 07 13z- 1002^ 2483 2465 n 2328 1947 n 111 Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newpart Boulevard/ Newport Boulewxd/ Newpml Boulevard/ Neepork B.k ad/ Newport Bodevard/ 19th Street Broadway Harbor Boulevard 18th Streei/Rutester St 17th Street 16th Street Industrial Way Orange Avenue / Santa Ana Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. 3568d/bbas I 24 5 0 248 v 3 �1N ` 4-42 4 31 $ 4-37 db4s 4 dbb,34 4 d14��4 s38 4 399 9 Y P D 479 to 1096 g� 110fi- s 1106- n 346 07 Orange Avenue / Santa Ana Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. 3568d/bbas I 24 Figure 8 Existing (Year 2007) Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 49 v 1 41 R b 4_40 4 -7037 36 - - 4 102 v 2 d1b. 4_17 4-2901 25 n 4 873 v 3 �,� d1b6446 4_68 4-0 4 1138 o 4 �R= d1b6147 4_1W 4-2187 4 n 5 `+� d1101-58 4-13 4-636 4 407 v 6 �1bsSW L,g9 f --174 4 7,;@ v r�3 d1b X34 4 -161 6149 4 ° n� %t ° ° tee %t ° ° 0� %tP §i 4 � %tP °' 12 %t1° ° �9°ItI° 4-66 4-70➢ ° a7s1YP 4-59 o-0 s33 a 1245 113 ;% 4 1470 153 °^�� 4 0�° 03 0 H 11W�m 225 �. `� g 4 436 -9 13-a �, Rr,$ 4 BIB - -0rew 2f -a ° 4 1$�- 257a !e N o� %tP ° 6�htP 24m3�R 9 193�1T 9433 ° 266 n 535 ° 32�' %t1° w 251%t�° ° ° 172 °.�,., Rng ° 1776 O ange Street / Prospect Street / Superior Amue/ Superior Avenue/ Placentlo Avmue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy Weet Coast Hwy Hospital Road NO Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospitd Rand Hospild Road Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ BNne Avenue Dover Drive/ West Coast Hwy You Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street/ West coost Hwy G86 v 2580 v 21f9 v 29 ° 52f v = l6 0 = 31 `'7 � 1738 0' dlbs69 892 v �lbs9$ e Ao Lsm 4-7946 n 9 4-514 4-0 RV 10 Y � 4-35 4-37 §i 4 11 4-5g 4-2m - 4 12 4-47 - 4 13 4-66 4-70➢ a ZI �e (b 4-59 o-0 s33 a dlbso �61 4 4dbbs28 Ol 4 bbs22 ° 4 dbbs26 N 4 dbbso ° 4 dbbrn0 ° 4 dbbs3, 3093 N o� %tP ° 6�htP 24m3�R 9 193�1T 9433 ° 266 %t1° ° 32�' %t1° w 251%t�° ° 03 °.�,., Rng 11 ° � �3 fi^ 1�� K -' 1563'-0'° n 946 n 6 608 S c 861 518 , 2573° 03 2573 n 2581 e12v824 i61f D 7 D 1 ° 0 e1 e1 n 47 n Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ BNne Avenue Dover Drive/ West Coast Hwy You Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street/ West coost Hwy G86 v 693 v 561 v 29 ° 3142 v = 1176 0 = 31 `'7 � v dlbs69 892 v �lbs9$ m albb 4-1522 143 = 4 16 ^. 23 dbbx176 =210 4-4U 4 1 ^Y9 dbb�ss 4_215 4-119 §i 4 q dbbrt2 4-140 4-1402 - 4 19 R $ gym- dbbszW 4-467 4-1907 - 4 �� dbbs 4-81 4-427 +n a ZI �e (b 4-59 o-0 s33 a 3 �61 4 325x Ol > 49s' % t t° ° 253s llP N 549s % t t° ° 269 % t �° ° l� dbbs3, 3093 ��s %tr 2993 15�%YP 24m3�R ° 56s' %t I° 9433 21n� - X563 = 543 71)3 S1R� ° 03 °.�,., °�� �° �3 gY° -g- 514 K -' e/ n 946 n 6 n 15 S c 861 Plocmfia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Harbor Boulevard/ Superior Avenue / Superior Avenue/ VURAID Street 1% Street 17th Street Victoria Street 191h Street 17th Street 16111 Street Newport Boulevard/ Newport Baalevord/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ 19th Street Roadway Harbor Boulevard 18th Street/Rochesler St 171h Street 16th Street Industrial Way 522 v v 2W3 v 29 ° 3142 v = 4-90 4-18279 = 31 `'7 � 2013 v dlbs69 4 �lbs9$ 4-283 dbbs73 o�� 4-p 24N h� ° RB h116 �$ 4-562 .o8m 4-75 ZB ^ o-9D 3 �61 4 4lbbs46 4 1. O 4 d14s15 n 340 4 dbb�22 4 d14s5, 4 dbbs3, 4 R2768 %tr > 15�%YP ° 56s' %t I° w 21n� > 537s1T ° Z09Itr ° °�� �° �3 gY° -g- 514 K -' �3 =�3 1DD553 o- D� 518 , 323 2573 n 2581 e12v824 i61f D 7 D 1 Newport Boulevard/ Newport Baalevord/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ 19th Street Roadway Harbor Boulevard 18th Street/Rochesler St 171h Street 16th Street Industrial Way 522 v 366 v 251 0 29 ° 4-213 = 4-90 4-18279 = 31 `'7 � 4-1169 dlbs69 4 �lbs9$ 4 dbbs73 4 °tow 3 s23 n 439 n n 340 Orange Avenue/ Santa Ara Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street LKunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. 3568d/bbas I 25 4. Project Traffic The property is a fully developed office and research & development center. It currently consists of 4 buildings totaling 415,493 square feet with a four -level above grade parking garage. Current approvals allow for 57% research & development, research & developmentlindustrial uses (236,832 square feet) and 43% office uses (178,661 square feet). On December 7, 2006 the Newport Beach Planning Commission adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration Sch. No. 2006 - 101105 and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006 -001 to allow for 97,000 square feet of medical office uses on the site. The approval also allowed for the demolition of an existing 86,079 square foot building to be replaced with a four -level parking garage. The site was proposed to consist of 97,000 square feet of medical office, 136,000 square feet of general office, and 96,414 square feet of research & development. The approval of the 97,000 square feet of medical office is not taken into account in this study because the proposed project is within two years of the most current approval. Therefore, the trips credited for the most recent approval are not taken into account pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). In order to accommodate medical office uses on the site, the project proposes to reduce the overall square footage with the demolition of Building 4, addressed as 530 Superior Avenue (86,079 square feet). The applicant, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is requesting the approval of an amendment to the existing Use Permit (UP2006 -010) to allow: (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet general office and research & development floor area, of the existing 329,414 square feet of existing floor area, to medical office use within the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district; and (2) the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space on -site, for a total of 350,000 square feet of gross floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site as CO -M (Commercial Medical Office) and the precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area. This land use designation is intended to provide primarily medical- related uses. The project is expected to open in Year 2008; therefore the traffic analysis is one year after opening year (2009). Currently, the site has 1,332 parking spaces. For site planning purposes, 44 of the existing spaces are to be removed. A total of 1,985 parking spaces are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 26 I I Q I I I D 1,558 spaces in two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on- site parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's parking code. The project also proposes a shuttle service that will consist of a 20 passenger van that will provide shuttle service for physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. The shuttle will be limited to 2 round trips per hour between the two facilities. The shuttle shall be used only by physicians who have offices in the Hoag Health Center and patients at Hoag Hospital. The shuttle shall be used 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. No ancillary parking will be allowed to occur at Hoag Health Center for Hoag Hospital except during a one - year interim period to facilitate completion of Hoag Hospital's construction of its Lower Campus. The shuttle route will be to exit the project central driveway on Superior Avenue and turn right, travel north to Industrial Way and turn right, travel east to Newport Boulevard and turn right, and travel south to Hospital Road and turn right for drop - offs at various locations on the Hoag Hospital campus. The shuttle route will then be reversed. The shuttle route will have no access to Flagship Road /Dana Road and avoids travel adjacent to residences, convalescent homes, and non - signalized intersections. Traffic Generation The traffic generated by the project is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the availability of vehicles to drive, and our life styles remain similar to what we know today. A major change in these variables may affect trip generation rates. Trip generation rates were determined for daily traffic, morning peak hour inbound and outbound traffic, and evening peak hour inbound and outbound traffic for the proposed land uses. By multiplying the traffic generation rates by the land use quantities, the project - generated traffic volumes are determined. Table 2 exhibits the traffic generation rates. The City of Newport Beach trip generation rates are derived from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). The City of Costa Mesa trip generation rates are derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. The two cities require the use of different trip generation rates. Table 3 shows the project peak hour volumes and project daily traffic volumes. Based upon City of Newport Beach (NBTAM) rates (see Table 3), the current approval for the project is projected to generate a total of approximately 4,757 daily vehicle trips, 601 of which would occur during the morning peak hour and 666 of which would occur during the evening peak hour. The proposed project is 27 I projected to generate a total of approximately 17,500 daily vehicle trips, 1,050 of which would occur during the morning peak hour and 1,750 of which would occur during the evening peak hour. Based upon the difference in trips generated between the current approval and proposed project, the proposed project is projected to generate a total of approximately 12,743 more daily vehicle trips, 449 more of which would occur during the morning peak hour and 1,084 more of which would occur during the evening peak hour. The City of Newport Beach intersections will use the trips generated above. Based upon City of Costa Mesa required ITE rates (see Table 3), the current approval for the project is projected to generate a total of approximately 3,888 daily vehicle trips, 571 of which would occur during the morning peak hour and 523 of which would occur during the evening peak hour. The proposed project is projected to generate a total of approximately 12,646 daily vehicle trips, 868 of which would occur during the morning peak hour and 1,302 of which would occur during the evening peak hour. Based upon the difference in trips generated between the current approval and proposed project, the project is projected to generate a total of approximately 8,758 more daily vehicle trips, 297 more of which , would occur during the morning peak hour and 779 more of which would occur during the evening peak hour. The City of Costa Mesa intersections will use the trips generated above. Traffic Generation Comparison Table 4 shows a traffic generation comparison with the currently approved project (97,000 square feet of medical office), even though the conclusions in this traffic study do not take it into account. Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution is the determination of the directional orientation of traffic. It is based on the geographical location of employment centers, commercial centers, recreational areas, or residential area concentrations. The traffic distribution is based upon previous traffic studies conducted for the project site. The Hoag Healthcare Center Traffic Impact Analyses prepared by Kunzman Associates (August 11, 2006 and September 27, 2006). The TPO requires the trip distribution percentages to be in increments of 5 %. Traffic assignment is the determination of which specific route development traffic will use, once the generalized traffic distribution is determined. The basic factors affecting route selection are minimum time path and minimum distance path. Figure 9 contains the directional distribution and assignment of the project traffic for the proposed land use. 28 1 IProject- Related Traffic Based on the identified traffic generation and distribution, project (total) morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures 10 and 11, respectively. The project (net increase) morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures 12 and 13, respectively. I v J 1 29 Table 2 Traffic Generation Rates City of Newport Beach' Land Use Units2 Peak Hour Daily Morning Evening Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outboundl Total Medical Office General Office R&D TSF TSF TSF 2.40 1.69 1 1.00 0.60 0.21 0.10 3.00 1.90 1.10 1.50 0.32 0.30 3.50 1.55 1.10 5.00 1.87 1.40 50.00 14.03 9.50 City of Costa Mesa3 Land Use Units2 Peak Hour Daily Morning Evening Inbound 10utboundl Total I Inbound Outbound I Total Medical Office General Office ,R&D TSF TSF TSF 1.96 1.36 1.03 0.52 0.19 0.21 2.48 1.55 1.24 1.00 0.25 0.16 2.72 1.24 0.92 3.72 1.49 1.08 36.13 11.01 8.11 ' Source: Newport Beach Traffic AnaVWs Model. ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 9 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trio Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. Land Use Categories 720. 710. and 760. 5 I I Ll I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I Table 3 Project Traffic Generation City of Newport Beach Land Use Quantity Units'l Peak Hour Daily Morninq Evening Inbound I Outbound Total Inbound I Outbound Total Current Approval: 178.661 236.832 415.493 TSF TSF TSF 302 237 539 38 24 62 340 261 601 57 71 128 277 261 538 334 332 666 2,507 2,250 4,757 General Office R&D Total Proposed Protect: 350.000 TSF 1 840 210 1,050 525 1,225 1,750 17,500 Medical Office Difference 1 3011 1481 4491 3971 687 1,084 12,743 City of Costa Mesa Land Use Quantity Units' Peak Hour Daily Morning Evening Inbound I Outbound Total Inbound Outhoundl Total Current Approval: 178.661 236.832 415.493 TSF TSF TSF 243 244 487 34 50 84 277 294 571 45 38 83 222 218 440 267 256 523 1,967 1,921 3,888 General Office R&D Total Proposed Proiect: 350.000 TSF 6861 1821 8681 350 952 1,302 12,646 Medical Office Difference 199 98 297 267 512 779 8,758 ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 31 Table 4 Traffic Generation Comparison Land Use Quantity Units' Peak Hour Daily Morning Evening Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Previous Project: 97.000 136.000 96.414 TSF TSF TSF 233 230 96 559 58 29 10 97 291 259 106 656 146 44 29 219 340 211 106 657 486 255 135 876 4,850 1,908 916 7,674 Medical Office General Office R&D Total Proposed Project: 350.000 TSF 840 210 1,050 525 1,225 1,750 17,500 Medical Office Difference 281 113 394 306 568 874 9,826 ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 32 I I I I I 1J I 1 1 1 11 i [1 I r i I i Figure 9 Project Traffic Distribution 5% 5% victoria Street a ° i 55% ` / ° x � 20% 51 20% t 19th Street 145% 18th Broadway pp, ! Street 20% Site ochester e Oran Street 9 Avenue 20% 25% ` 17th Street o0 \ . 164U `, rest`. `' �' s 5%,% ndustrial °y�ec 5% Orange way 15% P co � � � 20% Street Prospect i Newport Street 5% .,' Boulevard 25 20% 10% Hospito 5% Riverside Road Avenue Tustin 15% Avenue i Balboa ' Boulevard 5% Dover Yia Drive Lida �PSr oast Nf we SR -1 15% 32nd Street 5% LWd 10% = Percent To/F•om Project Kunzman Associates 3568d/9 W Figure 10 Project (Total) Morning Peak Hour IntersectionTurning Movement Volumes 0e S_p 4 Oe 4-p o 4 53e 4.p 4-0 o 4 520 l3 30 0e 4-p 4-0 4 v 4-p 4-0 10 4-p 4-0 69 4 1 2p 2 20 3 4-0 ° 4 �p ° 5 a.p w ° 9o�wS= 11 12 7 �p db4�o 4-42 4 a1�4�o 4-42 4 0 db4�a 4-0 4 `" db4�a 4-0 4 M6b� 4-53 4 dbb�o 4-64 4 di4�o 4-0 4 168- ° 0 T �° %YP ° o� ° °�%YP M ° °�%YP p° I68� 0 0� ° p� o 210�00� Jl�000 31�° O�,V°`Y° 000 31�'- 0 ° 0 ° f2 ° 168 ° 66 Orange Street/ Prospect Street/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Anenue/ Placentia Aveiue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport BMevard/ West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Road West Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospild Road Hospital Rood 31e S_p 4 10e 4-p o 4 34e 17 X o db4�o 4.p 4-0 o 4 0v l3 30 Oe 4-p 4-0 4 v 4-p 4-0 Oe 4-p 4-0 69 4 7 X ° 21 $ alb 6 4-103 4 ° OBIT o 2p °' p�°a,00,U- S_p ° 37 -9 26�34-3 0� 4 o ° 'r_p %YP ° 9o�wS= 11 12 13 f 9 4-0 �o 4 b�o 4-0 4 R42 4 �u 4 dbb�o 4 dbb�o 4-64 4 dl4. 4 -126 o 0 T ° °p — %YP ° °�%YP 10� p° Jl�000 31�° 000 ° 0 ° p ° p Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue / hvine Avenue/ Dona Drivs/ West Coast Hwy Via Lida 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street/ Wast Coast Hwy 34e 15 S_p 4 34e 16 b4so 4-p o 4 34e 17 X o db4�o 4.p 4-0 o 4 172 a 25 db4 l3 30 e �°zo 4-p 4-0 4 34 e 4-p 4-0 240e 4-p 4-0 69 4 7 X ° 21 $ alb 6 4-103 4 ° OBIT °� ° °' p�°a,00,U- %Y%Y° ° 37 -9 26�34-3 0� WR9 ° %YP ° 9o�wS= W o��YP 69� ^ 9 9 9 ° p 99 Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Bowl v d/ Harbor Boulevard / Superior Amos/ Superior Avenue/ Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street 16th Street 137 e ?? �p 4-0 23 v '�' S_p 4-0 1 f db4�o S_p 4-0 ° 4 172 a 25 db4 l3 30 1710 X ° db44° i3 31 34 e 4-p 4-0 34 v 5_p 4-0 7 X ° X 4-103 4 ° OBIT °� %YP ° °� o� 0� P-46 ° 37 -9 26�34-3 0� P�9 ° °� %YP ° 9o�wS= 28� ° 9 34 Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Baulevord/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Doalewwd/ 19th Street Broadway Harbor Boulevard 18th Street/Rochester St 17th Street 16th Street Industrial Way v D� 29 4u l3 30 5_p i3 31 db4�o 4 dbb�0 4-103 4 4-103 4 ° OBIT ° IYP ° p9%YP �Of 28� ° ° 0 a D ° p Orange Avenue / Santa Afro Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street Kunz776 n Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. 3568d/bbas 34 i Figure 11 Project (Total) Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 0 v 1 db44-245 2p �o uj `� 4 p, 2 dbbso 2p 4-245 4 307 v 3 a dbbso 2p 4-0 e 4 30fi v 4 - dbks0 2p 4-0 e 4 p e 5 db�ps245 Lp 4-307 4 245 0 6 w m a��4so 279 a- 4 fit ar 7 '- dbbso 2p e 4-0 4 b p9°IYI° 4yo p4 lelel b 09°IYP p9giP ° 0�411P 09 N 105 4..7. b p34IYP osOIYP ° 0�°IYP 619°IYP ° o9 %YP 1D5�° 0� 0_ 0� 1f6-°eeo 0� 0a 0_0 Oy '- 0 -0 0� D� 184 p� 137 --0oeis 0� 184-p° p� O�eNe O� 0 -0 123 -0 Dom. O��Ao 184 ,s 48 o p o 0 26 a 105 o n � _ 17 48 n n 0 n Z6 n Zfi o 0 Orange Street/ Prospect Street/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avarua/ Newport Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy West Coast It" HospRal Road West Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hose@ ltd Road Hospital Rood 184- 6 2p 4-0 o 61- 4-0 �o 4 61- 0 db4 H04 ° 4 0- 1t db4�o 20 4-79 4 12 , 04-79 dbbso 20 4 26, i3 tP. dbbso ° o 4-53 4 dgbso 4 b 0 4yo p4 lelel ° p9giP 948 ° 09 %YP ° o90IYP 19o90�0 ° osOIYP 143 -�-0 ° 619°IYP p41t --t> 0- 0_ 0� 0�° n� 0a o�e�e Oy 0 -0 0� °°„° D� 184 p� 0 184-p° p� E9 0 -0 123 -0 Dom. 48 184 9� 0 n � _ 17 48 n n 0 n Z6 n Zfi o 0 � � 0 INewport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ RWerslde Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Irvdne Avenue / Dow Drive/ West Coast Hwy Ya Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street/ West Coast Hwy 170 5 2p o 17v tfi 20 4-0 4 Ile bbso 20 o-0 ° 4 I7 v 8 a�bbso 2p o-0 4 17 v dbbso 4-0 4 0v dbbs122 �0 j 'b 4sM 122, 4-0 4 9;,90 ° p90IYP 4-52 O 4 948 o9 p90ItP ° 0IYP ° p90I ?P 19o90�0 143 -�-0 P °IYP p41t --t> 0- 0�° n� D�.99 00- o�e�e Oy o�e�e Oy � 0 D� 4s� E9 0 -0 gpg 48 n JB n � _ 17 48 n n 523 IPlacenta Avenue/ Placentia Avenue / Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Harbor Boulevard/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Wtodd Street 19th Street 171h S4eet Victodo Street 19th Street 17111 Street 76th Street 70, 70- 23 R e dbb�0 20 4-0 4 70- 24 I? a dbbs0 2p 4-0 ° 4 88, 7B a bb 2p 4-0 o 4 B7v 26 >? P e dbb.so 2p 4-52 � a 17, 7 db�o 2p 4-0 a a 17- dbz0 20 e 4-0 4 9;,90 ° p90IYP 4-52 O 4 ° o9 %YP ° 0IYP ° ° 19o90�0 143 -�-0 P 143 -p. --t> 0- 0�° n� D�.99 00- 143-0� � 0 D� 4s� � 190 n JB 17 Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Bouomrd/ Nmpart eaulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ 19th Street Bruadruy Harbor Boulevard 18th 91W/Rochester St 17th Street 76th Street kwustrid Way - Ov 0, 29 2p 2p 31 2p 4 db4. 4-52 O 4 ONO ° y ° y 143 -�-0 P 143 -p. � 0 Orange Aenue/ Smta Ana Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of taming movement boxes 3568d/bbas I 35 Ov I dbbsa �p St a Figure 12 �0 R a 37v 3 e�bbsa a—p Project (Net Increase) 37v dbbs a—D -D Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes �D a 29v dbbs -a u 7v e�bbso a N as %YP ° °' %YP p °� per° p� %YI° N °� per° D—a %YI' %YP p� is -sb os %YP °� ° °° p� p� 5 l s 2p p 7z�° � a 5 ^ a e 7 n I n 6 n 15 v 60 Orange Sheet/ Prospect Street / Super'ior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport Baulewrd/ West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Road West Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Road Hospital Rood Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Irvine Avenue/ Dow Drive/ West Coast Hwy Na Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street/ West Coast Hwy Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue / Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Harbor Bmlewrd/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Victoria Street 19th Street 170h Street 'AtUdo Street 19th Stteel 17th SITeO 16111 Street Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard / tvewporl Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Owewrd/ 19th Street Broadway Harbor Boulevard 16th Street/Rochester St 17th Street 1611 Street Industrial Way "mega Averse/ Santa Ana Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left coma of turning movement boxes. 3558d/bbas Ov I dbbsa �p St a pv 2 db4sD �0 R a 37v 3 e�bbsa a—p a 37v dbbs a—D -D a pv dbb�3p �D a 29v dbbs -a u 7v e�bbso a N as %YP ° °' %YP p °� per° p� %YI° N °� per° D—a %YI' %YP p� is -sb os %YP °� ° °° p� p� 5 l s 2p p 7z�° � a 5 ^ a e 7 n I n 6 n 15 v 60 6 v dbbsa �p a—o o a 7v 9 dbbsp �p a—o a 7v db�sp a—p a pv dbba -p a pv db4sp �p c t5v albb p ,°, a pv d b b a-9s �! so d N as %YP ° °' %YP p °� per° p� %YI° N °� per° D—a %YI' %YP p� is -sb os %YP °� ° °° p� °�° 5 l s 2p p 7z�° n 54 5 ID 1 0 �p a-p a 5—p a—p sp a 1Do 17 dbbs 5—p a—p -o o a 00 I ebbs° 5—p a-p a 1°p7D 19 �p d p ,°, a 11 p b o� D-o p� %YP °�° db�so R %YI° ° N °� per° p� %YI° N °� per° D—a %YI' %YP p� is -sb ID� s 5 5 5 l s 2p p 25 n 54 22 v 3° db4sp �p a-p a so o 5io dbbsa �p a-p a spa 26 ,D o 7 �p a 10 a dbbsa b o� D-o p� %YP °�° db�so 92 N %YP b E %YP °9 p-o p� %YP °r %YP p� is -sb s 2p p 25 5 ID pv pv ao �p �p dbbsa a dbbsa a db�so a N %YP b %YP o %YP s -so is -sb s p r r r r 1 r r r Oo sLp ° Figure 13 4-0 4 172v 2g 4-0 Project (Net Increase) tnv ap Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ap a 137v 4—p I Aar 1 dbbsp 4_p 6-137 ; � a 2 dbbsp 4_p 6-137 q a 3 r ^ dbbsp 2p 4-0 ° 4 f F' X db�so 4-0 4-0 a 8 0 ° dbbs137 4-0 4-172 � a 6 � dbbs -o 4 7 dbbsp 4_p ° 4—D 4 ° � IDZ n 126 ° o�°�qP o� �° �'°IqP ° °s°IgP 0 ° °s°IgP ° ° -p°IgP o� o� o� 0� 6� 0� o-, Oi 0� a� — 183 n 76 n 2d n 26 n T6 � 6 n 1T9 D o zo >9 eo Orange Street/ Prospect Street / Sopelor Avenue/ Seer" Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentla Avenue/ Newport Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Road West Coast Hwy Supetar Avenue Hospital Rood Hospital Rood Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustn Avenue/ Wne Avenue/ Dover Drive/ West Coast Hwy Ka Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street/ West Cuust Hwy Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Harbor Boulevard/ Supetor Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Vrctada Street 19th Street 1716 Street Vidorlo Street 191h Street 17th Street 16th Street Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Bo/evord/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boukw'd/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Bouievard/ 19th Street Broadway Harbor Baleawd 18th Street/Rocheslo S1 171h Street 16th Street Iralushml Way Orange Avenue / Santa A" Avenue/ Tustn Avmue/ 17th Sheet 17th Street 17th Street ifT1.7b2'man Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3568d/bbas Oo sLp ° Oo 4-0 4 172v 2g 4-0 a a tnv ap a On ap a 137v 4—p I Aar 1 dbbsp 4_p 6-137 ; � a 2 dbbsp 4_p 6-137 q a 3 r ^ dbbsp 2p 4-0 ° 4 f F' X db�so 4-0 4-0 a 8 0 ° dbbs137 4-0 4-172 � a 6 � dbbs -o 4 7 dbbsp 4_p ° 4—D 4 ° � IDZ n 126 ° o�°�qP o� �° �'°IqP ° °s°IgP 0 ° °s°IgP ° ° -p°IgP o� o� o� 0� 6� 0� o-, Oi 0� a� — 183 n 76 n 2d n 26 n T6 � 6 n 1T9 D o zo >9 eo 1 8 sLp ° 130 4-0 4 34o 2g 4-0 a a po At ap a Oo 2 ap a 2po 13 4—p I dbbs -D a dbbsp dbbsp 4 db4a �° -D a abbs -o n dbba -o n dbbz -o ni 4 n° � IDZ n 126 ° o�°�qP o� �° ai��g�00 00 ° o��qP 0 ° o�4�gP RE o�rygP D 0� 0� 0� o Oi 0� 0 27� 130 1 sLp ° 130 4-0 4 130 2g 4-0 a a 130 8 4-D a 13o 9 4-0 a Oo -D e 93e ?I 4-0 I6 dbbsp 4-0 4 dbbsp 4-0 4 dbbsp 4-0 4 dbbsp 4-0 a dribs 4-0 -a 4 04-0 dbbs93 4 dbbs 4-0 -z7 a � IDZ n 126 ° o�°�qP 13 os°�gP ° o��qP 0 ° o�4�gP ° o�rygP 0� 0� 0� 0� e ° Oi 0� 27� — n 76 n 2d n 26 n T6 � 6 n 1T9 Sao dbb4-0 4_p s -o 4 $30 dbbs 4-0 4-0 -o 4 $30 2g 4-0 a a 670 7,S ^ dbbsp �p 4-0 a 660 dbbsp g a 13� dbbs -D e 130 dbbs 4-0 -o 4 4 � 0 dbbsp ° o—° o� °IqP °moo ° °�OIYP °—° p� ° °° — ° °� p —°pea= 13� %qP ° °� p—°o�o %qP n— �� zsz %qP n 167 � IDZ n 126 � 120 13 0 0 37 Oo po 4_p ° 4—p g 31 4-0 3 dbb�o 4 dbb�o 4 dbb�o 4 ° �i % ?I° n— o-a 0 0 37 5. TPO Analysis The Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis is only required for the City of Newport Beach study area intersections. Approved Projects The City of Newport Beach staff provided the approved projects in the study area for the TPO analysis. The approved projects consist of development that has been approved but are not fully completed (see Table 5 and Appendix D). The approved project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 14 and 15, respectively. An approved project is one that has been approved pursuant to the TPO, requires no further discretionary approval by the City of Newport Beach, and has received, or is entitled to receive, a building or grading permit for construction of the project or one or more phases of the project. Trips generated by approved projects shall be included subject to the following: • All trips generated by each approved project or that portion or phase of the approved project for which no certificate of occupancy has been issued shall be included in any traffic study conducted prior to the expiration date of that approved project. • In the event a final certificate of occupancy has been issued for one or more phases of a approved project, all trips shall be included in subsequent traffic studies until completion of the first field counts required by Subsection 3(d)(i) subsequent to the date on which the final certificate of occupancy was issued. Subsequent to completion of the field counts, those trips generated by phases of the approved project that have received a final certificate of occupancy shall no longer be included in subsequent traffic studies. • The Traffic Manager and Planning Director shall maintain a list of approved projects and, at least annually, update the list to reflect new approvals pursuant to the TPO as well as completion of all or a portion of each approved project. An approved project shall not be removed from the approved project list until a final certificate of occupancy has been issued for all phases and the field counts required by Subsection 3(d)(i) have been taken subsequent to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. • The total trips generated by approved projects shall be reduced by twenty (20 %) to account for the interaction of approved project trips. :'E I Regional Growth To account for regional growth on roadways, Year 2009 traffic volumes have been calculated based on a 1 percent annual growth rate over a two -year period. The regional growth rate has been obtained from the City of Newport Beach. "Existing" hereon refers to Year 2009 base volumes = Year 2007 existing volumes + 2% regional growth. The project is expected to open in Year 2008; therefore the traffic analysis is one year after opening year. One - Percent Methodolony ' One - percent of the projected peak hour volumes of each approach of each study area intersection were compared with the peak hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this TPO comparison is shown within Appendix E. If one - percent of the existing (Year 2009) + approved projects traffic peak hour volumes of each approach is greater than the peak hour project generated approach volumes, no further analysis is required. Existing (Year 2009) + approved projects morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 16 and 17, respectively. Existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 18 and 19, respectively. If project generated peak hour approach volumes are higher than one - percent of the projected peak hour volumes on any approach of an intersection, the intersection would require analysis utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology. Comparison of the one - percent of the existing (Year 2009) + approved projects traffic peak hour approach volumes with the project generated peak hour approach volumes resulted in the following study area intersections exceeding the one- percent threshold and requiring additional analysis (see Table 6 and Appendix E): Orange Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Prospect Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Superior Avenue (NS) at: ' Hospital Road (EW) West Coast Highway (EW) Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) Hospital Road (EW) 1 39 Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Road (EW) West Coast Highway (EW) Via Lido (EW) 32nd Street (EW) Riverside Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Tustin Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Irvine Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) Dover Drive (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Intersection Capacity Utilization The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization. The Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology (see Appendix C) is not the only method to analyze a signalized intersection, but the preferred method per the City of Newport Beach TPO. To calculate an Intersection Capacity Utilization value the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. An Intersection Capacity Utilization value is usually expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. The Levels of Service for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 7. Existing (Year 2009) + approved projects Intersection Capacity Utilization worksheets are provided in Appendix C. For existing (Year 2009) + approved projects traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the morning /evening peak hours. The Levels of Service for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 7. Existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + project Intersection Capacity Utilization worksheets are provided in Appendix C. For existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the morning /evening peak hours. The Levels of Service for the Superior Avenue /Project Central Driveway intersection is included in Section 9. 40 ' The project - generated traffic did not result in a significant impact at the study area intersections (increase of one - percent or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D during the moming /evening peak hours); therefore, no improvements are recommended at the study area intersections. I r, 1 I 1 I 1 I i LI I 1 I I 1 41 Table 5 Approved Project List Project Name Fashion Island Expansion Temple Bat Yahm Expansion Ford Redevelopment Ciosa - Irvine Project Newport Dunes 1401 Dove Street 494/498 Old Newport Boulevard 401 Old Newport Boulevard Newport Technology Center 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center Hoag Hospital Phase III Newport Lexus Birch Medical Office Complex Saafar Fine Indian Cuisine St. Mark Presbyterian Church St. Andrews Presbyterian Corporate Plaza West Phase Mariner's Mile Gateway Land Rover NB Service Center OLOA Church Expansion 42 [II I i J I i I i I I I I 1 I I 5 I I I I i I I i 1 I Table 6 TPO Analysis One - Percent Threshold r Project traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I % of projected peak tour tragic. IIntersection Capacity Utilization analysis is required. 1 43 Peak Approach Direction' Intersection Hour Northbound I Southbound Eastbound Westbound Orange Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) AM No No Yes Yes PM No No Yes Yes Prospect Street (NS) at West Coast Highway (EW) AM No No Yes Yes PM No No Yes Yes Superior Avenue (NS) at: Hospital Road (EW) AM Yes Yes No No PM Yes Yes No No West Coast Highway (EW) AM Yes Yes Yes No PM Yes Yes Yes No Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) AM Yes No Yes Yes PM Yes No Yes Yes Hospital Road (EW) AM Yes Yes No Yes PM Yes Yes No Yes Newport Road (NS) at: Hospital Road (EW) AM Yes No Yes No PM Yes Yes Yes No West Coast Highway (EW) AM No Yes No No PM No Yes No No Via Lido (EW) AM Yes No No No PM Yes Yes No No 32nd Street (EW) AM Yes No No No PM Yes Yes No No Riverside Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) AM No No No Yes PM No No Yes Yes Tustin Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) AM No No No Yes PM No No Yes Yes Irvine Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) AM No Yes Yes Yes PM No Yes Yes Yes Dover Drive (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) AM No No No Yes PM No No Yes Yes r Project traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I % of projected peak tour tragic. IIntersection Capacity Utilization analysis is required. 1 43 Table 7 TPO Analysis Intersection Capacity Utilization and Levels of Service ' ICU-LOS = lntaraecfim Cap.0ty UElsahm -L"M SaMO ' N1wi a nglr firm cane is 4%�eled, tlb Nro can eMBr' Ce splim4 w Iet6bNeU. To hne9m as a ngM hum wn. RprarniSi Ee sutnaereMam for ngathmtlq ve1YI.45 b travel mt&4e fie Vrough lane, L = Left T = tnroagh: R = RigIR» =Free RiyN Tlm.> = RigM Tvn O+anap STS = Trefllc Signet 44 Peak Hour ICU -LOS' Emitting + Intersection Approach L Lanes' E Emitting + + A Approved Projects + Northbound S Southbound E Eastbound W Westbound A Traffic N Atooroved P Proects P Protect I ICU Increase Intersection C Control' L L T T R R L L T T R R L L T T R R L L T T R R M Morning E Evening M Morning E Evening M MomingjEveni2gi Newport Beach Intersections Orange Street (NS) at West Coast Highway EW T TS 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 1 1 3 3 1 1 0 0.71-0 0 0.75 -C 0 072-0 0 078 -C + +0.01 + +303 Prospect Street (NS) at: West Coast Hi EW) T TS 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 0 082 -D 0 0.73 -C 1 0 083 -D 0 0.75 -C + +001 Superior Avenue (NS) at Hospital Road (EW) T TS 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 15 0 05 0 0 0 071 -C 0 04B -A 0 0.74-C 0 0.54A + +003 W WO6 West Coast Highway EW T TS 1 1.5 1 1.5 0 0 1 1.5 1 1.5 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 73-C 0 0.67 -8 0 0.73 -C 0 0.71 -C + +000 « «) 04 Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) T TS 0 05 1 1 0 05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 067 -B 0 0.75 -C 0 0.71-0 0 0.83 -0 + +0.04 + +0.08 Hospital Road (EW) T TS 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 0 0.5 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 40 -A t t 0 46 -A 0 0 43-A 0 0.54A + +0.03 + +0.08 Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Road (EW) T TS 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 53 -A 0 0.74 -C 0 0.54A 0 0 78-C + +0.01 + +0.04 West Coast Highway (EW) T TS 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1» 0 0 3 3 1 1» 0 079-0 0 069 -B 0 0.80 -C 0 0.69 -B + +0.01 + +0.00 Ve Lldo (EW) T TS 0 0 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 41 -A 0 0 43 -A 0 0.42-A 0 0 43 -A + +0.01 + +400 32nd Street EW T TS 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1>> 0 05 1 15 1 1» 0 045-A 0 0.79 -C 0 0.45 -A 0 080 -C + +0.00 + +001 Riverside Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway EW T TS 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 3 3 1 1 0 0.7B -C 0 0.81 -D 0 0 78-C 0 0.112 -0 + +0.00 + +0.01 Tustin Avenue (NS) aL West Coast Highway EW T TS 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 0.78 -C 0 0.62 -B 0 0 79-C 0 0 64 -B + +0.01 + +0.02 Imne Avenue (NS) at 17th Street EW T TS 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0.55 -A 0 0.75 -C 0 056-A 0 0.79 -C + +001 + +0.04 Dover Drive (NS) at West Coast Highway [EW) T TS 1 1 2 2 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 0 1 1 3 3 1 1» 0 0.77 -C 0 083 -D 0 077-C 0 0.84D + +0.00 + +001 ICU-LOS = lntaraecfim Cap.0ty UElsahm -L"M SaMO ' N1wi a nglr firm cane is 4%�eled, tlb Nro can eMBr' Ce splim4 w Iet6bNeU. To hne9m as a ngM hum wn. RprarniSi Ee sutnaereMam for ngathmtlq ve1YI.45 b travel mt&4e fie Vrough lane, L = Left T = tnroagh: R = RigIR» =Free RiyN Tlm.> = RigM Tvn O+anap STS = Trefllc Signet 44 Figure 14 Approved Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Ov 1 b�o �D Y a 7v 9 4dbb4-a �2 4-0 4 3 dbbsa �.p a 11 a 2p a -26 a 5 abbsu 2p a 6 dlbs15 �g7 a-0 d 91v 7 d 4�4 �3 a-2 a 1 o dbbsg D- 78 --0e 0� 0 °' D�e�e 0�. %YP Rq I' O�e�,e 0� %YI° 0 -0eYi' 0� %YI ° 1428 ds-p 0� %Yl° ego ° I76 -Co Yt <� ° °' 2 --0eM`~ 0-a, %YP ° Izs B-°9�s 11-y %Yt° 0 0 e 1 35 29 a l orange Street/ Prospect Street/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avmue/ Newport Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy Wert Cart Hwy Hospital Road West Copet Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Road Hospild Rood {7v 8 Yi o bs0 �D 4-26 a 7v 9 4dbb4-a �2 4-0 4 3v ID abso 4-p a-0 a a 11 a analysis 5 Doty analysis is only 0v 12 bsa 4_p 4 A v dbbso 2-2 4 23v 14 °' d 4-g f a Os 3-°oao 4� 10 0 °' D�e�e 0�. %YP ° I' O�e�,e 0� %YI° e E.� ° os 92 -°ee= 0� %Yi° ° 3s 15-D 3g %Yt° ^rye ° 14s 76-4 a-a %41° intersections. 37 27 in[ersectlons. 0 f Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Backward/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Wro Avenue Do Drie/ West Coast Hwy Vin lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy west Coast Hwy 170h Street/ West Coos) Hwy The Tp0 16The TPO lithe TPO 78Tfle 1P0 19Tf1e TPOtle TPO �t1e TPO analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis 5 Doty analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only required for the required For the required far the required for Me required for the required for the required fns the City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Beach study oreo Beach study are Bench study ore Beach study area Beach study area Beach study oreo Beach study area intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections, in[ersectlons. IPlacentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue / Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Boulevwd/ Harbor Boulevard/ Superior Avenue / Superior Avenue/ Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street Victoria Street tsth Street 17th Street 16th Street �he TPO 2�he 1P0 2�he TPO �he TPO �TI1e 1P0 �he TPO 2�ile TPO analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only required for the required for the rerplired for the required far the required for the required for the !required for the City of Newport City of Newport Cify of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Beach study oreo Beach study oreo Beach study area Beach study oreo Beach study oreo Beach study area Beach study oreo intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. Newport Boulevard/ Newport Bwlmord/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Baclemrd/ Newport Boulevard/ NewpM Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Ift Sheet Broadwuy Harbor Boulewrd 18th $treetJRochestrr St 17th Street 18th Street Industrwl Way z�he TPO Ile TPO y�he TPO analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only required for the required for the required for the City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Beach study oreo Beach study oreo Beach sWdy oreo intersections. intersections. intersectons. orange Averse/ Santa Ana Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxes, 35684 /bbos I 45 Figure 15 Approved Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 1 7 b b �o e "W sD 4 1 �D S 3 4 =0 6 4 169 _ 4-61 dbb ;D 4 d dbbso 4 0 ,W-33 e os %Yle ° °s %41° E 0 2BS %YP 6 °s %Yt° ° °: 51 —C 000 5f --0000 JI —bon 33 --0ooiS O�— 03 19 0� 0� 0� Oo 0 v n 3B 31 n 0 0 IDrange Street / prospect Street/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Neww Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Road West Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Road Hospital Rood 12 dbbe-o 4 4 410 bbso t9The TPO 4 l� bb�D required for the 4 20 dbs0 19 4 Oo o- -116 so 4 F�27--� �7 4-29 so 4 41- dbe�o 4 Ds %Yle 0 6 I� °s 0 %Yle > °� %1P e s 6 o: ::r 181oa-01 intersections. ° — os 1000 %Yfe � o intersections. intersections. YOf � intersections. 37o t62D�000 intersections. � intersections. INewport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Rwerside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Irvine Avenue/ Dover Drive/ West Coast Hwy Vo Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West coast Hwy 17th Street/ West Coast Hwy tSThe TPO analysis 's only 16The TPO analysis is only t7The TPO analysis is only iBThe TPO t9The TPO is vnly �tle 110 anlysis is only required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the for the required for the City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of New¢ort rhe ewport City of Newport Beach study area Beach study area Beach study ar Beach study area Beach study area tudy area Beach study area intersections. interections. intersections. Beach study area Beach study area ions. intersections. Placentia Avenue / Placenta Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Harbor Boulevard/ Superior Avenue / Superior Avenue/ Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street Metoria Street 19th Street 17th Street 1611, Street Jhe TPO Jhe TPO 2�tle TPO to O he TPO a TPO �Ite TPO analysis is only analysis is only alyP is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only required for tfie required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the City of Newpori Cary of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Beach study areo Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. Newport Boulcvard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ 19th Street Broadway Harbor Boulevard 18th Street/Rachester St 171h Street 16th Street Industrial Way �he TPO �Ite TPO �fte TPO pnai yls is only analysis is only anatysls Is only required for the required fa the required for the City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area intersections. intersections. intersections. orange Avenue/ Smto Am Amue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street IKtLnzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left tamer of turning movement boxes. 3568d/bbAssociates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left tamer of turning movement boxes. 3566dJbbas I R i Figure 16 Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 46 v The TPO �onalysis The iP0 lonalysis 15D v The TPO �onolysis �he TPO 52 v is only is only 5DI v is only is only yg2 v analysis is only required for the 4p4 v required for the 1713 v required for the 1 X71 _ — 2 X11 4-1182 0, — 3 X55 4-0 a 4 0 = $206 0-626 Beach study ar 5 �a 4—�2 Beach study area 6 P4T x457 4-145 intersectwns. 7 g �8 db4—to95 b�t2 intersections. 4 dbks5 4 411 F-32 4 db4ssl 4 411 61,F-66 4 dbbs159 4 4 4lbbsn 4 e 19�" 3139 %YP -� 6 13 —^ %YP 0,� ° D9 Duo %YP 00303' �s%YP %YP ° 362 -3 %YP ° 61�% ?P e 172-1T 1403 %YP 2D38 --0 o 3497 :: r�, M g = 2354 —° $ 1309 —° —ARP 2490 Z66� —c 499 —> 137���s, 12� g tl S IDS 0 D� U3 23B� 26� 40� 270 72 66 a 1900 a 653 420 19 e e i n 1 Orange Street / Prospect Street/ Suporior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Plocentlo Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport BoWevard/ West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Read West Coast Hwy Superlor Avenue Hospital Rood Hogritd Road 910 v The TPO �onalysis The iP0 lonalysis 1250 v The TPO �onolysis �he TPO 876 v is only is only 483 v is only is only 52 v analysis is only required for the requ "red for the required for the 1323 v required for the e o < 4-1146 N 9 3 4—p� City of Newport 111 S vY 4-33 a ti s m X1412 Beach study ar 1P 4-1409 Beach study area k?"-ZS, -118 intersectwns. t4 `g 0-1/52 F' alb4s0 intersections. 4 4�b4a9 4 4b6s7 4 _ 41bbs9 4 db44-o 4 albbs5z 4 4 db4,28 4 ° Ds %YP ° as %YP °zees %YP ° �s%YP ° 27 --4 ° 3�s %YP ° 1403 %YP 2D38 --0 o 01 52� M g = 2245 —> 2490 � 499 —> P1 2316 g tl S 662 0 U3 18� 0� 210 31� e e i e 4 e e o e Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Irvine Avmue/ Dover Drive/ West Coast Hwy Yw Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street/ West Coast Hwy The TPO lonalysis The TPO �onalysis The iP0 lonalysis The TPO lonalysis The TPO �onolysis �he TPO �F1e TPO is only is only is only is only is only analysis is only analysis is only required for the requ "red for the required far the required for the required for the required for the required far the City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Beach study ore Beach study ar Beach study ore Beach study ar Beach study are Beach study area Beach study area intersections. intersections. intersectwns. intersections. intersections. int4rsections. intersections. Placentia Avenue/ Plo -110 Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor BaWevord/ Hobor Boulevard/ Superior Avmu4/ Superior Avenue/ Yclaria Street 19th Street 17th Street Yrctotio Strad 19th 5treet 17th Street 15111 Street 2Jhe TO 2�he TPO ahe TPO �fle TPO �TI1e TPO 2�FIe TPO �he TPO analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only required for the required for the required for the required for the requred for the required for the required for the City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area intersections. intersections intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. Newport Baulevurd/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport BoWewwd/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulewd/ Newport Bouevard/ Newport Bouevard/ 19th Street ®bodway Harbor Boukvord 18th Street/Bochester St 17th Street 16th Street Industrial way �he TPO �tle TPO 3�he TPO analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only required for the required for the required for the City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area intersections. intersections. intersectons. 0101ge Avenue / Santo Are Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 171h Street Kurtzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left tamer of turning movement boxes. 3568d/bbos 47 Figure 17 Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes R�267R 4�bbs3s =591 X2001 }} a 102 v 2R_s to X3128 IF— r" a 10LB v 3��D �bb4 -45D a , v 4m�a 4ibbs141 —p292n a 5`'i+.' =hAI IF-178 HM a 1249 0 a73 a 1273 0 m 114 a 85ht771 dbbs116 7�'��87 a�b4+ D 373' q t; D 183` 1550 --0m�RI dl q D 03` 0-4 D� % Y iD eR2 D 2833' 1231) D 225 % Y ID NZ8 D 3203' 469 --D 13� Y ^n R$ ^ D 993` ZOB—D T4� % T F� ^_ '" D 3163' 137 --Dm 348 % Y n ' 66 a 39 e e p n 4 e 203 e l Orange Street/ Prospect Street / Superior Avenue / Superior Avenue/ Placentia Avenue / Placentia Avenue/ Newport Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospltal Rood West Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Road H%pltd Rood F820"_ e =591 X2001 a 2621 0 9 S= abs2e =516 4-0 a 2176 0 10 � "' db4s22 =35 4-37 m a 526 0 li ,n ��� alb4s26 deg o-2622 a 85 0 to analysis is only required for the 1249 0 a73 a 1273 0 X1252 a 2 307 dbb 13 ^ bbsn9 14 db4ss9 aD 7631 —Do 268 City of Newport 03` O— 0� % �' -.ir = D _ 1933' ii Dt2nn 16� % Y s D 2683' 1756�g3�ar 71� % q D 323' 1765 —+ 7� A�2 D 2783' 671:: 235 '� <� '�r 1962 --D 280 1 �,�g� intersections n 123 n 1065 v 47 e e Newport Boulevard/ Newport 8odevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Irvine Avenue Dover Drive/ West Coast Hwy Via Lida 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast liwy I7th Street/ West Coast Hwy tsThe TPO t6The TPO 17The TPO IBThe TPO 19The TPO The TPO TPO analysis is only required for the analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only ( to analysis is only required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Beach study are Beach study area Beach study are Beah study area Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area intersectons. intersectons. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections Placentia Avenue/ Plo do Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Hoban Boulevard/ Supeor Avenue / Superior Avenue/ Vittorio Street 19th Street 17th Street Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street 16th Street �he TPO 2�he TPO �he TPOFle TPO �ihe TPO �he TPO 2�he TPO analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only required for the requred for the required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area intersections. intersections. intersections, intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. Newport Bo*vard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport BaNevord/ Newport liMevard/ 191h Street Broodway Harbor Boulevard 18th Street/Rochester St 17th Street 16th Street Industrial Way e TPO �he TPO �t1e TPO analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only required for the required for the required for the City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Beach study area Beach study area Beach study area intersections. intersections. intersections. Orange Avenue/ Santa Ave Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street KunzTnan Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left caner of turning movement boxes. 3568d/bbas i i 1 Figure 18 Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Orange Str eet/ Prospect Street/ Superior Avenue/ Sup sior Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy west Coast Hwy Hospital Road West Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Rood Hospital Rood B22 a 6 =596 4-1146 17The TPO 1257 o 9 of =396 4-0 a o a.2S n a 0 '�69 4-1167 a 5820 '�3a 4 -1454 so - a 0 261 4 -146 ^ 1 - ; 4 -1497 s26 a ' R G -1125 ° 2 a %Yfe > 3 °+' %Y 0 a 2609 2267 -C lam 4 t�3 �ti26 F2422:-:+ 5 4 -319 210-y B `� Vi i a- intersections. 7 m 4-226 > 957 8 le 154 Ile dbbsbl a dbbs96 a bfwslse a 4fbfws97 13� > 09 3�324 h 11909 %Ytw 6 3626 3557 of 2351 -e 6- R s 1381 -0� 238 > %a v 12D n 164 n 2021 Orange Str eet/ Prospect Street/ Superior Avenue/ Sup sior Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy west Coast Hwy Hospital Road West Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Rood Hospital Rood B22 a 6 =596 4-1146 17The TPO 1257 o 9 of =396 4-0 a fiB3 0 10 dbs7 a.2S n a 403 o ry .. "' •4f6s9 '�69 4-1167 a '�3a 4 -1454 so - a 875 0 t3 ,n = �1 261 4 -146 ^ $ ; 4 -1497 s26 a 0 o9 NA38� %Yfe ° °° ° 49 0 -1, 0� %Yfe > 2969 52 -1, 13� %Y 0 a 2609 2267 -C lam %Yte gym= Beach study oreo F2422:-:+ %YI° ° °o Beach study ores 210-y intersections. 1109 1333�662 31� intersections. 0 1353 > 957 8 o I Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Irvine Avenue/ Dower Drive/ West Coast Hwy Yo Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street/ West Coast Hwy I e TPO 16The TPO 17The TPO 1AThe TPO 19The TPO 2dhe TPO 21"e TO onolysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the City at Newport City of Newport Cily of Newport Cily of Newport Cily of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Bench study oreo Beach study ore Beach study oreo Beach study me Beach study ores Beach study ores Beoch study oreo intersections. intersections, intersections. intersections. intersections. inlersecllans. intersections. PWaentio Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Harbor Boulevard/ Superior Avenue/ %*or Avenue/ l4cWe Street 19th Street 17th Street Victoria Street 191h Street 17th Street 16th Street 2jhe TPO is 21e TPD is �he TPO 25 "e TPO 21he TPO 2e TPO �he TPO analysis only analysis only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only required for the required for the required for the required for live required for tfie sequined For the requited for the City of Newport Cily of Newport City of Newport Cily of Newport Cily of Newport Cily of Newport Cily of Newport Beach study oreo Beach study oreo Beach study oreo Beach study area Beach study area Beach study oreo Beach study oreo intersections, intersections. intersections, intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport BaWevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ 19th Street Broadway Harbor Boulevard 18th Street/Rochester St 17th Street 161h Sheet Industrial Way 29 "e TPO �tle TPO �t1e TPO analysis is only analysis is only analysts is only required fw the required for the requ'Ned for the City of Newport Cily of Newparl City of Newport Beoch study oreo Beach study area Beach study oreo inlersecl'wns. intersections. intersections. Orange Avenue / Santa Am Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street Kunzmart Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. 3566d/bbas 49 Figure 19 Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects + Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 49 v 1 R dbbs3s 4-3904 o v 2 —6 abbs25 4-13265 4 IIBO v 3 dbbs45a 4-0 4 14 4 o 9 += dbbs147 4-12292 4 v 5lM— dibs3ls 4-963 4 866 � 8 �i8h d1b 4-177 o 61 7 m dbbs7 4-187 4 D 37x4 1400 — 11� f ID w D issITl 1629 :: 15a ^- g D 0 —D 0� 0s11 ID o F 8 D �s1T1` 1236 � 225 F y�r g D 320 568 —D 13� I ° R to D 99 2013 -0 24� ° — P C D 3w9°IYP 137—D 451 M Z -- n 39 db4sB n 562 4 n 223 n 1 Orange Sheet/ Prospect Street/ Superior Avenue / Superior Avenue/ Placentia Avmue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Road Weal Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hosi Rood HoWtd Rood 1l v 16The TPO 17The TPO 2655 v i9The 7'PO �he TPO 2210 v analysis is only analysis 's only 0 analysis is only analysis is only v analysis only required for the 1269 0 required for the required for the 1 c required for the B +� $ =597 4-mo1 City of Newport 9 �51fi City of Newport 10 "�35 4-37 Beach study ore 11 2g� 4-2602 Beach study ore 12 X47 4-2715�m Beach study areal 13 4-73 4-778 intersections. I4 o `� =1752 4-750.5 db4sB intersections. 4 db4s28 14 1 d : z 4 b d2O7t9505� s a 312 ID D s ID 0 i1D� =R F% ,^f ese g 11 18 n 05 1 n a7 n 7 n n39 135 Newport Bwlevard/ Newport Bauman/ Newport Boulevard/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Irvine Atmu Borer Drive/ West Coast Hwy Pia Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Sheet/ West Coast Hwy ISThe TPO 16The TPO 17The TPO 18The TPO i9The 7'PO �he TPO �he TPO 's analysis is only analysis 's only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only analysis only required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the required for the City of Newport City of Newport Cily of Newport City of Newport City of Newport City of Newpari City of Newport Beach study ore Beach study ore Beach study ore Beach study ore Beach study oreo Beach study area Beach study areal intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. tnterseciions. intersections. Placentia Avenue/ Plocenlia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Bwlevard/ HOW Boulevard/ superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Vitoria Street 19th Street 17th Sheet 1Rclorlo Street 19th Street 171h Street 16th Street Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport BoLde md/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Bwlevard/ 19th Street Dreamy Harbor Boulemrd 18th Sheet/Ruchestn St 17th Street 161h Sheet industrial Way �he TPO �Fle TPO �Fle TPO tee TPO �he TPO �he TPOnly ' required for the required for the requred for the City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport nolysis is only Beach study oreo Beach study oreo intersections. the required for the requ'ued for the required far the Tustin Avenue/ 17th Sheet 17th Street Ue port Clty of Newport y area Beach study oreo Beach study oreo Beach study area s. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. intersections. Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport BoLde md/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Bwlevard/ 19th Street Dreamy Harbor Boulemrd 18th Sheet/Ruchestn St 17th Street 161h Sheet industrial Way �he TPO �Fle TPO �Fle TPO analysis is only analysis is only analysis is only ' required for the required for the requred for the City of Newport City of Newport City of Newport Beach study oreo Beach study oreo Beach study oreo intersections. intersections. intersectons. Orange Avenue/ Santa Ara Avmue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Sheet 17th Street 17th Street Kunzraan Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. Mfigd/bbos 50 I 6. CEQA Analysis The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis (this part of the analysis is consistent with CEQA) included analysis of the Cities of Newport Beach /Costa Mesa study area intersections. It should be noted that Newport Boulevard is scheduled to be widened to provide a shared northbound through /right turn lane at the following study area intersections: ' Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 19th Street (EW) Broadway (EW) ' Harbor Boulevard (EW) 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) 17th Street (EW) 11 1 I; I I 1 1 1 The northbound improvement is currently programmed for construction by the City of Costa Mesa in spring of Year 2008. Cumulative Projects The Cities of Newport Beach /Costa Mesa staff provided the cumulative projects in the study area for the CEQA analysis. Typically, the cumulative projects are known, but not approved project developments that are reasonably expected to be completed or nearly completed at the same time as the proposed project. The approved projects consist of development that has been approved but are not fully completed (see Section 5, including Table 5 and Appendix D). The cumulative projects utilized were ones that added traffic to the study area intersections. The cumulative project list is shown in Table 8 and the cumulative project traffic generation is included in Appendix F. Appendix F contains the directional distribution of the cumulative project traffic (including the Pacific Medical Plaza project from the City of Costa Mesa). The cumulative project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 20 and 21, respectively. The CEQA traffic volumes were obtained by adding the cumulative projects traffic volumes to the TPO traffic volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization Consistent with the Cities of Newport Beach /Costa Mesa approved methodologies, the technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization. To calculate an Intersection Capacity Utilization value the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. An Intersection Capacity Utilization value is usually 51 E1 52 1 1 expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. ' The Levels of Service for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 9. Existing ' (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 22 and 23, respectively. Existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + ' cumulative projects Intersection Capacity Utilization worksheets are provided in Appendix C. For existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the morning /evening peak hours, except for the following study area intersections that are projected to operate at Level of Service E during the peak hours: ' Superior Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) — Morning /Evening Peak Hours Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) — Evening Peak Hour , The Levels of Service for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects + project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 9. Existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects + project , morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 24 and 25, respectively. Existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects + project Intersection Capacity , Utilization worksheets are provided in Appendix C. The Levels of Service for the Superior Avenue /Project Central Driveway intersection is included in Section 9. , For existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects + project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the morning /evening peak hours, except for the , following study area intersections that are projected to operate at Level of Service E during the peak hours: ' Superior Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) — Morning /Evening Peak Hours ' Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) — Evening Peak Hour ' E1 52 1 I ' As shown in Table g, the project - generated traffic resulted in a significant impact at the following study area intersections (increase of one - percent or more at a study ' area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D during the moming /evening peak hours); therefore, the project should contribute its fair share toward the following improvements or alternative mitigation measures determined to be appropriate (providing equal or better effectiveness) by the City of Costa Mesa are recommended at the following study area intersections: Costa Mesa intersections: ' Superior Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EM - To alleviate the projects significant impacts, restripe to provide a westbound left turn lane, shared left/through lane, through lane, and right turn lane. This improvement would require modification to the traffic signal phasing and interconnect with the Newport Boulevard /17th Street intersection. Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) - To alleviate the projects significant impacts, provide a southbound through/right turn lane. The southbound improvement would require street widening. J 7 Li 11 1 53 Table 8 Cumulative Project List Project Name 2300 Newport Boulevard Mormon Temple . Newport. Coast - TAZ 1 Newport Coast - TAZ 2 Newport Coast - TAZ 3 Newport Coast - TAZ 4 Newport Ridge - TAZ 1 Newport Ridge - TAZ 2 Newport Ridge - TAZ 3 Pacific Medical Plaza Ocean Lofts Westside Lofts Plaza Residences 54 F L- I- L I 11 J �I 1 11 1 Table 9 CEOA Analysis lnterse[aon Capacity Utilization and Levels of Service 55 �ICLLLpS zyilbGLGApn �a'alYUbdnn- LMalSnxce Peak Hav IC LOS' - wnen n MnwmlenL naulµulvl.wl.w cnwweL+npau ruarva. ToNO4M ns MNamNm.aw.wva W4W4WM� East, L � lM: T = TMwpR fl = @yn:» � GnL PogIA rNT.> aagly Tim 0.NNp:j=nppVLfMM T5 =TtG1A .,. + TN non..,.pa-'a.It -MYf Progn MMyovmixatylM CryNCONIMrt N arna a. ama. Eaisteg * Approved Proects a 1Meraecton Approach Lanes' Approved Projects+ C PrOja 6 NOEh 21 M SoO8ltoMld EaslOUaM WaslbwH Traffic Cimbative 'acts ct ICV Increase IMersgcton Ca p L T R L T R L T R L T R Morning Ever Mom C-1reM Mormno &ening Newml Beech Ingmeotons Orange Street l NSl at West OOast Hl EW S 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 1 3 1 0.71 0-C OA 0]23C 0.802 -D 10013 +0.028 Prospect StWINSlat WeetO st Hl TS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0038 -D 0.754C 0.851 -D 0.7830 -0013 A.029 Supenw AV eINSIM Hospital ROed(MI TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1.5 0.5 0 070 047&A 0]29.0 0.532 -A +0023 +0054 West COasl Hl JEW) TS 15 115 0 1.5 1.5 2 2 3 1 1 4 0 0.]390 06968 0]45 -C 0.730.0 +,OW +0035 Plecande Avenue INSI at Soenor Avenue (M TS 05 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.668-6 0.7520 0.711 -C OM D 10,043 +0078 HoWWI Roatl (EW) TS 0 1 1 115 0.5 0 1 2 0 4 2 0 0393 0.459A 04261E 0.532A -0.033 +0073 Neepon Boulev INS)at Hospital ROM (M) TS 1 3 1 1 3 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 0.559A 0.759 -C 0563A 080bD -0.004 -0.044 West Coast Ft9tawy(m TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 b> 0 3 b> 0.614 -D 0.711-0 0.820 -0 0711 -C +0006 - ..WO VIe LIW(MI TS 0 3 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0451 -A 0.429 -A 0.41b0, OA3 A -0003 -0034 32nd Street EW TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1.5 0.5 1» 05 15 1» D.M&A I 0.789 -C 046" 0.799 -C -0005 -0010 Rivelste Avaiale (NS) at West CoastM EN! TS 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 0.806D 0.839[) O.a12 -D 0852-D +0.0 ] +0.013 Tustin A arxie INS) at West CAe55H E-W TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 0611-0 0692 -B 0.858 -D 0724-0 +0007 +0.032 [Mm Avenue INS) a t' 17MSYW(MI TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 0.579 -A 0]79C 0.590A 0812-[) +0.D11 +0.033 [)over Drive (NS) ai West CoastH y1EW) TS 1 2 0 3 1 1 2 3 0 1 3 1» 0789C 0884-0 0]93C 0891.D -0.004 +0013 SAata Mesa "elsec8orls PaOeMla Ave. INS) M Ma .Sftswlm) T6 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0,82" 0866D 0&3 D 0.8]&D - 0.00 -0.006 1918 Seem IM) TS 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 1 0506-A 0.5]&A 0.509 -A 05] &A a0.003 -0008 1118 Street Ew TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0396-A 0559A 0397-A 0.587-A -0.002 Q0()08 Ha+Wr BoW ard(NS1 at vloons Street (M) TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 0]51 -C 0.88 &D 0752-C 0887-0 -0001 +0OD2 19M St st (EM TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 0 1 3 1 0.444A 0] 044 &A 0784C +0002 +-0.000 SLpenu Avarua l Nat et: 1]tl Street (EW I - Wltwutlnpovvvrents TS 1 0.5 15 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1.047-F 0920.E 1.105E 1.054 -F +0.058 -0134 - WM IAWmement5 TS 1 05 15 1 2 0 1 2 0 L 15 0 0.884-8 0.825 -E -0.063 -2005 16Vi Street (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1» 1 1 0 0.452 -A 0.409 -A 0.4]9A 0487-A 10027 -0.078 Na WBOUl d(NS)at 19N Seeei(EINI- TS 1 4 0 1 2.5 15 2.5 1.5 1 1 26 15 07150 07970 0.7180 0.6060 M003 Broad. (Mr TS 1 4 0 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0.607 -8 0666-B 0615-8 0.6]] -B 4008 +0011 Hafoor BOAMM(till- TS 2 4 0 0 3 0 1 0 2> 0 0 0 0.722C 0 S03 -D 0.733-C 0.822-[) +0.011 -0019 im Steamocnester W.1 JEW i - wthow lnlprmn,erte TS 1 4 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0793C M921{ 060 &D 0.8/10 -0.010 +0014 - fthfnprwermMS ` IS 1 4 0 1 4 0 2 5 1 1 1 0 0.66E-8 0805 -D .0.127 -0.526 4T Street (Ml TS 1 4 0 2 3 0 3 2 0 2 3 1 08MD 0853-D 0.819-0 08] &D -0.011 +0025 16N Street (m TS 1 3 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0531 -A 0.536-A 0 W2 053 &A -0.001 -0003 InduetnalW EW ) 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.60&6 06098 06338 0ren,(e Avenue (NS) at 17MStree1 TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0622 -B 0627-B 0]008 -0.005 +0.024 Sella P]n Av INS) at ]67�B 17M Street EW TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.532-A 053]-A O68&B +0.005 -0.012 TOetn AversM (NSI at 1]18 Street (EM TS 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.6820 0686-8 0.700 -B +0.004 4024 55 �ICLLLpS zyilbGLGApn �a'alYUbdnn- LMalSnxce - wnen n MnwmlenL naulµulvl.wl.w cnwweL+npau ruarva. ToNO4M ns MNamNm.aw.wva W4W4WM� wr4gMlumnp wM[Naro hwW wLanm.auouy�lws. L � lM: T = TMwpR fl = @yn:» � GnL PogIA rNT.> aagly Tim 0.NNp:j=nppVLfMM T5 =TtG1A .,. + TN non..,.pa-'a.It -MYf Progn MMyovmixatylM CryNCONIMrt N arna a. ama. 55 Figure 20 Cumulative Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes O 1 4-p 1;, a O 1 4-0 Z& 2t 1 �o 0 23 1 4-0 4 21 o 5 4� 7 a p 1 4.0 4-96 T. 4 211 to al 116 Qlbbso 1 2 3 4 dlbso 9 dlbso I, dbbso %1P ' �b4so p dbbs e t o10 _ 0 P 60 -+ o e p -0o 4 �o 0 -+owo 4 90 -+ 4 < 2D 90 -0000 4 25 --0000 4 a 000 E�2� 0 os4111° 4 D °"IYP 4 n °s 4111° ' °s%1P d14s0 D -6s 4111° Oa pIYP Oa °s°11P SO�o °-s411P SO�000 R12 P o-Do;a 23- 4'411P 53-D .roo , 3 ;o °s411P 120 ° 0 0a 0 -0.�0o 0� 0-a 0a 3- .pom.� 0a p -0oae 1y 0 0 4 0� - NO 110 Orange Street/ Prospect Street/ Superior Amen/ Superior Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport Boatrwxd/ West coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hovdol Road West Coast Hwy Superior Avenue HoWtd Road Hospltd Rood jgv B dbbR 4-p o--157 so 1;, a 9 1 dbbso �0 o--0 a O1 ip Jbbsp Qp 4-p a 4 O1 11 d1� 4-p 4-215 O 4 Ov 52 4�bbso 4-p 7 a 71 Y3 1 6 d1bs3 4.0 4-96 T. 4 211 to al 116 Qlbbso 4-19 4-249 a 9 Ds411P 0 bsu ab,3 ' p?°11P 9 os011P I, 9s %1P ' °s411P p 0�011P e t o10 _ 0 P O� 60 -+ o e p -0o ao �o 0 -+owo 90 -+ < 2D 90 -0000 25 --0000 86 000 6� sO 4 Oa 4 O� 4 db4so 0a 4 d14s0 Oa 4 albbso Oa 0 65�g1P Oa °s°11P n 0 °-s411P n 19 R12 P n 19 23- 4'411P n 0 °�411P ° °s411P 120 ° 0 INewport Boulevard/ Newpori Boulewad/ Newport Boulevard/ RNerside Avumue/ Tustin Avenue/ Was Avenue/ Bawer Drive/ West Coast Hwy Via Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street / Wort Coast Hwy 0 0 43 4s It 1 29 dbb�z, o 4 7o 9 4a°o- -rv10 - a f a2bD9s�b44= - - 5 a m 1 40 a 16 0 bsu ab,3 0 �0 3 O ao 3 f ° tI� �1 h�4 o �10 o P JmaO s-� D ° P e t o10 _ 0 P O� o e �o -o-o < 2D �s4-0 elo�o 4 IPlacentia Avenue/ Placards Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Bouevard/ Harbor Boulevard/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street 16th Street 6g v �0 � 1 4_0 S, 69 v 29 dbb�z, 99 a 41 dibs0 10 1 4 41 4 39 4-0 %1P 23 �0 24 ao 31 -0 26 4-p 4_0 ° 26 4-0 O� o e �o -o-o �s4-0 elo�o dbbso 4 dbb�o sO 4 a5bso 4 4 db4so 4 d14s0 4 albbso 4 0 65�g1P 9 °s°11P p °-s411P R12 P h 23- 4'411P 9 °�411P ° °s411P 120 0 --000_0 0 -0.�0o 3- .pom.� p -0oae 1y 21a 6a O� 0� - NO 110 112 09 n 103 103 Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ 19th Sheet Broadway Harbor Boulevard 18% Streei/Rorhester St 17th Street 18th Street Industrial Way Ov �0 1 4_0 S, 01 31 29 dbb�z, 4 41 dibs0 10 4 4 41 4 %1P °- 31-+ 31 -0 0� O� o e Orange Avenue/ Santa Ana Av e/ Tustiv Av e/ I1th Street 11th Street 11th Street IKunzman. Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of tuming movement boxes. - Wild/bbas I Figure 21 Cumulative Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Oo a0 s15 N 4 00 a0 5 = 00 ao o 4 00 a7 4-114 4 -3o ap 4-9 4 2v ap 4-57 F d 1232 �o 4-0 3 0 -Pb 4 d�a 5 " dbbsa 13 b�0 7 "' b�o two0s 0� ° 0 1T -0 0� ° ° YP ���IYP 0� ° 0- ° 590 0sa-0 ° 2n °�0 00 0 0—c 06 1Tr ° ^ ° 9 123 0 0 p 74 Orange Street / Prospect Street / Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue / Newport Boulevard/ Nest Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Road west coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Road Hcsp @al Road 101v a0 s15 N 4 270 L31 4-11 `a 4 200 Lo 4 31 dbb�a 145 a o 1N d 10 ao 4-183 c 2v ap 4-57 F d 87v X56 4-17 9 d d-0 RE 2 dbb�0 13 b�0 14 18 dbb�0 two0s 0� ° 0 1T -0 0� ° ° YP ° 0s4IYP 273 0� ° 0- ° 9s4IYI° 0sa-0 ° 2n °�0 00 0 1t 9 123 0 0 p Newport Bodemrd/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Riverside Avenue/ lusts Avenue/ Irvine Avenue/ Bever Drive/ West Coast Hwy Via lido 32nd Stmt West coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Stmt/ West Coast Hwy IPbeentio Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placenta Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Harbor Boulevard/ Superior Avenue / Superior Avenue/ Victoria Street 19th Stmt 17th Street Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street 16th Street 70a o a0 s15 N 4 30 L31 4-11 `a 4 IJ6 a Lo 4 31 dbb�a 145 a „ °� ° 10 �2 4-33 � 4 115 0 ap rta - 4 10 c �p e 4 16 b�3 RE 25 19 "' db�10 ?t bb�a ° 0 1T ° 1�4IYP ° ° RE ° u�lY1° ° ° 0- h 0sa-0 0 1t 123 n 74 IPbeentio Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placenta Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Harbor Boulevard/ Superior Avenue / Superior Avenue/ Victoria Street 19th Stmt 17th Street Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street 16th Street 70a o ao 4 178 o ap 4 IJ6 a Lo 4 31 dbb�a 145 a „ °� ° 145 a48 4-12 �o 4 115 0 a5Z 4-4 4 0 25 27 g° bb�le ° - 7s°lYP — ° 0sIYP O� a W�74 123 n 74 Newport Boulevard/ Newport Bouevard/ Newport Bodewrd/ Newport OWemrd/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ 19th Street Broodwoy Harbor Boulevard 18th Strmt/Bochester St 171h Street 16th Street industrial Way 00 29 dbbss ao 4 db4�a ap 4 00 Lo 4 31 dbb�a ° 0 a� low „ °� ° 0s m —o�IYP 0 a ° ps _ w��IYP 0,e 0 Orange Avenue/ Santa Ana Avenue/ Tustn Avenue/ 17th Street 171h Street 17th Street �Kunz7 w,n Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. 3568d/bbas 57 Figure 22 Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 1 v 543, 24 v 605 v 1759 v I `+S 4-1279 A—' 2 ^ 4-1366 — 3 4-0 W? = ^ 4-794 5 =4-282 6 `� ' a -1457 Orange Street/ Prospect Street/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ PlacmNo Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport Boulevard/ West coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Rood (Pest Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Road Hosptal Rood X56 4 -444 $ tO 1246 v �9q 4 -726 7/ v X56 4-157 ' 1311 v 16 u, = X121 4-591 30 =� $Z v X171 4 -570 R m 867 0 `�78 4-138 '° ° F171419- =17 — 8 .5� LvS ddbsW 9 S d1b4n t0 dbb4-46 F,,-KT 657 �„ 1Y N4 dbb496 3 = `� 4-511 114:1 a—Z25 dbb4 tz a dbb4 5 a dbb4 sit a dbb4 61 1411 dlbbec 4-1654 a a�bb�In Its a dbb�B7 a P 19s o? ° 13s%YP %YP ° Os %4P 11127s 26D 10 ° �s %41° ° s'shYP ° 97s ° 172s1YP %YP 3180- -0 ="',�. $47--0= m ., 0--0ome t��^ �233$���00 2407 93 02 -4 ffi6 --0 -02 ^240253 137-0p s -- t2a 5924 314 10� n 1737 Oa = 238a t3� — 25a 2662 40a 2510 270 . 2037 2084 n 6 72 fi e 1 3 n 655 n 149 � 2064 Orange Street/ Prospect Street/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ PlacmNo Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport Boulevard/ West coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Rood (Pest Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Road Hosptal Rood Newport Boulmrd/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulemrd/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustn Avenue/ Irvine Avenue/ Dover Drive/ West coast Hwy No Lido 32nd Street West Crest Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street/ West coact Hwy 5� v X56 4 -444 $ tO 1246 v �9q 4 -726 7/ v X56 4-157 ' 1311 v 16 u, = X121 4-591 30 =� $Z v X171 4 -570 R m 867 0 `�78 4-138 '° ° 1 v =17 — 8 .5� LvS ddbsW 9 S d1b4n t0 dbb4-46 F,,-KT 657 �„ 1Y N4 dbb496 3 = `� 4-511 114:1 4 4-17et w o dbb4 4-1303 B — 4 dbb4 4-0 9 4 dbb4 7 4 .4 . m 4164-9 4— 4 dbb4-0 4-1654 4 dbb�x Its a dbb128 a 150-4, o? ° 6s%YP Os %YP ° 7s6s %YP ° 26D 10 ° T7s %41° 21 878�785 ° 97s t4Bs %YP —0 —�� Ua BAR 134 t��^ �233$���00 13D14a �m 2/0�� ¢ ^240253 Sa Bi ^� n 477 5924 314 n I n 1737 t3� — 10640 2662 2510 2075 2037 2084 n 6 0 n 457 1� Newport Boulmrd/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulemrd/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustn Avenue/ Irvine Avenue/ Dover Drive/ West coast Hwy No Lido 32nd Street West Crest Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street/ West coact Hwy 5� v X56 4 -444 $ tO 1031 v 6 �'^O �9q 4 -726 6B6 v I7 �' M X56 4-157 ' 1311 v 16 u, = X121 4-591 30 =� 19 — v �—' X171 4 -570 R m 4Z2 v e `�78 4-138 '° ° 27 v =17 — 5 ^ ° ddbsW 4 d1b4n 4 dbb4-46 4 4164-135 4 dbb496 4 d1b�s10 114:1 B a dbb�es a ° Oq— %YP ° 311E519 4 ° 36s %Ir ° 27aMM, 4 ° 263s %YP ° Its %4P ° 1s %YP 150-4, o? ° 6s%YP ° �s 1204 fe 254s 1 ° 719— ��� 21 878�785 ° 97s 20B� 9i � —�� mho 165 ~ ^ 13D14a �m ¢ Sa n 477 5924 314 n I n 1737 t3� — 10640 2662 Ploce to Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Harbor Boulevard/ 94perior Avmue/ Superior Avenue/ Mctorio Street 19th Sweet 17th Street %dorto Street 1% Street 17th Street 161h Street 3291 v 2674 v 2579 v 79 ^P^—� 3109 v a 30 =� 2441 v 31 1652 v dbb4-59 I Z � X285 4 -147 23 �P� 4-5 F o 4-0 25 f — X51 4-70 26 '120 4 -433 a �='= X40 4-45 B a X51 4-76 dbb4-m 4 a�btv;32 4 41b D 4 dbb�1 4 db4sln 4 41bs3s 4 dlb�3 0 8a7s%YP ° 6s%YP ° �s %4P ° 254s 10 ° 719— ° 21 % i ° 97s 20B� 9i � —�� mho 165 ~ ^ 13D14a �m ¢ Sa 5924 t3� — 10640 2662 2510 2075 2037 2084 Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulemrd/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boukmrd/ Newport Boulevvd/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ 19th Street Broadway Harbor Boulevard 18th Sttcet/Rodvester St 171h Street 1601 Street Industrial Way 332 v 0 v 257 v 79 ^P^—� �t28 4- 776t a 30 =� �u o-965�� 31 X38 ZR X878 dbb4-59 141 1 14 — — 1434 554 111: 446 Orange Avenue/ Smtu Ana Avenue/ Tustn Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Sbut 17th Street K4L7bZ7/ an Associates Intersection reference numbers Ore in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. 3568d/bbos IN Figure 23 Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 49 v X591 4-2118 _ 4 102 v X516 4-0 4 1 v X35 4-37 -n w+ 4 ,'Dl v �p6 4 -2805 4 669 v X47 4 -2836 4 v �73 4 -795 110 4 nN v 11308 4 -2772 4 I �w 4-3382 ffi v y X17 4-3243 6 Ds411P 121/ --0eoo 2683 3 �B8 4-p 0 h 19811° 183 ^ X13 4-795 21� 4-177 °zais-s°°11P 73 X57 f' 4-167 4 18 = 5 - 7-° 7, tR ) oo JS b43s dbR 0 4 db�e4zs n 47 4 dbb4-45o n 135 4 dbb ]1147 4 dbb4170 4b6 4 dbb4lts 4 4 bbs174 4 373' 41 1 I° o Ifi s 41 ° ° 8 4° ° n6 s °1 1 1° w 0 342 s 41 1 i° 0 99'5' 41 ° 0 316 ° 1� e--0 41 1 P ;t v+c, 1756 --0wti93 3 303 0�w Oz .d 443 1416 -0 2302 _ '. 963 - - 470-0q 133 g 266 -0 �-w,- ti 137 -4, 243 3483 1005 39 n 160D n 664 6M a /75 0 1116 0 19 Orange Street/ Prospect Street / Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue / Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Road West Coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Rood Hospital Road II68 0 8 o dbb:o X591 4-2118 _ 4 2646 0 9 F w -- d b b4-28 X516 4-0 4 2203 0 X35 4-37 -n w+ 4 526 0 �p6 4 -2805 4 85 v X47 4 -2836 4 1251 v �73 4 -795 110 4 IJ60 v 11308 4 -2772 4 10 S Jobs If '�+ m d b bd-28 12 S e S d b bso 13 -'~O d b b, 4 R ffi° d b bz-59 6 Ds411P 121/ --0eoo 2683 17 �, ¢ 'M .s ° Dsh1�P Duo 03 0 h 19811° 183 ^ °2m9�11° 21� °zais-s°°11P 73 =60 B 4-0 ° �s411P 778 --0 2353 R 6 t9os°11P 2n9 --0 283 0 n 1241 n HW4 n 47 7 n 612 n 135 Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boalerord/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Irvine Avenue / hover Drive/ West Coast Hwy Via Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street / West Coast Hwy 7120 �2I7 4-1067 - 4 712v X100 d 4 5770 X102 4-1269 - 14 6 63sg1P _ n01--0 17820 ° A0s411P 1233 - 0 633 5 ffi^ 12370 �s411P 13JB--0 BI3 y o _ 2173 0 0 353 v Is d -1561 I6 g �q� 4-433 17 �, ¢ 'M .s 1219 4-151 0 X1/3 4-1431 X478 d -1968 ^w - =60 B 4-0 8 0 9 _ � cl= 9 m is� ffi >; 1 �++ bs151 4 dbbsl93 4 4 4bli, 4 4 dbbs123 4 4 4b6 4 .-9 4 dbbs32 4 dbbs,s 4 6 585 549 --0 % 1 P y3 ° 333 362--0 1 A F � 6 515 210- P °1 1 1° w ° 258 554 -+ 1 :S ° 565 8002 --0 .� �•, w ° 1056 IM ERE ° 1� e--0 41 1 P 3303 103 303 5423 443 - _ '. 963 - - 583" 596 --0rs_� 343 SD --0 835s� H3 n 1533 1005 741 n 160D n 664 6M a 1997 0 1116 Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Harbor Boulevard/ Superior Avenue / Superior Avenue/ Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street 16th Street Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ 1901 Street Broodway Harbor Boulevard 18th Streel/Roahester St 171h Street 16th Street Industrial Way 531 0 29 ti m dbbs75 �2I7 4-1067 - 4 2968 0 X100 d 4 2849 0 X102 4-1269 - 14 6 63sg1P _ n01--0 3371 0 ° A0s411P 1233 - 0 633 5 ffi^ 3131 0 �s411P 13JB--0 BI3 y o _ 2173 0 0 353 2141 0 23 - t93 4—n / 29 4-0 0 4-1118 4- dam_ 2 ^ 25 "4 8 $ 26 w' 7 F � tr ffi >; X bbsa7 4 db�OSo 4 dbbsls 4 dbbsz3z 4 dbb dbbs32 4 6 1ssg1P 26- -0SN� ° 59sg1P 8--0�0 h zs3sail� h 73asg1P ° 1056 IM to7sg1P 103 5423 F 87 --0 693' =tip -�, 596 --0rs_� 343 SD --0 89- -0 H3 1293 a 2855 a 13M a 315D a 1997 45 Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ 1901 Street Broodway Harbor Boulevard 18th Streel/Roahester St 171h Street 16th Street Industrial Way 531 0 29 ti m dbbs75 �2I7 4-1067 - 4 75 0 dbbs97 X100 d 4 31 F^ 1 dbbs74 X102 4-1269 - 14 6 63sg1P _ n01--0 ffi y� ffi ° A0s411P 1233 - 0 633 5 ffi^ ° �s411P 13JB--0 BI3 y o _ 0 353 Orange Avenue / Santa Ana Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street K4L96%mmn Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 3568d/bbas 59 Figure 24 Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 45 0 �,2 4 F36D7 �s 4 881 0 10 B n alb �� 4-4 t. 4 561 a Z-� 4 663 0 �s N Y 4 882 0 �� 4-745 ra 4 g26 e �f 226 4 bb�32 / a1b4*-6, 5 =4-319 albb�96 6 83 $ albb�lss 7 � albb�e7 --b�tiF 0—nQ� 0� Y bassgM 41Tlh am$ = - DshTlh D--0° D� h118/�alg� 2407 -b 236 -a ,$ b shTP 1387 -b_ 26� b �salgl� 266 --0 40� —2 "1n�32411 s 137 -h 292 g_+f2� "'° ° 1372 66 ° 1%8 ° 570 ° 48D ° 164 ° 2124 Orange Street/ Prospect Street / Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport Boulevard/ West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Road West Coast Hwy Superlor Avenue Hospital Road Hospital Road 680 0 4•-58 4-444 ° 4 1255 0 9 } albbs9 4•-94 4 -226 4 881 0 10 B n alb o- 33 7 u3 4 403 0 11 5i V - albb�9 9-1702 4 52 0 4-1699 4 882 0 4 -544 4 g26 e 1746 26 4 12 N; albb�D 41bb�5s e 89 1569 --b f 473 1T4 f 1114sITi 463-0 46 ° 0—nQ� 0� Y bassgM 13� = - "��hTP 18���° b °2s>z�hT° 0� 21 26� °5390°IT 210 R�� ° 477 ° 1083 ° 1372 ° 978 ° 1286 ° D ° 957 168 Newport Bouevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Riverside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Irene Awn/ Dover Drive/ West Coast Hwy Yen Lido 32nd Street West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street / West coast Hwy 599 v 5 a-W f2 lbbX182 4•-58 4-444 ° 4 041 v 16 � G � albbX203 4•-94 4 -226 4 17 = albbs46 X55 4 -157 4 1324 18 q albbs136 X121 4 -594 4 ID33 9 = albbX98 4•-m 4-57D 4 172 v X28 4 -438 W 4 g26 e X17 N 4-0 - 4 db4�5ao 21 >8 `� albbx,69 e 89 1569 --b f 473 1T4 f 1114sITi 463-0 46 ;� = b �shTP 1 /S--b Y b276�ggla 1336-0 94 - g $ � " �hT1 791 -0 46 � ;� ti o b 11s�gP 676 -h 42 21 26� h � to zsohgP 693 1o2sggP ° 623 ° 477 ° 1083 ° 319 ° 1275 ° 1286 Placentia Awn/ Placenta Awn/ Placentia Avenue/ Harbor Bm9evord/ Harbor Boulevard/ Superior Avenue / Superior Avenue/ Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street Victoria Street 19th Street 17th Street 16th Street 3331 v 72=- dbbs39 2285 4 -147 a 4 2714 0 23 A 2 �bb X87 4-5 32 r 4 2519 v 4 -1�s ° al16sD 2g 4-6 0 4 3159 v 25" =' .9 K' 41b10 X51 4-70 1 91 4 X43 4-995 X1211 a 463 A 4 1662 v =40 N 4 1595 v ..tee dlbs3 X52 4 �_�.,� ✓° = $ allb�ut 7 albb�38 b �7shTP 2W 4 " 8- 3-a h_T0 � ° 2663 b ��°ITP 86D� b 254 104- e!4! b 730 485 g b 21 26� h � to b 1o2sggP ° 2602 55� ° 2535 ° ° 2042 ° 2D74 Newport Boievord/ Newport Roulewrd/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ 19th Street Broadway Harbor Boulevard 113th Street/Rochester St 17th Street 16th Street Indushial Way 332 v 270 v 253 v 29 aS; a �,z6 4 -836 $ = X43 4-995 �' 31 R X38 28 4-908 lbb�59 4 albb�35 4 lbw» 4 b h T P ° b Y n9b n��!� - B�� 143_ 55� n1� - ° 446 Orange Awn/ Santa Am Awnue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Sheet 17th Street K41.nzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. 3568dAbas R 1 1 1 1 Figure 25 Existing (Year 2009) + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 49 v ,`166 4 102 v 2 4 -13390 1-25 A 4 v 3 s bbz456 4- 4 472 v / dbb. 4-241% % 4 669 v 5 a. '^ oA, 4- %7 A5 =� 4 888 v 8 ;e 33 R dbbsn6 4-177 Y 4 1043, 292 a 15 D tesryYP 1829�a�29 153 9 - ° °s 0-D 0�2303 ID 4-35 4-37 371-1— 1416�g�� °IYP D -42sgYl° 569 -Dqg i2 3 e'r3 ° 991- TOB��,� 213 °I YID ^_ ^ 4-73 4-8g Zlb�174 21 c g+ c 66 dbbso c 39 4 4441-28 0 85 4 4441-22 c 566 4 dbbqzo28A c 551 4 dbb�o 2944 4 dbbslro Orange Street/ Prospect Street/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Placentia Avenue/ Newport Bouevad/ West Coast Hwy West Coast Hwy Hospital Road West coast Hwy Superior Avenue Hospital Rood Hospitd Rood 1269 v ,`166 4 2691 v 4-93 4 7 v 4-p 4-0 4 52 v 272 4-118 4 v 22% 4 1271 v 4-87 I 4n 1043, 292 a 15 285 4 -1561 $ ^ 9 - 4-516 D 591— ID & 4-35 4-37 -' 11 266 4--5 "' i2 3 e'r3 4-47 4-28% D 1� �+' a 4-73 4-8g s 21 c g+ 4-1308 4 -2782 dbbso 1-161 4 4441-28 ^�' 4 4441-22 �^- 4 dbbqzo28A 4 dbb�o 2944 4 dbbslro 2957 4 4441-73 „59 a D BsOIYP ° 61- %YP ° 193s4IgP 511- D 1881— I ° 329°IYP °1-1-1-9 ° %YP D 27s°IYP F2&V D 1s4IYI° -0 �.A 0-0 - :2 8 _0 1"ti- Y2132�e I I ti -7 2111 -> ^gym &7� YP into ffi� 03 - ta- - 213 73 2353 58���W 35 c 1031 1094 n 47 7 c 842 c 1 Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ R'narside Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ Irvine Avenue/ Dover Drive/ West Coosl Hwy via Lido 32nd Street West coast Hwy West Coast Hwy 17th Street / West Coast Hwy 75v ,`166 4 v 4-93 4 v 4-p 4-0 4 17 %v 272 4-118 4 v 22% 4 /92v 4-87 I 4n 1043, 292 a 15 285 4 -1561 $ ^ 16 4-245 4-435 D 591— 17 4-219 dl Y P 16 4-143 4-1132 a 19 m 4-476 4-1060 D 1� $ ` 4-83 4-168 ♦? 21 c g+ 260 4-0 ^ 444m 1-161 4 4441-193 ^�' 4 4441-67 �^- 4 dbb�t23 4 dlbs2+g 2944 4 dbbsel9 2957 4 4441-73 4 D 1-s -'hYP D s°11P D 511- %YI° D 25B T10 °1-1-1-9 %YP D 27s°IYP D 1s4IYI° -0 �.A Ni^iF b�X,- �a Y•'gS- into ffi� 3��i�� O2a 58���W 35 c 1031 c 710 n c 14 Placenta Avenue/ Placentlo Avenue/ Placentio Avenue/ Harbor Boulevard/ Habor Boulevard/ Superior Avenue/ Superior Avenue/ Wdloria Street 19th Street 17th Street 'Adwlo Street 196 Street 17th Sweet 76th Street 3889 v 22 dbbssz ,`166 4 3021 v 23 dbb1-a7 4-93 4 2902 v / �'0 4bb1-a 4-p 4-0 4 3438 v 25 -- g ^ 4441-15 272 4-118 4 3197 v M 4141-232 22% 4 2186 v 7 6 dbbsro 4-87 I 4n 2154 v ti S ti 4441-32 292 a D 772— 41 Y D I5s % Y D 591— 41 Y P D 2931— dl Y P D 8329 D ZOs D 1� 243 � ~ 103 � � 5552 ”' � 693 ^�' 6343 �^- 2944 2957 a 3187 a 3216 a 2025 7 e 758 Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevard/ Newport Boulevord/ Newport Boulevard/ 19th Street Broadway Habor Bouleard IBth Street/Rochester St 17th Street 16th Street Industrial Woy F 532 v 29 2217 4 -1107 9 4 375 v 30 ° r � 444297 2180 4-1422 4 256 v 31 `�- ^ 44+1 4 -102 4-119; -71 4 %1P D Q° F13 � >B ^ 10-+ 1310 633 ayt� '" 1/15 "FQ5 81-ar y�,",4e - e c 446 353 Orange Avenue/ Sonto Ana Avenue/ Tustin Avenue/ 17th Street 17th Skeet 17th Street Kun%7wn Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. 3568d/bbos 61 7. Delay Analysis ' Discussed below is the delay methodology required by the California Department ' of Transportation. The delay and Level of Service summary for the study area intersections are shown in Table 10. ' Delay Methodology The technique used to assess the capacity needs of an intersection is known as , the Intersection Delay Method (see Appendix G) based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual — Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. Level of , Service definitions are included in Appendix G. To calculate delay, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. The signalized intersections are considered deficient (Level of Service F) if the overall ' intersection critical volume to capacity ratio equals or exceeds 1.0, even if the level of service defined by the delay value is below the defined Level of Service standard. The volume to capacity ratio is defined as the critical volumes divided ' by the intersection capacity. A volume to capacity ratio greater than 1.0 implies an infinite queue. Delav Calculations ' The study area intersections currently operate at Level of Service D or better ' during the peak hours for existing traffic conditions (see Appendix G), except for the following study area intersections that operate at Level of Service E to F during the peak hours: ' Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 19th Street (EW) — Morning /Evening Peak Hours , 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) — Morning /Evening Peak Hours 17th Street (EW) — Evening Peak Hour The study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak hours for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects traffic conditions (see Appendix G), except for the following ' study area intersections that operate at Level of Service E to F during the peak hours: Newport Boulevard (NS) at: ' 19th Street (EW) — Morning /Evening Peak Hours ' 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) — Morning /Evening Peak Hours 17th Street (EW) — Moming /Evening Peak Hours 62 1 U 1 1 1 The study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak hours for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects + project traffic conditions (see Appendix G), except for the following study area intersections that operate at level of Service E to F during the peak hours: Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 19th Stmt (EW) — Morning/Evening Peak Hours 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) — Moming/Evening Peak Hours 17th Street (EW) — MominglEvening Peak Hours The project - generated traffic resulted in a significant impact at the following study area intersection; therefore, the project should contribute its fair share toward the following improvements or alternative mitigation measures determined to be appropriate (providing equal or better effectiveness) by the City of Costa Mesa are recommended at the following study area intersection: Costa Mesa intersections: Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) - To alleviate the project's significant impacts, provide a southbound through/right turn lane. The southbound improvement would require street widening. 1. Based upon the delay methodology required by the Califomia Department of Transportation, the delay and Level of Service summary for the study area intersections are shown in Table 10. With the improvements listed above or ' alternative mitigation measures determined to be appropriate (providing equal or better effectiveness) by the City of Costa Mesa, the project is projected to not have a significant impact at the study area intersections. 1 1 I 6s Table 10 Intersection Delay and Level of Service Summary ' The northbound improvement is currently programmed for improvements by the City of Costa Mesa in spring of Year 2008. 64 I r� _J J 1 1 �J 1 1 Peak Hour Delay Seconds - Level of Service Existing + Existing + Approved Projects + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Delay Existin Cumulative Pro'ects Pro'ed increase Intersection Moming Evening Morning Evening Morning Evening Morning Evening Newport Beach Intersections Orange Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) 3.5-A 4.2-A 3.8 -A 4.7 -A 3.9 -A 5.1-A 0.1 0.4 Prospect Street (NS) at: West Coast Hi hway (EW) 7.4-A 4.9 -A 8.7 -A 5.5 -A 9.1 -A 5.8 -A 0.4 0.3 Superior Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway EW 17.6 -B 25.4 -C 19.6 -B 36.6 -D 20.9 -C 52.9 -D 13 16.3 Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Road (EW) 15.8 -B 18.3 -B 18.1 -B 27.6 -C 19.7 -B 45.5 -D 1.6 17.9 West Coast Highway (EW) 10.9 -B 11.2 -B 13.0 -B 14.0 -B 13.4 -B 15.7 -B 0.4 1.7 Via Lido (EW) 12.7 -B 16.7 -B 12.7 -B 17.4 -B 123-13 18.0 -B 0.0 0.6 Riverside Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway EW 15.7 -B 28.5 -C 18.5 -B 40.1 -D 19.0 -B 43.0 -D 0.5 2.9 Tustin Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway EW 2.0 -A 2.4 -A 2.3-A 2.7 -A 2.3-A 2.8 -A 0.0 0.1 Dover Drive (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) 16.5 -B 17.3 -B 17.6 -8 22.9 -C 17.7 -B 23.9 -C 0.1 1.0 Costa Mesa Intersections Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 19th Street (EW)' 146.4 -F 159.3 -F 135.0 -F 151 -4-F 139.4 -F 161.4 -F . 4.4 10.0 Broadway (EW)' 3.7 -A 6.2 -A 3.5-A 6.0-A 3.5 -A 6.0-A 0.0 0.0 Harbor Boulevard (EW)' 10.9 -B 15.3 -B 11.6 -B 20.5 -C 12.0 -8 23.5 -C 0.4 3.0 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW)' - Without Improvements 114.6 -F 189.2 -F 102.3 -F 173.1 -F 107.8 -F 187.1 -F 5.5 14.0 - With Improvements 59.6 -E 134.8 -F 42.7 -38.3 17th Street (EW)' 51.8 -D 69.7 -E 63.2 -E 90.8 -F 69.8 -E 95.7 -F 6.6 4.9 16th Street (EW) 4.7 -A 6.1 -A 5.6 -A 7.2 -A 5.6-A 7.2 -A 0.0 0.0 Industrial Way (EW) 10.1 -B 8.2 -A 10.7 -B 9.1 -A 11.0 -B 10.2 -B 0.3 1.1 ' The northbound improvement is currently programmed for improvements by the City of Costa Mesa in spring of Year 2008. 64 I r� _J J 1 1 �J 1 1 I ■ 8. Year 2025 Traffic Conditions 1 The City of Newport Beach General Plan was adopted in Year 2006. The ' proposed project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan; therefore, no additional long -range analysis is needed. ' The City of Newport Beach General Plan includes the following: ' • SR -55 Freeway is not extended south of 19th Street • 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River is constructed • Widening of West Coast Highway (SR -1) from Newport Boulevard to Dover ' Drive The 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River and the widening of West Coast ' Highway (SR -1) from Newport Boulevard to Dover Drive are consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. ' Discussed below are Year 2025 traffic conditions based on the City of Costa Mesa General Plan traffic analysis under the following assumptions: ' • SR -55 Freeway is not extended south of 19th Street • 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River is not constructed ' Based upon the City of Costa Mesa General Plan (adopted January 22, 2002), the City of Costa Mesa City Council policy direction is to delete the 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River from the Master Plan of Highways. Long -range plans show the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55) extending beyond its current termination point. However, no timetable or funding source for its ' extension has been identified nor have many of the issues such as right -of -way need to be resolved. 1 1 I 1 65 9. Site Access and On -Site Circulation Discussed below are site access and on -site circulation issues. Site Access The ultimate configuration of Superior Avenue will have a raised median to almost Industrial Way. The Project North Driveway will provide right turns in /out only access to Superior Avenue with stop sign control. A right turn lane is striped on Superior Avenue at the Project North Driveway. The Project Central Driveway will provide for full access to Superior Avenue with a traffic signal. This traffic signal is a project design feature. A right turn lane is striped on Superior Avenue at the Project Central Driveway. The Project South Driveway will provide right turns in /out only access to Superior Avenue with stop sign control. A right turn lane is striped on Superior Avenue at the Project North Driveway. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis A traffic signal is projected to be warranted at the following study area intersection for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + project traffic conditions (see Appendix H): Superior Avenue (NS) at: Project Central Driveway (EW) This traffic signal is a project design feature. Traffic signal warrants have been adopted by the Federal Highway Administration and California Department of Transportation. Rural traffic volume warrants are utilized when the 85th percentile speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour or when the intersection lies within the built up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000. When calculating traffic signal volume warrants, the volumes of both the major and minor street must meet or exceed those listed in Appendix H. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization. To calculate an Intersection Capacity Utilization value the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the n I I 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 I 1J 1 I 1 I I capacity of the intersection. An Intersection Capacity Utilization value is usually expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion of the hour required ' to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic K all approaches operate at capacity. The Levels of Service for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + project traffic conditions have been calculated for the Superior Avenue /Project Central Driveway intersection and are shown in Table 11. The Levels of Service for existing (Year 1 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects+ project traffic conditions have been calculated for the Superior Avenue/Project Central Driveway intersection and are shown in Table 11. The Superior Avenue /Project Central Driveway intersection is projected to operate at Level of Service D during the morning /evening peak hours. Intersection Capacity Utilization worksheets and morning /evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are provided in Appendix C. Synchro Analvsis A Synchro operational analysis has been conducted on the study area intersections along Superior Avenue (see Appendix 1). Synchro is a software ' application for optimizing traffic signal timing and performing capacity analysis. The software optimizes splits, offsets, and cycle lengths for individual ' intersections, an arterial, or a complete network. The study area intersections along Superior Avenue are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects + project traffic conditions. The proposed traffic signal at Superior Avenue /Project Central Driveway is not projected to adversely impact adjacent traffic signal operations. 1 I I d I 1 67 Table 11 Superior Avenue/Project Central Driveway Intersection Capacity Utilization and Levels of Service Intersection Traffic Control 3 Intersection A mroach Lanese Peak Hour ICU -LOS' Existing + Approved Projects + Pro'ad Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + P fact Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Morning Evening Morning Evening Superior Avenue (NS) at: Project Central Driveway (EW} I TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 11 0.887 -D 0.871 -D 0.888 -D I 0.812 -D ' ICU -LOS = Intersectlon Capeafy untaedan - Level Of Service 3 When a right tlxn lane at Designated, the lane can either be striped or unslnped To lunction as a right tum Fens. there nest be sutfident wldth for right tuming vehKies to navel oWaide the Mmugh lanes L = Left; T = Txagh'. R = Right: = Impmvement 3 TS = Traffic Signal 68 I I 1 10. Conclusions This section summarizes the existing traffic conditions, project traffic impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures. Existing Traffic Conditions a. The property is a fully developed office and research & development center. It currently consists of 4 buildings totaling 415,493 square feet with a four - level above grade parking garage. Current approvals allow for 57% research & development, research & developmentlindustrial uses (236,832 square feet) and 43% office uses (178,661 square feet). On December 7, 2006 the Newport Beach Planning Commission adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration Sch. No. 2006 - 101105 and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006 -001 to allow for 97,000 square feet of medical office uses on the site. The approval also allowed for the demolition of an existing 86,079 square foot building to be replaced with a four -level parking garage. The site was proposed to consist of 97,000 square feet of medical office, 136,000 square feet of general office, and 96,414 square feet of research & development. The approval of the 97,000 square feet of medical office is not taken into account in this study because the proposed project is within two years of the most current approval. Therefore, the trips credited for the most recent approval are not taken into account pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). ' In order to accommodate medical office uses on the site, the project proposes to reduce the overall square footage with the demolition of Building 4, addressed as 530 Superior Avenue (86,079 square feet). b. The project site currently has access to Superior Avenue. C. Pursuant to discussions with the Cities of Newport Beach /Costa Mesa staff, the study area includes the following study area intersections: Newport Beach Intersections: Orange Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Prospect Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) 69 Superior Avenue (NS) at: Project Driveway (EW) — With Project Condition Only Hospital Road (EW) West Coast Highway (EW) Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) Hospital Road (EW) Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Road (EW) West Coast Highway (EW) Via Lido (EW) 32nd Street (EW) Riverside Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Tustin Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Irvine Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW)' Dover Drive (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Costa Mesa Intersections: Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Victoria Street (EW) 19th Street (EW) 17th Street (EW) Harbor Boulevard (NS) at: Victoria Street (EW) 19th Street (EW) Superior Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) 16th Street (EW) Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 19th Street (EW) Broadway (EW) 'Cities of Newport Beach /Costa Mesa intersection. 70 I a. On December 7, 2006 the Newport Beach Planning Commission adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration Sch. No. 2006- 101105 and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006 -001 to allow for 97,000 square feet of medical office uses on the site. The approval also allowed for the demolition of an existing 86,079 square foot building to be replaced with a four -level parking garage. The site was proposed to consist of 97,000 square feet of medical office, 136,000 square feet of general office, and 96,414 square feet of research & development. The approval of the 97,000 square feet of medical office is not taken into account in this study because the proposed project is within two years of the most current approval. Therefore, the trips credited for the most recent approval are not ■ taken into account pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). # In order to accommodate medical office uses on the site, the project proposes to reduce the overall square footage with the demolition of Building 4, addressed as 530 Superior Avenue (86,079 square feet). The applicant, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is requesting the approval of an amendment to the existing Use Permit (UP2006 -010) to allow: (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet general office and research & development floor area, of the existing 329,414 square feet of existing floor area, to medical office use within the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district; and (2) the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space on -site, for a total of 350,000 square feet of gross floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site as CO -M (Commercial Medical Office) and the precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area. This land use i 1 71 Harbor Boulevard (EW) 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) 17th Street (EW) 16th Street (EW) Industrial Way (EW) Orange Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) Santa Ana Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) I Tustin Avenue (NS) at: 17th Street (EW) Traffic Summary a. On December 7, 2006 the Newport Beach Planning Commission adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration Sch. No. 2006- 101105 and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006 -001 to allow for 97,000 square feet of medical office uses on the site. The approval also allowed for the demolition of an existing 86,079 square foot building to be replaced with a four -level parking garage. The site was proposed to consist of 97,000 square feet of medical office, 136,000 square feet of general office, and 96,414 square feet of research & development. The approval of the 97,000 square feet of medical office is not taken into account in this study because the proposed project is within two years of the most current approval. Therefore, the trips credited for the most recent approval are not ■ taken into account pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). # In order to accommodate medical office uses on the site, the project proposes to reduce the overall square footage with the demolition of Building 4, addressed as 530 Superior Avenue (86,079 square feet). The applicant, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is requesting the approval of an amendment to the existing Use Permit (UP2006 -010) to allow: (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet general office and research & development floor area, of the existing 329,414 square feet of existing floor area, to medical office use within the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district; and (2) the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space on -site, for a total of 350,000 square feet of gross floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site as CO -M (Commercial Medical Office) and the precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area. This land use i 1 71 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS HOAG HEALTH CENTER Submitted to: Keeton K. Kretzer Keeton Kretzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, California 92780 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 -4731 (949) 553 -0666 LSA Project No. KKC0701 LSA August 2007 I a s � m Cl) z FARAD S7 J NEWHALL 0 U 0 COQ' P S7 U Q OHMS WY Q' m _J JQ� W 16TH d PROJECT 800 LOCATION �Y p PRODUCTION PL �v0 a A z 0 J r. $7 n 800 atL a,;n p asp P 7 sT �oovn ownso' �'.. A m MEDIC Oa �r ' 91 A uy,5 HALYARD LN A( °{y ° b1 n0 v Oi' i34b F' 1NNP�`/W Ctn \ L/ 1K S A °nR'A L4J'�L \ \ lV .. _ __. . _ 9 f�P� b o N L M BL 3 Tn CT'F'La LN ° N y c vP ERIOR � w s 90 a JOG r, iL a)no y JP ,Q yL a T � psi J� � R ARZABT. •' ¢ e ".BEACk DR 0 G '3 BOUVARST o m 9G 300 ST 31ST ST 5 ST . Oq L S A FIGURE 1 o '00 '000 Hoag Health Center reer SOURCE: The Thomas Guide Project cation I:VKKC070 M\Lwatimxdr!620/071 1 LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 9000 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT REACH_ CALIFORNIA Thd amended Use Permit also provided for a shuttle service consisting of a 20- passenger van that will shuttle physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The shuttle service is limited to two roundtrips 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. No ancillary parking will be allowed to occur at Hoag Health Center for Hoag Hospital except during a one -year interim period to facilitate completion of Hoag's construction of its Lower Campus. Project Description The applicant, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is requesting the approval of an amendment to the existing Use Permit (UP2006 -010) to allow: (1) conversion of the remaining 232,414 sf general office and the existing 329,414 sf of existing R &D floor area to medical office use within the M-1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District; and, (2) construction of an additional 20,586 sf of medical office space on site, for a total of 350,000 gross sf of medical office floor area on the site. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 s£ The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site as CO -M (Commercial Medical Office) and the precise development limitation of 350,000 sf of medical office floor area. This land use designation is intended to provide primarily medical - related uses. Additionally, approval of a traffic study is being requested pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). As indicated above, 1,985 parking spaces are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces in two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on -site parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's Parking Code. Table B provides a comparison of the existing approved floor area allocation to that of the proposed project. Figure 2 depicts the proposed site plan. Table B: Construction Phasing, Hoag Health Center Component Anticipated hu lementation Building demolition 3rd Quarter 2007 Garage construction 3rd Quarter 2008 Conversion of 350,000 sf to medical office 5 -7 years from approval 20,586 sf new medical office floor areas 3,000 -5,000 sf, 3 -5 years from Approval 16,586 to 18,586 sf, 5 -7 years from Approval Source: Hoag Healthcare Center, 2007. I Anticipated completion E New construction P:\KK00701\Air.doc 48107/07E LL N v � W) w F e � Lq I � w v 0 N o ri) w x J o Y ux j W O y W x 10 r ao 0 b ' I 8g €N , � I i iI v � I 8 F e � � I � w v U o ri) w x m o Y I i la I 8 F e o m �Iv C C m o Y I d 1 I 11 �L 1 F J 1 I I 11 1 LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGU ET 2007 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BRACH. CALIPORHIA Project Phasing The applicant is proposing to implement the project over several years based on the schedule in Table C: Table C: Land Use Summary, Hoag Health Center Building/Use Floor Area Height A droved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 Building 1 100,407 48 ft, 6 in Building 2 117,027 32 ft, 5 in Building 3 111,980 48 ft, 6 in Structure 1 (Paricing Structure 46 ft Structure 2 (Parldrig Structure 32 ft Total R &D 96,414 Total Office 136,000 Total Medics] Office 97,000 Total Gross Floor Area 329,414 Proposed Project — 2007 Building 1 100,407 48 ft, 6 in Building 2 117,027 32 ft, 5 in Building 3 111,980 48 ft, 6 in Structure 1 (Parldrig Structure 46 ft Structure 2 (Parldrig Structure 32 ft Total R&D (Removed) Total Office (Removed) Total Medical Office 329,414 Additional Medical Office 20,586 Total Gross Floor Area 350,000 Source: Planning Activity No. 2007 -013 (January 18, 2007) R = feet; in = inches Project Objectives Implementation of the proposed project will achieve the following intended specific objectives that have been identified by Hoag Health Care Center. To provide 350,000 sf of medical office space that can be utilized to meet the growing demand for outpatient health care services, including imaging, urgent care, rehabilitation, and health care education programs. • To provide the highest - quality health care available. • To support Hoag Hospital's delivery of patient - centered care for those hospitalized as an inpatient and by providing additional outpatient care and services. P:%KKC0701 Wir dm a08l07107e d LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 3007 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT EEAUH. CALIFORNIA • To recognize that as Orange County's population ages and expands, so grows the need for increased health care services. • To have medical office space conveniently located near the hospital and supported by imaging, rehabilitation, and educational programs, allowing the hospital to attract new physicians to the community. • To provide the much - needed space for physician's offices. There is great need for primary care and specialty physicians. It is Hoag's objective to provide the space for them to practice. • To put the patient first by delivering care from the patients' perspective. For outpatient care and , services, that means simplifying the process. Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements ' Project implementation will necessitate approval of the following discretionary actions by the Newport Beach City Council: • Use Permit Amendment , PAKKO701 Window u0sl07l07» Ll J 11 L I I 11 1 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. I AUGUST CIA HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA I 3.0 SETTING i ' 3.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located within the City of Newport Beach (City), which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The air quality assessment for the proposed project includes estimating emissions associated with short -term construction and long -term ' operation of the proposed project. A number of air quality modeling tools are available to assess air quality impacts of projects. In addition, certain air districts, such as the SCAQMD, have created guidelines and requirements to conduct air quality analyses. The SCAQMD's current guidelines, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, were adhered to in the assessment of air quality impacts for the proposed project. ' 3.1.1 Regional Air Quality Both the State of California (State) and the federal government have established health -based ambient I air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table D, these pollutants include ozone (03), CO, nitrogen dioxide (1102), sulfur dioxide (S02), coarse particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ' (PM2.5), and lead. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility- reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the ' populace with a reasonable margin of safety. In addition to setting out primary and secondary AAQS, the State of California has established a set of episode criteria for ozone, CO, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short -term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public health. Health effects are progressively more severe as pollutant levels increase from Stage One to Stage Three. Table E lists the health effects of these criteria pollutants and their potential sources. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety (EPA), these health effects would not occur unless the standards are exceeded by a large margin. The State AAQS are more stringent than the federal AAQS. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) provides the SCAQMD and other air districts with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources. Indirect sources of pollution are generated when minor sources collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution. Examples of this would be the motor vehicles at an intersection, a mall, and on highways. The SCAQMD also regulates stationary sources of pollution throughout its jurisdictional area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). IPAKKC0701Wrdoo.Mro7 /0U LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 2000 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA Table D: Ambient Air Quality Standards Source: ARB, February 22, 2007. I I I L1 I 11 I I l_1 J L i RkICKC070AAirdoca08/07107a 9 ' Averaging California Slandardsl Federal Smndardsr POW trust Time Concentrations Method Primaryr's SerondaryL6 Method' 1 -Hwr 0.09 ppm (180 µg/ms) Ultraviolet _ Same as Ultraviolet OEene (03) Photometry Primary Standard Photometry 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm 8 -Hour (137 µg/ms) (157µg4ns) Respirable 24 -Hour 50 g4ns 150 µg/m Inertial Annual Particulate Gravimetric or Beta Same as Separation and Matter Arithmetic 20 µg/ms Attenuation* _ Primary Standard Gravimehic (PM10) Mean Analysis Fine 24 -Hour No Separate Slate Standard 35 µg/ms. Inertial Particulate Same as Separation and Annual Matter Arithmetic 12 11P/m3 Gravimetric or Beta 15 I µ� Primary Standard Gmvimetnc (PMu) Mean Attenuation' Analysis 8-Hour 9.0 m (10 mg/ms) Non-Dispersive 9 ppm (10 mg/ms) Non-Dispersive 1 -Hour 20 ppm (23 nWff?) 35 ppm (40 3O m`) Monoxide Infrared None Infrared Photon Photometry 6 ppm (7 mg/ms) _ (CO) P (NDIR) (NDIR) (Lake Tahoe) Nitrogen Annual Arithmetic 0.03 ppm (56 µg/ms) Gas Phase 0.053 m (100 PP peen) Same as Gas Phase Dioxide Mean Primary Standard Chemilumineseence 1 -Hour 0.18 38 (NO2 _ rn) per n) 30-day 1.5 µg/ms — — High - Volume Lead Ca1�g Absorption Sampler and Atomic Atomic — 1.5 g/m 3 µ Same Absorption Quarter Primary Standard Annual 0.030 ppm (80' Arithmetic — IIP%m3) — Mean Sulfur 24-Hour 0.04 ppm (105 Uhresienc 0.14 Fpm (365 _ Spectmphotometry, Dioxide µern)) Fluorescence PP% I I I 1 LJ 1 I 1 I 1 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AU OUST 2007 Footnotes: AIR QVALITY ANALYSIS HOAO HEALTH CENTER IT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 1 California standards for ozone; CO (except Lake Tahoe); sulfur dioxide (I- and 24- hour); nitrogen dioxide; suspended particulate matter; PMIa, PM2.5 and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth - highest eight - hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PMIa, the 24 -hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. For PM2.5, the 24 -hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the EPA for further clarification and current federal policies. 3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25OC and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 250C and a reference pressure of 760 tort; ppm in this table refers to ppm.by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4 Any equivalent procedure that can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. r Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the EPA. a The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as "toxic air contaminants" with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. P:9000070 I�Air.dm .08/07/07» LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 2000 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIPORNIA Table E: Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary Effects Ozone (03) Atmospheric reaction of organic gases Aggravation of respiratory and with nitrogen oxides in the presence of cardiovascular diseases. sunlight. Irritation of eyes. Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. Plant leaf in' Nitrogen Motor vehicle exhaust. Aggravation of respiratory illness. Dioxide (NOD High temperature stationary Reduced visibility. combustion. Reduced plant growth. Atmospheric reactions. Formation of acid rain. Carbon Byproducts from incomplete Reduced tolerance for exercise. Monoxide combustion of fuels and other carbon Impairment of mental function. (CO) containing substances, such as motor Impairment of fetal development. exhaust. Death at high levels of exposure. Natural events, such as decomposition Aggravation of some heart diseases of organic matter. (angina). Suspended Stationary combustion of solid fuels. Reduced lung function. Particulate Construction activities. Aggravation of the effects of gaseous Matter (PM2.5 Industrial processes. pollutants. and PM10) Atmospheric chemical reactions. Aggravation of respiratory and cardiorespiratory diseases. Increased cough and chest discomfort. Soiling. Reduced visibility. Sulfur Dioxide Combustion of sulfur- containing fossil Aggravation of respiratory diseases (SOD fuels. (asthma, emphysema). Smelting of sulfur - bearing metal ores. Reduced lung function. Industrial processes. Irritation of eyes. Reduced visibility. Plant injury. Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc. Lead (Pb) Contaminated soil (e.g., from leaded Impairment of blood function and nerve fuels and lead -based paints). construction. Behavioral and hearing problems in children. Source: ARB 2005. P:VIXC0701Wr.doc 48=07,, I LEA ASSOCIATRB. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 2007 HOAO HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit. With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station closest to the site is the Newport Beach Station.' The monthly average maximum temperature ' recorded at this station in the past 71 years ranged from 63.3 °F in January to 73.5°F in August, with an annual average maximum of 67.8 °F. The monthly average minimum temperature recorded at this station in the past 71 years ranged from 47.0 °F in January to 63.4 °F in August, with an annual average minimum of 54.8 °F. January is typically the coldest month, and August is typically the warmest month in this area of the Basin. The majority of annual rainfall in the Basin occurs between November and April. Summer rainfall is minimal and is generally limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions and slightly heavier Climate/Meteorology. Air quality in the planning area is not only affected by various emission sources (mobile, industry, etc.), but is also affected by atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, ' wind direction, temperature, rainfall, etc. The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second largest urban area in the United States gives the ' SCAB the worst air pollution problem in the nation. rAlthough Climate in the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwestern border, ' and high mountains surround the rest of the SCAB. The SCAB lies in the semipermanent high - pressure zone of the eastern Pacific; the resulting climate is mild and tempered by cool ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. However, periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana wind conditions do occur. The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit. With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station closest to the site is the Newport Beach Station.' The monthly average maximum temperature ' recorded at this station in the past 71 years ranged from 63.3 °F in January to 73.5°F in August, with an annual average maximum of 67.8 °F. The monthly average minimum temperature recorded at this station in the past 71 years ranged from 47.0 °F in January to 63.4 °F in August, with an annual average minimum of 54.8 °F. January is typically the coldest month, and August is typically the warmest month in this area of the Basin. 1 During spring and early summer, pollution produced during any one day is typically blown out of the SCAB through mountain passes or lifted by warm, vertical currents adjacent to mountain slopes. Air contaminants can be transported 60 miles or more from the SCAB by ocean air during the afternoons. From early fall to winter, the transport is less pronounced because of slower average wind speed and the appearance of drainage winds earlier in the day. During stagnant wind conditions, offshore Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu. IP:+xxc0701 wraa<R08/071M 12 The majority of annual rainfall in the Basin occurs between November and April. Summer rainfall is minimal and is generally limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions and slightly heavier showers in the eastern portion of the Basin and along the coastal side of the mountains. The Newport Beach climatological station also monitored precipitation in the project area. Average monthly rainfall measured in Newport Beach during that period varied from 2.45 inches in February to 0.30 inch or less between May. and October, with an annual total of 11.31 inches. Patterns in monthly and yearly rainfall totals are unpredictable due to fluctuations in the weather. rAlthough the SCAB has a semiarid climate, air near the surface is generally moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. With very low average wind speeds, there is a limited capacity to disperse air contaminants horizontally. The dominant daily wind pattern is an onshore 8 to 12 miles per hour (mph) daytime breeze and an offshore 3 to .5 mph nighttime breeze. The typical wind flow pattern fluctuates only with occasional winter storms or strong northeasterly (Santa Ana) winds from ' the mountains and deserts northeast of the SCAB. Summer wind flow patterns represent worst -case conditions, because this is the period of higher temperatures and more sunlight, which results in ozone formation. 1 During spring and early summer, pollution produced during any one day is typically blown out of the SCAB through mountain passes or lifted by warm, vertical currents adjacent to mountain slopes. Air contaminants can be transported 60 miles or more from the SCAB by ocean air during the afternoons. From early fall to winter, the transport is less pronounced because of slower average wind speed and the appearance of drainage winds earlier in the day. During stagnant wind conditions, offshore Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu. IP:+xxc0701 wraa<R08/071M 12 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 3007 HOAC HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA drainage winds may begin by late afternoon. Pollutants remaining in the SCAB are trapped and begin to accumulate during the night and the following morning. A low morning wind speed in pollutant source areas is an important indicator of air stagnation and the potential for buildup of primary air contaminants. Temperature normally decreases with altitude, and a reversal of this atmospheric state, where temperature increases with altitude, is called an inversion. The height from the earth to the inversion base is known as the mixing height. Persistent low inversions and cool coastal air tend to create morning fog and low stratus clouds. Cloudy days are less likely in the eastern portions of the SCAB and are about 25 percent more likely along the coast. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is limited by temperature inversions in the atmosphere close to the earth's surface. Inversions are generally lower in the nighttime, when the ground is cool, than during daylight hours when the sun warms the ground and, in turn, the surface air layer. As this heating process continues, the temperature of the surface air layer approaches the temperature of the inversion base, causing heating along its lower edge. If enough warming takes place, the inversion layer becomes weak and opens up to allow the surface air layers to mix upward. This can be seen in the middle to late afternoon on a hot summer day when the smog appears to clear up suddenly. Winter inversions typically break earlier in the day, preventing excessive contaminant buildup. The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. In the winter, the greatest pollution problem is accumulation of CO and oxides of nitrogen due to extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to form photochemical smog. Global Warming. Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The Earth's average near- surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 t 0.2 *Celsius (1.1 t 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human - induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. In the last 200 years, mankind has been releasing substantial quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, http://www.grida.no/climateJipci;_tar/wgl/index.htm. MCKC0701 \Ainduc - 08/07/M 1 I 1 I I I I r� i, I ' L S A ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 1007 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 1 State Federal causing global warming. While man -made greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane and ' nitrous oxide, some like the CFCs are completely new to the atmosphere. Ozone -8 hour Natural sources of carbon dioxide include the respiration (breathing) of animals and plants, and Severe 17 Nonattai ent evaporation from the oceans. Together, these natural sources release about 150 billion tons of carbon ' dioxide each year, far outweighing the 7 billion tons of man -made emissions from fossil fuel burning, PM2.5 waste incineration, deforestation and cement manufacture. Nevertheless, natural removal processes, Nonattainment such as photosynthesis by land and ocean - dwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this extra ' input of man-made carbon dioxide, and consequently the gas is building up in the atmosphere. Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. ' Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Man-made sources include the mining and Attainment burning of fossil fuels, digestive processes in ruminant animals such as cattle, rice paddies and the d P burying of waste in landfills. Total annual emissions of methane are about 500 million tons, with Attainment man-made emissions accounting for the majority. As for carbon dioxide, the major removal process Attainment/Unclassified of atmospheric methane - chemical breakdown in the atmosphere - cannot keep pace with source emissions, and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing. Air Pollution Constituents and Attainment Status. The following describes the criteria air pollutants and their attainment status in the SCAB based on ARB's Area Designations, Activities, and Maps (ARB 2007). Table F summarizes the attainment status in the SCAB for the major criteria pollutants. ' Table F: Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin 11 1 Pollutant State Federal Ozone -1 hour Nonattainment Revoked June 2005 Ozone -8 hour Not Established Severe 17 Nonattai ent PM10 Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment (except Los Angeles Coun Attainment Attainment AttainmenvMaintenince EEI Attainment Attainment d P Attainment Attainment others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified SoHec M July 2007. Ozone. Ozone (smog) is formed by photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic gases rather than being directly emitted. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas typical of Southern California smog. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, the elderly, and young children. Ozone levels peak during summer and early fall. The entire SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for the State one -hour ozone standard. The EPA has ' officially designated the status for the SCAB regarding the eight -hour ozone standard as "Severe 17," which means the SCAB has until 2021 to attain the federal eight -hour ozone standard. IPvcxc0701vir.do«"08ro7ro7N LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 8007 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA Carbon Monoxide. CO is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, almost entirely from automobiles. It is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and impairments to central nervous system functions. The entire SCAB has been designated as an attainment area for the federal CO standards. In addition, Orange County has been designated by the ARB to be an attainment area for State CO standards. Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a reddish brown gas, and nitric oxide (NO), a colorless, odorless gas, are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. These compounds are referred to as nitrogen oxides, or NOx• NOx is a primary component of the photochemical smog reaction. It also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition (i.e., acid rain). NOZ decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. The entire SCAB has not exceeded both federal and State standards for nitrogen dioxide in the past five years with published monitoring data. It is designated as an attainment area under both federal and State standards. Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of fuels containing sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SOZ levels. SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter, and reduces visibility and the level of sunlight. The entire SCAB is in attainment with both federal and State sulfur dioxide standards. Lead. Lead is found in old paints and coatings, plumbing, and a variety of other materials. Once in the blood stream, lead can cause damage to the brain, nervous system, and other body systems. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead. The entire SCAB is in attainment for the federal and State standards for lead. Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Coarse particles (all particles less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter, or PMIo) derive from a variety of sources, including windblown dust and grinding operations. Fuel combustion and resultant exhaust from power plants and diesel buses and trucks are primarily responsible for fine particle (less than 2.5 microns in diameter, or PM2.5) levels. Fine particles can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. Coarse particles (PM10) can accumulate in the respiratory system and aggravate health problems such as asthma. The EPA's scientific review concluded that fine particles (PM2.5), which penetrate deeply into the lungs, are more likely than coarse particles to contribute to the health effects listed in a number of recently published community epidemiological studies at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma); decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. The entire SCAB is a nonattainment area for the federal and State PM10 and PM2.5standards. r:vcxc0701 w;ldoc 4W/M 15 I I I 1 I I 1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 2000 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT %EACH. CALIFORNIA LJ L_, 1 1 1 h L 11 The EPA has designated the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the CAA for the SCAB. The EPA established new national air quality standards for ground level ozone and fine particulate matter in 1997. On May 14, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision ruling that the CAA, as applied in setting the new public health standards for ozone and particulate matter, was unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative authority to the EPA. On February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the way the government sets air quality standards under the CAA. The court unanimously rejected industry arguments that the EPA must consider financial cost as well as health benefits in writing standards. The justices also rejected arguments that the EPA took too much lawmaking power from Congress when it set tougher standards for ozone and soot in 1997. Nevertheless, the court threw out the EPA's policy for implementing new ozone rules, saying that the agency ignored a section of the law that restricts its authority to enforce such rules. r " Air quality data, 2004, 2005, 2006; EPA and ARB Web sites. PAKKC070 i wr. dm ,A/07ro7N 3.2 LOCAL AIR QUALITY The SCAQMD, together with the ARB, maintain ambient air quality monitoring stations in the SCAB. The air quality monitoring station closest to the site is the Costa Mesa station, and its air quality trends are representative of the ambient air quality in the project area. The pollutants ' monitored are CO, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.t The levels of particulate matter monitored at the Mission Viejo Station (the station closest to the project site that monitors these pollutants) are included in these tables for reference. ' The ambient air quality data in Table G shows that nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and CO levels are below the relevant State and federal standards in the project area. Ozone levels exceed the State one- hour standard and federal eight -hour ozone standard from one to two times a year in 2004 and were , below the federal and State standards in 2005 and 2006. The PM10 level monitored at the Mission Viejo station exceeded the State annual arithmetic average standards in two of the past three years but has not exceeded the federal standards since 1996. PMZ.S levels monitored at the Mission Viejo ' Monitoring Station were below the federal standard in the past three years. ' 3.3 REGULATORY SETTINGS 3.3.1 Federal Regulations /Standards Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, the EPA established national ambient air ' quality standards ( NAAQS). The NAAQS were established for six major pollutants, termed "criteria" pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established AAQS, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public ' health. Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the EPA to classify regions as "attainment" "nonattainment," ' or depending on whether the regions met the requirements stated in the primary NAAQS. Nonattainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by the EPA. LJ L_, 1 1 1 h L 11 The EPA has designated the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the CAA for the SCAB. The EPA established new national air quality standards for ground level ozone and fine particulate matter in 1997. On May 14, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision ruling that the CAA, as applied in setting the new public health standards for ozone and particulate matter, was unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative authority to the EPA. On February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the way the government sets air quality standards under the CAA. The court unanimously rejected industry arguments that the EPA must consider financial cost as well as health benefits in writing standards. The justices also rejected arguments that the EPA took too much lawmaking power from Congress when it set tougher standards for ozone and soot in 1997. Nevertheless, the court threw out the EPA's policy for implementing new ozone rules, saying that the agency ignored a section of the law that restricts its authority to enforce such rules. r " Air quality data, 2004, 2005, 2006; EPA and ARB Web sites. PAKKC070 i wr. dm ,A/07ro7N LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUOUST 5007 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS H OAG HEALTH CENTER IT BRACH _ CALIFORNIA Table G: Ambient Air Quality at the Costa Mesa/Mission Viejo Air Monitoring Stations Pollutant Standard 1 2004 2005 2006 Carbon Monoxide Max 1 -hr concentration m 4.9 4.7 3.5 No. days exceeded: State > 20 m/1 -hr 0 0 0 Federal > 35 m/1 -hr 0 0 0 Max 8 -hr concentration m 4.1 3.2 3.0 No. days exceeded: State 9.0 m/8 -hr 0 0 0 Federal 9 m/8 -hr 0 0 0 Ozone Max 1 -hr concentration m 0.104 0.085 0.074 No. days exceeded: State > 0.09 m/1 -hr 2 0 0 Max 8 -hr concentration m) 0.087 0.072 0.062 No. days exceeded: Federal > 0.08 m/8 -hr 1 1 0 0 Particulates M Max 24 -hr concentration ( m ) 47 41 57 No. days exceeded: State > 50 m /24 -hr 0 0 1 Federal > 150 m /24 -hr 0 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Average ( m ) 24 18 21 Exceeded: State > 20 g "J arm. arith. avg. Yes No Yes Federal > 50 m arm. arith. avg. No No No Particulates M2. Max 24 -hr concentration( Eahm ) 49.4 35.3 46.9 No. days exceeded: Federal > 65 m/24-hr 0 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Average ( m 12 11 ND Exceeded: State > 12 m arm. arith. avg. No No ND Federal > 15 m arm. arith. avg. No No ND Nitrogen Dioxide Max 1 -hr concentration m 0.097 0.085 0.101 No. days exceeded: State > 0.25 m/1 -hr 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic averse concentration m 0.016 0.014 0.015 Exceeded: Federal I > 0.053 Pont arm. arith. avg. No No No Sulfur Dioxide Max 24 -hr concentration ra) 0.008 0.008 0.005 No. days exceeded: State > 0.04 m/24 -hr 0 0 0 Federal > 0.14 m/24 -hr 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration m 0.002 0.001 0.001 Exceeded: Federal > 0.030 ppm ann. arith. avg. No No No Source: EPA and ARB, 2004 to 2006. ppm = parts per million pg/m3 = microgram of pollutant per cubic meter of air ND — no sufficient data i Measured at the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. P:VCK00701\Air.doc «48/07/07» 17 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 0007 HOAG HEALTH CENTRE NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA In April 2003, the EPA was cleared by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ' implement the eight -hour ground -level ozone standard. The EPA issued the proposed rule implementing the eight -hour ozone standard in April 2003. The EPA completed final eight -hour nonattainment status on April 15, 2004. The EPA revoked the one -hour ozone standard on June 15, ' 2005. The EPA issued the final PM2.5 implementation rule in fall 2004. The EPA issued final designations ' for PM2.5 attainment status on December 14, 2004. The EPA lowered the 24 -hour PM2.5 standard from 65 to 35 Pg/m3 and revoked the annual average PMIO standard in December 2006. ' 3.3.2 State Regulations /Standards The State of California began to set California ambient air quality standards ( CAAQS) in 1969 under ' the mandate of the Mulford - Carrell Act. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS. In addition to the six criteria pollutants covered by the NAAQS, there are CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are also listed in Table D. Originally, there were no attainment deadlines for CAAQS. However, the CCAA of 1988 provided a time frame and a planning structure to promote their attainment. The CCAA required nonattainment areas in the State to prepare attainment plans and proposed to classify each such area on the basis of the submitted plan, as follows: moderate, if CAAQS attainment could not occur before December 31, 1994; serious, if CAAQS attainment could not occur before December 31, 1997; and severe, if ' CAAQS attainment could not be conclusively demonstrated at all. The attainment plans are required to achieve a minimum 5 percent annual reduction in the emissions of nonattainment pollutants unless all feasible measures have been implemented. The State has currently classified the Basin as a nonattainment area for three criteria pollutants; 03, PMIO, and PM2.5 3.4 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY PLANNING FRAMEWORK The 1976 Lewis Air Quality Management Act established the SCAQMD and other air districts ' throughout the State. The federal CAA Amendments of 1977 required that each state adopt an implementation plan outlining pollution control measures to attain the federal standards in ' nonattainment areas of the state. The ARB coordinates and oversees both State and federal air pollution control programs in California. It oversees activities of local air quality management agencies and is responsible for incorporating air quality management plans for local air basins into a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for EPA approval. The ARB maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the State in conjunction with local air districts. Data collected at these stations are used by the ARB to classify air ' basins as attainment or nonattainment with respect to each pollutant and to monitor progress in attaining air quality standards. The ARB has divided the State into 15 air basins. Significant authority for air quality control within them has been given to local air districts that regulate stationary source ' emissions and develop local nonattainment plans. P *.WKC0701wird« ,msro3ro3» LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 9001 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA Regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the Basin. Every three years the SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP, updating the previous plan and having a 20 -year horizon. The SCAQMD adopted the 2003 AQMP in August 2003 and forwarded it to ARB for review and approval. The ARB approved a modified version of the 2003 AQMP and forwarded it to the EPA in October 2003 for review and approval. The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for the federal standards for 03 and PMio; replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard and provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal NO2 standard that the Basin has met since 1992. This revision to the AQMP also addresses several State and federal planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. This AQMP is consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendments to the ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard. However, this revision points to the urgent need for additional emission reductions (beyond those incorporated in the 1997/1999 Plan) to offset increased emission estimates from mobile sources and meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the time frames allowed under the federal Clean Air Act. The SCAQMD has adopted the 2007 AQMP, which it describes as a regional and multiagency effort (i.e., the SCAQMD Governing Board, ARB, SCAG, and EPA). State and federal planning requirements will include developing control strategies, attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, and maintenance plans. The 2007 AQMP also incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emission inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The SCAQMD has forwarded the 2007 AQMP to the ARB and EPA for their review and approval. I ., I 1_J 1 E i H [_l 11 I I I PAKC0701\Aindoc- 08/07/07. 19 , LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUOUST 5007 HOAC HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 4.0 METHODOLOGY ' A number of modeling tools are available to assess air quality impacts of projects. In addition, certain ' air districts, such as the SCAQMD, have created guidelines and requirements to conduct air quality analysis. SCAQMD's current guidelines, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993, were adhered to in the assessment of air quality impacts for the proposed project. The air quality models identified in the document are outdated; therefore, the URBEMIS 2007 model was used to estimate project related ' mobile and stationary sources emissions in this air quality assessment. The air quality assessment includes estimating emissions associated with short-term construction and ' long -term operation of the proposed project. Criteria pollutants with regional impacts would be emitted by project related vehicular trips, as well as by emissions associated with stationary sources used on site. Localized air quality impacts, i.e., higher CO concentrations (CO hot spots) near intersections or roadway segments in the project vicinity, would be small and less than significant due ' to the generally low ambient CO concentrations in the project area. A local CO hot spot analysis was conducted. Project specific information was used in the modeling. Default values representative of the ' proposed project were used when project specific data were not available. The net increase in pollutant emissions determine the significance and impact on regional air quality as a result of the proposed project. The results also allow the local government to determine whether the proposed project will deter the region from achieving the goal of reducing pollutants in accordance with the AQMP in order to comply with federal and State ambient air quality standards. ' SCAQMD has developed localized significance threshold (LST) methodology that can be used to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area. SCAQMD's current guidelines, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (June 2003), ' were adhered to in the assessment of air quality impacts for the proposed project. The LST mass rate look -up tables are used to determine whether the daily emissions for the proposed construction and operational activities could result in significant localized air quality impacts. The emissions of concern from construction activities are NOx and CO combustion emissions from construction equipment and fugitive PMra dust from construction site preparation activities. The primary emissions from operational activities include but are not limited to NOx and CO combustion emissions from stationary sources and/or on -site mobile equipment. Off -site mobile emissions from the project are not included in the emissions compared to the LSTs. PAKKC0701\Afrdw,(06l07/07a LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 20 a7 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT. BEACH. CALIFORNIA 4.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located. In addition to the federal and State AAQS, there are daily and quarterly emissions thresholds for construction and operation of a proposed project in the SCAB. The SCAB is administered by the SCAQMD, and guidelines and emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD, April 1993) are used in this analysis. It should be noted that the emission thresholds were established based on the attainment status of the air basin in regard to air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with adequate margin of safety (EPA), these emission thresholds are regarded as conservative and would overstate an individual project's contribution to health risks. 4.1.1 Thresholds for Construction Emissions Projects in the SCAB with construction related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds listed below are considered to be significant under the SCAQMD guidelines. 75 pounds per day ( lbs/day) of reactive organic compounds (ROC) • 100 lbs /day of NOx 550 lbs /day of CO • 150 lbs /day of PM10 • 55 lbs /day of PM2.5 • 150 lbs/day of sulfur oxides (SOx) 4.1.2 Thresholds for Operational Emissions Projects in the SCAB with operation related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds listed below are considered significant under the SCAQMD guidelines. 55 lbs/day of ROC 55 lbs/day of NOx 550 lbs /day of CO 150 lbs/day of PM10 55 lbs/day of PM2.5 150 lbs/day of SOx PAKKC0701 WirAm ,08/07107o [_l 11 11 1 1 1 L1 1 1 1 [1 1 J I �I I 1 1 1 11 1 LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 1007 HOAC HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CAL I FORMA 4.1.3 Thresholds for Localized Significance For this project the appropriate Source Receptor Area (SRA) is the North Coastal Orange County (SRA 18) .' The site is approximately 14 acres; however, the site is divided up into parcels for the individual medical office buildings that are less than 5 acres. It is expected that the construction activities will be confined to 5 acres or less at any one time, so the 5 -acre thresholds were used. There are existing residential uses to the west at a distance of approximately 100 feet (30 meters, [m]) from the closest construction area, and others to the south at approximately 150 feet (45 m). Thus, LST values for 25 in were used. The following thresholds apply fof this project: Construction thresholds for a 5 -acre site: 345 lbs /day of NOx at 25 in 964 lbs /day of CO at 25 in • 14 lbs/day of PMIO at 25 in • 9 lbs/day of PM2.5 at 25 in Operational thresholds for a 5 -acre site: • 545 lbs /day of NOx at 25 in 964 lbs /day of CO at 25 in • 4 lbs/day of PMIO at 25 m • 2 lbs/day of PM2.5 at 25 in Local Microscale Concentration Standards. The significance of localized project impacts under CEQA depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, project emissions are considered significant if they increase one -hour CO concentrations by 1.0 part per million (ppm) or more or eight -hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. The following are applicable local emission concentration standards for CO. • California State one -hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm California State eight -hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm 4.1.4 Thresholds for Health Risk Analysis The following limits for maximum individual cancer risk (MICR), cancer burden, and noncancer acute and chronic hazard index (HI) from project emissions of toxic air contaminants have been established for the Basin: . MICR and cancer burden I www. agmd. gov /cega/handbook/IST/LST.html. PAKKC0701 Wir.dx 48ro7ro7» 22 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 90Fa HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT 11A C H. CAL I FORNIA The cumulative increase in MICR, which is the sum of the calculated MICR values for all toxic air contaminants emitted from the project, will not result in any of the following: • An increased MICR greater than 1 in 1,000,000 (1.0 x 10') at any receptor location, if the project is constructed without T -BACT • An increased MICR greater than 10 in 1,000,000 (1.0 x 10'5) at any receptor location, if the project is constructed with T -BACT o A cancer burden greater than 0.5 Chronic Hl The cumulative increase in total chronic HI for any target organ system due to total emissions from the project will not exceed 1.0 at any receptor location. Acute Hl The cumulative increase in total acute Hl for any target organ system due to total emissions from the project will not exceed 1.0 at any receptor location. Risk per year The risk per year shall not exceed 1/70 of the maximum allowable risk specified above at any receptor locations in residential areas. MICR is the estimated probability of a potential maximally exposed individual contracting cancer as a result of exposure to toxic air contaminants over a period of 70 years for residential locations and 46 years for worker receptor locations. The MICR calculations shall include multipathway consideration if applicable. Cancer burden means the estimated increase in the occurrence of cancer cases in a population subject to a MICR of.greater than or equal to 1 in 1,000,000 (1.0 x 10') resulting from exposure to toxic air contaminants. Chronic Hl is the ratio of the estimated long -term level of exposure to a toxic air contaminant for a potential maximally exposed individual to its chronic reference exposure level. The Chronic Hl calculations shall include multipathway consideration if ' applicable. Acute Hl is the ratio of the estimated maximum one -hour concentration of a toxic air contaminant for a potential maximally exposed individual to its acute reference exposure level. 4.1.5 Global Warming Global warming and greenhouse gases are an emerging environmental concern being raised on statewide, national, and global levels. Regional, State, and federal agencies are developing strategies to control pollutant emissions that contribute to global warming, including the State's Assembly Bills 1493 and 32, Executive Order S -3 -05, and Executive Order S -01 -07. However, neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines mention or provide any methodology for analysis of "greenhouse gases," including COZ, nor do they provide any significance thresholds. This air quality analysis follows all procedures and requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines and the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. Although neither ARB nor SCAQMD district have established significance thresholds for greenhouse gasses, greenhouse gas emissions from the project are quantified in this report. P.WCC0701 WiLdoc - 09107/07D 23 11 I 1 Ll [I 1 1 F 1 1 1 I I J C LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 9007 5.0 IMPACTS AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS HOAG HEALTH CENTER IT BEACH. CALIFORNIA Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities, such as fugitive dust from site preparation and grading, and emissions from equipment exhaust. There would be long -term regional emissions associated with project related vehicular trips and stationary source emissions such as natural gas used for heating. Long -term local CO emissions at intersections in the project vicinity are not expected to be significantly affected by project - related traffic. 5.1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Construction activities . produce combustion emissions from various sources such as demolition, site grading, utility engines, on -site heavy -duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Table H lists a representative set of emissions sources that represent a peak day during the most intense of the planned construction phases. It shows that construction equipment/vehicle emissions of criteria pollutants would remain below the SCAQMD emissions thresholds. Details of the emission factors and other assumptions are included in Appendix A. Table H: Emissions from Construction Equipment Exhaust Construction Phase Pollutants bslda CO ROC NOx SOx PMIo2J PM2.s Demolition 36 9.3 89 0.07 5.4 4.5 Site Preparation 37 10 78 0.07 8.6 4.7 Grading 40 11 92 0.08 7.7 5.1 Building 24 7.3 58 0.05 3.4 3.1 Architectural Coating and Asphalt Pa vin 26 32 62 0.05 3.8 3.5 SCAQMD Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 55 Source: LSA 2007; SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook 1993; and EPA, AP-47, Fifth Edition, 1995. Note: PMz.5 is calculated from PM I0 by assuming that the fraction of PM 10 that is PM2,5 for off -road equipment exhaust is 0.89. 5.1.1 Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut -and -fill grading operations: Dust generated during construction varies I It is assumed that there is no overlap of these construction phases. 2 Total PMia daily emission rate with fugitive dust mitigation measures implemented. P,AKKC0701\Air.doc 09107107B . 24 LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUOUST 5007 I Ali QUALITY ANALYSIS HOAO HEALTH CENTER , XT ELACH. CALIFORNIA substantially on a project -by- project basis, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions at the time of construction. Construction emissions can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions, and other factors. The proposed project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to control fugitive dust. There are a number of feasible control measures that can be reasonably implemented to significantly reduce PM10 emissions from construction. Table H lists total construction emissions (fugitive-dust emissions and construction- equipment exhausts). Table H shows that during all construction phases, daily total construction emissions with mitigation measures would be below the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD. 5.13 Architectural Coatings Architectural coatings contain VOCs that are similar to ROC and are part of the 03 precursors. At this stage of project planning, no detailed architectural coatings information is available. Compliance with the SCAQMD Rule 1113 on the use of architectural coatings should be considered sufficient. An estimate was made based on the conversion of 350,000 sf of existing general office/R &D space to medical office space. Using the SCAQMD estimate that each square foot of office floor space corresponds to 2.0 sf of surface area to be coated and the SCAQMD VOC emission factor for nonresidential architectural coatings of 11.58 lbs of VOC per 1,000 sf of coating (assumes two 4 -mil -thick coats), and accounting for the planned construction phasing in Table B, the total VOC emissions from all coating application will be approximately 8,100 lbs. The peak daily emissions are estimated by assuming that combining the architectural coating portions of the construction phases would total about 4 months and there will be 22 work days per month. The resulting peak daily emissions rate is 92 lbs/day. These emissions would occur after grading activities, near the end of each construction phase. Short -term impacts to au quality from architectural coating application would potentially exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold without compliance to SCAQMD Rule 1113. However, emissions associated with architectural coatings could be deduced by using precoated/natural colored building materials, using water -based or low -VOC coating, and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency. For example, a high- volume, low- pressure (HVLP) spray method is a coating application system operated at au pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), with 65 percent transfer efficiency. Manual applications such as paintbrush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge have 100 percent transfer efficiency. With the use of the HVLP spray method, the VOC emissions would be reduced to 32 lbs/day or lower and below the SCAQMD emission threshold. 5.1.4 Localized Significance Analysis Table I shows the construction - related emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 compared to the LSTs for the North Orange County Coastal at distances of 25 m. P:vauro701\ ir.do«osro7roN 1 11 1 1 1 I1 1 1 1 Fri �J n� � L_' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 5007 Table I: Summary of Construction Emissions Localized Significance AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA Construction Phase' Emission Rates bs /da CO NOx PM,,z PM:., Demolition 22 44 3.2 2S Site Preparation 29 59 7.3 3.6 Grading 34 73 6.8 4.3 Building 22 49 3.0 2.7 Arch. Coating and Paving 18 36 2.5 2.3 Localized Significance Threshold 964 345 14 9 Exceed Significance? No No No No Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Table I shows that the calculated emissions rates for the proposed construction activities are below the LSTs for CO, NOx, PMia, and PM2.5 for all sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed . construction activities would not cause any short -term, localized, significant air quality impacts. 5.2 LONGTERM PROJECT RELATED EMISSIONS IMPACTS Long -term air emission impacts are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources related to any changes from the proposed project. As shown in Table E, long -term exposure to elevated levels of criteria pollutants could result in potential health effects. However, as stated in the Thresholds of Significance, emissions thresholds established by the air district are used to manage total regional emissions within an air basin, based on the air basin attainment status for criteria pollutants. These emissions thresholds were established for individual projects that would contribute to regional emissions and pollutant concentrations that may affect or delay the projected attainment target year for certain criteria pollutants. Due to the conservative nature of the thresholds and the Basinwide context of an individual project's emissions, there is no direct correlation of a single project to localized health effects. The project consists of medical offices. The stationary source emissions from these land uses would come from their consumption of natural gas and electricity. Based on the traffic study prepared for this project (Kunzman & Associates, July 2007), implementation of the proposed project would result in a net increase of 12,743 daily trips. Operational emissions (from both project - related vehicles and stationary sources) for the proposed project are shown in Table J, which indicates that the long -term operational emissions of four criteria pollutants from the project would exceed the daily emissions thresholds established in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, The proposed project would result in potentially significant air quality impacts. Based on the above 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 ' It is assumed that there is no overlap of these construction phases. 2 Total PM10 daily emission rate with fugitive dust mitigation measures implemented. P:VCKC070 MiT.aa ,48/07/07. LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2007 11 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS HOAG HEALTH CENTER ' RT BEACH. CALIFORNIA unlikely the regional air quality or health risk would worsen from the current condition due to emissions from an individual project. Table J: Project Operational Emissions Source Pollutant Emissions ]bs/da CO ROC NOx S02 PMIQ PM2.5 CO2 Currently Approved Stationary Sources: Summer 5.8 2.9 2.8 0 0.01 0.01 3,329 Vehicular Traffic: Summer 668 55 73 0.52 86 17 51,193 Subtotal Summer 674 58 76 0.52 86 17 54,522 Sources: Winter 2.3 2.6 2.8 0 0 0 3,324 , Tra ffic: Winter 644 60 88 0.44 86 17 46,452 Winter 647 63 91 0.44 86 17 49 776 NStationary Project Sources: Summer 3.6 2.4 2.4 0 0 0 2,803 Tr Summer 1,973 154 220 1.7 277 54 165,015 2c: Summer 1 977 156 223 1.7 277 54 167,817 Stationary Sources: Winter 2.0 2.2 2.3 0.0 0 0 2,800 Vehicular Traffic: Winter 1,919 07-5-16­6 1.4 277 54 149,615 Subtotal Winter 1,921 178 268 1.4 277 54 152,415 Net Project Change Summer/Winter 1,303 / 1,275 99 / 115 147 / 177 1.2 / 0.97 T91/ 191 37 / 37 113,295/ 102 639 SCAQMD Threshold 550 55 55 150 150 55 No Threshold Exceeds Threshold? (Summer/Winter Yes / Yes Yes / Yes Yes / Yes No / No Yes / Yes No / No Source: LSA Associates, Inc. July 2007. 5.2.1 Global Climate Change (Green House Gas Emissions) The methodology used to analyze the project's potential affect on global warming includes a calculation of CO2 emissions. The purpose of calculating the emissions is for informational purposes, as there is no quantifiable emissions threshold. Project Carbon Dioxide Emissions. The project will generate emissions of carbon dioxide primarily in the form of vehicle exhaust and in the consumption of natural gas for healing. Carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles were calculated using LTRBEMIS2007 assumptions and EMFAC2007 emission factors that are used in URBEMIS2007. The carbon dioxide emissions are shown in Table J; the project will emit 113,295 lbs /day of CO2 during the summer and 102,639 lbs /day during the winter. There are no federal, State, or local emission thresholds established for greenhouse gases such as COZ. As a comparison, the entire State generated approximately 2.2 billion (2,197,992,329) lbs/day of COZ in 2004. P:vcKC0701 \Aindm 48ro7ro7R 27 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ACOUST SSSI IALITY ANALYSIS HEALTH CENTER CH. 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 I 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 iJRBEMIS model output. Table K: Summary of Operational Localized Significance Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Note: PM2.5 is calculated from PMIO by assuming that they are the same for the area sources; for the mobile sources, however, the fraction of PM ID that is PM2.5 is 0.71. ' Emission Rates (lbs /da CO NOx PMto PM75 Proposed Project 23 5.0 2.8 1 0.54 Localized Significance Threshold 964 345 4 2 Exceed Significance? No No No No Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Note: PM2.5 is calculated from PMIO by assuming that they are the same for the area sources; for the mobile sources, however, the fraction of PM ID 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 on a monthly basis 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) between January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2008, and 0.01 g/hp -hr after ' January 1, 2008. 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 PAKKC0701 Wir.dm , ,06/07107» LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 9007 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. 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., August 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 CALDM4 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 -how 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 P:ucxc070iwir.doc(08V/r» 29 , Cancer Risk (# in 1,000,0 Chronic Risk Nearest Residence 0.070 0.000044 Threshold 10 1 Significant Impact? No No Source: LSA Associates, Inc., August 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 CALDM4 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 -how 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 P:ucxc070iwir.doc(08V/r» 29 , caw ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2009 Table M: Existing CO Concentrations' without and with the Project AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BRACH. CALIFORNIA Intersection Receptor Distance to Road Centerline (Meters) Project Related Increase 1- hr/8 -hr m Without/With Project One-Hour CO Concentration (ppm) WithoutlWith project Eigbt- Hour CO Concentration m Exceeds State Standards 1 -Hr 8 -Hr Superior Ave. 24/24 0.3/0.2 8.0/9.3 5.315.5 No No and West Coast 21/21 0.5/0.3 7.7/8.2 5.1/5.4 No No Highway 21/21 0.2/0.1 7.7/7.9 5.1/5.2 No No 20/20 0.3/0.2 7.5/7.8 4.9/5.1 No No Superior Ave. 14/14 0.3/0.2 6.8/7.1 4.4/4.6 No No and Placentia 14/14 0.4 / 0.2 6.7/7.1 4.4/4.6 No No Ave. 14/14 0.4/0.3 6.5/6.9 4.2/4.5 No No 14/14 0.3/0.2 6.5/6.8 4.2/4.4 No No Superior Ave. 15/17 0.6/0.4 6.3/6.9 4.1/4.5 No No and l6thSt 14/17 0.5/0.4 6.2/6.7 4.0/4.4 No No 14/15 0.5/0.4 6.1/6.6 3.9/4.3 No No 14/14 0.4/0.3 6.1/6.5 3.9/4.2 No No Superior Ave. 17/17 0.2/0.2 7.2/7.4 4.7 / 4.9 No No and l7thSt 17/17 0.2/0.1 7.0/7.2 4.6/4.7 No No 15115 0.1 /0.0 6.7/6.8 4.4/4.4 N o 14/14 No Newport Blvd. 17/17 0.1/0.1 8.6/8.7 5.7/5.8 No No and West Coast 17/17 0.2/0.2 8.1/8.3 5.3/5.5 No No Highway 15115 0.3/0.2 7.9/8.2 5.2/5.4 No No 12/12 0.1 /0.1 7.9/8.0 5.2/5.3 No No Newport Blvd. 19/17 0.3/0.2 7.7/8.0 5.1/5.3 No No and Hospital Rd. 17/17 0.2/0.1 7.6/7.8 5.015.1 No No 17/17 0.3/0.2 7.4/7.7 4.9/5.1 No No 17/16 0.3/0.2 7.2/7.5 4.7/4.9 No No Newport Blvd. 22/22 0.3/0.2 8.6/8.9 5.7/5.9 No No and l7thSt 21/21 0.2/0.1 8.6/8.8 5.7/5.8 No No 21/21 1 0.3/0.2 8.5/8.8 5.6/5.8 No No 21/21 0.2/0.1 8.0/8.2 5.3/5.4 No No Newport Blvd. 21/21 0.4 / 0.3 9.2 / 9.6 6.1 / 6.4 No No and Harbor 21/21 0.3/0.2 8.8/9.1 5.8/6.0 No No Blvd. 17/17 0.3/0.2 8.7/9.0 5.8/6.0 No No 15115 0.3/0.2 8.7/9.0 5.816.0 No No Placentia Ave. 14/14 5.1/0.1 6.2/6.3 4.0/4.1 No No and l7thSt 14/14 0.0 /0.0 6.2/6.2 4.0/4.0 No No 14/14 0.0 /0.0 6.1/6.1 3.9/3:9 No No 14/14 1 0.0 /0.0 6.1/6.1 3.9/3.9 No No Placentia Ave. 17 / 17 0.4/0.3 6.3/6.7 4.1/4.4 No No and Hospital Rd. 14/14 0.3/0.3 6.1/6.4 3.9/4.2 No No 14/14 0.3/0.2 6.0/6.3 3.9/4.1 No No 10 /10 0.3/0.2 6.0/6.3 3.9/4.1 No No Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. ' Includes ambient one -hour concentration of 4.9 ppm and ambient eight -hour concentration of 3.1 ppm. Measured at the 2850 Mesa Verde Dr East, Costa Mesa, CA AQ Station in Orange County. Z The State one -hour standard is 20 ppm and the eight -hour standard is 9 ppm. P.\rKC070VAir.dac 407107n 30 LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2001 Table N: 2009 CO Concentrations' without and with the Project AIR QUALITY ANALTSI3 HOAO HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT REACH. CALIFORNIA Intersection Receptor Distance to Road Centerline (Meters) Project Related Increase 1- hr /8 -hr m Wlthoutfwkth Project One -Hour CO Concentration (ppm) Without/With Project Eight- Hour CO Concentration rn Exceeds State Standards= 1 -Hr 8 -Hr Superior Ave. 24/24 0.2/0.1 8.4/8.6 5.6/5.7 No No and West Coast 21/21 0.4/0.3 8.1/8.5 5.3/5.6 No No Highway 21/21 0.4/0.3 7.9/8.3 5.2/5.5 No No 20/20 0.2/0.2 7.8/8.0 5.1/5.3 No No Superior Ave. 14/14 0.2/0.1 6.9/7.1 4.5/4.6 No No and Placentia 14/14 0.3/0.2 6.8/7.1 4.4/4.6 No No Ave. 14/14 0.2/0.1 6.7/6.9 4.4/4.5 No No 14/14 0.2/0.1 6.6/6.8 4.3/4.4 No No Superior Ave. 17/17 0.4/0.2 .6.4/6.8 4.2/4.4 No No and l6thSt. 17/17 0.3/0.2 6.4/6.7 4.2/4.4 No No 15115 0.3/0.2 6.3/6.6 4.1/4.3 No No 14/14 0.2/0.1 6.3/6.5 4.1/4.2 No No Superior Ave. 17/17 0.2/0.2 7.2/7.4 4.7/4.9 No 'No and l7thSt. 17/17 0.1 /0.0 7.0/7.1 4.6/4.6 No No 15115 0.1 /0.0 6.7/6.8 4.4/4.4 No No 14/14 0.0 /0.0 6.7/6.7 4.4/4.4 No No Newport Blvd. 17/17 0.1/0.0 9.0/9.1 6.0/6.0 No No and West Coast 17/17 0.2/0.2 8.5/8.7 5.6/5.8 No No Highway 15115 0.0 /0.0 8.5/8.5 5.6/5.6 No No 12/12 0.1 /0.1 8.2/8.3 5.4/5.5 No No Newport Blvd. 17 / 17 0.2/0.2 8.1/8.3 5.3/5.5 No No and Hospital Rd. 0.0/0.0 8.0/8.0 5.3/5.3 No No 17/17 0.2/0.2 7.8/8.0 5.1/5.3 No I No 16/16 0.1 /0.1 7.5/7.6 4.9/5.0 No No Newport Blvd. 22/24 0.2/0.1 9.0/9.2 6.0/6.1 No No and l7thSt. 21/21 0.1 /0.1 8.8/8.9 5.8/5.9 No I No 21/21 0.1 /0.1 8.8/8.9 5.8/5.9 No I No 21/21 0.2/0.2 8.2/8.4 5.4/5.6 No No Newport Blvd. 21/21 0.1 / 0.1 9.5/9.6 6,3/6.4 No No and Harbor 21/21 0.1 / 0.1 9.1/9.2 6.0/6.1 No No Blvd. 17/17 0.1 /0.0 9.0/9.1 6.0/6.0 No No 15/15 0.0 /0.0 9.0/9.0 6.0/6.0 No No Placentia Ave. 14/14 0.0 /0.0 6.2/6.2 4.0/4.0 No No. and l7thSt. 14/14 0.0 /0.0 6.2/6.2 4.0/4.0 No No 14/14 0.0 /0.0 6.1/6.1 3.9/3.9 No No 14/14 0.0 /0.0 6.1/6.1 3.9/3.9 No No Placentia Ave. 17/17 0.3/0.2 6.4/6.7 4.2/4.4 No No and Hospital Rd. 14/14 0.1 / 0.1 6.2/6.3 4.0/4.1 No No 14/14 0.2/0.2 6.1/6.3 3.9/4.1 No No 10 /10 0.3/0.2 6.0/6.3 3.9/4.1 No No Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Includes ambient one -hour concentration of 4.9 ppm and ambient eight -hour concentration of 3.1 ppm. Measured at the 2850 Mesa Verde Dr East, Costa Mesa, CA AQ Station in Orange County. The State one -hour standard is 20 ppm and the eight -hour standard is 9 ppm. P.\KKC070wir.doc 48/07/07n I ' 5.4 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 2001 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA environmental pollution and population growth are projected for future scenarios. The proposed project is a medical office development. It is proposed to accommodate the growing same 10 most affected intersections. This table shows that, under 2009 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. The proposed project would not contribute any measurable increase to the one -hour and eight -hour CO concentrations at these intersections. The proposed project would not have a significant impact on local air quality in terms of CO, and no mitigation measures would be required. ' 5.4 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY In order to accurately assess the environmental impacts as a result of new or renovated developments, environmental pollution and population growth are projected for future scenarios. The proposed project is a medical office development. It is proposed to accommodate the growing need for such services. No population growth is anticipated with the proposed project. The project ' would not result in the exceedance of the City's estimate of population in this area. Therefore, the population growth associated with the proposed project would be within the City's General Plan projection. The project is consistent with the adopted AQMP. trailer). 5.5 STANDARD CONDITIONS Construction Impacts. The project is required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires the implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized below. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM to component). Compliance with these rules would reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. ' Applicable Rule 403 Measures: Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earth moving). All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer). Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less. ' P:vacc0701y r.a«.osro7ro7» LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 3001 HOAG HEALTH CENTER HaWPORT BEACH. CAL rORNIA P.NCKC0701Wir.doc48/071M 33 1 In addition, the proposed project would comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113 on the use of architectural coatings. Emissions associated with architectural coatings should be reduced by using precoated/natural colored building materials using water -based or low -VOC coating and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency (or using manual application methods). Project Operations. The proposed project is required to comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the Energy Commission regarding energy conservation standards. The project applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans: • Solar or low - emission water heaters shall be used with combined space/water heater units. ' • Double -paned glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be used in all exterior windows. 5.6 MITIGATION MEASURES DURING CONSTRUCTION A. Additional dust suppression measures in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are ' recommended as part of the project's measures. Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. ' • All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically or chemically stabilized. • The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. B. The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on ' low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. C. The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline powered engines where feasible. include ' D. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. P.NCKC0701Wir.doc48/071M 33 1 11 I I I I I I I i 11 L I 1 i I I 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 8007 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA E. The Construction Contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagger shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. F. The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. G. Architectural coatings will be applied using HVLP equipment and techniques to minimize ROC emissions. 5.7 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR LONG -TERM OPERATIONS The proposed project would result in total (vehicular and stationary) daily emissions exceeding the daily emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD. However, there are no feasible measures that would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Even so, the proposed project will be required to comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the Energy Commission regarding energy conservation standards. The project applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans:. • Trees will be planted to provide shade and shadow to buildings • Energy - efficient low - pressure sodium parking lot lights will be used • Solar or low- emission water heaters shall be used with combined space/water heater units • Double -paned glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be used in all exterior windows Additionally, the project includes a vanpool component, which would reduce the mobile -source emissions. However, the amount of reduction is not quantifiable. PAKKC0701 W r.dm 48/07/07• 34 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 1009 6.0 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board Web site: http: / /www.arb.ca.gov. Caltrans. Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, 1997. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS HOAG HEALTH CENTER XT !EACH. CALIFORNIA Kunzman & Associates, Traffic Analysis, July 2007. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Management Plan, 2003. South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling — Compression- Ignition, April 2004. Western Regional Climate Center Web site: http: / /www.wrcc.dri.edu. P.VIXC0701 W ir.d= ,A8N7l0U LOA ASSOCIATES, INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 2007 , HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA I I I I 1 + II j Ll J �J 11 1 I it PAKKC070iW.uaocol) /M APPENDIX A CONSTRUCTION & LST EMISSIONS IRegional Construction Summary By Phase and Equipment Demolitlon of Existing 164,000 Square Foot Suricmre No. of Vehicle Description Hours Trips Length CO VOC NOx Sox PM10 PM2.5 Vehicle Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 7.0 3.1 1.0 5.1 0.0049 0.43 0.39 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.0 13 2.9 26 0.020 1.5 1.1 Troctors/Loade sBackhoes . 2 8.0 6.5 1.9 12 0.012 1.3 1.0 Haul Trucks 16 30 14 3.5 45 0.036 2.2 2.0 Total Onsite Emissions 36 9.3 89 0.073 5.4 4.5 SCAQMD Emissions Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 55 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO NO NO Site Preparation No. of Vehicle Description Horns Trips Length CO VOC NOx sox PM10 PM2.5 Vehicle Rubber Tired Dozers 2 7.0 5.7 5.1 11 0.034 2.5 1.1 Troctom%oaders/Backhoes 2 7.0 28 1.7 57 0.011 5.5 "3.1 Haul Trucks 12 30 2.6 2.6 8.5 0.027 0.42 0.39 Water Trucks 3 6.4 0.59 0.14 1.9 0.0014 0.10 0.09 Worker Trips 24 40 15 0.61 2.4 0.013 0.15 0.11 Total Emissions 37 10 78 0.07 8.6 4.7 " SCAQMD Emissions Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 55 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO NO NO Grading ' Vehicle Description No. of Hours Trips Length CO VOC NOx Sox PM10 PM2.5 Vehicle Rubber Toed Dozers 1 8.0 13 2.9 26 0.020 Li 1.0 Graders 2 8.0 10 3.1 26 0.024 1.4 1.2 Tractora/l oaders/Backhoes 3 8.0 10 2.9 19 0.019 4.1 1.9 Haul Trucks 7 30 6.1 1.5 20 0.016 0.97 0.89 Water Trucks 3 6.4 0.56 0.14 1.8 0.0014 0.09 0.08 Worker Trips 24 40 15 0.61 2.4 0.013 0.15 0.11 Total Emissions 40 11 92 0.079 7.7 5.1 SCAQMD Emissions Threshold 550 75 ]Do 150 150 55 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO NO NO ' Building of 120,586 Square Foot Structure Vehicle Description No. of Hones Trips Length CO VOC NOx Sox PM10 PM2.5 Vehicle Cranes 1 7.0 4.2 1?4 11.3 0.010 0.50 0.46 Foddifts 3 8.0 5.8 1.9 14.4 0.014 0.78 0.71 Tractorsloaders/Backhoes 3 7.0 8.5 2.5 16 0.016 1.3 1.2 Genwator Sels 1 8.0 2.8 0.86 5.6 0.0056 0.34 0.32 Electric Welders 1 810 N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A Haul Trucks 3 30 2.6 0.65 8.5 0.0067 0.42 0.38 Water Trucks 3 6.4 0.6 0.14 1.8 0.0014 0.09 0.08 Worker Trips 24 40 15 0.61 2.4 0.013 0.15 0.11 Total Emissions 24 7.3 58 0.054 3.4 3.1 SCAQMD Emissions Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 55 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO NO NO Architectural Coating and Asphalt Paving of Parking Lot Vehicle Description Vehicclle Hours Trips Length CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 Pavers 1 8.0 4.7 1.6 8.6 0.0072 0.62 0.57 Rollers 1 8.0 3.5 1.1 6.9 0.0062 0.48 0.44 Paving Equipment 2 6.0 5.5 1.8 12 0.010 0.82 0.75 Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.0 0.54 0.14 0.79 0.0013 0.053 0.049 TroctorsMadersBackhocs 1 8.0 3.3 1.0 6.2 0.0062 0.48 0.44 Haul Trucks 9 30 7.8 2.0 25 0.020 12 1.1 Water Trucks 3 6.4 0.56 0.14 1.8 0.0014 0.090 0.083 Worker Trips 24 40 15 0.61 2.4 0.013 0.15 0.11 Total Emissions 26 7.6 62 0.052 3.8 35 SCAQMD Emissions Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 55 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO NO NO _ A -1 Summary of Five Acre Site LST Results By Phase and Equipment Demolition of Existing 164.000 Square Foot Structure Total Onsite Emissions 22 44 3.2 25 Localized Significance Threshold* 964 345 14 9 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO Site Preparation No. of Hours Trips Length CO NOx Vehicle Description Vehicle Description Hours Trips Length CO NOx PMIO PM25 PMI O Vehicle Vehicle Rubber Tired Dozens 1 8.0 Concrete/Indwhial Saws 1 7.0 3.1 5.1 OA3 039 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.0 13 26 1.5 1.1 Tractors/LoaderaBackhoes 2 8.0 6.5 12 1.3 1.0 Haul Trucks 0.1 0.035 16 0.1 0.046 0.15 0.007 ' 0.007 Total Onsite Emissions 22 44 3.2 25 Localized Significance Threshold* 964 345 14 9 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO Site Preparation Total Onsite Emissions 29 59 7.3 3.6 Localized Significance Threshold* 964 345 14 9 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO Vehicle Description No' of Hours Trips Length CO NOx PMIO Vehicle Description Hours Trips Length CO NOx PMI O PM25 Vehicle Rubber Tired Dozens 1 8.0 13 Rubber Tired Dozers 2 7.0 Graders 22 46 3.7 2.2 Tractms/loadersBackhoes 2 7.0 12 6 11 3.5 13 Haul Trucks 9.8 12 0.1 0.035 0.11 0.006 0.005 WaterTmcks 0.1 3 6.4 0.56 1.8 0.090 0.083 Total Onsite Emissions 29 59 7.3 3.6 Localized Significance Threshold* 964 345 14 9 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO Vehicle Description No. of Hours Trips Length CO NOx PMIO PM23 Vehicle Rubber Tired Dozens 1 8.0 13 26 1.1 1.0 Graders 2 8.0 10 26 1 A 12 TractorsiUadersBackhoes 3 8.0 9.8 19 4.1 1.9 Haul Trucks 1 8.0 7 0.1 0.020 0.066 0.006 0.0030 Water Tracks 1 8.0 3 6.4 0.56 1.8 0.17 0.083 Total Onsite Emissions 34 73 6.8 43 Localized Significance Threshold* 964 345 14 9 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO Bur7ding of 120.586 Square Foot Structure Vehicle Description No. of Hours Trips Length CO NOr PMIO PM25 Vehicle Cranes 1 7.0 4.2 11 OSO 0.46 Forklifts 3 8.0 5.8 14 0.78 031 Tmcutr,✓ zeders/Backhow 3 7.0 8.5 16 1.3 1.2 Gestemtor Sets 1 8.0 2.8 5.6 0.34 0.32 Electric Welders 1 8.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Haul Tracks 3 0.1 0.009 0.028 0.0014 0.0013 Water Tracks 3 6.4 0.56 1.8 0.09 0.083 Total Ouclte Emissions 22 49 3.0 2.7 Localized Significance Threshold* 964 345 14 9 Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO Architectural Coating and Asphalt Paving of Parking Lot Vehicle Description No. of Hours Trips Length CO NOx PMIO PM2.5 Vehicle Pavers 1 8.0 4.7 8.6 0.62 0.57 Rollers 1 8.0 3.5 6.9 OAS 0.44 Paving Equipment 2 6.0 5.5 12 0.82 0.75 Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.0 0.54 0.79 0.05 0.049 TractorsUadets/Backhoes 1 8.0 3.3 6.2 OAS 0.44 Haul Tracks 9 0.1 0.03 0.085 0.004 0.004 WaterTmcks 3 6A 0.56 1.8 0.090 0.083 Total Onsite Emissions IS 36 2.5 23 Localized Significance Threshold* 964 345 14 9 _Exceed Significance? NO NO NO NO * Thresholds for the North Coastal Orange County (SRA 18) Source Receptor Area (SRA) at 25 meters. Film a � �} �§ I d U ) / ! ¥)k 8)}§ k })] , ! j)) =a; l) | £ ! ■ i ! I $ f ! ) \ k i � ) 2 � R ! k � k / / 8 ; � J s � ! ■ i ! I 3 $ f ! ) \ k i � ) 2 � R ! k � / 8 ; � J 3 $ f ! ) \ k i � ) 2 � R ! k 3 ow � ! ( k ) ; k / ! k j�- { e � } i k . a . ) . { a= \ ) f ~ \ ! ± � » 3 f ƒ { $ } .� ) 2 � } \ k\k§ ) ■ \ ) } 7 . ƒ J | / \ ( \ ( � \ ) \ \ ) � | ! 7 a J _ $ f k . \kJ 7 ` * �! { #3 §§7 / k / \ ! k k� ] � k� k � � t £ f k k/ \ /\ ) )ƒ ] � � � \) � \ ■ k ) k\k§ ) ■ \ ) } 7 . ƒ J | / \ ( \ ( � \ ) \ \ ) � | ! 7 a J _ $ f k . \kJ k � � ! ! /}P!.@ R -V z uanl� \� k)� )&� � /7§ ) E ! E§ 2 Z a S 0 W. p m E 0 9 3 Y B e B O ' O g M a° h � c pN e0 C V �v 4 is �a 8 E � �• 0 PE M t Millis O e m fi gi 6 s 8 n � E N W V 6 'a c ��ffg�z d' 7 n U I 1 1 1 1 [1 I a I Li I E I I I 11 e� o' ti 0 z 5 a u d d V a M 0 u m W n w `d F o d 0 V u e 9 5 3 0 t 9 Ci d A O V x� r- ia w 'O d 'O C m x s a d �o x �a r a e 0 s V p z .•1 d 4 °a V W w d 6 Z 7 ti d a a a � k ) kN t ! � \ 0 ({ %t / k ƒ k ) £ / ) / \ . ) E ƒ \f \ } ! . { } k \ ! j .� ; . ! z k /§ _ 2 \ J | ) ■ . § @ƒ $k )/ \} 3& }/ \2 . )� � t a ![i /// i /2f #\7 22I � t §\ ■ �k I,� f / �\k§mom_ ) \) §2 k f7® ] $ }#\ #kk � �k) � \ }\ - �§ • �J1 Id 1 I I 1 i 1 e m a 1� a W h a I 1 1 I I I I m �p O wq w 0 d g, a e F, K .Q� N G � e O p E a ~ T V O h Vl � 3 3000 S ° � z BX h�C V m c �.I T a3 U34 Z 0 a a3 ° O T 'o G y T Obi N N o00 T E h d e'Fo� ue=.oK V VwF rnW •a �i 'H c g e ic t Q •E C X T •}S d � 3 n a3 �•$��� .eg # X '�F� �o�d yby.� 5ry •g'e 6 •o .. 6 0 � r3` � a k � k f ow � @ @ � � @ / . \ \ . \ ( @ | � � ! ƒ / !. { ! | { 7 \) @ !£!u „ \ / ƒ�k• 1 ;� ;l ; *■ °`! #! ■ -§ ! §§ §| @ W Q ti eu G N Q a^ O =cjd w r,nrn u1 1 � V 31 F" F 3 w b E I °o C O.V O x 9 0 Y > V V V O no a '�6o V d V a C V ~ Z E E 3 � x 9 0 > V V O no a '�6o V x 9 h of O V a c is a a z s w r a m 'O Y u y L Q E z 3 6 T a b O z 2 F u 1 I 1 I I Qr J ILI _J 1 T m O C� Y m U d $ p� U S C T ..l % X n � a lb _x x W Ill z �is N O0 On W v � O o 3 F V x O T�v°l vio n i$ONON wa o a z 0 � x Q s C V � O O y � � a u 1 I 1 I I Qr J ILI _J 1 C� Y m d y $ p� U % X n � _x x o y � o F � �o 2 N vl o r i$ONON e T $ C � % 5 n 6. u o c y ,••, F U 0 rn J N U % c � 3 SAS p y ,C C e e u 1 I 1 I I Qr J ILI _J 1 i i i i i i i 1] W a W y e v. i i i i i I i � a�ooe C O .q �a �+ d � a F G N 9 x O C m O m V 3 0 0 0 b e z o ^� d o � d {x. � O d S q S U x T V? M z3� M C � 9 0 o F q W m tH. T G y p~ Q Z a- � T o� y O o d 4 •O � Z v V U U w F ti W C ro A M1 T C o W 3 8 a e a�aao��, Y 9 �m qjgy w ! � \ ) J � i \ ! / ) ( 7 ( , 7 2 ! 7 ƒ k \! f J{ ( 2 {! } |) k� go ! ! #- ■ {2([72J!$) \ ƒ§ ¥® {| «!!!,d © § §2kk $i))! I @ @ I @ @ [] I I \ @ I I I I I @ I / / i 1 i i = 0 1 0 U i` e H u a i 1 1 i 1 s m c :a V `d z z - .:000z N b N V Toi a _ 0 'e w S a 0 U m C6 W O �0 Y � E 3 U WUUg+F�W o� °z U m a F _ 3 z tX� F ! � k k / / 2 \ ! � \ 2 a ! \ � ) \ \ & � . ). $ ƒ )] \7 }k § ¥n z ¥�,z S }27 kk )§ 22`= k \r4 ) 2 == k � Z 22 ; i ! d k kj�lf/ k ) ! . ! \ ! E ) ): ] k k.§#§An | / Z- � } k � ƒ k S }S!§[72 ■ ! k � , G j ( 7 { | ) 2 $ ■ \ § q � § � ! # ■f I / / 2 \ ! � \ 2 a ! \ � ) \ \ & � . ). $ ƒ )] \7 }k § ¥n z ¥�,z S }27 kk )§ 22`= k \r4 ) 2 == k � Z 22 ; i ! d k kj�lf/ I 1.1 1 0 u U 1 a ' w 11 I 11 1 s g s s� *Is- Z9 � a C i 0. W a d d nn C Y. W O V_ s d u a ow F m 0. W O F 0. s� d v F w OD C V 6 2 6 0 t lz b b 8 c,c� ,g ao OOO p, O O O O cc G zoaorno ^0000 x v a� a ug O q QQ 1 e O z V 6 a 0 F 3 b O `e a t F 9 e m / \ ! � ! § ! ! } k ) 2 / ! / > { § zzc$06$ a ) ■ ! ƒ z2��_6� i » ` {/. ! � } ) \ k E }( §) /§ J ƒ � \ . ! § k /« _ @ � \; «E k § u2�kz ! ƒ � \ 2 ■�k « J 2 " 23k; & k l2f2 / C; C5 E � k % . «t ' )2) -k% k j / /2 {) ; i . ) / \ . zo 5 k ƒ } / § 3 � ƒ ƒ . } \ . j } / \ | \ � \; «E k § u2�kz ! ƒ � \ 2 ■�k « J 2 " 23k; & k l2f2 / C; C5 E � k % . «t ' )2) -k% k j / /2 {) ; / { ( ) � ! �k ) | \ { !t !! ! !ff ( \ 7,; ! } ` !!� 5! ! � ! |!|;._• �zro ! .23 . ;.`_ \ %( & !7]|!| � I I [] I @ I I \ @ / I $ I \ I / I � I 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AUGUST 2009 HOAC HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT !EACH. CALIFORNIA 1 1 it 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 i 1 I P:UCKC0701 Wr.dm (08!07/07. APPENDIX B URBEMIS 2007 MODEL PRINTOUTS IL § § § ) § ) § ) k � a « � / / § § § 2 ] 2 § m ) B [ S # S m > § a E 2 § q § k k z 2 3 2 2 d) / t ] 2 § ) § ] ] { q [ o e 8 ! . 2 . § . CL ) LL U } 2 > b u & k o # 0 k « k R 2 k U) § - J VS CO 2 ( 6 § $ ¢ 0 / \ \ § § § 2 [ f g - - ! • ; A 2 u k f 2 f § $) ) L k ƒ \ } k } § § 2 K _ i •• e n a a S. 2 ;< 2§ ! ` o E { m 0 ( § ® w ` ) ) & } / / / / k % / 0 F- \ ) § § / k - ! t6 +< � 2 S B. S � 2 . f f § - k § ) ° k k ! / k 0 § / ■ #� 2 } � § $ IL § § ° § 7. 6 W ) ! 2 &f: *� R � � ! k K : t � ) ( I - & d k k ! / k 0 § / ■ #� 2 } � § $ IL § § ° § 7. 6 W ) , m � � ! k K : t � ) ( I - & d ! Lo 0 / ! ; ! : f + k) \�� S k k ) § E § ) 5 § § ! § § ■ , ( « I 2 ) & D k ) $ § W ) � ! k K f � t � ) ( I - & d ! Lo 0 / ! ; ! S k k ) § E § ) 5 § § ! § § ■ , ( « I 2 ) & D k ) a `o 0 0 N N n OR o O O $ O ° O $ , `m a m R O m O O o m o N o � bE � w � U � a m o m o N o � w � g� 7 w 7 J 2 7 7 sa S O 7 rq C U �° W > m m O O N O O O W O GG N Z m ro a o 0 0 E E c4 .- y m a o 0) r M K Z O 2 C O F A L ao e m m in m a m .- .- m .- a F m N F S = IT A o o a> } 'E r E 0 � N o � w � g� 7 w 7 J 2 7 7 sa S O 7 rq C U �° � G 2 § § « / § B § I § § § k § § § } { §§ q a S q . � f LLI E 2 E d§ 2) k \ z . .. g $ d 4 § E § § w § ) CO) § ) ` E 2 § { LLI ) # ) e � « \ ° % k / \ IL ) k § \ \ ! ] § § co 3 t . ! n \ \ } \ k $ k \ o) § 2 ! i 7 2 § a# E E § $ 4 k§ & 2§ 0 A ) n ! g f ! &/ f 0 « / k ® f .. ■ \ $ « ƒ § \ \ \ |§ \ / / 9 � / ( \ / k LLCL 0. 3§ n% 1- b R n - $ § § § § d § 2 2 ] § 2 2 7 � « / § B § I § § § k § § § } { §§ q a S q . � f LLI E 2 E d§ 2) k \ z . .. g $ d 4 § E § § w § ) CO) § ) ` E 2 § { LLI ) # ) e � « \ ° % k / \ IL ) k § \ \ ! ] § § co 3 t . ! n \ \ } \ k $ k \ o) § 2 ! i 7 2 § a# E E § $ 4 k§ & 2§ 0 A ) n ! g f ! &/ f 0 « / k ® f .. ■ \ $ « ƒ § \ \ \ |§ \ / / 9 � / ( \ / k LLCL 0. 3§ n% 1- b R n - $ § § 2 « / § B § I § § § k § § § } { §§ q a S q . � f LLI E 2 E d§ 2) k \ z . .. g $ d 4 § E § § w § ) CO) § ) ` E 2 § { LLI ) # ) e � « \ ° % k / \ IL ) k § \ \ ! ] § § co 3 t . ! n \ \ } \ k $ k \ o) § 2 ! i 7 2 § a# E E § $ 4 k§ & 2§ 0 A ) n ! g f ! &/ f 0 « / k ® f .. ■ \ $ « ƒ § \ \ \ |§ \ / / 9 � / ( \ / k LLCL 0. 3§ n% 1- b R n - $ i § \ < B \: # @ m « § k ( . . - � k 2 / ƒ § § § i . L $ A / ! ! M § k IL ` § 3 16i ! [) k k . IL r ) k f ) . » ui ! ! ■ k . $ ` § 2 ! OC 2 K k § 2 \ { ( § \ k 2. \ k k k§ ƒ k ! i k ! / k ! A 0 0 2 § �) ; ■ § ; 2 & | [k k 2 q d § k 0 » , 2 \ 7 f \ 2 ) §.$ a \ \ \ ! / ! (/ \ k / / ! k / / \ k / ! [ - } 0 Ev 0 » , 2 \ 7 f \ 2 ) §.$ a \ \ \ ! / ! (/ \ k / / ! k / / \ k / ! [ - } 0 Ev ) . . . a a c; C; § ; _ : ; : : ; ; k \ ® ` ! ƒ § , { 2 \ 7 f \ 2 ) §.$ a \ \ \ ! / ! (/ \ k / / ! k / / \ k / ! [ - } 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � K ■ ; § § § E § § § ) § Cq ( ( ] c; / 7 k § § 2 §§ § § \ 0 . CL Ci « 2 . \ E § t k 0 z§ q 2 2) E n f E § § § ] 7 j f , 2 § a � § � . / c co ) LL 0 § ) a \ co IL § e 2 E \ z @f� Cl) k Cl) % A / $ § § § ) I « ) k § $ / k & 5 E § � co 2 — m ! — = k « § ! k - § ® \ ] | / k k \ \ \ § \ / $ ) £ 2 2 §£ [! 2§ ƒ 2 I// 3§ a! k b k n k f/ £! ;u5i uu c u u U 2 -a c u a � C; c; uu c u u U 2 -a c u a � c; 12 c; 0 c; M E 0 f � f § . r LL, 0 01) is is LU e r O O W O m O O O O O r N od m O v� a°� U �a a io 0 a m Z EE (.7 l7 . V O E r r M E Ea c7 A m m o 0 0 0 o O m O e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o and o m m m o E O S c cc W C IA N O C C C C C N C C }¢ YI ffVV ^G OO g 2 8 rc 0 A m O m } r r Is M 'E E ° S M O A o � o g o s w ^ n 2 2 m t t O n rn rn rn 8 �' R 0 S crs o P ° F 2 S 0 7 Sc N � 7 d' °� °� � ! 1p C4 K § § § d d ) k ) § 8 m § C; § § § $ § § § § § § g 2 ƒ § § § 3 § b § § § j 2 .2 @ f @ ! @ m § ` § S § m ° / j 7 E 0 ) q ] ~ k ] § ( § ) § § 2 o k 7 G ( \ d § § ] .. § < § 2 2 , § | | 2 ƒ/ ■ § j f £ 7 \ \ v k k $) ) ) 2 ) k k) = 3§ = / = k a I . e ! E k \ m k U) § L K ¥ E \ ! k 2§ k§ m \ ! k § / &. k -§ a §§ ) 2 \ / � $ £ R E k 2 k ƒ a §! I i 7) § k § U) §] § 2! « ; Cli / / © ■ �: 2 , # @ f IL .2s § q . � % § £ ! G7. - ° ) ƒ \® ( � \ § § L f .. \ } � k k f ] ! § f ! | ■ ! $' § « E § IL . £' k a 2 K )) \ tk ! @` . $ § A \ / k� j ' f / \) § / c §f ° ° k { t \ k k ! ! & k § / # 0 a A m m o 0 0 0 0 o m o .- � m m o .- � °i °• M v E y o 5 a_ c N O .ZG r m O 01 E 0 x w 0 r .5 e m O r r r r y A 0 O 7 ct F U A m m o 0 0 0 0 o m o .- � m m o .- � °i °• M v E y o 5 a_ c N O .ZG r m O 01 E 0 x w 0 r .5 e m O A 0 O ct F o a o O m N •O N O O O O O W Z o 0 o o E m m ao $ 0 N N ,� 3 Ef M O O E u'i a ui o � a E E � E A m m o 0 0 0 0 o m o .- � m m o .- � °i °• M v E y o 5 a_ c N O .ZG r m O 01 E 0 x w 0 r ct o 0 N ,� E u'i •�f 2 � a � � E w S. a A) m fi D D Ly LM g, N r2 5 N V n J J J :3 m 2 0 7 2 W . D ale tTitle South Coast Air Basin Avg Winter CYr 2007 Version Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 tRun Date : 2006112129 12:02:10 .SCen Year: 2007 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2007 selected Season Winter Area South Coast t Year: 2007 -- Model Years 1965 to 2007 Inclusive -- Winter Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006 South Coast Basin Average Basin Average ' Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams /mile: grams /idle -hour) Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 508 Speed MPH LDA LOT MDT MDT UBUS MCY ALL ' 0 0.000 0.000 3.759 11.986 0.000 0.000 1.028 1 0.843 0.929 1.266 9.369 4.506 6.619 1.326 5 0.684 0.757 1.101 9.369 4.506 6.619 1.169 55 0.132 0.149 0.176 0.738 0.614 4.781 0.198 60 0.145 0.164 0.188 0.842 0.622 5.943 0.223 65 0.167 0.188 0.211 1.000 0.656 7.732 0.262 Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Speed 10 0.468 ALL 0.521 0.745 MPH 5.445 IDA 3.083 LOT 5.219 MDT 0.764 0.000 1 15 0.336 21.774 0.377 1 0.528 0.609 2.858 2.199 4.308 6.804 0.508 8.169 1.382 20 0.253 10 0.285 0.392 1.646 0.433 1.633 4.914 3.723 5.845 0.365 6.880 0.633 25 0.200 0.227 0.382 0.305 1.305 3.882 1.262 4.588 3.366 5.013 0.291 30 3.542 30 0.166 0.189 0.249 3.283 1.050 3.871 1.015 4.115 3.186 40 0.242 3.649 35 0.145 0.378 0.164 2.971 0.212 3.508 0.867 3.764 0.850 50 3.155 0.210 0.425 3.767 40 0.132 2.936 0.150 3.485 0.189 3.908 0.749 60 .0.739 3.270 0.191 65 45 0.126 3.979 0.143 4.817 0.176 0.690 0.669 3.546 0.184 50 0.126 0.143 0.172 0.687 ' 0.628 4.025 0.186 55 0.132 0.149 0.176 0.738 0.614 4.781 0.198 60 0.145 0.164 0.188 0.842 0.622 5.943 0.223 65 0.167 0.188 0.211 1.000 0.656 7.732 0.262 Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Speed UBUS MCY ALL 54.659 MPH MPH LOT IDA 0 LOT 0.000 MDT 0 0.000 1 0.000 1.084 21.774 1.676 1 7.521 0.609 9.049 11.927 5 6.804 0.860 8.169 1.382 11.069 15 10 5.705 6.815 8.525 0.433 15 4.914 1.140 5.845 25 6.880 0.633 20 4.327 5.128 0.382 5.775 25 3.882 35 4.588 0.574 5.013 1.015 30 3.542 0.362 4.179 4.480 35 3.283 0.562 3.871 1.037 4.115 50 40 3.094 3.649 3.881 0.378 45 2.971 1.147 3.508 60 3.764 0.632 50 2.914 3.449 0.425 3.767 55 2.936 5.699 3.485 6.143 3.908 67.814 60 3.059 3.644 4.231 65 3.328 4.108 3.979 7.340 4.817 8.615 Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen Speed UBUS MCY ALL 54.659 MPH IDA LOT MDT 0 0.000 0.000 3.772 1 0.657 1.084 1.676 5 0.609 0.999 1.585 10 0.532 0.860 1.382 15 0.475 0.759 1.239 20 0.433 0.686 1.140 25 0.403 0.633 1.073 30 0.382 0.597 1.033 35 0.369 0.574 1.015 40 0.362 0.563 1.016 45 0.361 0.562 1.037 50 0.367 0.573 1.080 55 0.378 0.596 1.147 60 0.397 0.632 1.245 65 0.425 0.685 1.386 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Speed MPH IDA LOT MDT Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 508 HOT UBUS MCY ALL 54.659 0.000 0.000 5.343 30.199 34.129 48.289 9.872 30.199 34.129 48.289 9.118 21.226 22.233 39.649 7.341 15.373 15.341 34.269 6.123 11.616 11.211 31.176 5.268 9.398 8.674 29.851 4.665 7.831 7.105 30.085 4.226 6.733 6.161 31.919 3.914 6.005 5.655. 35.656 3.709 5.594 5.493 41.944 3.608 5.487 5.647 51.965 3.619 5.699 6.143 67.814 3.769 6.282 7.072 93.219 4.108 7.340 8.615 134.982 4.733 15A 74.160 30.703 30.703 21.944 16.599 14.544 13.947 13.559 13.366 13.365 13.563 13.984 14.667 15.676 17.117 Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 508 UEUS 0.000 34.422 34.422 26.627 21.678 18.555 16.675 15.714 15.509 16.022 17.324 19.615 23.281 29.005 37.980 MCY 0.000 1.216 1.216 1.267 1.319 1.374 1.430 1.487 1.546 1.606 1.666 1.728 1.790 1.853 1.916 ALL 3.602 2.246 2.182 1.695 1.385 1.237 1.168 1.123 1.098 1.093 1.106 1.140 1.198 1.285 1.412 Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 508 MDT UBUS MCY ALL Title South Coast Air Basin Avg Winter CYr 2009 Version Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date 2007/06/19 14:09:56 Scan Year: 2009 -- All model years in the range 1965 to 2009 selected Season Winter Area South Coast +++++++++ +•aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa + + + +aa + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Year: 2009 -- Model Years 1965 to 2009 Inclusive -- Winter Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3,NOV 1 2006 South Coast Basin Average Basin Average Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams /mile; grams /idle -hour) Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 508 - Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT 0 0.000 0.000 3.885 1 0.639 0.751 1.067 5 0.517 0.611 0.925 10 0.352 0.419 0.625 15 0.252 0.301 0.443 20 0.189 0.228 0.329 25 0.149 0.180 0.256 30 0.123 0.149 0.208 35 0.107 0.130 0.177 40 0.097 0.118 0.158 45 0.093 0.113 0.147 50 0.093 0.112 0.144 55 0.097 0.117 0.147 60 0.107 0.129 0.158 65 0.123 0.148 0.177 Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Speed MPH UBUS LOA ALL LDT MDT 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 22.529 1 1 5.871 1.447 7.448 0.486 9.932 1.372 5 5.347 0.729 6.763 15 9.232 0.635 10 4.533 0.345 5.699. 0.983 7.178 0.320 15 3.937 30 4.924 0.497 5.839 35 20 3.487 0.874 4.343 0.286 4.932 0.875 25 3.139 0.467 3.899 50 4.299 0.475 30 2.868 0.297 3.556 0.990 3.851 0.311 35 2.657 65 3.292 0.565 3.538 0.161 40 2.498 5.386 3.096 0.181 3.332 0.617 45 2.386 0.214 2.962 2.998 3.221 50 2.323 44.029 2.892 2.990 3.205 55 2.316 57.105 2.895 3.091 3.301 60 2.381 78.107 2.990 3.339 3.541 65 2.546 112.670 3.215 3.809 3.990 Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen Speed UBUS 'MCY ALL MPH LDA LDT MDT 0 0.000 0.000 3.871 1 0.524 0.906 1.447 5 0.486 0.835 1.372 10 0.424 0.729 1.195 15 0.379 0.635 1.070 20 0.345 0.573 0.983 25 0.320 0.528 0.925 30 0.303 0.497 0.890 35 0.292 0.477 0.874 40 0.286 0.467 0.875 45 0.285 0.467 0.894 50 0.288 0.475 0.931 55 0.297 0.493 0.990 60 0.311 0.522 1.077 65 9.332 0.565 1.202 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT MDT UBUS 'MCY ALL 11.124 0.000 0.000 1.018 8.430 4.204 6.244 1.107 8.430 4.204 6.244 8.055 0.983 4.861 2.881 4.882 41.915 0.636 2.525 2.056 4.000 20.904 0.418 1.455 1.528 3.435 12.873 0.297 1.157 1.183 3.091 0.237 0.932 0.952 2.913 0.197 0.771 0.797 2.876 0.171 0.665 0.694 2.973 3.895 0.155 0.612 0.628 3.219 26.200 0.149 0.607 0.591 3.649 5.784 0.151 0.651 0.577 4.332 5.063 0.161 0.742 0.586 5.386 0.181 0.880 0.617 7.013 0.214 Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 508 MDT UBUS MCY ALL 53.320 0.000 0.000 5.430 25.661 32.102 41.915 8.055 25.661 32.102 41.915 7.481 17.928 20.904 34.599 6.060 12.873 14.418 30.001 5.078 9.678 10.532 27.313 4.386 7.853 8.147 26.105 3.895 6.563 6.672 26.200 3.533 5.660 5.784 27.631 3.271 5.063 5.368 30.648 3.093 4.730 5.155 35.788 2.998 4.649 5.299 44.029 2.990 4.832 5.764 57.105 3.091 5.321 6.635 78.107 3.339 6.199 8.083 112.670 3.809 ,= 76.621 27.618 27.618 19.822 15.008 13.076 12.477 12.072 11.848 11.802 11.941 12.285 12.868 13.747 15.015 Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 508 UBUS 0.000 32.968 32.968 25.508 20.772 17.785 15.987 15.068 14.874 15.366 16.613 18.807 22.317 27.795 36.386 MCY 0.000 1.257 1.257 1.277 1.305 1'.338 1.376 1.419 1.465 1.516 1.569 1.626 1.687 1.752 1.822 ALL 3.800 1.990 1.938 1.502 1.222 1.086 1.023 0.981 0.957 0.951 0.961 0.990 1.039 1.116 1.227 Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 508 MDT UBUS MCY ALL I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I J I I 1 Appendix E Noise Impact Analysis NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA L S A September 2007 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Keeton K. Kretzer Keeton Kretzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, California 92780 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 926144731 (949) 553 -0666 LSA Project No. KKC0701 LSA September 2007 V I 1 I I� u I I [1 7 LJ I I r-, I� I F1 11 I TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................. ............................... Project Location ........................................... ............................... Project Background ...................................... ............................... Project Description ....................................... ............................... ProjectPhasing ............................................. ............................... Project Objectives ........................................ ............................... Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements.. Methodology Related to Noise Impact Assessment .................... Characteristic of So d .... ............................... I .... ............................... I .... ............................... I .... ............................... 3 Characteristics un ..................................... ............................... Measurement of Sound ....................................... ............................... Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise ............................. Vibration...................................................... ..........................:.... EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................... ............................... Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity . ............................... Overview of the Existing Noise Environment ............................ Thresholds of Significance ................................................. :........ IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... ............................... Short -Term Construction- Related Impacts .. ............................... Long -Term Aircraft Noise Impacts .............. ............................... Long -Term Traffic Noise Impacts ............... ............................... Long -Term Traffic Vibration Impacts .......... ............................... Long -Term Stationary Noise Impacts ........... ............................... Mitigation Measures ..................................... ............................... Level of Significance after Mitigation .......... ............................... REFERENCES ........................................................ ............................... APPENDIX A: FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL PRINTOUTS PAKKC0701 Wois .doc 49/06/07u I Table N: Projected Exterior Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels at Residences .... ............................... 26 Table O: Projected Interior Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels at Residences, Open Windows......... 26 Table P: Projected Interior Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels at Residences, Closed Windows....... 26 I FI i J n l i u 11 PAKKC0701 \Noimdw n09%06M. II ' FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure1: Project Location Map .............................................................................. ............................... 2 Figure2: Site Plan ................................................................................................... ............................... 5 TABLES Table A: Land Use Summary —Hoag Health Center, Approved UP2006 -010 ......... ............................... 1 Table B: Land Use Summary, Hoag Health Center ................................................ ............................... 4 Table C: Definitions of Acoustical Terms .......................................... :.................................................. 9 Table D: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources ................................. ............................... 10 Table E: Existing (2007) Traffic Noise Levels ..................................................... ............................... 13 Table F: Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................................ ............................... 13 Table G: Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix ................................................... ............................... 14 Table H: City of Newport Beach Noise Standards ............................................... ............................... 15 ' Table 1: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ....................................... ............................... 18 Table J: Existing With Project Traffic Noise Levels ............................................ ............................... 20 Table K: 2009 Without Project Traffic Noise Levels ........................................... ............................... 21 , Table L: 2009 With Project Traffic Noise Levels ................................................. ............................... 22 Table M: Measured Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels ....................................... ............................... 25 Table N: Projected Exterior Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels at Residences .... ............................... 26 Table O: Projected Interior Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels at Residences, Open Windows......... 26 Table P: Projected Interior Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels at Residences, Closed Windows....... 26 I FI i J n l i u 11 PAKKC0701 \Noimdw n09%06M. II ' 1 1 I 11 I 11 I I II [1 I I.SA ASSOCOATFS. INC. NOISY. IMPACT" ANALYSIS S F. PI'F.NIIER 2007 'IOAC IIEAI. "1'11 CEN'1'Y.R CII'Y OF NEWPORT REACII. CALIFORNIA HOAG HEALTH CENTER - NEWPORT BEACH INTRODUCTION This noise impact analysis has been prepared to evaluate the potential noise impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Hoag Health Center project in the City of Newport Beach, California (City). This report is intended to satisfy the City's requirement for a project specific noise impact analysis by examining the impacts of the proposed uses on the project site and evaluating the mitigation measures incorporated as part of the project design. Project Location The project site, currently known as Newport Technology Center, is located at 500 -540 Superior Avenue. The 13.7 -acre site is bounded by Superior Avenue on the west, Dana Road on the south, Newport Avenue on the east, and City property on the north, as shown in Figure 1. Project Background Recently (December 2006), the City approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 for the site that allows the demolition of one existing office building (Building 4) and the construction of an additional parking structure (Structure 2). The approval also authorized the conversion of 97,000 square feet (sf) of existing general office/research and development (R&D) space to medical office space, resulting in a total of 232,414 sf of office/R&D floor area and 97,000 sf of medical office floor area. The amended Use Permit approved by the City also included an increase in on -site parking from 1,332 combined parking spaces (i.e., surface and structure parking) to 1,985 combined parking spaces, including 697 spaces in the new parking structure that replaced Building 4. The existing approved Use Permit land use entitlements for the 13.7 -acre project site are summarized in Table A. Table A: Land Use Summary—Hoag Health Center, Approved UP2006 -010 Buildin se Floor Area s Height Approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 Building 1 100,407 48 fi, 6 in Buildin 2 1 17,027 32 5 in Buildin 3 111,980 48 ft, 6 in Structure 1 (Parking Structure ) 46 ft Structure 2 (Parking Structure) 32 ft Total R &D 96,414 Total Office 136,000 Total Medical Office 97,000 Total Gross Floor Area 1 329,414 Source: Planning Activity No. 2007-013 (January 19, 2007) ft = feet; in = inches P:\KKC0701 W oise.doc.09/06/07N ALIT CT 'IDE CIR UTE CT L S A Y o 500 1000 mmm FEU SOURCE: The Thomas Guide IAKKC07011G1Locationxdr(bn( 071 FIGURE I Hoag Health Center Project Location I & FARAD ST NEWHALL Ji O U LLI ST m J OHMS WY Q< d 8 5J W 16TH PROJECT 900 LOCATION �1- PRODUCTION PL 0 z QQ z r 0 ST 9 m.NAp E 800 GT a MEDICAL ,,A'g+ry `' :r s 5 HALYARD LN QO anwA Cry T p o C ` o(� r 1 � oj3 � F `PO HOSPITAL P � RD � 2 p(M(( wQ O bi 100 9 Q NAS $ 09!M UL 5 W [� LN p �� 4 sT W' o cs SvPERIOR m L S A Y o 500 1000 mmm FEU SOURCE: The Thomas Guide IAKKC07011G1Locationxdr(bn( 071 FIGURE I Hoag Health Center Project Location I J 1 1 I 1 I I i I I I I I I I I.SA ASSO"ATES. IN( :. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS R P. P'I'F.MBER 2007 IIOAC IIP.ALTII CENTER CITY OF NEWPORT BP.ACII. f11.1111R.IA The amended Use Permit also provided for shuttle service consisting of a 20- passenger van that will provide shuttle service for physicians and patients between Hoag Hospital and Hoag Health Center during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The shuttle service is limited to two roundtrips 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. No ancillary parking will be allowed to occur at Hoag Health Center for Hoag Hospital except during a one -year interim period to facilitate completion of Hoag's construction of its Lower Campus. Project Description The applicant, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is requesting the approval of an amendment to the existing Use Permit (UP2006 -010) to allow: (1) conversion of the remaining 232,414 sf general office and R &D floor area of the existing 329,414 sf of existing floor area to medical office use within the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District; and, (2) the construction of an additional 20,586 sf of medical office space on site, for a total of 350,000 gross sf of medical office floor area on the site. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 sf. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site as CO -M (Commercial Medical Office) and the precise development limitation of 350,000 sf of medical office floor area. This land use designation is intended to provide primarily medical - related uses. Additionally, approval of a traffic study is being requested pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). As indicated above, a total of 1,985 parking spaces are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces in two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on -site parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's Parking Code. Table B provides a comparison of the existing approved floor area allocation to that of the proposed project. Figure 2 depicts the proposed site plan. Project Phasing The applicant is proposing to implement the project over several years based on the following schedule: Component Ant[cl ated Implementation Building demolition 3rd Quarter 2007 Gars a construction 3rd Quarter 2008 Conversion of 350,000 sf to medical office 5 -7 years from approval 20,586 sf new medical office floor areal 3,000 -5,000 sf, 3 -5 years from Approval 16,586 to 18,586 sf, 5 -7 years from =oval Source: Hoag Healthcare Center, 2007. ' Anticipated completion Z New construction ' PAKKC0701 Woise.doc N09IM07N I.SA ASSOC I A'I'l.S. INC. S Y. PTEMHER 2007 Table B: Land Use Summary, Hoag Health Center Buildin se Floor Area s Height Approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 Building 1 . 100,407 48 ft, 6 in Building 2 117,027 32 ft, 5 in Building 3 111,980 48 ft, 6 in Structure I (Parking Structure 46 ft Structure 2 (Parking Structure) 32 ft Total R &D 96,414 Total Office 136,000 Total Medical Office 97 000 Total Gross Floor Area 329 414 Proposed Project - 2007 Building 1 100,407 48 ft 6 in Building 2 117,02-7 32 ft, 5 in Buildin 3 111,980 48 ft, 6 in Structure 1 (Parking Structure 46 ft Structure 2 (Parking Structure 32 ft Total R &D (Removed) Total Office (Removed) Total Medical Office 329,414 Additional Medical Office 20,586 Total Gross Floor Area 350,000 Source: Planning Activity No. 2007 -013 (January 18, 2007) R = feet; in = inches NOISY. IMPACI ANALYSIS IIOAC HEALTH CCN'I'CR ' JRI' REA C 11. CAI.i PORNIA I I I I I I I i 1 I J I 1 1 P:\KKC0701 \Noiw.doc 009106/07» 4 1 I LL CO) � N co to O N J_ V 6 V1 IL x Q, W LU j3 LU W o } Q -_.. LLLUi1J11 �1� U W I W W `L 0 'h Lu LL U Z • II, .J�T`'�1._11f"IiATJJITTT' r o k ��_ _a mm all��¢`IT1171'71 �1 i',�IJ r � r I I' i� �i &M iO4t ") - -- ��n b — r I I t I N y � V 6 V1 IL x O o �! e Q I C m F c a a it N U 0 v ' Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements Project implementation will necessitate approval of the following discretionary actions by the ' Newport Beach City Council: Use Permit Amendment Methodology Related to Noise Impact Assessment ' Evaluation of noise impacts associated with a proposed medical office project typically includes the following: • Determine the short-term construction noise impacts on off -site noise sensitive uses; Determine the long -term noise impacts, including vehicular traffic and aircraft activities, on on- site uses; • Determine the long -term noise impacts on off -site noise sensitive uses; and • Determine the required mitigation measures to reduce long -term, on -site noise impacts from all ' sources. [1 ' PAKKC0701Woiw.dm R09/06/07n ' LSA ASSOCIAI'L'S. INC. NOISY. IMPACT ANALYSIS S P. PTEMRY.R Ran] IIOAO HEALTH CENTER CITY OF NEWPORI' 6EAC11. CALIFORNIA Project Objectives Implementation of the proposed project will achieve the following intended specific objectives that have been identified by Hoag Health Care Center. • To provide 350,000 sf of medical office space that can be utilized to meet the growing'demand for outpatient health care services, including imaging, urgent care, rehabilitation and health care education programs. • To provide the highest - quality health care available. • To support Hoag Hospital's delivery of patient - centered care for those hospitalized as an inpatient and by providing additional outpatient care and services. • To recognize that as Orange County's population ages and expands, so grows the need for increased health care services. ' To have medical office space conveniently located near the hospital and supported by imaging, rehabilitation, and educational programs, allowing the hospital to attract new physicians to the community. • To provide the much - needed space for physician's offices. There is great need for primary care and specialty physicians. It is Hoag's objective to provide the space for them to practice. To put the patient first by delivering care from the patients' perspective. For outpatient care and ' services, that means simplifying the process. ' Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements Project implementation will necessitate approval of the following discretionary actions by the ' Newport Beach City Council: Use Permit Amendment Methodology Related to Noise Impact Assessment ' Evaluation of noise impacts associated with a proposed medical office project typically includes the following: • Determine the short-term construction noise impacts on off -site noise sensitive uses; Determine the long -term noise impacts, including vehicular traffic and aircraft activities, on on- site uses; • Determine the long -term noise impacts on off -site noise sensitive uses; and • Determine the required mitigation measures to reduce long -term, on -site noise impacts from all ' sources. [1 ' PAKKC0701Woiw.dm R09/06/07n LS ASS OCI A'I'RS. INC. NOISE. IMPACT ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER Sap] IIOAO HEALTH CENTER C..l'1'Y OF NRWPOR'1' BRACH, CALIFORNIA Characteristics of Sound Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and /or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep. To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally an annoyance, while loudness can affect the ability to hear. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations, or cycles per second, of a wave resulting in the tone's range from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment and is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sound's effect. This characteristic of sound can be precisely measured with instruments. The analysis of a project defines the noise environment of the project area in terms of sound intensity and its effect on adjacent sensitive land uses. Measurement of Sound Sound intensity is measured through the A- weighted scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A- weighted noise level de- emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear's de- emphasis of these frequencies. Unlike linear units, such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale representing points on a sharply rising curve. For example, 10 decibels (dB) are 10 times more intense than I dB, 20 dB are 100 times more intense, and 30 dB are 1,000 times more intense. Thirty dB represent 1,000 times as much acoustic energy as one decibel. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound pressure energy. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as only a doubling of the loudness of the sound. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Sound levels are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. For a single point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop -off rate is appropriate for noise generated by stationary equipment. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic or railroad operations, the sound decreases 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source, noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation, decreases 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance. There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level (Lw) is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Lq and community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or the day -night average level (LdB) based on A- weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24 -hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the PAKKC0701 W oise.dm 409/06/07» I I I LJ 1 I I I 1 r F 1 1 P:WKC0701 Woise.doc a09/06/07N LSA ASSOCIA'I'P9. INC.. NOISY. IMPAC'P ANAI.VsIS SEP'1'EMBER 2001 HOAG HEALTH CYHTER CITY Or NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA hourly L.,, for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping ' hours). L.dl, is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening hours. CNEL and Ld,, are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The City uses the CNEL noise scale for long -term noise impact assessment. Other noise rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum noise level (LIR„), which is the highest exponential time averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis for short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by "S,. L,,,, reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. It is often used together with another noise scale, ' or noise standards in terms of percentile noise levels, in noise ordinances for enforcement purposes. For example, the L10 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level, and half the time it is less than this level. The 1,90 noise level represents the noise ' level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period. For a relatively constant noise source, the L,, and L5o are approximately the same. Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first is audible impacts that refer to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3.0 dB or greater because this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1.0 and 3.0 dB. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last category is changes in noise levels of less than 1.0 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear. Only ' audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant. ' Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the ' human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying less developed areas. Table C lists "Definitions of Acoustical Terms," and Table D shows "Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources." 1 1 P:WKC0701 Woise.doc a09/06/07N LSA ASSOCIATI.S. INC. Sk PTEMPER YOGI Table C: Definitions of Acoustical Terms NOIRE IMPACT ANALYSIS IIOAC HEALTH CENTER JRT PEACH. CALIr0RN1A Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit of level that denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power, the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10 ) of this ratio. Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in one second (i.e., number of cycles per second). A- Weighted Sound The sound level obtained by use of A- weighting. The A- weighting filter Level, dBA de- emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A -weighted, unless resorted otherwise. LZ, La, L25, L5o The fast A- weighted noise levels that are equaled or exceeded by a. fluctuating sound level 2 percent, 8 percent, 25 percent, and 50 percent of a stated time period. Equivalent The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated Continuous Noise location, has the same A- weighted sound energy as the time varying sound. Level, Le Community Noise The 24 -hour A- weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, Equivalent Level, obtained after the addition of 5 dBA to sound levels occurring in the evening CNEL from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Day/NightNoise The 24 -hour A- weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, Level, L& obtained after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 .m. and 7:00 a.m. Lmsz, LmiR The maximum and minimum A- weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging. Ambient Noise The all encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a Level specified time, usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant. Intrusive The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, 1991. P:1KKC0701 Woise.doc n09/06707o I ' SEPTEMBER SY.P'1 INC. BER R ASS C0. ATF E 11 1 L: I� I lJ H I 11 1 Table D: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources NOISE.IMPACT ANALYSIS HOAG HEALTH CCN'I'CR CITY of NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA Noise Source A- Weighted Sound Level in Decibels Noise Environments Subjective Evaluations Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening 128 times as loud Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of Feeling 32 times as loud Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Away 110 Very Loud 16 times as loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City Traffic 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud 2 times as loud Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately Loud Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud Average Office 60 Quiet One -half as loud Suburban Street 55 uiet Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet One - quarter as loud Large Transformer 45 Quiet Average Residence without Stereo Playing 40 Faint One - eighth as loud Soft Whisper 30 Faint Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearin 0 Very Faint Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc., 2004. ' MI(KC070Moise.doc 809106/07» I.SA ASSOCIATES. INC. S 1. P'I-EMBER 2 00 Vibration NOISY, IMPACT ANALYSIS IIOAO IIY I CK Y )T BEACH. CAL IFORNIA ' Vibration refers to ground -borne noise and perceptible motion. Ground -borne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors, where the motion may be discernable, but without the effects associated with the shaking of a building, there is less adverse reaction. Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by the occupants as motion of building surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or as a low - frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves. Building damage is not a factor for normal development projects with the occasional exception of blasting and pile driving during construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 decibels or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings. Typical sources of ground -borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy -duty earth- moving equipment), steel - wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. Problems with ground -borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within about 100 feet (ft) from the vibration source, although there are examples of ground - borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 ft (Federal Transit Administration 1995). When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. It is assumed for most projects that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that ground -borne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, construction of the project could result in ground -borne vibration that could be perceptible and annoying. Ground - borne noise is not likely to be a problem because noise arriving via the normal airborne path usually will be greater than ground -borne noise. EXISTING CONDITIONS Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity There are existing residential uses to the west (Harbor Homes trailer home park) across Superior Avenue approximately 100 ft from the project boundary and to the south across Dana Road approximately 150 R from the project site. These noise - sensitive uses would be potentially affected by noise from the project site during construction of the project and from on -site operations. Overview of the Existing Noise Environment The primary existing noise sources in the project area are transportation facilities. Traffic on Newport Boulevard (State Route 55, or SR -55), Superior Avenue, Dana Road, and other local streets is a steady source of ambient noise. Takeoffs and landings at John Wayne Airport (JWA), a commercial airport located approximately 3.6 miles northeast of the project site, contribute to the aircraft noise in the project area. The project site is outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of JWA, based on the JWA Impact Zones map in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA. P1KKC0701 Woise.doc 009/0600 11 i 1 LJ CI 1 11 I I I I 1 F, ' LSA ASSOCIAIES. ING.. NOISE. IMPACT ANALYSIS S E. PTEMRF.R 200] NOAO IIE.ALTN CENTER CITY OF NEWPORT RCACII. CALIFORNIA ' City of Newport Beach Noise Element of the General Plan. The City's Noise Element (Table N2, Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix) identifies four zone categories for land use and noise The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD -77 -108) was used to evaluate ' highway traffic- related noise conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity. The standard ' vehicle mix for Orange County roadways was used for traffic on these roadway segments. The modeled 24 -hour CNEL levels are shown in Table E for the existing traffic conditions (Kunzman & ' Associates, July 2007). Traffic noise levels in the project vicinity are generally moderate (Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue) to high (Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway). CNEL as Clearly Compatible and up to 75 dBA CNEL as Normal ly Compatible. Under the Normally An ambient noise survey was conducted by an LSA noise specialist at two representative ' noise- sensitive locations in the project vicinity on July 25, 2007. Ambient noise levels were measured for approximately 10 minutes each during the afternoon hours near two residential areas nearest to the project site. Table F lists the noise levels measured at these two sites. ' normally acceptable for off ice uses. ' At the Harbor Homes entrance, the sound level meter was placed approximately 5 ft from the edge of Superior Avenue. Steady and fairly busy traffic on Superior Avenue dominated the ambient noise at this location. Occasionally vehicles entering the Harbor Homes trailer park contributed to the noise ' level measured at this location. As shown in Table F, traffic noise measured was moderately high, reaching 73 dBA 4, over the entire measurement period. ' At the residence located at 4305 Dana Road, the sound level meter was placed at the driveway in front of the garage, approximately 5 ft from the edge of Dana Road and 40 ft from Onion Way. Approximately 10 vehicles passed through this segment of Dana Road during the measurement period. Steady traffic on Superior Avenue and occasional helicopter overflights also contributed to the measured ambient noise at this location. The ambient noise measured at this location was approximately 60 dBA L ... Thresholds of Significance A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located. The applicable noise ' standards governing the project site are the criteria in the City's Noise Element of the General Plan and its Noise Ordinance. ' City of Newport Beach Noise Element of the General Plan. The City's Noise Element (Table N2, Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix) identifies four zone categories for land use and noise compatibility: Zone A, Clearly Compatible; Zone B, Normally Compatible; Zone C, Normally ' Incompatible; and Zone D, Clearly Incompatible. Table G depicts the City's land use noise compatibility matrix. These standards are for the assessment of long -term vehicular traffic noise impacts. For Commercial /Industrial/Institutional uses that include office buildings, R &D facilities, professional offices, and City office buildings, the City considers exterior noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL as Clearly Compatible and up to 75 dBA CNEL as Normal ly Compatible. Under the Normally Compatible category, new construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Interior noise levels up to 50 dBA CNEL are considered ' normally acceptable for off ice uses. ' P:WKC0701W0is.d0C.09106 /07* 12 LSA ASSOCI A "1'FS- INC. SP.P'1'F.MSRR 2n0? Table E: Existing (2007) Traffic Noise Levels NOISS IMPACT ANALYSIS IIOAO IIF.ALTII CENTER ]RT RSACII. CALIFORNIA Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Table F: Ambient Noise Levels Monitoring Location Harbor Homes Entrance 1535 Superior Avenue 73 81 N 72 77 75 71 4305 Dana Road 60 77 47 69 63 'S7 1 55 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. 1 Traffic noise within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site - specific information. P:UKKC0701 W oiW.doc a09/06/07o I CNEL (dBA) Centerline Centerline Centerline 50 it from to to to Centerline of 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Outermost Roadway Segment ADT it ft ft Lane Superior Ave. between West Coast Hi hwa and 16th St. 23,400 <50' 110 233 67.8 Superior Ave. between 16th St. and 17th St. . 23,000 < 50 109 230 67.7 Newport Blvd. between West Coast Highway and 17th St. 54,000 112 231 493 72.0 Newport Blvd. between 17th St. and Harbor Blvd. 85,000 148 311 666 74.0' Newport Blvd. north of Harbor Blvd. 101,000 165 348 747 74.7 Placentia Ave. between Hospital Rd. and Superior Ave. 11,000 <50 69 142 64.5 Placentia Ave. between Superior Ave. and 17th St. 15,000 < 50 84 174 65.9 Placentia Ave. north of 17th St. 18,000 < 50 93 196 66.7 West Coast Highway west of Superior Ave. 35,000 101 207 440 71.3 West Coast Highway between Superior Ave. and Newport Blvd. 43,000 114 237 505 72.1 West Coast Highway east of Newport Blvd. 1 50,000 125 261 558 72.8 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Table F: Ambient Noise Levels Monitoring Location Harbor Homes Entrance 1535 Superior Avenue 73 81 N 72 77 75 71 4305 Dana Road 60 77 47 69 63 'S7 1 55 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. 1 Traffic noise within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site - specific information. P:UKKC0701 W oiW.doc a09/06/07o I J ' I.SA ASROCIA'I'M INO. NOISY. IMPACT ANALYSIS %CP'EMBER YOU! HOAO IIP.ALT II C. a NTER CITY Or NEWPORT UP.ACII. CALIFORNIA 11 r, L� LJ' I I i I 1 7 I Table G: Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix Source: City of Newport Beach, 2006. Zone A: Clearly Compatible- Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compatible ** —New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C: Normally Incompatible —New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible —New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. ' P:\KKC0701Woise.dw 09/06/07» Community Noise Equivalent and Use Cat ories Level (CNEL) 55- 60- 65- 70- 75 Categories Uses <55 60 65 70 7$ 80 >80 Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple Family A A B C C D D Residential Mixed Use A A A C C C D Residential Mobile Home A A B C C D D Commercial Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging A A B B C C D Regional, District Commercial Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Movie A A A A B B C Regional, Village Theater District Special Commercial Industrial Office Building, Research and Development, A A A B B C D Institutional Professional Offices, City Office Building Commercial Amphitheater, Concert Hall Auditorium, B B C C D D D Recreational Meeting Hall Institutional Civic Center Commercial Children's Amusement Park, Miniature Golf A A A B B D D Recreation Course, Go -cart Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club Commercial Automobile Service Station, Auto Dealership, A A A A B B B General, Special Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Industrial Institutional Utilities Institutional Hospital, Church, Library, Schools' A A B C C D D Classroom Open Space Parks A A A B C D . D Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers A A A A B C C Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat Agriculture Agriculture A I A I A A I A I A A Source: City of Newport Beach, 2006. Zone A: Clearly Compatible- Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compatible ** —New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C: Normally Incompatible —New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible —New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. ' P:\KKC0701Woise.dw 09/06/07» I.RA ARtl OCIATf.9. INC. NOIRE. IMPACT ANALYRIR EFP.1'FMPER 2007 HOAC. HFAI.'1'II C.F.NTF.R CI'T'Y OF NE.PORI PEACH. CALIFORNIA The City also enforces the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table H. Other noise impacts such as construction activities are regulated by the Municipal Code. Table H: City of Newport Beach Noise Standards Land Use Cate ones Allowable Noise Level dBA Le Interlor' Exterlor0. Categories Uses 7 AM —]0 PM ]0 PM -7 AM 7 AM —]0 PM ]0 PM -7 AM Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple Family (Zone 1 45 40 55 50 Residential Portions of Mixed 45 40 60 50 Use Developments Zone 111 Commercial Commercial Zone 11 N/A N/A 65 60 Industrial IndustrialorManufacturing N/A N/A 70 70 (Zone IV) Institutional Schools, Day Care Centers, Churches, Libraries, Museums, 45 40 55 50 Health Care Institutions (Zone I Source: City of Newport Beach Noise Element. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such a person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed the following: o The noise standard for the applicable zone for any 15- minute period; 'o A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (measured using A- weighted slow response). • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the noise standard applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The noise standard for the residential portions of the residential property falling within 100 ft of a commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. • If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply.. In addition, the following policies in the City's Noise Element are applicable to the proposed project. Policies N1.1 Noise Compatibility of New Development Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2 (see Table G), and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3 (see Table H). IJ 11 7 L li i J 11 1 I I FAKKC070Moise.doc N09/06/07n 15 , I 1 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOIRE: IMPACT ANALYSIS 5 E?'I EMBER 2007 IIOAG IIEALTII CENTER CITY OF NEWPORT SEACII. CALIFORNIA N1.8 Significant Noise Impacts. Require the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. The CNEL increase is shown in the table below. CNEL (dBA) Increase dBA 55 3 60 2 65 1 70 1 Over 75 Any increase is considered significant ' N2.3 Limiting Hours of Truck Deliveries Limit the hours of truck deliveries to commercial uses abutting residential uses and other noise - sensitive land uses to minimize excessive noise unless there is no feasible alternative. Any exemption shall require compliance with nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise standards. ' N4.1 Stationary Noise Sources ' Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3 (see Table H) and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. N5.1 Limiting Hours of Activity ' Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. Municipal Code. The City's Municipal Code Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control, establishes ' the maximum permissible noise level that may intrude into a neighbor's property. The exterior and interior noise standards are similar to those listed in Table H from the Noise Element, without the inclusion of those for the Institutional category. Ij [I 1 Chapter 10.28 of the City's Municipal Code regulates the timing of construction activities and includes special provisions for sensitive land uses. Construction activities shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays. In addition, any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment that is utilized for emergency work is exempted from the provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance. P:T,KC070 hNoi WADE 09 /06011 LYA ASSOCIA'f89. INC. 5CP "I'P.M I,eR 2007 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Short -Term Construction - Related Impacts NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS 110A IIP.AI.'1'II CF.N'1'P.R ' CITY OP NeWPORT NRACII. CALIFORNIA Construction Noise. Noise levels from grading and other construction activities for the proposed project may range up to 84 dBA LR,RR at the closest residential uses adjacent to the project site for very limited times when construction occurs near the project's boundary. Construction related noise impacts from the proposed project would be potentially adverse; however, compliance with the City's construction hours requirement would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Short-term noise impacts would be associated with excavation, grading, and erecting of buildings on site during construction of the proposed project. Construction related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area today but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Although there would be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance (passing trucks at 50 ft would generate up to a maximum of 87 dBA), the effect on longer term (hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small. Therefore, short-term construction related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading, and erection of buildings on the project site. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table I lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments,. based on a distance of 50 ft between the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical noise levels range up to 91 dBA L,,,. at 50 ft during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full - power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. P;\KKC0701 \Noise.doc ,,09!06/07„ 11 I 1 I [] 11 CJ 1 1 �I 1 USA ASSOCIA'rRs. IN(:. NOISE. IMPACT ANALYSIS SEPTRMPER 4007 IIOAC HRALTII CENTER (:I'I'Y OF NEWPORT RP.ACH. CAI.IEORNIA Table 1: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Type of Equipment Range of Maximum Sound Levels Measured dBA at 50 ft Suggested Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis dBA at 50 ft Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft- lb/blow 81 -96 93 Rock Drills 83 -99 96 Jackhammers 75 -85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 -88 85 Pumps 74-84 80 Scrapers 83 -91 87 Haul Trucks 83 -94 88 Cranes 79 -86 82 Portable Generators 71 -87 80 Rollers 75 -82 80 Dozers 77 -90 85 Tractors 77 -82 80 Front -End Loaders 77 -90 86 Hydraulic Backhoe 81 -90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 -90 86 Graders 79-89 86 Air Compressors 76-89 86 Trucks 81 -87 86 Source; Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. ' Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, and water and pickup trucks. Based on the information in Table 1, the maximum noise level generated by each scraper on the proposed project site is assumed to be 87 dBA L.R. at 50 ft from the scraper. Each bulldozer would also generate 85 dBA L... at 50 ft. The maximum noise level generated by water and pickup trucks is approximately 86 dBA La. at 50 ft from these vehicles. Each doubling of the sound source with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of ' construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, the worst -case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA L.R. at a distance of 50 ft from the active construction area. ' The closest existing noise - sensitive uses such as homes adjacent to the project site are approximately 100 ft from the project construction area. The nearest adjacent homes may be subject to short-term, intermittent, maximum noise generated by construction activities on site and reaching 84 dBA L.... ' This range of construction noise would be compatible with traffic noise from Superior Avenue and Dana Road. The proposed project will comply with the City's General Plan Policy N5.1. Construction activity on the project site will fall within the hours permitted by the City as specified in the City's ' Municipal Code Noise Ordinance and would not result in any significant construction noise impacts. 1 ' PAKKC070I Noise.doc x091 W07» 18 I.SA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOISE IMYAC'I ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 2007 IIOAC HEALTH CENTER CITY OF NEWEOR'I' SEACII. CAI.IEORNIA Construction Vibration. Bulldozers and other heavy - tracked construction equipment generate groundborne vibration. Although such vibration may be perceptible to human receptors and result in potential annoyance at residences directly adjacent to the project site, it would not cause any damage to the buildings. Long -Term Aircraft Noise Impacts The proposed project would not contribute to any measurable long -term aircraft activity. The proposed on -site medical office uses would be exposed to noise levels well below 60 dBA CNEL from John Wayne Airport. The County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) uses the current Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP) for JWA, Appendix D, amended December 19,200 , 2, as the basis for determining potential aircraft noise impact from JWA. The project site is locted outside the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours, where the AELUP defines the noise exposure to be ".`Moderate Noise Impact' within Noise Impact Zone "2." The AELUP also recognizes that individual sensitivities to annoyance can vary from person to person. No significant noise impacts from aircraft activities would occur. Long -Term Traffic Noise Impacts Based on the traffic study conducted for the proposed project (Kunzman & Associates, July 2007), the project- related daily net increase in vehicular trips will be 12,743 trips per day. These additional daily trips would not result in any significant or measurable noise level increases along roadway segments in the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed on -site medical office use would not be exposed to noise exceeding the interior noise standard of 50 dBA CNEL for office use from Newport Boulevard or Superior Avenue. No mitigation measures are required. The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD -77 -108) was used to evaluate highway traffic- related noise conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity. A standard vehicle mix for Orange County roadways was used for traffic orrthese roadway segments. The modeled 24 -hour CNEL levels are shown in Table J for the existing plus project scenario. Tables K and L show the traffic noise levels for the future year 2009 without and with project scenarios. These noise levels represent the worst -case scenario, which assumes no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and model printouts are provided in Appendix A. PAKKC0701W0ise.dm 909/06/071) 1 [1 1 1 I 1 E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L. A ASSOCIATES. INC. S S. P'1 'EMBER 2007 Table J: Existing With Project Traffic Noise Levels NOISE IMPACT' ANALYSIS' IIOAO IIEALTH CENTER '1'Y OE NEWPORT SEACII, CALIFORNIA Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site - specific information. P: \KKC0701 W oise.doc x09/06/07* Increase CNEL (dBA) (dBA) 50 ft Center- Center- Center- 50 ft from from line to 70 line to 65 line to 60 Centerline of Centerline of CNEL CNEL CNEL Outermost Outermost Roadway Segment ADT (ft) (ft) (ft) Lane Lane Superior Ave. between West Coast Highway and 16th St. 31,100 65 132 281 69.0 1.2 Superior Ave. between 16th St. and 17th St. 25,600 58 117 247 68.2 0.5 Newport Blvd. between West Coast Highway and 17th St. 59,100 118 245 523 72.4 0.4 Newport Blvd. between 17th St. and Harbor Blvd. 89,900 153 322 - 691 74.2 0.2 NeINTon Blvd. north of Harbor Blvd. 106,100 170 360 771 74.9 0.2 Placentia Ave. between Hospital Rd. and Superior Ave. 14,200 <501 81 168 65.6 1.1 Placentia Ave. between Superior Ave. and 17th St. 20 400 < 50 101 213 67.2 1.3 Placentia Ave. north of 17th St. 18,900 < 50 1 96 202 66.9 0.2 West Coast Highway west of Superior Ave. 37,600 106 217 462 71.6 0.3 West Coast Highway between Superior Ave. and Ne ort Blvd. 43,000 114 237 505 72.1 0.0 West Coast Highway east of New ort Blvd. 52,300 129 269 575 73.0 1 0.2 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site - specific information. P: \KKC0701 W oise.doc x09/06/07* LSA ASSOCIATES. ING. NOISE IMCAC "1 ANALYSIS SF:P'I'F.MBER 41107 HOAC HEALTH CENTER CITY OF NEWPORT PEACH. CALIFORNIA Table K: 2009 Without Project Traffic Noise Levels Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Traffic noise. within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site - specific information. P:\KKC0701140i0.dM 009/06/Gh 21 CNEL (dBA) Centerline Centerline Centerline 50 ft from to to to Centerline of 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Outermost Roadway Segment ADT ft ft ft Lane Superior Ave. between West Coast Highway and 16th St. 1 27,100 60 121 257 68.4 Superior Ave. between 16th St. and 17th St. 24,600 57 114 241 68.0 Newport Blvd. between West Coast Highway and 17th St. 61,000 120 250 534 72.5 Newport Blvd. between 17th St. and Harbor Blvd. 93,200 157 330 708 74.4 Newport Blvd. north of Harbor Blvd. 110,100 174 368 791 75.1 Placentia Ave. between Hospital Rd. and Superior Ave. 12,500 < 50' 75 154 65.1 Placentia Ave. between Superior Ave. and 17th St. 17,600 < 50 1 92 193 66.6 Placentia Ave. north of 17th St. 18,900 < 50 96 202 66.9 West Coast Highway west of Superior Ave. 39,600 109 224 478 71.8 West Coast Highway between Su erior Ave. and New rt Blvd. 48 600 123 256 548 1 72.7 West Coast Highway east of Newport Blvd. 58,200 138 288 617 73.5 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Traffic noise. within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site - specific information. P:\KKC0701140i0.dM 009/06/Gh 21 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.. SEPT F.MIIP.R 2007 Table L: 2009 With Project Traffic Noise Levels NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS IIOAC IIBAI:YN CENTER CITY OF NEWPORT REACH. CALIFORNIA Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Traffic noise within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site - specific information. P: %KKC0701 W oiu.doc .09/06 107» Increase CNEL (dBA) (dBA) 50 ft Center- Center- Center- 50 ft from from line to 70 line to 65 line to 60 Centerline of Centerline of CNEL CNEL CNEL Outermost Outermost Roadway Segment ADT (ft) (ft) (ft) Lane Lane Superior Ave. between West Coast Highway and 16th St. 31,800 66 134 1 285 1 69.1 0.7 Superior Ave. between 16th St. and 17th St. 26,100 59 118 250 68.3 0.3 Newport Blvd: between West Coast Highway and 17th St. 64,000 124 258 551 72.7 0.2 Newport Blvd. between 17th St. and Harbor Blvd. 96,100 160 337 722 74.5 0.1 Newport Blvd. north of Harbor Blvd. 113,100 177 375 805 75.2 0.1 Placentia Ave. between Hospital Rd. and Superior Ave. 14,500 <50' 82 170 65.7 0.6 Placentia Ave. between Superior Ave. and 17th St. 20,900 < 50 103 216 67.3 0.7 Placentia Ave. north of 17th St. 19,400 < 50 98 206 67.0 West Coast Highway west of Superior Ave. 41 200 III 230 491 72.0 0.2 West Coast Highway between Superior Ave. and Newport Blvd. 48 600 123 256 548 72.7 0.0 West Coast Highway east of Newport Blvd. 59,500 139 293 626 73.6 0.1 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Traffic noise within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site - specific information. P: %KKC0701 W oiu.doc .09/06 107» LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOISY. IMPACT ANALYSIS Se P-1 EMBER 20(17 IIOAC IIY.AL"M GENI'ER CITY OF NRw PORT PRACN. CALIFORNIA Off -Site Traffic Noise Impacts. Table J shows that, under the existing plus project scenario, project - related traffic would have less than a 1.0 dBA noise level increases along most roadway segments in the project vicinity. There would be three roadway segments that could have a 1.1 to 1.3 dBA increase in traffic noise along roadway segments, with the 65 dBA CNEL contour extending beyond the roadway right -of -way. However, it is not expected that all project- related traffic would be added to these roads at once under the existing condition. Through a gradual increase over project implementation, the year -by -year project- related traffic noise level increases would be less than 1 dBA. In addition, this range of traffic noise level increase is less than the 3 dBA change threshold that is normally perceptible by the human ear. Table L shows that, under the future year 2009 scenario, project - related traffic would have no measurable (all less than 1 dBA) noise level increases along roadway segments in the project vicinity Along Newport Boulevard north of Harbor Boulevard, the projected 2009 with project traffic noise would be 75.2 dBA CNEL at 50 ft from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. Although the project would add 0.1 dBA to the ambient noise, the uses along this segment of Newport Boulevard are commercial and are not considered noise - sensitive. Therefore, the traffic noise level increase is not considered to be a significant impact. Therefore, no significant long -term off -site traffic noise impacts would occur. On -Site Traffic Noise Impacts. Table L shows that, under the worst -case future year 2009 with project scenario, portions of the project site along Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard would be exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding the City's Clearly Compatible level of 65 dBA CNEL but outside the Normally Compatible level of 75 dBA CNEL for office uses. Under the Normally Compatible category, new construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction requirements, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Superior Avenue. The project site is directly adjacent to Superior Avenue. Based on the project's site plan, no outdoor active use areas are proposed that would be within 134 ft of the Superior Avenue centerline. Therefore, no noise barrier would be required. In addition, the on -site building proposed along Superior Avenue'is approximately 65 ft from the Superior Avenue centerline and would be potentially exposed to traffic noise reaching 70 dBA CNEL. Based on the EPA's standard building noise attenuation (Protective Noise Levels, Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document, EPA 550/9 -79 -100, November 1978) in warm climate areas (including southern California), with windows open, the building provides 12 dBA exterior - to-interior noise attenuation, and the interior noise levels at the medical offices would be reduced to 58 dBA CNEL (i.e., 70 dBA - 12 dBA = 58 dBA) or lower. With windows closed, the exterior- to-interior noise attenuation is 24 dBA, and the interior noise levels in these medical offices would be reduced to 46 dBA CNEL (70 dBA - 24 dBA = 46 dBA) or lower and below the 50 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for office uses. It is expected that double -paned windows will be used for these medical offices and that they would provide a sound transmission class rating of 24 (STC -24) or better. No building facade enhancements would be required for traffic noise from Superior Avenue. However, an air - conditioning system, a form of mechanical ventilation, would be required to ensure that windows can remain closed for prolonged periods of time and meet the 50 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for office use. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I PAKKC0701 %No19e.dm u09/06/07» 23 1 I I.SA AS SO CI A-1 ES, INC, NOISE. IMPACT ANAI.YSIG SBP'I'I:MBER 4007 HOAG HEAI.T II CE'N'TRE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA Newport Boulevard. The project site is directly adjacent to Newport Boulevard. Table J shows that, under the future year 2009 scenario, the 70 and 65 dBA CNEL contours along Newport Boulevard adjacent to the project site would extend to 124 and 258 ft, respectively, from the roadway centerline. The 60 dBA CNEL would extend to 551 ft from the roadway centerline. The proposed medical offices along Newport Boulevard are approximately 150 (north end) to 250 (south end) ft from the centerline of Newport Boulevard and would be exposed to traffic noise between 65 and 69 dBA CNEL. .Based on the EPA's standard building noise attenuation, with windows or doors open, interior noise levels at the frontline medical offices would be exposed to 57 dBA CNEL (i.e., 69 dBA - 12 dBA = 57 dBA). With windows closed, interior noise levels in these frontline medical offices would be reduced to 45 dBA CNEL (69 dBA - 24 dBA = 45 dBA) and below the 50 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for office uses. Building facade enhancements would not be required for traffic noise on Newport Boulevard. However, an air conditioning system, a form of mechanical ventilation, would be required to ensure that windows can remain closed for prolonged periods of time and meet the 50 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for office uses. ' Long -Term Traffic Vibration Impacts Because the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on -road vehicles provide ' vibration isolation,. it is unusual for on -road vehicles to cause groundbome noise or vibration problems. When on -road vehicles cause effects such as rattling of windows, the source is almost always airborne noise. Most problems with on -road vehicle - related vibration can be directly related to ' a pothole, bump, expansion joint, or other discontinuity in the road surface. Smoothing the bump or filling the pothole will usually solve the problem. Long -Term Stationary Noise Impacts Potential long -term stationary noise impacts would be associated primarily with operations on the ' project site from rooftop mechanical units, truck delivery, and other activities at the parking lot. These activities are potential point sources of noise that could affect noise - sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site such as the existing residential uses to the northeast and southeast. ' As noise spreads from a source it loses energy, so the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dBA reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance ' from a single -point source of noise, such as an idling truck, to the noise - sensitive receptor of concern. Although individual activity may generate relatively high and intermittent noise, when added to the typically lower ambient noise and averaged over a longer period of time, the cumulative noise level 1 would be much lower and would be considered a less than significant impact. Truck Delivery and Loading/Unloading Activities. Delivery trucks for the proposed on -site medical office uses would result in a maximum noise similar to noise readings from loading and unloading activities for other projects with similar operations, which generates a noise level of 75 ' dBA L.. at 50 ft and is used in this analysis. Normal deliveries, usually by United Parcel Services PAKKC07011No&.dm 49106/070 I.SA ASSOCIA.rES. INC. NOISP. IMPACT ANALYSIS S r P'I'F.MNL'R 20119 ,IOAO IIHAI:1'N CCNTHR CITY OF NEWPORT REACH, CALIFORNIA (UPS) or Federal Express (FedEx) trucks, are once in the morning and sometimes once in the afternoon. Based on the site plan, it is assumed that the medical office use loading area (near the front entrance of the buildings) is at least 350 ft ( -17 dBA) from the nearest residences to the south and 250 ft ( -14 dBA) from the residences to the west. These loading/unloading areas are also blocked by the proposed on -site building along Superior Avenue that provides at least 10 dBA noise reduction to the residences west of Superior Avenue. Therefore, with the distance divergence and /or building attenuation, loading/unloading noise would potentially reach up to 58 dBA L., at ground level of the nearest residences to the south and up to 51 dBA L.R, at ground level of the nearest residences to the west. This range of maximum noise levels would not exceed the typical exterior noise standards of 75 dBA L.R, for any period of time (20 dBA plus the 55 dBA baseline level for exterior noise in residential area during daytime hours; see Table G), but would be potentially higher than the 55 dBA L25 (daytime noise standard for residential zone for any 15- minute period; see Table G) standard at the nearest residences to the south if the loadinglunloading noise lasts more than 15 minutes in any hour. Although a typical truck unloading process takes an average of 10-15 minutes, this maximum noise level occurs in a much shorter period of time, in a few minutes. It is not expected that truck delivery /loading/unloading activities would result in this maximum noise level lasting more than 15 minutes in any hour when it occurs. In addition, this range of noise levels is lower than or compatible to the maximum noise levels generated by traffic on Superior Avenue and Dana Road. Therefore, noise associated with truck delivery /loading/unloading activities at the medical office buildings would not result in noise levels exceeding the typical noise standards at the nearest residences to the west or south of the project site. No mitigation measures are required. Other Parking Lot Activities. Representative parking activities such as employees conversing, engine startup, slow- moving vehicles, or car door slamming would generate approximately 60 to 70 dBA L. at 50 ft. Wieland Associates, Inc. conducted an ambient noise survey aI an existing medical office building on Booth Circle (in the City of Irvine) on the northwest side of the SBC building on July 18, 2006. Table M summarizes the measured parking lot activity noise levels by Wieland Associates, Inc. Table M: Measured Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels Noise Scale Parking Lot Noise Levels at a Distance of 50 ft Vehicle Entering Parking Lot Vehicle Leaving Parking Lot L59 32.5 dBA 34.5 dBA L125 36.0 dBA 38.0 dBA LS 40.5 dBA 40.5 dBA L2 44.0 dBA 43.0 dBA Lmn 1 69.0 dBA 69.0 dBA Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., July 18. 2006. Based on the ambient noise measurement results in Table M, it is assumed that the parking lot activity noise levels derived from the existing medical building on Booth Circle would be typical of those that will be generated at the proposed Hoag Health Center medical office buildings. The activities at the proposed medical office buildings will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. I 1 I I 11 11 I 1 MICKC070 Moiwdoc a09/06/M 25 1 I I.SA ASSCCIAI F:F. INC. NCISF. IMPACT' ANAI.YSIY 91!P.1'EMpRR 21107 110A 0. 1'IP.AI.TII CP.N'1'NR CI TY Or NEWPORT REACII. CALIFORNIA ' City Standard (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) Projected Parking Lot Noise Levels at Residences The nearest residences to the west are approximately 100 ft ( -6 dBA) from the nearest Residences South of Project Site driveway /parking area on the project site. The nearest residences to the south are approximately ' 150 ft ( -9 dBA) from the nearest driveway /parking area on the project site. With the distance factor, 29 dBA Table N lists the potential parking lot activity noise levels at the nearest residences. Table N shows 75 dBA that all exterior noise levels at adjacent residences would be below the City's exterior noise standards 1 for residential uses. No significant noise impacts would occur from on -site parking lot activities. 1 Table N: Projected Exterior Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels at Residences Noise Scale City Standard (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) Projected Parking Lot Noise Levels at Residences Residences West of Project Site Residences South of Project Site L25 55 dBA 32 dBA 29 dBA Lm x 75 dBA 63 dBA 60 dBA Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., July 18. 2006, and LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. ' Based on the EPA - suggested exterior -to- interior noise attenuation for standard building construction Projected Parking Lot Noise Levels at Residences in warm climate areas (which include Southern California), the interior noise level at these nearest Residences South of Project Site residences is listed in Table O for the open windows scenario. For the closed windows scenario, the 45 dBA projected interior noise levels are listed in Table P. Tables O and P show that interior noise levels at ' the nearest residences, attributable to the parking lot activities on the project site, would not exceed 65 dBA the City's interior noise standards for residential uses. ' Table O: Projected Interior Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels.at Residences, Open Windows I Noise Scale City Standard (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) Projected Parking Lot Noise Levels at Residences Residences West of Project Site Residences South of Project Site L25 45 dBA 20 dBA 17 dBA Lmax 65 dBA 51 dBA 48 dBA Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., July 18. 2006, and LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. ' Table P: Projected Interior Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels at Residences, Closed Windows 1 Noise Scale City Standard 0:00 AM to 10:00 PM) Projected Parking Lot Noise Levels at Residences Residences Southeast of Parking Lot Residences Northeast of Parking Lot L25 45 dBA 8 dBA 5 dBA LmaR 65 dBA 39 dBA 36 dBA Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., July 18. 2006, and LSA Associates, Inc.. July 2007. PAKKCO701 Woise.dIx 49106/07R 26 LRA ASSOCIAI'ES. INC. NOISE IMPACT' ANALYSIS S P. P I'KNIBER SOn] IIOAG IIP.AI:I'M CP.NTP.R CITY OF NP.WPORT BEACII. CALIFORNIA Rooftop Mechanical Equipment. It is assumed that there will be rooftop heating, ventilating and air - conditioning (HVAC) units at the medical buildings, each with a capacity of 4 to 5 tons. According to Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants (Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.), these HVAC units would generate a noise level of up to 89 dBA at 5 ft. All rooftop mechanical (HVAC) equipment would be placed at least 10 ft from the edge of the roof /parapet. The roof edge /parapets would provide at least 5 dBA in noise attenuation for ground floor receptors. The residences to the west are approximately 125 ft from the closest rooftop HVAC units and would receive 28 dBA noise reduction from distance divergence compared to the noise level at 5 ft. The residences to the south are approximately 175 ft from the closest rooftop HVAC units and would receive 31 dBA noise attenuation compared to the noise level at 5 ft. Combining the noise reduction from distance divergence acid roof edge /parapets, noise from the rooftop HVAC units would be reduced to 56 dBA at residences to the west and 53 dBA at residences to the south. This range of noise levels is lower than the traffic noise associated with Superior Avenue and Dana Road and is below the City's exterior noise standard for residential uses during daytime hours (the operation hours for the medical offices are from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., which coincide with the daytime hours defined in the City's Noise Ordinance). With the EPA - recommended 12 dBA and 24 dBA exterior -to- interior noise reduction provided by standard building construction in warm climate areas (including southern California) for open and closed window scenarios, respectively, noise from the rooftop mechanical units would be reduced to 44 dBA and 32 dBA inside the residences to the west of the project site and to 41 dBA and 29 dBA inside the residences to the south of the project site. These noise levels are much lower than the City's interior noise standards for residential uses. No significant noise impacts would occur from the rooftop mechanical units at the proposed medical office buildings. Mitigation Measures Construction Impacts. Construction of the proposed project would potentially result in relatively high noise levels and annoyance at the closest residences. The following measures would reduce short-term construction - related noise impacts resulting from the proposed project: • During all project site excavation and grading, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site (existing trailer park to the west and apartments to the south). • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise sources and noise - sensitive receptors (existing trailer park to the west and apartments to the south) nearest the project site during all project construction. The construction contractor shall limit all construction - related activities that would result in high noise levels to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction would occur outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays. P1KKC0701 Woin.doc 49/06/078 1 F 1 1 1 1 F I J 1 Aircraft Noise Impacts. No mitigation measures are required. LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. SRPIE.MBRR 2007 NOISE. IMPACT ANALYSIS HOAC HEALTH CENTER ' CITY OF NEWPORT NE.ACII. CALIFORNIA 1 ' 1 r� �I 1 I I P:WKC0701 WoisCdoc R09 /06 /07N 28 Aircraft Noise Impacts. No mitigation measures are required. 1 Traffic Noise Impacts. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the following mitigation measures would be required to be included in the project's architectural drawings: ' form A of mechanical ventilation, such as an air - conditioning system, is implemented as part of the project design feature for the medical office buildings directly adjacent to Newport Boulevard ' and Superior Avenue. ' Stationary Noise Impacts. No mitigation measure is required. ' Level of Significance after Mitigation With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, potential long -term noise impacts would be reduced to below the level of significance. 1 1 r� �I 1 I I P:WKC0701 WoisCdoc R09 /06 /07N 28 LSA ASSOCIAI'P.S. INC. NOISO IMPACT ANALYSIS SEP'I'EMBER 2007 IJOAG IIY.AI.I'll CF.NTF..R CITY Or NEWPORT RP.ACII. CALIFORNIA REFERENCES Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants 1987. City of Newport Beach, Noise Element and Municipal Code Noise Ordinances. Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels, Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document, EPA 550/9 -79 -100, November 1978. Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA RD -77 -108, 1977. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, April 1995. Kunzman & Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Hoag Health Center, July 2007. Wieland Associates, Inc., Acoustical Evaluation for the Proposed Booth�Cilcle Medical Office Building in the City of Irvine, October 24, 2006. PAICKC0701 Woise.doc R09/06/07P I I.RA ASSOGIAI'P.R, INC. NOISK IMPACT ANALYSIS S F P-1 EMBER Roo) NOAC HEA L'I'11 CEN'YF.R CIl'Y OF NF.WRORI' SCAC N, CALIFORNIA APPENDIX A I FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL PRINTOUTS I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I IPAKKC070l %Noisedm o09/06/07N I I 11 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I HOAG HEALTH CENTER FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS CONTOUR6 MODEL PRINTOUTS EXISTING (2007) BASELINE CONDITIONS TABLE Existing -01 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Superior Ave. between West Coast Highway and 16th St. NOTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 23400 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * -NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.80 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - -- - - -- 0.0 110.2 233.0 499.8 TABLE Existing -02 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Superior Ave. between 16th St. and 17th St. NOTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 23000 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 .4-TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H- TRUCKS 0.64 0..02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * _-NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.73 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - ---- 0.0 109.0 230.4 494.1 TABLE Existing -03 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS 2UN DATE: 07/26/2007 2OADWAY SEGMENT: Newport Blvd. between West Coast Highway and 17th St. VOTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 54000 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - -- - - -- - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 I- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.98 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - -- - --- - -- - ---- -- - - -- --- 111.8 230.9 492.6 1058.8 TABLE Existing -04 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS .ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ZOADWAY SEGMENT: Newport Blvd. between 17th St. and Harbor Blvd. VOTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 85000 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES. DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - --- -- - - - -- AUTOS , 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 3- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS -NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB.) = 73.95 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - -- - - - -- -- 147.7 310.7 665.7 1432.3 TABLE Existing -05 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS 2UN DATE: 07/26/2007 2OADWAY SEGMENT: Newport Blvd. north of Harbor Blvd. 9OTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 101000 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 4- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS -NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 74.70 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - --- -- - — -- -- - - - ---- - - - - - -- 164.7 348.1 746.6 1606.7 TABLE Existing -06 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Placentia Ave. between Hospital Rd. and Superior Ave VOTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 11000 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- --- -- kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 %I-TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 3- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS :NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) 64.52 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - -- - - -- --- -- - - --- - - - - - -- 0.0 69.3 142.2 302.8 5 TABLE Existing -07 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Placentia Ave. between Superior Ave. and 17th St ROTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 15000 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - -- - -- 9UTOS - - - -- 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 3- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * :'NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 65.87 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - -- -- 0.0 83.5 174.0 371.9 TABLE Existing -08 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Placentia Ave. north of 17th St. VOTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 18000 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 !1- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 3- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * 7NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.66 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - ---- - ---- -- - - - -- -- - -- - - -- 0.0 93.5 196.0 419.8 TABLE Existing -09 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 20ADWAY SEGMENT: West Coast Highway west of Superior Ave. ROTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing r * * ASSUMPTIONS * * %VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 35000 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 3- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS 2NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.25 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 101.2 207.0 440.5 946.3 TABLE Existing -10 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 2OADWAY SEGMENT: West Coast Highway between Superior Ave. and Newport Blvd. DOTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 43000 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT lUTOS - - - 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS :NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.15 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- 114.3 236.5 504.8 1085.3 TABLE Existing -11 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ZOADWAY SEGMENT: West Coast Highway east of Newport Blvd. dOTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 50000 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 3- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS _NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.80 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 125.3 261.0 558.0 1199.9 1 7. HOAG HEALTH CENTER FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS I CONTOUR6 MODEL PRINTOUTS EXISTING (2007) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS I r, L� 1 F I u tJ 1 1 1 TABLE Existing with Project -01 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Superior Ave. between West Coast Highway and 16th St. 40TES: Hoag Health Center - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 31100 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- --- -- kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * :NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 69.04 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - --- - - - -- -- 65.0 132.2 281.1 603.8 TABLE Existing with Project -02 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Superior Ave. between 16th St. and 17th St. VOTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * OVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 25600 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT 4UTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 4- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 NCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * =NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 68.19 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - - -- 58.2 116.7 247.2 530.4 TABLE Existing with Project -03 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Newport Blvd, between West Coast Highway and 17th St. VOTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 59100 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY ,EVENING NIGHT --- - - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 A- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 3- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * -NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.38 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - -- - -- - - --- -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- 118.1 244.9 523.0 1124.4 TABLE Existing with Project -04 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS 2UN DATE: 07/26/2007 20ADWAY SEGMENT: Newport Blvd. between 17th St. and Harbor Blvd. ZOTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 89900 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * TEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 74.20 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - --- -- - - - -- -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- 153.0 322.4 691.0 1486.8 TABLE Existing with Project -05 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Newport Blvd. north of Harbor Blvd, +TOTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 106100 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT. --- ------- ----- lUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4-TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS 'TEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) 74.92 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- -- 170.0 359.6 771.5 1660.3 TABLE Existing with Project -06 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE -LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ZOADWAY SEGMENT: Placentia Ave. between Hospital Rd. and Superior Ave 40TES: Hoag Health Center - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 14200 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4-TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 4- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS 7NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 65.63 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 0.0 80.8 167.8 358.6 TABLE Existing with Project -07 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Placentia Ave. between Superior Ave. and 17th St. 4OTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 20400 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - -- ---- - - --- %UTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * :NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.21 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - -- -- - - -- - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - -- 0.0 101.1 212.8 456.2 TABLE Existing with Project -08 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS 2UN DATE: 07/26/2007 2OADWAY SEGMENT: Placentia Ave. north of 17th St. ROTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * %VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 18900 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56. 0.09 0.19 3- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * :NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.87 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - -- 0.0 96.3 202.4 433.6 TABLE Existing with.Project -09 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: West Coast Highway west of Superior Ave. NOTES: Hoag Health Center = Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 37600 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT --- - -- - - - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 .4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.56 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - -- -- -- - - - -- -- 105.6 216.8 461.9 992.5 1 1 1 A TABLE Existing with Project -10 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ZOADWAY SEGMENT: West Coast Highway between Superior Ave. and Newport Blvd 40TES: Hoag Health Center - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 43000 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT --- ------- ----- kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4-TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS 'NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.15 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 114.3 236.5 504.8 1085.3 TABLE Existing with Project -11 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS 2UN DATE: 07/26/2007 20ADWAY SEGMENT: West Coast Highway east of Newport Blvd. ROTES: Hoag Health Center - Existing with Project ' * * ASSUMPTIONS kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 52300 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ' --- kUTOS ------- -- --- 75.51 12.57 9.34 v1-TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 3- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ' kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT . * '* CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * 7NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 73.00 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 128.8 268.8 574.9 1236.4 �I rl 1 TABLE 2009 Cumulative w/o Project -01 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ZOADWAY SEGMENT: Superior Ave. between West Coast Highway and 16th St. DOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative w/o Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 27100 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - ----- -- - -- kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * '''NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 68.44 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - - ---- - - - - - -- - - - ---- 60.1 121.0 256.6 550.9 TABLE 2009 Cumulative w/o Project -02 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS 2UN DATE: 07/26/2007 20ADWAY SEGMENT: Superior Ave. between 16th St. and 17th St. DOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative w/o Project * * ASSUMPTIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24600 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 K- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 3- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * -NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 68.02 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - --- --- - - -- - -- - - ----- 56.9 113.8 240.8 516.6 TABLE 2009 Cumulative w/o Project -03 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Newport Blvd. between West Coast Highway and 17th St. NOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative w/o Project * * ASSUMPTIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 61000 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - ---- -- - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 14-TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 4-TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS ;NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.51 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - --- - -- - - -- - -- - - - - --- - -- -- -- 120.4 250.0 534.1 1148.3 TABLE 2009 Cumulative w/o Project -04 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ' 2UN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Newport Blvd. between 17th St. and Harbor Blvd. , DOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative w/o Project * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * ^NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 74.35 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - ----- - - - - - -- 156.5 330.1 707.8 1523.0 * * ASSUMPTIONS )VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 93200 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES ' DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- %UTOS '- - - --- -- - -- 75.51 12.57 9.34 ' VI-TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 :4- TRUCKS ' 0.64 0.02 0.08 ).CTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT ' * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * ^NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 74.35 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - ----- - - - - - -- 156.5 330.1 707.8 1523.0 TABLE 2009 Cumulative w/o Project -05 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Newport Blvd. north of Harbor Blvd. DOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative w/o Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * 1VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 110100 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT l--- - ---- UTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 1CTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * MEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 75.08 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - -- - -- - --- --- -- --- -- - - - ---- 174.0 368.5 790.7 1701.8 TABLE 2009 Cumulative w/o Project -06 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Placentia Ave. between Hospital Rd. and Superior Ave DOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative w/o Project * * ASSUMPTIONS kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12500 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 4- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ICTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS .NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 65.08 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 0.0 74.8 154.5 329.5 TABLE 2009 Cumulative w/o Project -07 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS 2UN DATE: 07/26/2007 20ADWAY SEGMENT: Placentia Ave. between Superior Ave. and 17th St. ROTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative w/o Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 17600 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * :NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.56 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - --- 0.0 92.2 193.2 413.5 TABLE 2009 Cumulative w/o Project -08 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS , ZUN DATE:.07/26/2007 ' ZOADWAY SEGMENT: Placentia Ave. north of 17th St. 40TES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative w/o Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * ' kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 18900 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - -- - - - - - -- AUTOS -- , 75.51 12.57 9.34 4-TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 4-TRUCKS 0.08 , 0.64 0.02 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT ' * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * -NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.87 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - -- - - -- - - -- - -- 0.0 96.3 202.4 433.6 TABLE 2009 Cumulative w/o Project -09 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: West Coast Highway west of Superior Ave. TOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative w/o Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 39600 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- -- ----- -- - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 q- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 4- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * _'NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.79 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - -- --- - --- - -- - -- -- -- - - - - - -- 108.9 224.2 478.0 1027.3 TABLE 2009 Cumulative w/o Project -10 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS 2UN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: West Coast Highway between Superior Ave. and Newport Blvd. TOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative w/o Project * * ASSUMPTIONS kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 48600 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT kUTOS 75.51 12.57 4-TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 9.34 0.19 0.08 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS 2NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.68 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL -- -- - -- - - - - --- -- - - - -- - - - -- -- 123.1 256.2 547.6 1177.5 TABLE 2009 Cumulative w/o Project -11 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ZOADWAY SEGMENT: West Coast Highway east of Newport Blvd. DOTES: Hoag,Health Center - 2009 Cumulative w/o Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 58200 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- -- - -- �UTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF =WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * �NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 73.46 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- 137.6 288.3 617.2 1327.7 HOAG HEALTH CENTER I I I FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ' CONTOUR6 MODEL PRINTOUTS OPENING YEAR (2009) WITH PROJECT SCENARIO I 1 I 1 TABLE 2009 Cumulative with Project -01 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Superior Ave. between West Coast Highway and 16th St. DOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 31800 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- -- - -- kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS �NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 69.13 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - -- 65.8 134.1 285.3 612.8 TABLE 2009 Cumulative with Project -02 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS = DATE: 07/26/2007 ZOADWAY SEGMENT: Superior Ave. between 16th St. and 17th St. 40TES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26100 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT %UTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 . 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 4- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * :NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 68.28 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - -- 58.8 118.2 250.4 537.3 TABLE 2009 Cumulative with Project -03 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Newport Blvd. between West Coast Highway and 17th St. VOTES: Hoag Health Center -'2009 Cumulative with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * 9VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 64000 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT --- - ---- kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 .4- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0108 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * KIEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.72 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ------- -- ----- ------- ----- -- 123.9 257.9 551.3 1185.6 TABLE 2009 Cumulative with Project -04 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ' ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Newport Blvd. between 17th St. and Harbor Blvd. 40TES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 96100 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT kUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 kCTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * --NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 74.49 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - -- --- - --- - -- - - - - - -- 159.6 336.9 722.3 1554.4 11 11 TABLE 2009 Cumulative with Project -05 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Newport Blvd. north of Harbor Blvd. ROTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 113.100 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT kUTOS 75.51 12.57 '9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56. 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ICTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS MgEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 75.19 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - --- -- - - --- -- - - - -- -- 177.0 375.1 805.0 1732.6 5 TABLE 2009 Cumulative with Project -06 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS 2UN DATE: 07/26/2007 2OADWAY SEGMENT: Placentia Ave. between Hospital Rd. and Superior Ave ROTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative with Project . * * ASSUMPTIONS * * %VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 14500 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT 75.51 12.57 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 3- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 %CTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 9.34 0.19 0.08 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * • 'NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 65.72 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - -- -- -- -- - - - -- - - - ---- - - - ---- 0.0 81.8 170.1 363.6 TABLE 2009 Cumulative.with Project -07 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS tUN DATE: 07/26/2007 tADWAY SEGMENT: Placentia Ave. between Superior Ave. and 17th St. TOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative with Project . * * ASSUMPTIONS * * kVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 20900 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT =OS 75.51 12.57 9.34 7- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 I- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 '.CTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS XEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.31 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - -- -- - -- - - -- - - - - --- - - - - - -- 0.0 102.6 216.3 463.6 TABLE 2009 Cumulative with Project -08 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS ZUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ZOADWAY SEGMENT: Placentia Ave. north of 17th St. 4OTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * VVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 19400 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 Q- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS :NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.99 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - --- 0.0 97.9 205.9 441.2 TABLE 2009 Cumulative with Project -09 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS .UM DATE: 07/26/2007 2OADWAY SEGMENT: West Coast Highway west of Superior Ave. VOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * 3VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 41200 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT --- - - - - - -- - - - -- 3UTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 4- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 3CTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * �NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.96 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - -- -- - - - -- -- 111.5 230.0 490.7 1054.8 TABLE 2009 Cumulative with Project -10 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS 1UN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: West Coast Highway between Superior Ave. and Newport Blvd DOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * 1VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 48600 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- 1UTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 i- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 1CTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE.LEVELS * * :NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.68 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- 123.1 256.2 547.6 1177.5 TABLE 2009 Cumulative with Project -11 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 07/26/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: West Coast Highway east of Newport Blvd. MOTES: Hoag Health Center - 2009 Cumulative with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 59500 SPEED (MPH): 50' GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 .4- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 4CTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS "NEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) 73.56 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - ---- 139.5 292.5 626.3 1347.4 I 1 11 1 I Appendix F ' Water and Sewer System Demand Studies I 1 H I H 0 0 1 1 1 I 1 ' RBA Partners, Inc. Consulting Civil Engineers 601 S. Figueroa St. 4th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 381 -3400 Facsimile: (213) 381 -3037 r- 1J 11 KKc--oiD3 D April 5, 2007 RBB ARCHITECTS, INC. 10980 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Attention: Ms. Sylvia Botero, AIA, Senior Vice President SUBJECT: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH HEALTHCARE CENTER Dear Ms. Botero: Pursuant to your request we have made a sanitary sewer system demand study in accordance with the requirements as called for in the City of Newport Beach's Development Services Condition 2 on the attached memorandum dated March 9, 2007. ' Based upon our analysis of the sanitary sewer system at the site we have determined that the proposed improvements will not have an adverse impact on the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed improvements. ' Our sewer capacity calculations are attached to this letter for reference. ' If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Q�OFESS/py ' ��ta Q RBA PARTNERS, INC. Bz ti. � , No. C21510 n & * Exp. 9-3D-07 # Black, PE, CSI Ei rB iden fV11 OF Encl. I City of Newport seaoh Pu13LiC WORKS DEPARTMENT Marcie 9, 2007 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Fong ' Devel endrss Engineer SUBJECT: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. UP200T -010 ' 800 — 540 SUPERIOR AVENUE (HOAG HEALTH CENTER) DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development may Intensify the demand for CIW webs' and ' sanitaryesweresrvices. DE ROP_MINT SERVICES CONDITIONS: 1. All Improvements shall be oonstucted as required by Ordinance and the Public ' Works Department 2. Submit a water system and a sanitary sewer system demand study on the Wiled g facilities that will serve the proposed development as a part of the plan check process. The owner strati bear the cods of all water and/or sanitary sewer systems Improvements required by the devetopmerd.. . ' 3. Double backfbow be preventers shall installed to servo the ale. ' 4. All e4sting on -site catch basins shall be rettMed with an"acterial filters to comply with the qty's water quality requirements. S. A set of bottor lass trench drains shall be installed across the width of each ' driveway at the property line to comply with the qty's on -sits runoff retention requirements ' 6. The site shag be graded in a manner so that no runoff will be dtecharged onto the slopes above Newport Boulevard. 7. ADA comp58nt pedestrian paths shag be provided throughout the of to serve ' each building. 8. The issuance of the Pubilo Works Department approval on the building permit is contiront, upon On wacuton Construction ' of and/or Maintanancs Agreement(s) and Matedela/L.abor/FaIMI Performance Bonds for the public Improvements required along the development's Superior Avenue frontage. ' 9. Additional cOnWlons and conditions vAl be required during the building permit plan check process. 11 1 d 11 1 1 1 RBA Partners, Inc. Consulting Civil En ineers 707 Wilshire Blvd., 40 Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 381 -3400 Facsimile: (213) 381 -3037 MEMORANDUM TO: Sylvia Botero DATE: April 4, 2007 FROW John B. Black RE: Sewer Capacity Study PROJECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Newport Healthcare Center Required: Analyze the impact on the existing 8 -inch diameter VCP sewer serving the project site based upon the proposed improvements to the existing facilities. Reference Material: Handbook of Hydraulics, King & Brater, 5a' Edition. Drawings prepared by Fusco Engineering for the "Newport Technology Center, 500 Superior, Newport Beach, CA," dated 6/28/01, Delta 4, Sheet No. C3.2. ' Given: 11 L 11 1 Ave. daily sewage flow for an office building: 200gpd/1000sf of gross floor area. Ave. daily sewage flow for a medical office building: 300gpd /1000sf of gross floor area. Ave. daily sewage flow for a cafeteria: 20gpd /seat. Peak flow to equal three times the average flow rate. Building Areas: Building Number Existing Building Areas 500 108,OOOsf 510 116,OOOsf 520 118,OOOsf 530 121,OOOsf Cafeteria Proposed Building Areas 108,OOOsf 116,OOOsf 118,OOOsf Osf 150 seats ' (Building areas were calculated based upon the project topographic survey.) 1 RBA Partners, Inc. MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 Existing Sewage Loads: Building Numbers 500 510 520 530 Existing Average Sewage Loads 108,000sf x 200/1000 = 23,200gpd x 1.55 x 10-6 cfs /gpd = 0.03cfs 0.04cfs 0.04cfs 0.04cfs Total existing average sewage load = 0.15cfs, Peak sewage load = 3 x 0.15 = 0.45cfs Proposed Sewage Loads: Building Numbers Proposed Average Sewage loads 500 108,000sf x 300/1000 = 32,400gpd x 1.55 x 10 -6cfs /gpd = 0.05cfs 510 0.05cfs 520 0.06cfs Cafeteria 150 seats x 20gpd/seat x 1.55 x 10 -6cfs /gpd = 0.005cfs, negl. Total existing average sewage load = 0.16cfs, Peak sewage load = 3 x 0.16 = 0.48cfs Calculate the depth of flow D/d in the 8 -inch sewer serving the site based upon the given data using Table 7 -14 in King's Handbook. K'= On = 0.48 (0.014) = 0.114 dare S"2 0.678 (0.03)1/2 K' = 0.114 => D/d = 0.34 < 0.75, OK Calculate the flow area in the 8 -inch sewer using Table 7 -4 in King's Handbook: A = Cad2 D/d = 0.34 => Ca = 0.236 A = (0.236)(0.67)2= 0.10sf Calculate the flow velocity in fps in the 8 -inch sewer: V = Q/A = 0.48 /0.10 = 4.8fps > 2.5fps, OK Conclusions: The proposed improvements will have no impact on the existing sewer system serving the site because the difference between the existing peak sewage loads and proposed peak existing sewage loads is negligible. The existing and proposed sewage flow depths and velocities in the 8 -inch VCP sewer serving the site meet industry standards. 1 n 11 H 1 1 1 1 r, y4 R Y4 0 W o -4 co 1 141, MIR R . , T. ._ � �� slii ��l I _U I'f RBA Partners, Inc. April 5, 2007 Consulting i tvil Fmiinrrrs RBB ARCHITECTS, INC. 601 S. Figuerrnt St. 4th 1 I,,n, 10980 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles. ( aliinmia 4tn11 - Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephnno. !1 c: s81 -wtul Facsimile•: t.ti t' 381. rit i' Attention: Ms. Sylvia Botero, AIA, Senior Vice President SUBJECT: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH HEALTHCARE CENTER Dear Ms. Botero: Pursuant to your request we have made a sanitary sewer system demand study in accordance with the requirements as called for in the City of Newport Beach's Development Services Condition 2 on the attached memorandum dated March 9, 2007. Based upon our analysis of the sanitary sewer system at the site we have determined that the proposed improvements will not have an adverse impact on the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed improvements. Our sewer capacity calculations are attached to this letter for reference. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, QQtUPt 53/p RBA PARTNERS, ,INS C./ p�G No. C21510 /� * Exp. 8.30 -M r Black, PE, CSI t CIVIL /_ Encl. I City of Newport Beach PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT March 9. 2007 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Fang Ts Devel nt eMces Engineer SUBJECT: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. UP2007 -010 500 — 540 SUPERIOR AVENUE (HOAG HEALTH CENTER) ' PgYE OPMF-NTSERVICES,FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development may Intensify the demand for City water and ' sanitary sewer services. DEVE4.OPM19NT SERVICES CONDITIONS: 1. All improvements shall be constructed as required by OMnance and the Public ' Works Department 2. Submit a water system and a sanitary sewer system demand study on the ' existing facllides that will serve the proposed'development as a part of the plan check process. The owner shall bear the costs of all water and/or sanitary sewer systems Improvements required by the development ' 8. Double baddlow preventers shall be Installed to serve the site. ' 4. All existing on -site catch basins shall be febofilted with entl4mctadal Stem to compiywhh the City's water quallty requirements. 5. A set of botfnmiess trench drains shall be installed across the width of each driveway at the property line to comply with the City's on-she runoff relentlon ' requirements. ' 6. The site shall be graded In a manner so that no runoff will be discharged onto the slopes above Newport Boulevard. 7. ADA compliant pedestrian paths shell be provided throughout the site to eerve ' each building. S. The issuance of the Public Works Department approval on the building perm is conthicent upon the execution of Construction and /or Maintenance Agreements) ' and MaterlaWl.abodFalthful Performance Bonds for the public improvements required along the developmenrs Superior Avenue frontage. ' 9. Additional corrections and conditions will be required during the building penult plan cheek process. 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RBA Partners, Inc. Consulting Civil Engineers 707 Wilshire Blvd., 40 Floor Los Angeles, California 40017 Telephone: (213) 381 -3400 Facsimile: (213) 381 -3037 MEMORANDUM TO: Sylvia Botero DATE: April 4.2007 FROM: John B. Black RE: Sewer Capacity Study PROJECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Newport Healthcare Center- FROM: enter Required: Analyze the impact on the existing 8 -inch diameter VCP sewer serving the project site based upon the proposed improvements to the existing facilities. Reference Material: Handbook of Hydraulics, King & Brater, 5"' Edition. Drawings prepared by Fusco Engineering for the "Newport Technology Censer, 500 Superior, Newport Beach, CA," dated 6128/01, Delta 4, Sheet No. C3.2. Given: Ave. daily sewage flow for an office building: 200gpd /1000sf of gross'floor area. Ave. daily sewage flow for a medical office building: 300gpd /1000sf of gross floor area. Ave. daily sewage flow for a cafeteria: 20gpd /seat. Peak flow to equal three times the average flow rate. Building Areas: Building Number Existing Building Areas 500 108,000sf 510 116,000sf 520 118,000sf 530 121,000sf Cafeteria Proposed Building Areas 108,000sf 116,000sf 118,OOOsf Osf 150 seats (Building areas were calculated based upon the project topographic survey.) RBA Partners, Inc. ' MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Existing Sewage Loads: Building Numbers 500 510 520 530 Existing Average Sewage Loads 108,OOOsf x 200/1000 = 23,200gpd x 1.55 x 10 "6 cfs /gpd = 0.03cfs 0.04cfs 0.04cfs 0.04cfs Total existing average sewage load = 0.15cfs, Peak sewage load = 3 x 0.15 = 0.45cfs Proposed Sewage Loads: Building Numbers Proposed Average Sewage loads 500 108,OOOsf x 300/1000 = 32,400gpd x 1.55 x 10- 6cfs /gpd = 0.05cfs 510 0.05cfs 520 0.06cfs Cafeteria 150 seats x 20gpd /seat x 1.55 x 10-6cfs /gpd = 0.005cfs, negi. Total existing average sewage load = 0.16cfs, Peak sewage load = 3 x 0.16 = 0.48cfs Calculate the depth of flow D/d in the 8 -inch sewer serving the site based upon the given data using Table 7 -14 in King's Handbook. K'= n = 0.48 (0.014) = 0.114 d8f3 sl 0.678'3 (0.03)"2 K' = 0.114 =�, D/d = 0.34 < 0.75, OK Calculate the flow area in the 8 -inch sewer using Table 7 -4 in King's Handbook: A = Gd2 D/d = 034 =�, Ca = 0.236 A = (0.236)(0.67)2= 0.10sf Calculate the flow velocity in fps in the 8 -inch sewer: V = Q/A = 0.48 /0.10 = 4.8fps > 2.5fps, OK Conclusions: The proposed improvements will have no impact on the existing sewer system serving the site because the difference between the existing peak sewage loads and proposed peak existing sewage loads is negligible. The existing and proposed sewage flow depths and velocities in the 8 -inch VCP sewer serving the site meet industry standards. Illid 2 U S a• � Y'�.� *;7ir' .j IT' 1, � _.f_ d}'' i '188 s co :._. j • 1 �;i _ Ills i : r1 6 is 4 ~n ; f �sGH�Mik { ' 1 t yO :� tL fy.n Zlf lk�f. �y a }eY ¢0 IGW 1.11 •`_ ` it I 1, I ItII 1Ui� rile m � �}l i /`4— 1 l � ♦ I �. j I'f �-`; i lil $�I g ibia l$ A t:6d 6.$ Pr ikkkk �l ! Illid 2 U S a• � Y'�.� *;7ir' .j IT' 1, � _.f_ d}'' i '188 s co :._. j • 1 �;i _ Ills i : r1 6 is 4 ~n ; f �sGH�Mik { ' 1 t yO :� tL fy.n Zlf lk�f. �y a }eY ¢0 IGW 1.11 •`_ ` it I 1, I ItII 1Ui� r �}l Illid 2 U S a• � Y'�.� *;7ir' .j IT' 1, � _.f_ d}'' i '188 s co :._. j • 1 �;i _ Ills i : r1 6 is 4 ~n ; f �sGH�Mik { I I ' 1 ' t t �I. �:.. :,i 'r♦ ,� IGW 1.11 rI all, E ItII 1Ui� i /`4— 1 l � ♦ I �. j I'f �-`; "�1 14 II ! It i { x j .I•ITY ILI� � 9 1 � I I yg ,M 1 -, 1 Mjlj, �I. �:.. :,i 'r♦ ,� IGW 1.11 ., 1 � I I ItII 1Ui� /`4— 1 l � ♦ I �. j I'f �-`; "�1 14 y 1 i 9 I I 1 1 I 1 ' RBA Partners, Inc. Consulting Civil Engineers 601 S. Figueroa St. 4th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 381 -3400 Facsimile: (213) 381 -3037 1 I April 12, 2007 RBB ARCHITECTS, INC. 10980 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Attention: Ms. Sylvia Botero, AIA, Senior Vice President SUBJECT: WATER SYSTEM DEMAND STUDY HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH HEALTHCARE CENTER Dear Ms. Bolero: Pursuant to your request we have made a water system demand study in accordance with the requirements as called for in the City of Newport Beach's Development Services Condition 2 on the attached memorandum dated March 9, 2007. In addition, we conducted a physical inspection of the site backflow devices in accordance with Condition 3 of the March 9, 2007, memorandum. Based upon our analysis of both the domestic and fire water systems at the site we have determined that the proposed improvements will not have an adverse impact on the capacity of the existing domestic and fire water ' systems to serve the proposed improvements. Our conclusions have been based upon the hydrant flow test taken at the site on April 6, 2007, the conservative analysis prepared by Building Mechanical Systems on April 9, 2007, of the water demand imposed on the domestic water system by the proposed building improvements, and our review of the potential pressure losses that might be expected to occur in the water lines as a result of the proposed improvements. ' In reviewing the site backflow devices we noted that the fire water lines were protected by two 8 -inch double check detector assemblies in accordance with City of Newport Beach standards. The domestic water line was protected with a single 6 -inch Watts Series 909 reduced pressure backflow device. The REC E 1 V E D existing backflow devices for both the fire and domestic water systems meet ' or exceed the requirements called for in with Condition 3 of the March 9, APR 1 2 2007 1 2007, memorandum. RBA Partners, Inc. April 12, 2007 Consulting Civil Engineers RBB ARCHITECTS, INC. NEWPORT BEACH HEALTHCARE CENTER Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. -020=mt&� Very truly yours, RBA PARTNERS, INC. N°' (21510/ B. sident ` . Encl. I I ' City of Newport Beach PU13UC WORKS DEPARTMENT March 9. 2007 1 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Fong T;�` Deve1 t Engineer ervEces SUBJECT: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ' USE PERMIT NO. UP2007 -010 500 — 540 SUPERIOR AVENUE (HOAG HEALTH CENTER) ' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FINDINGS: I. That the proposed development may intensify the demand for City water and ' sanitary sewer services. QEVLOP,MENT SERVICES CONDITIONS: ' 1. AN Improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 2. SWXM a welar system and a sanitary sewer system demand study on the ' oeMg facilities that will serve the proposed development as a part of the plan check process. The owner shall bear the casts of all water andlor sanitary sewer ' systems improvements required by the development . . 9. Double bacldlow prrwenters shag be Installed to sea the sits. 4. AN existing on-site catch basins shall be retrofitted with ant14)acterial Sers to ' compty with the City's water quality requirements. S. A set of bottomless trench drains shoo be Installed across the width of each driveway at a property line to comply with the Cityrs on -site runoff retention 6. The arm shall be graded In a manner so that no runoff will be discharged onto the slopes above Newport Boulevard. 7. ADA compliant pedest ten paths shell be provided throughout the aft to serve ' each building. S. The Issuance of the Public Works Department approval an the building permit Is contingent upon the excncution of Construction andtor Matntenancs Agreemengs) ' and MatedalefLabodFalthful Performance Bonds for the public improvements required along the development's Superior Avenue frontage. 9. Additional correattons and conditions will be required during the building permit ' plan check process. I I I I I I i I 1 I 1 N �N C ,N d U C d w N A m W d LL d fA C u I 1 1 1 i 11 H N �N C .L� V C V N >W 7 U O D Page 1 of 1 John Black From: Grant Gonsior [grant®buildingmachanical.comj Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:06 AM To: John Black Subject: HHC -NB Importance: High Below is my best guess as to the approximate water demand per building: 30 sinks 0 2 f.u. each = 60 f.u. per floor 10 water closets 0 5 f.u. each = 50 f.u. per floor 10 lavatorys 0 1 f.u. each =10 f.u. per floor A total of 120 f.u. per floor for 3 floors = 360 f.u. per building which - 120 g.p.m. per building. The existing 4" service should easily handle the new usage. Grant Gonsior Plumbing De5lgner I Department Manager Building Mechanical Systems Irvine, U Phone 949 - 453-1999 x28 Fax 949. 453.1929 grant®buildinamechanical.mm 4/9/2007 ' Sent ey: Fire 8e18ty First; 714 836 4120; FLOW TEST SUHH74RY REPORT Pagel ' IACATION: Cali fornia COMOrcial 500 Superior Newport Beach, Ca. Apr -6 -07 9:53AM; Page 213 DATE: 4 -6 -07 TIME: 7:00 am Static Hydrant Number: 1 Flowing Hydrant Number: 1 Elevation: Elevation: Dist. Between Hydrants: 300 Diameter of Main: 8 Outlet Diameter: 4.00 in Number flowing: 1 Coeff.: 0.80 Static pressure: 80.00 psi Residual pressure: 53.00 psi Pitot Reading: 28.00 Psi Flow: 2021.1 gpm Flow at 20 psis 3111.9 gPm ORAFH: PSI------- - --------------------------------------------------- - - - --- 1 100 + 1 90 + I /Normal Pressure -No Flow -80.00 psi 80 S \ \\ I \ \ \\ 70 + \ \ \ \\ 60 � \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ /Test Plow- 2021.1 gym -53.00 psi I \ \R.. 50 + •••• I 40 + ••••• I .... 30 + •••• 20 I Avail. Plow N 20 psi-3111.9 gpm 10 i I 0 +-+---+----+-----+------+---------------------------+------------ 7001050 1400 1750 2100 2450 2800 3150 3500 FLAW (GPM) NOTES: (1) Flowing hydrant is assumed to be on a circulating main or downstream of the pressure test hydrant eat a dead -end system. (2) Flow analysis assumes a gravity flow system with no distribution pumps and having no demand, other than the test flow. (3) Distance between hydrants, elevations & main diameter are for information only. Sent By: Fire Safety First; 714 838 4120; Apr -8 -07 9:5aAM; FLOW TXST SUMMARY REPORT page2 100.0 90.0_ 80.0c I No plow- 80.00 anal Pressure-No Floc 80.00 pmi 70.0_ \. G60 0 P �"Z;Test Flow- 2021.1 gpm -53.00 psi R 50.0 . B 3 R 40.0 y 8 P 30.0.;_ a i 20.01 Avail. Flow Q 20 psi- 3111.9 ggmi, 10.0 0.0 _ 650 975 1300 1625 1950 2275 2600 FLOW (GPM) Page 3/3 2925 3250 61 1 1; �' L��a1'�Ff • � : a. �.Y�I� • � 1►�.A� aZ O, 7 Y 1�1j� YY 9O3 �.*• (� i . e/../ .. i � ., H,i .. � � ', p V d' ,• o � _ i� D I � f .l -' � � � �� �C. 1 -c�.� ��Q i ���� f I'�y'+°� �a a �-. � � r, -„ <- i. �. r � � °�tia � �/ ii d�' � � � �� - � l/ ���1 1` � `i.:���.o,� ti�,.� : � . � , — ,1 �� � _s " ( � C+ —' ' t — � ', o '� _ v ✓a r i � a v n � �:ari� r,_, -. � ti_ .. __ ` � ! _ �. - _ - •�_ - - - "�•° , � � `�_,= i sue_ � �- �`� r ' �a�-.. �. yM. �.� .� ��..- �:.. 11 Job Name For Health Hazard Applications Contractor Job Location Approval Engineer Contractor's P.O. No. Approval Representative — First Check Ass-_•. Relief Valve Second Check Pipe Line Relief Vak Body flan v „ Relief Valve Seat Relief Valve Piston Relief Valve Piston Assembly Wiper Seal Bottom Plug Spring Assembly Watts product speciilcaAOns In U.S. customary units and metric are approximate and are provided dffor , reference only. ForlflprecISO measuremeMS, or ' out priory notce and w th ut Irxurring aany obligation to mtaakke eu h charges and �r 'fillm cretin Watts construction, pnoducts pre viously ar subsaquendy sold. Series 909 ' Reduced Pressure Zone Assemblies Sizes: 2'h" -10" (65- 25Omm) Series 909 Reduced Pressure Zone Assemblies are designed to provide cross - ' connection control protection of the potable water supply in accordance with national plumbing codes. This series can be utilized in a variety of installations, including health hazard cross- connodions in plumbing systems or for contain- mein at the service line entranco. With its exclusive patented relief valve design ' Inoarporating the'eir- iMwater -out' Principe, it provides substantially improved relief valve discharge performance during the emergency oondhions of com- bined backsiphonage and baclprassure with both checks fouled. ' Features • Replaceable bronze seats • Stainless steel internal Parts No special tools required for servicing ' • Captured spring check assemblies • Fused epoxy coated &lured checks • Mistral strength sensing hose Feld reversible relief valve ' • Air- in/water -out relief valve design provides maximum capacity during emergency conditions Available Models ' Suffix: BB- bronze body (2'h', 3" only) (64, 76mm) LF - without shutoff valves ' NRS - non -rising stem resilient seated gate valves OSY - UL/FM outside stem & yoke resilient seated gate valves OT-FDA - FDA epoxy coated quarter -tum bag valves S_ cast iron stra ner S- FDA - FDA epoxy coated strainer Note: The installation of a drain fine is recommended. When installing a drain line, an air gap is necessary. ' Specifications A Reduced Pressure Zane Assembly shall he Installed at each cross-connec- tion to prevent badnfphonage and badgxessure baddlow of hazardous mate- dais Into the potable water supply. The assembly shall consist of a pres- , sure differential relief valve located in a zone between two positive seating check valves and captured springs. Backsiphonage protection shall include provision W admit air directly Into the reduced pressure zone via a separate channel from the water discharge channel. The assembly shall include two ' tightly dosing shutoff valves before and after the valve and test cocks. The assembly shall meet the requirements of ASSE Std. 1013; AWWA Std. C511 -92; GSA Bill and UL Classified File No. El(3185. Listed by IAPMO NPC). Approved by the Foundation for Cross - Connection Control and Hydraulic Research at the University of Southern California. The assembly shall be a Wens Regulator Ccimparry Series 909. First Check Ass-_•. Relief Valve Second Check Pipe Line Relief Vak Body flan v „ Relief Valve Seat Relief Valve Piston Relief Valve Piston Assembly Wiper Seal Bottom Plug Spring Assembly Watts product speciilcaAOns In U.S. customary units and metric are approximate and are provided dffor , reference only. ForlflprecISO measuremeMS, or ' out priory notce and w th ut Irxurring aany obligation to mtaakke eu h charges and �r 'fillm cretin Watts construction, pnoducts pre viously ar subsaquendy sold. Materials Check Valve Bodies: FDA epoxy coated cast Iron or bronze Seats: bronze Trim: sta aress steel Relief Valve Body: 2W -3" (60 -80mm) bronze 4' -10' (100- 250mm) FDA epoxy coated cast Iron Test Cocks: bronze body ball valve Pressure — Temperature Temperature Range: 33 °F- 110 °F (5 0C -43 °C) comkwars, 140 °F (60°C) irdemdltem Maximum Working Pressure:1750SI (12.06 bar) Standards AWWA C511 -92 IAPMO PS 31, SBCCI (Standard Plumbing Code) USC manual for Cross - Connection Control, 8th Edition Capacity 'Typical maximum flow rate (7.5 feeVsec.) ' wwww■ ■wwwwwww wwwwww wwww wwwwwww■ ■������w wwww ■wwww wwwwwww■ ■wwww ��wwwf■wwwwwww wwwwwww wwww■ ■wwwwwww ' r��wwww■ wwww■ ����� wwwww ■wwwww �wwwwww■■w��w wwr•� ' wwww■ ■wwwwwww wwwwwww■ wwww■ wwwwwww 4" (1QOmm) e°t2o0mm) How it Operates The unique reef valve construction Incorpo- rates two charnels: one fa air, one for water. When Uie rent valve opens, as In the accompanying alt -inAva -0 diagram, dre dgM -hand channel admtis ab O doe tap d the reduced pressure zone, relieving the zone vacuum. The channel on the left then drains the zone to abnosphere. Therefae,'d 6otl1 dnedc valves fiW, arld simlAlaneous negative soppy and positive badgressure develops, the relief valve uses tine eir-W water --out pdnaple ro srop poronid bacdbw. Approvals 8 gC1. � Y 1019 BUS 1 rauo�n Water Air ' 4,241,752 Out In 1 1 Approved by the Foundation for Cross - Connection Control and Hydraulic Research at the University, of Southern California. 3" (80mm) ' www■ wwwww www■ www! awn M ' �ww■�wwww www■�wwww www■ wwwww ���■.wwww 8" (158mm) ' wr_w■wr_ www www■ Itiwwll�� www■ ww��w ' �ww■Itiwwww www ■wwwww www■ wwwww www■ wwwww 18° (250mm) .. wwwwww wwwwwww■ wwww ■wwww wwwwwww■ ■wwww wwwwwww ■wwww ' r��wwww■ ����� wwwww �wwwwww■■w��w wwr•� �www�w wwwwwww■ w�w� ■wwww wwwwwww■■wwww How it Operates The unique reef valve construction Incorpo- rates two charnels: one fa air, one for water. When Uie rent valve opens, as In the accompanying alt -inAva -0 diagram, dre dgM -hand channel admtis ab O doe tap d the reduced pressure zone, relieving the zone vacuum. The channel on the left then drains the zone to abnosphere. Therefae,'d 6otl1 dnedc valves fiW, arld simlAlaneous negative soppy and positive badgressure develops, the relief valve uses tine eir-W water --out pdnaple ro srop poronid bacdbw. Approvals 8 gC1. � Y 1019 BUS 1 rauo�n Water Air ' 4,241,752 Out In 1 1 Approved by the Foundation for Cross - Connection Control and Hydraulic Research at the University, of Southern California. 3" (80mm) ' www■ wwwww www■ www! awn M ' �ww■�wwww www■�wwww www■ wwwww ���■.wwww 8" (158mm) ' wr_w■wr_ www www■ Itiwwll�� www■ ww��w ' �ww■Itiwwww www ■wwwww www■ wwwww www■ wwwww 18° (250mm) .. wwwwwww■ ■wwww wwwwwww■ ■wwww wwwwwww ■wwww ' r��wwww■ ����� �wwwwww■■w��w wwwwwww■ ■wwww wwwwwww■■wwww wwwwwww■■www� 11 11 11 Dimensions — Weights , --- - - - - -- A1---- - - - - -- $ (open) ' O M D E. 0 1 D 16 W Quarter -tum (QT) Valve ------ - - - - -. L _____________ -------------- - - - - -- A Wa05 G400D Series Gan Valves Send for F44000 NOTE, Relief valve section is reversible, therefore, can be on either side and is fumished standardly as shown. "UL, FM approved baddlow preventem must indude UL/FM appraved OSY gate valves. Air Gap Dimensions When harMig a train are on Series 909 baddbw Prevemem #0 are Iralalled hMl- mmdy, use 909 AS series air gaps. JON) DIrl:ENSIDIIS Imn areabg sainl6ms AL mm A nt mm Al 4t mm C (O8v)' vim At mm dr. mm D In. mm L I at mm U AA mm B A an A(07) M. mm T Ax mm N83 Pot. AVL Day 16a. Aga Ur Nn AW ' as kp 909AG -F % 416 WA 2M 5A 133 1 261A 663 11 278 4 1 B' . 230 195 4% 111 826 2 51 3.25 1.47 540 18' 479 10% 280 5'/. 133128% 663 11 909M-K 0881395 4" - 6" 909 104 1 86 4 100 55 1 2735 702 22% 578 1246 310 6 162 37 940 1 6 152 19'h 502 14% 205 470 213 352 160 8 65% 1664 3245 832 30' 1 ' 1 11 279 26 iFF' 1711r 798 362 762 346 8 2w 1 ' ' 1403 21 533 114'i 286 1 ' 489 1350 612 10;17 10 250 9341 2378 46'A 1190 45'/i 1162 23'46 605 WYi 245167% 1711 21 533 12Yz 316 12'h 318 21 533 2160 980 2230 1011 3718 1885 "UL, FM approved baddlow preventem must indude UL/FM appraved OSY gate valves. Air Gap Dimensions When harMig a train are on Series 909 baddbw Prevemem #0 are Iralalled hMl- mmdy, use 909 AS series air gaps. For flange slat bwkflm premters InstaAad veracaiy (flow dorm), a fabrk abd air gap Is mwmmended. K Strainer Dimensions SIlE JON) DIrl:ENSIDIIS Imn areabg sainl6ms Bay Cale A 6 C [9l�1f�'Ji�i[➢i�7 Mudd Kd in mm UL mm K use as kp 909AG -F 0881378 1'h" - 3" 009909 �i1iR,99 *t7i61iF'!■� 1'h" - 2" 009 M1 4% 111 6'h 171 2 51 3.25 1.47 mm,w - ", Nwpjmr.m 2" 009 M2 909M-K 0881395 4" - 6" 909 645 162 9% 244 3 76 6.25 2.83 8 " -10 9M1 U 4 102,15.50 7.03 For flange slat bwkflm premters InstaAad veracaiy (flow dorm), a fabrk abd air gap Is mwmmended. K Strainer Dimensions SIlE JON) DIrl:ENSIDIIS MIGHT [9l�1f�'Ji�i[➢i�7 : �i1iR,99 *t7i61iF'!■� I I mm,w - ", Nwpjmr.m U , 0910021� 7u iFF' 1711r t- Dimerdan regWred for screen trunaval EXHIBIT 4 Final Response to Comments 45 Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2006901105 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS HOAG HEALTH CENTER USE PERMIT AMENDMENT City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 November 2007 �l 4t RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS HOAG HEALTH CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEWPORT BEACH, CA INTRODUCTION The 45 -day public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Hoag Health Center Project extended from September 11, 2007 through October 25, 2007. The City of Newport Beach received ten (10) comment letters on the Draft EIR during the formal public review and comment period. Responses to the comments in the letters received by the City of Newport Beach have been prepared and are included with the Final EIR. The comment letters were received from: 1. Southern California Gas Company (September 12, 2007) 2. California Native American Heritage Commission (September 13, 2007) 3. Southern California Association of Governments (September 20, 2007) 4. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (October 3, 2007) 5. Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (October 16, 2007) 6. Orange County Resources & Development Management Department (October 19, 2007) 7. California Department of Transportation (October 22, 2007) 8. City of Costa Mesa (October 25, 2007) 9. South Coast Air Quality Management District (October 26, 2007)' 10. Don Krotee /Newport Heights Improvement Association (September 20, 2007)2 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 letters have 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 EIR. Each comment in each letter for which a response is required has been numbered for easy reference. ' The South Coast AQMD requested and received a one -day extension of the comment period. 2 Comment received via email. Although reference to the traffic, noise and air quality mitigation measures associated with the Draft EIR appears in the email from Mr. Krotee, no speck comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR are provided by Mr. Krotee. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November 2007 Page 1 �y Southem California Gas Company A (a�Sempra Energy utility- September 12, 2007 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Blvd P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Attention: Jaime Murillo Letter No. 1 1919 S. State College 61vd. AnahelnX CA 9260-6114 REcefft By PuUINING DEPgQYM£ryT SEP 17 2607 CITY OFNEWPORT BEACH Subject: EIR for the Hoag Health Center located at 500 -540 Superior Ave in Newport Beach. Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.A. (Coastal Land Impact Report) Document. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non - utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and constructbn has begun. Estimates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial- Industrial /Residential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -2000 2 (Commercial/industrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sinc rel lchael Haire Technical Services Supervisor Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim a .k CW24« S� Southern California Gas Company (September 12, 2007) Response to Comment No. t This comment, which indicates that gas service can be provided from an existing gas main(s) located in the project vicinity and, further, that gas service would be provided to the project based on gas supply in accordance with regulatory requirements, is acknowledged. Furthermore, it should be noted that gas service is already provided to the subject property through existing gas lines already constructed. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 2 As suggested in this comment, the project applicant will contact Southern California Gas Company for information on conservation programs that may be appropriate for implementation. This comment does not raise any environmental Issues; no further response is necessary. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments Novemtrer2007 Page 2 S) STATE OF Cal [F U Letter No. 2 e..ww 9n1•ae• NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM Set SACRAMENTO, CA9681e (91e)6as.=1 Fax (91e) 6.575996 Web suenm6lLaWxA2A9s 94"1: dc_neho®pacbell.net Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3.300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8975 ALI Dear Mr. Mudllo: September 73, 2007 RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 18 20x7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The Native American Heritage Commission is the state's Trustee Agency for Native American Cultural Resources. The California Environmental Quality Ad (CEQA) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change In the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a'significent effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per CEQA guidelines § 75064.5(b)(c). In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency Is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse Impact on these resources within the'area of potential effect (APE)', and if so, to mitigate that effect. To adequately assess the project- related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following action: J Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center (CHRIS). Contact information for the Information Center nearest you Is available from the State Office of Historic Preservation (978/853- 7278)! hfp• /ANww oho narks ca aov /t0MI99 /lC %2OR to df The record search will determine: • If a part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. • If any known cultural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE. • If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. • If a survey Is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present J If an archaeological inventory survey Is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted Immediately W the planning department Ail information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure. • The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center. J Contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for: • A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project area and Information on tribal contacts in the project vicinity that may have additional cultural resource information. Please provide this office with the following citation format to assist with the Sacred Lands Pile search request USGS 7 -5- minute Quadrangle citation with name. township ranae and section, • The NAHC advises the use of Native American Monitors to ensure proper identification and care given cultural resources that may be discovered. The NAHC recommends that contact be made with Native American Contacts on the attached list to get their input on potential project impact (APE). In some cases, the existence of a Native American cultural resources may be known orgy to a local tribe(s). J Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. • Lead agencies should include In their mitigation plan provisions for the Identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §75084.5 (f). In areas of Identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor all ground- dlaturhing activities. • Lead agencies should include In their mitigation plan provisions for the dreposikn of recovered artifacts, in oonsultetion with culturally affiliated Native Americans. J Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in their mitigation plena. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the Initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave lien. SZ J Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.96 and Sec. §7506A.5 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines mandate procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery, Aftachment. Lip contact me at (916) 653.6251 if you have any questions. Contacts �53 Native American Contacts Orange County September 13, 2007 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Juaneno Band of Mission Indians David Belardes, Chairperson Adolph 'Bud" Sepulveda, Chairperson 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno san.tuan Oapla"no , CA 92675 Santa Ana , CA 92799 (949) 493 -0959 bssepulQyahoo.net (949) 493 -1601 Fax 714- 838 -3270 714 - 914 -1812 - CELL bsepuigyahoo.net Juaneno Band of Mission 3ndians Acjachemen Nation Sonia Johnston, Tribal Vice Chairperson Anthony Rivera, Chairman Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 31411 -A La Matanza Street Juaneno P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno San Juan Capielano , CA 92675 -2674 Santa Ana . CA 92799 ariveraQ uaneno.com (714) 323 -8312 949-488-M4 949 - 488 -3294 Fax Sonia johnstonQsbcglobal.net Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager & Cultural Resources 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno San Juan Captatrsno , CA 92675 (949) 493 -0959 (949) 293 -8522 Cell (949) 493 -1601 Fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana . CA 92799 alfredgcruzQsbcglobal.net 714 - 998-0721 sifredgcruzQsbcglobal.net Thie IW Is current only as of the data of this docunem. Olstrlbution of this list does not relieve any parson of Sbautory responsibility as dented Il Section 7050.5 of the Heeldt and Safety Cade, Sacdoo 6097.94 Of the Public Resources Cads and Section $097.99 of the Public Resources Coda Tits list Is only applicable for contacting local Native American with regard to cultural resources for the Propose! $0011021=1101 105; CEOA Notion of Completion; dreg Environmental Impact Report(DEIM for HOAG Neatiti Center, Use Permit Amendment; City of Newport Reach; Orange County, Calbomin. sy 2. California Native American Heritage Commission (October 13, 2007) Response to Comment No. 1 As indicated on pages 13 through 15 in the initial study (Appendix A) in the Draft EIR, the project site has been significantly altered as a result of past development activities. It is likely that any cultural and/or scientific resources that may have existed on the subject property have been affected by prior grading and excavation that were necessary to prepare the site for development. Further, the vast majority of work to be undertaken to implement the proposed project will occur as interior remodeling without any associated excavation and /or grading that would disturb the underlying soils. Only limited excavation would be required in orc.er to construction the new 20,586- square foot structure that is also proposed. Nonetheless, the initial study prepared for the proposed project included several mitigation measures (refer to pages 14 and 15 in Appendix A), including MM-3, which requires that a qualified archaeologist be retained to observe grading activities and conduct a pre - grading conference and related activities in order to address the need for further action in the event that cultural materials were encountered during the anticipated minor grading activities. That measure also requires that in the unlikely event that cultural materials are encountered, that all activities in the immediate area be halted until appropriate measures to address the resources are identified for Implementation. MM -4 prescribes similar requirements for on -site monitoring for paleontological resources. Finally, MM-5 also prescribes the actions that shall be taken in the event that human remains are encountered. Specifically, the applicant must comply with the State Health and Safety Code and other requirements that apply, including notification of the County Coroner and, if the remains are determined to be Native American, appropriate representatives of that Native American community would also be notified. The initial study concluded that potentially significant impacts to cultural and scientific resources would be less than significant with the implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures (refer to pages 14 and 15 in Appendix A). Those mitigation measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that will be adopted for the proposed project to ensure that each will be implemented. Hoag Health Center Responses to Pubic Comments November2007 Page 3 55 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, Califomia 90017 -3435 1(213) 2361800 f (21 3) 236-1825 wwwscag.ca.gov dplaen: yrelMd: GesS GafiL San Bemmdim (oowyMNMoPrtdded: t14aaaon,Lahr ydei! • SemM YRe PRSitlenl: Wiry Bddwn. San bWid • Invrcahte Pan i1[AEnY: Mom 8.Bu4e.LwAngxks (awny InmeiW Cony: Ycmr (m ins, Impeiul Cmiry -Mn Ednes Ubna. US Angeles bnnrm Ytwm B. and,. Im AV1,S Cwmy• he amtnasky. Lm Argda (away • PddaeN Ahrmn, la Angekf • Am ANbgea Tong (aanenm•Harry Baldwn Sm Wnd • Ha Reins. - Angela • 5m busk U Hahn With. . klmatoo fM y Rmentean •Gene Mm G ft. Log • My BunnG Gallo, Bounty Rm Wbdal.LingBdah• - W dy G wn. Lo • hk Wade. Lm Angeles • welly 6remL Los Angelo • Pool Gumk. U.P. • Rdtbw. HXIIEL Ames •JOM 1NAUA Los &%I. • Am hMa, famnmr • Ron Poop Ws Angel. • Ed Ry., Lm Awd.• 891 Bosnian], tin Mgeles • Gmg Soins lot Angeles • Tom Stirs. Wain • Min kn, Small Paaa,r. • 7an Reyes Loop. Lang Bute - Amwk Aga algosa. Los Angeles - Bennis LktoI fao, A, •Hdwehs. LD rtsl • N¢N J. Weave, lt, Lm Angeles •Mork The. lm Atgaks Mange Couky: an, Booty. gouge (way - AMine Boom U Balms • John Buono, Bran • Lot gain, (min 06bie (wk. IARlhgmn Buct • U0, BaIgoe, Newpnd Rom, RAI Mmq Lab Forest •Tray6W,, Lm Anita, • Peal (duo Laguna NNwI - Robed N.naMet An ham • Sharon Witt. Fullulm - RM.5 (uantp kUke fi RrveK�de(eunie • 7lwmas Badoon, Lan Eldnon • BmnR Flidlw[r. Moreno yYly • Ron L ty - Ran RrvenHa • 6Rg RaA bmeoRl IXY •flan Aobenxkmm/a San Btmodino Cwny: Gay 000, San BnreNdo (mmq • Lawmxe Wk, Bangor - Pal Clan, AbnLMlr. An Ann GardA band •kmlane[Rxm W11[y mau bighlam . Mboon foo Mw, R.dot -AWYWmtOnt do TOW Go ammeaBanton not re: Andrew A8skl 5s, PeM.ga Band Wrennintlnm Woman (omny: Linda flanks. V008 County ben Mmm, SIM BAR ey.can Maroon., yen Bananamm•Inn, ynmy. PortNimRme Bnwa (onnb inmpnafbn Anon y. An 8mm, Burro Pala Rlvuride(ootyTmnwP Nha boodionn:Rodntm HRn , W nluY (owty Rill�arlalkrl Conmkdan:Adn WMwse.MOOryam Letter No. 3 RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEp 24 2007 September 20, 2007 pry Mr. Jaime Wdllo COY O� � `v Associate Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92858 -8915 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120070567 Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Dear Mr. Murillo: Thank you for submitting the Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment 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 Use Permit Amendment, 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 was published in SCAG's September 1 -15, 2007 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 me at (213) 236 -1856. Thank you. Sincerely, SHERYLL DEL ROSARIO Associate Planner Intergovernmental Review Doe #140052 uiaa Sb 3. Southern California Association of Governments (September 20, 2007) Response to Comment No. t This comment indicates that SCAG has reviewed the project and has determined that It is not regionally significant and, therefore, does not warrant comments from that agency. Because no environmental issues are raised in this letter related the adequacy of the EIR, no response is necessary. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November 2007 Page 4 —\ ` � Letter No. 4 Department of Toxic Substances Control MCMED BY Maureen F. Gorsen, Director PLANNING DEPARTMENT Linda S. Adams 5796 Corporate Avenue Arnold Schwarzenegger Secretary for Cypress, California 90630 Governor Environmental Protection OCT o 9 2007 October 3, 2007 Cgy OF NEWRI BEACH Mr. Jamie Murillo City of Newport Beach, Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR HOAG HEALTH CENTER PROJECT (SCH# 2006101105) Dear Mr. Murillo: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental EIR for the above - mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document: "Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is requesting the approval of an amendment to Use Permit No. 2006 -010 to allow (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet of general office/R &D floor area, of the total 329,414 square feet of floor area currently permitted on -site, to medical office use within the M -1 -A zoning district; and (2) the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office and ancillary medical uses on -site, for a total of 350,000 gross square feet of medical office floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 acre site for Medical Commercial Office land uses and establishes a precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of.floor area. This land use designation is intended to provide primarily medical - related uses. Additionally, approval of a traffic study is being requested pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of 1,985 parking spaces previously approved in Use Permit 2006 -010 are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces in two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on -site parking requirements of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's parking code." Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments: 11) The project construction may requlre soil excavation or filling in certain areas. ,j Sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, it must be property disposed and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, If the project proposes to import Printed on Recycled Paper 0 Mr. Jamie Murillo October 3, 2007 Page 2 soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. I2) If during construction /demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater 2 contamination is suspected, construction /demolition in the area would cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. 3) If the site was used for agricultural or related activities, onsite soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or $ other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of the project. 4) Envirostor (formerly CalSites) is a database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and is accessible through DTSC's website. DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an 4 Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA please see www. dtsc. ca.gov /SiteCleanup /Brownfields, or contact Maryam Tasnif- Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484 -5489 for the VCA. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Eileen Khachatourians, Project Manager, at (714) 484 -5349 or email at . EKhachat@dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office cc: See next page 54 Mr. Jamie Murillo October 3, 2007 Page 3 cc : Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Sax 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis 1001 1 Street, 22nd Floor, M.S. 22 -2 Sacramento, California 95814 CEQA# 1854 4. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (October 3, 2007) Response to Comment No. 1 As suggested in this comment, some soil excavation may be required in the future in order to construct the proposed 20,586 square foot structure. Two standard conditions have been prescribed (refer to Section 4.6.3 of the Draft EIR), that address public health and safety issues, Including potential contaminated soils. Specifically, SC 4.6 -1 requires that the applicant shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local requirements pertaining to hazardous waste, Including issues related to the identification and disposal of contaminated soil. In addition, SC 4.6 -2, which prescribes procedures to address the management and disposal of hazardous waste, will also be implemented as determined necessary in the event that contaminated soils are encountered Response to Comment No. 2 As recommended in this comment and consistent with SC 4.6 -1, construction occurring in an area where soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected would cease and appropriate health and safety procedures would be implemented in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. In addition, both construction and operation - related measures have also been identified to ensure that other contamination that may occur on the site are properly addressed pursuant to regulatory requirements (see Section 4.6.3 of the DEIR). Response to Comment No. 3 As discussed in Section 4.6.1 of the Draft EIR (refer to page 4.6 -1), although the site was used for agricultural production prior to its development (more than 50 years ago), soil testing on the subject property did not reveal the existence of pesticides, agricultural chemicals, or organic waste. Nonetheless, as indicated in this comment, appropriate remedial actions will be conducted in the event concentrations of such contamination is identified in monitoring that is ongoing and recommended for other contaminants identified in prior studies (see SC 4.6 -1 in Section 4.6 -3 of the DEIR). Response to Comment No. 4 Should additional guidance from DTSC be necessary or desired, the applicant will coordinate cleanup efforts with all responsible agencies, including DTSC and the Envirostar database. This comment is acknowledged. Hoag Hsafth Center Responses to Pubfic Comments November 2007 Page 5 W Letter No. 5 To: Jaime Murillo 16 October 2007 Associate Planner City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) Subject: DEIR, Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment, September 2007. EQAC hereby submits our review comments regarding the Subject DEIR. We trust that these will assist you in optimizing the Hoag Health Center project for the berefit of the City of Newport Beach. Although all parts of the DEIR were reviewed, we include comments only on those sections where clarification is needed. 4.2 Traffic and Parking 4.2.4 Potential Impacts (• Project generates a "net" increase in project related daily trip generation I [estimated] to be 12,743 based on NBTAM. • Table 4.2.3 sub note 2 "existing Trip Generation does not reflect UP 06 -010 2 approved by the City of NPB in 12/07 in order to provide a "worse case" analysis of traffic impacts. Include this UP 06 -090 approved project in the traffic analysis. $ 1 • Table 4.2 -5, correct footnote 2 (refer to Appendix 7 ?) I • 2025 Traffic Conditions — City of NBP includes the Improvement of the 19'h 4 Street bridge, the Costa Mesa does not. How does this affect all of the previous traffic analysis? 5 • Typo Page 4.2 -21 paragraph 3 indicates "91h Street bridge — reviewer assumed 19 Street bridge. • Traffic Signal warrant analysis: DEIR states that a traffic signal to be 6 I installed at Superior Ave . /Project Driveway intersection. Does NB have authority to do this or are other approvals required? • Page 4.2 -23: Mitigation Measure 4.2 -2 is confusing because the end of the second paragraph on Page 4.2 -19 states that mitigation is infeasible until such 7 time as the City of Costa Mesa has a mechanism to accept fair share fees to complete that intersection. The paragraph on Page 4.2 -24 should clarify whether Mitigation Measure 4.2 -2 is in or out. As an alternative, inquire with the City of Costa Mesa on how they may accept fair share fees. 4.3 Air Quality The last paragraph on Page 4.3 -15 states that the proposed project would result in 8 potentially significant air quality impacts from long -term operational emissions of four criteria pollutants. The last paragraph on Page 4.3 -16 states that because air quality is improving in the air basin, violation of air quality standards will not likely worsen regional air quality, lead to a violation or contribute to a violation. Please cite the research that demonstrates air quality in the air basin will improve in the future. The conclusion on Page 4.3 -16 appears to imply that if regional air quality is forecast to improve, individual projects may exceed long -term operational emission standards. Is this correct? The first sentence on Page 4.3 -21 states that lower vehicular emissions from advanced technology and lower future ambient CO levels will offset the growth in CO concentrations from future traffic increases. Cite the data source that demonstrates the j certainty that advanced technology will reduce future vehicular emissions and lower future ambient CO levels. If such information is not available, revise the air quality forecast model to eliminate factors that reduce predictions of future CO levels from vehicular traffic. 1 Truck idling is a potential source of air pollution, increasing the significance of impact in 1 O this area. Please provide mitigation to minimize air quality impacts, to include controls on truck idling. 11 12 4.4 Noise As a general comment throughout Section 4.4 of the EIR and in Appendix E concerning Short - and long -term impacts on residents on Superior Avenue and Dana Road: Human hearing and the damaging effects of noise are not Iinear with respect to any physical measures of sound intensity or frequency. Some frequencies have more damaging effects in the long and short term. Current research suggests that the A- weighted decibels (dBA) scale that LSA Associates uses is outdated, and a more appropriate assessment would use C- weighted measures, which more appropriately captures the effects of low - frequency noise of the kind that will be at issue for the HHC project. For example, using A- weighting, a low frequency noise of 50 Hz, which vibrates homes and is felt in the body, is under measured by 30 dB as compared to 1.3 dB in measurements taken with C- weighting. Overall measurements are under measured by 7 -8 dB with A- weighting as compared to C- weighting. The CNEL measures presented by LSA Associates do not address this criticism. Various industrial sources emit continuous low- frequency noise (compressors, pumps, diesel engines, fans, public works). Heavy -duty vehicles and air traffic produce intermittent low - frequency noise. Low - frequency noise may also produce vibrations and rattles as secondary effects. Health effects due to low - firequency components in noise are estimated to be more severe than for community noises in general (Berglund et al. 1996). Since A- weighting underestimates the sound pressure level of noise with low - frequency components, a better assessment of the impacts to adjacent residents and their health would be to use C- weighting. The World Health Organization's safety recommendations use dBC measures. Although the HHC EIR may be required to conform to The City of Newport Beach dBA criteria, it should be noted that the choice of such criteria are not written in stone and future studies should be asked to present more meaningful measures (e.g., dBC and spectral harmonic analyses) of noise impacts so that an informed evaluation can be done. 2 G3 P.4.4 -17, subsection 4.4.5: It is very difficult to evaluate the DEIR assessment of the long -term impact expected from the project's additional vehicular traffic. Is it possible 13 to give an impression of how much additional vehicular traffic is expected during peak work hours, over the projected amounts that are seen due to seasonal (summer) traffic increases and general yearly expected increases? Appendix E prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. • P. 3, pares 1: RE: Two shuttle trips per day. Will loading/unloading occur on Dana 14 Road? Will there be through access (to eliminate potential vehicle backup alum noise)? • P. 3, para. 1: Interim 1 -year shuttle service to Hoag Hospital: Need better estimate of noise impacts/durations/mitigations for that year. If it is serving all of Hoag it seems 15 that it could be a significant impact. Is it possible to require that all shuttle pickups /deliveries take place in the area between buildings and parking structures? • P.7, para 1 -2: Measurement of sound using dBA scales. See general comment above about the uninformative value of dBA measures. 16 See, also Berglund B., Lindvall T., Schwela D.H. (eds.) (1999). Guidelines for Community Noise. London:World Health Organization. 17 I • P.16, item N2.3: RE: truck deliveries. Does design component involve drive -thru access to eliminate back up alerts impacting residents throughout the day? • P. 17, "construction noise" item: During construction, noise may range up to 84 — 91 dBA. This is considerable. Is there any way to get a dBC measure (broken out 18 by spectral frequency) of this since it exceeds the ordinance? Also, a project map illustrating the expected daily durations, including the hourly timeframes, at these extreme levels, would be helpful. • P. 24: RE: long -term stationary noise impacts. Not enough is said about how rooftop mechanical units, truck delivery and other activities in the parking lot would generate 19 long -term impacts and if they need mitigation. Also, please analyze the impacts of truck idling on noise, providing estimated duration and decibel levels. If significant impacts are found, provide appropriate mitigation. • P. 25, the top paragraph RE: delivery entrance: "it is assumed that the medical office use loading area (near the front entrance of the building) is at least ... 250 ft from 20 the residences to the west." Recommend that the option be examined to position receiving between the buildings and the parking structures. It seems that more mitigation is needed for this item. 21 • P. 27: "...no significant noise impacts would occur from the rooftop mechanical units ..."Are the HVAC units the only units of concern on the rooftop? Where are the 3 1, y trash compactors and such? Will elevator motors, used nightly by cleaning crews, be positioned on the roof and operating within acceptable noise levels? It is unclear if the design components of the project place these large/noisy devices as far as possible from neighboring residences in an effort to minimize their impact. 5.10 Aesthetics No significant aesthetic impacts are seen to be caused by the proposed construction of the Parking structure as well as the other changes to the property related to and included in the amendment. Assuming the continued attention to the goal of minimal aesthetic 22 change, during and after the construction, this will be validated once the construction project is completed. The maintenance of similar sight lines and elevation is very important to this validation of continued aesthetics. Notwithstanding close control of the building and architectural details, aesthetics of the 23 project can be greatly enhanced with proper emphasis on landscaping and judicious use of foliage. Is there a detailed landscape plan that will make the project compatible with planned Superior Avenue beautification? 5.14 Hazards and Hazardous Materials • The DEIR appendices are not numbered in any sequential fashion nor are some of the 24 pages numbered at all. This results in the document being very difficult, cumbersome and time consuming to read. 25 The DEIR does not include responses to a letter from the Department of Toxic Substances Control item #4 asking the following: "All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for the site should be conducted under a work plan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency.... The findings on any investigations, including Phase I & II investigations, should be summarized in the document." Where are the answer and summary? • A letter from the Department of Toxic Substances Control item #6 asks: Where are 26 the work plans and studies as requested for the above? i.e. — asbestos and lead. 271* What are the total tonnages to be removed and how will the truck staging take place? What are the traffic, noise and air quality impacts of this truck staging? 28 Hazardous Materials Checklist, Appendix A, page 19, states that they will comply with all State Agencies with regard to the removal of asbestos (they know that it is there) and lead. The checklist item also indicates, "The LBP and ACM that may exist in the buildings that will remain will be removed prior to the remodeling that will be undertaken to implement the proposed project and demolition of the existing office building. Therefore neither demolition of that structure nor remodeling necessary to convert the existing floor area to medical office floor area would NOT 4 b5 result in the emission and dispersal of any hazardous materials and/or contaminants within the project area. What does this mean? • Checklist, page 21 states mitigation measures, MM -6, MM -7, and MM -8... Should 29 the prior studies or documents be available to the public in this report to demonstrate how they accomplished these in the past? 30 9.0 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Project. The DEIR states that Cumulative Effects due to 14 projects (? 0 in Newport Beach and 4 in Costa Mesa) were analyzed to show that no additional significant impacts in any environmental area resulted from consideration of these 14 projects. The existing significant/unavoidable impacts on air quality and Newport Blvd. traffic congestion were not worsened despite the impact of these 14 projects. However, many of these projects are far away from this site (e.g. Newport Coast and Newport Ridge) and it is not surprising that they would have minimal affect. Shouldn't development of Westside Costa Mesa mixed use development projects be included in the study? What does future Superior Ave. beautification do to long -term traffic flow in the vicinity of the project? It seems that these projects could be considered in the same context as other "proposed but not approved" projects among the 14 which were considered. These could have significant impacts on traffic on Superior, Placentia and PCH. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the Subject DEIR for the Hoag Hospital Health Center Project. �b 5. Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (October 15, 2007) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment acknowledges the "net" increase in project - related daily traffic generated by the proposed project. No response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 2 The property is a fully developed office and research & development center. It currently consists of 4 buildings totaling 415,493 square feet with a four -level above grade parking garage. Current approvals allow for 57% research & development, research & development/industrial uses (236,832 square feet) and 43% office uses (178,661 square feet). On December 7, 2006 the Newport Beach Planning Commission adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH. No. 2006101105 and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2006 -001 to allow for 97,000 square feet of medical office uses on the site. The approval also allowed for the demolition of an existing 86,079 square foot building to be replaced with a four -level parking garage. The site was proposed to consist of 97,000 square feet of medical office, 136,000 square feet of general office, and 96,414 square feet of research & development. The approval of the 97,000 square feet of medical office is not taken Into account in this study because the proposed project is within two years of the most current approval. Therefore, the trips credited for the most recent approval are not taken into account pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) to avoid double counting trips. The DEIR traffic analysis is sufficient without UP 2006 -010 elements, as it presents the worst cast scenario for traffic. The remainder of the comment, on NBTAM rates, restates DEIR information and does not merit further response. Response to Comment No. 3 As suggested in this comment, Footnote 2 in Table 4.2 -5 shall be corrected to reflect Appendix C (Traffic Impact Analysis). The revised footnote will read as follows: "Approved projects in the City of Newport Beach identified in Table 5 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix C)." Response to Comment No. 4 . As indicated on page 65 of the traffic analysis, inclusion of the 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River is consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Although the City of Costa Mesa has identified its desire to delete this facility from the MPAH, the bridge has not yet been officially deleted. As a result, the traffic analysis, in order to be consistent with the long -range circulation plan (i.e., MPAH), assumes the extension of 19th Street over the Santa Ana River as reflected on the MPAH. As noted in Section 8 of the traffic study, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan; therefore, no additional long -range analysis is needed. The traffic study reflected the near- term oadway network (currently, the 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River does not exist). The information in Section 8 of the traffic study simply discusses the differences in the City's circulation system. Response to Comment No. 5 This comment is correct in pointing out a typographic error. The reference to the "9" Street bridge" in the first sentence in the third paragraph on page 4.2 -21 will be revised to "19'h Street bridge." The revised language will read as follows: Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November2007 Page 6 "Based on the City of Costa Mesa General Plan (adopted January 22, 2002), the Costa Mesa City Council policy direction is to delete the 19' Street Bridge over the Santa Ana River from the MPAH " Response to Comment No. 6 The location of the proposed traffic signal is in the City of Newport Beach. As such, approval of this facility rests entirely within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. Response to Comment No. 7 The Newport Boulevard/18'h Street - Rochester Avenue intersection is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Costa Mesa. As indicated in the discussion in Section 4.2.6 of the Draft EIR (refer to page 4.2.24), the City of Costa Mesa does not have a mechanism for accepting the fair share fee contribution from the applicant intended to pay for the Newport Boulevard /18'h Street - Rochester Street improvements identified in MM 4.2 -2. Without such a mechanism, the measure cannot be implemented and is, therefore, infeasible. Further, neither the City of Costa Mesa nor the City of Newport Beach could, by law, force upon an applicant a mitigation measure for a cumulative impact that would have the applicant financing the entirety of an improvement, when only a portion of the impact would be attributable to the impacts of the proposed project. (See e.g., 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.4(a)(4))B); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 13130(a)(3); Napa Citizens for Hones GovI v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors 91 Cal. App. 416 342,364 (2001); and Costa Mesa Mun. Code § 13 -275.) Because there is no current assurance that MM 4.2 -2 is legally feasible, the mitigation measure was not relied upon to mitigate cumulative impacts, and the DEIR properly concluded that the anticipated project - related cumulative impact at the Newport Boulevard /18'h Street - Rochester would remain significant and unavoidable, necessitating the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to approve the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 8 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP) has incorporated the projections of future criteria air pollutant concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) that includes Orange County and shows that air quality in the SCAB will improve in the coming years. The projections have factored in the anticipated improved vehicle exhaust due to fleet change (older cars replaced by newer cars with much lower emission levels) and other improvements (reduction of emissions from stationary sources due to new laws restricting emissions to lower levels). With the overall improvement trend in the SCAB region, emissions associated with an individual project, even if the emissions would exceed the emission thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD, are not expected to affect the target attainment date identified in the 2007 AQMP by the SCAQMD. Therefore, a project can exceed the SCAQMD emission thresholds, as long as it also implements all feasible mitigation measures, as proposed in the Draft EIR, and clearly discloses the potential impacts, and not alter the projections identified in the AQMP. As indicated in page 4.3 -22 of the Draft EIR, direct increases in population growth are not anticipated. Because the project is consistent with the long -range adopted land use plan, any indirect growth associated with the proposed project would be within the City's General Plan projection and, therefore, consistent with the AQMP. Response to Comment No. 9 The California Air Resources Board issued the latest emission prediction model, EMFAC2007, which incorporates the current and projected fleet mix from vehicles in many areas of California. A discussion of the methodology utilized to quantify the project - related air pollutant emissions, is presented on page 20 of Appendix D (Air Quality Analysis) in the Draft EIR. As indicated in that discussion, the URBEDMIS 2007 model was used to estimate project - related mobile and station sources emissions because air quality models identified in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993), which provides guidance and prescribes Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November 2007 Page 7 the requirements to conduct air quality analysis, are outdated. The EMFAC2007 model provides emission factors for several criteria pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), for current and future years. The CO emission factor for future years are projected to decrease gradually from its current year level. In addition, CO concentrations monitored at all Orange County monitoring stations show a consistent decreasing trend over the years. The 2007 AQMP also includes the assumption that CO concentrations for future years will be lower than their current levels (refer to Response to Comment No. 8). Both ARB's EMFAC2007 and SCAQMD's 2007 AQMP help confirm the statement that lower vehicular emissions from advanced technology and lower future ambient CO levels will offset the growth in the CO concentrations from future project - related traffic increase. Response to Comment No. 10 The Air Resources Board (ARB) has established a rule (refer to Section 3585 within Chapter 10 — Mobile Source Operational Controls, Article - Motor Vehicles, Division 3, Air Resources Board, Title 13, California Code of Regulations) to prohibit trucks from idling more than 5 minutes while loading or unloading. This rule will be included by the City of Newport Beach as a standard condition to minimize air emissions associated with idling trucks. In addition, MM 4.3 -1 d requires that the work crews will shut off equipment when not in use to further reduce pollutant emissions. Response to Comment No. 11 The Noise Element of the Newport Beach General Plan identifies nose sensitive land uses and noise sources, and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of developing policies to ensure that residents in the City will be protected from excessive noise intrusion. The information contained in the document provides the framework to achieve compatible land uses and provide baseline levels and noise source identification for local noise ordinance enforcement. The Noise Element policies and thresholds of significance utilize the A- weighted decibels (dBAs) as the standard unit of measurement. Additional, the City's Community Noise control Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code) utilizes A- weighted decibels as the standard unit of measurement for establishing maximum interior and exterior noise standards. The A- weighted decibel level has been used in all federal, State, and local noise criteria because it has been proven that it can best reflect human hearing, including the potential harmful effects such as hearing damage or temporary/permanent hearing threshold shift. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established a criterion that if a workplace that would expose workers to noise levels exceeding 90 dBA continuously for more than 8 hours, then a hearing protectlon program, such as workers wearing hearing protection gear or reduce the work hours to less than 8 hours, would need to be implemented. Therefore, unless the noise levels exceed 90 dBA, no immediate or long -term hearing damage would occur. Guidelines for Community Norse by WHO (edited by Birgitta Bertlund, Thomas Lindvall, and Dietrich H. Schwela) cited by the commenter uses the A- weighted dB levels in its Guidelines Values for Community Noise in Specific environments (Table 41 on page 65 of that document). In addition, in subsection 2.3.3 on page 28 of the WHO document (Frequency Content and Loudness) states that "A- weighted measures have been particularly criticized as not being accurate indicators of disturbing effects of noises with strong low frequency components. However, these dilterences in prediction accuracy are usually smaller than the variability of responses among groups of people. Thus, in practical situations the limitations of A- weighted measures may not be so important." Therefore, the use of C- weighted noise level is neither warranted nor required. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November2007 Page 8 4 Response to Comment No. 12 Noise associated with the proposed project is not expected to have substantially high volume of low frequency noise referred to by the commenter that could potentially cause harmful health effects at adjacent uses. As indicated in Response to Comment No. 11, the limitations of utilizing the A- weighted measure is not inappropriate for evaluating community noise levels "in practical situations." Further, because the City, which recently (2006) updated the General Plan, including the Noise Element, continues to rely on utilizing the A- Weighted noise measurement scale in evaluating noise impacts in the City, which is consistent with the State of California Noise guidelines. For that reason, the noise analysis that evaluated the potential project - related impacts followed the current methodology utilized by the City of Newport Beach. The suggestion in this comment that the City determine in the future that the C- weighted noise measurement standard is more appropriate in evaluating future projects is acknowledged; however, that suggestion, which may result in a change in City policy, is more appropriately directed to the City Council for consideration outside the context of the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 13 The traffic generated by the project is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the availability of vehicles to drive, and our life styles remain similar to what we know today. A major change in these variables may affect trip generation rates. Trip generation rates were determined for daily traffic, morning peak hour inbound and outbound traffic, and evening peak hour inbound and outbound traffic for the proposed land uses. By multiplying the traffic generation rates by the land use quantities, the project - generated traffic volumes are determined. Table 2 of the traffic study exhibits the traffic generation rates. The City of Newport Beach trip generation rates are derived from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). The traffic analysis analyzes average weekday conditions. Based upon City of Newport Beach (NBTAM) rates (see Table 3 of the traffic study), the proposed project is projected to generate a total of approximately 17,500 daily vehicle trips, 1,050 (840 inbound/210 outbound) of which would occur during the morning peak hour and 1,750 (525 inbound/1,225 outbound) of which would occur during the evening peak hour. The trip generation rates are for average weekday conditions and the project trip generation is based upon 350,000 square feet of medical office (see Table 3 of the traffic study). Response to Comment No. 14 This comment mistakenly indicates that two shuttle trips per day will occur. The proposed shuttle service will operate four round trips per hour between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. between the site and Hoag Hospital each day. (The number of shuttle trips was increased from two trips per hour, as reported in the Draft EIR, to four trips per hour; refer to the Hoag Health Center Draft EIR Errata). All loading and unloading will take place within the limits of the Hoag Health Center property and not along the roadways that serve the existing residential development on Dana Road and Flagship Road. The shuttle will enter the site from the southern entrance on Superior Avenue and exit the site from the northern access on Superior Avenue. Shuttle riders will be picked up and /or dropped off in the interior portion of the site; no loading /unloading will take place along Dana Road and the shuttle will note be allowed to travel on Dana Road or Flagship Road as indicated on page 4.2 -22 of the DEIR. Because the shuttle service within the boundaries of Hoag Health Center will be directed in a one -way pattern, it is anticipated that there will be no need for the shuttle to back up and, consequently, no expectative that there will be any back -up alarms from the shuttles. In the future, at ultimate buildout of the project, the pick -up and drop -off will occur between the existing medical office buildings and the parking structures. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November 2007 Page 9 V Response to Comment No. 15 It should be noted that the shuttle proposed for the project is not "interim" as suggested in this comment. Rather, the shuttle will operate permanently between the Hoag Health Center and the Hoag Hospital Main Campus to facilitate movement of patients and medical staff between the two locations. The traffic and noise impact analyses included the shuttle bus trips along the access roads from Hoag Health Center. In addition, the loading /unloading and parking lot activity noise analysis included potential shuttle bus loading and unloading activities anticipated to occur within the project site (no loading /unloading will occur on Dana Road). Based on the findings of these analyses, no significant noise impacts would occur. As indicated in Response to Comment No. 14, in the short-term (i.e., prior to " buildout" with the remaining 20,586 square feet of medical office floor arei) shuttle pickups and deliveries would occur at the designated locations within the limits of the subject property analyzed in the traffic access study. It is anticipated, however, that pick -up and drop -off would occur between the buildings and the parking structures upon buildout of the site as proposed. Further, shuttle and truck circulation through the site would occur via a continuous 'loop" to avoid the need to back -up. As a result, back -up alarms from the shuttle are not anticipated. Response to Comment No 16 Please refer to the response to the general comment on dBA vs. dBC in Response to Comment No. 11. As suggested in that response the C- weighted noise measurement is not warranted unless long -term noise levels exceed 90 dB. The long -term analysis presented in the Draft EIR (refer to Section 4.4.2 on page 4.4 -9) concludes that long -term noise levels would not exceed 90 dBA. Response to Comment No. 17 Similar to shuttle passenger loading and unloading on the site, trucks will enter and exit the Hoag Health Center property at the same access locations, which will facilitate the on -site truck circulation. Trucks will access the site from either the southern or main drive access and will access the building from the peripheral drives, exiting the site from the main or northern access. It is not anticipated that 'backup" alerts would be used on a regular basis during the day because the truck traffic through the site will be directed in a one -way direct through the site with little expectation of any back -up alarms. Response to Comment No. 18 Construction noise in the City is regulated by Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations) of the Municipal Code, which does not establish maximum noise levels, but rather limits the hours of noise - generating construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. No violation of the noise ordinance would occur. Although construction equipment could result in short-term, intermittent, maximum noise levels reaching 84 to 91 dBA Lmax, this range of maximum noise levels is comparable to the noise levels generated by vehicle passby along arterials. As construction equipment moves around the project site, this maximum noise would occur only intermittently at specific locations adjacent to the project site and mapping of the maximum noise level by construction equipment is not feasible or warranted. Please also refer to the responses to the general comment on dBA vs. dBC in Response to Comment No. 11. Response to Comment No. 19 Noise associated with rooftop mechanical units, truck deliveryAoading /unloading and activities in the parking lot, including truck idling while loading/unloading, has been evaluated in detail (refer to page 4.4- 14 through 4.4 -16 of the Draft EIR). Based on the analysis conducted for the project by LSA and included in the Draft EIR, no significant noise impacts were found from these activities (refer to page 4.4 -17. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November2007 Page 10 Response to Comment No. 20 Noise associated with loading /unloading associated with the medical offices has been evaluated and no significant impacts were found (refer to page 4.4 -14 in the Draft EIR). The option to position receiving between the buildings and the parking structures is a site design issue and would not be required for noise mitigation purposes. Response to Comment No. 21 The location of trash compactors and related features is a design issue that will be subject to review by the City of Newport Beach during the plan check process. Nonetheless, trash compactors and elevator motors would be designed and operated to meet the noise ordinance requirement. As currently proposed, mechanical units will be enclosed. As a result, the enclosed rooftop HVAC units would not have any significant noise impacts because the enclosure would provide sufficient noise attenuation. Response to Comment No. 22 This comment acknowledges the conclusion of 'less than significant" aesthetic impacts presented in the initial study prepared for the proposed project. No response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 23 Although some modifications associated with the new 20,586 square foot structure proposed within the site are anticipated that would require landscape modifications in the area where that development would take place, project implementation will not result in any physical changes along Superior Avenue and, therefore, will not result in changes to the landscape character along that roadway. As a result, both the architectural and landscape character of the existing and future site development will not affect the Superior Avenue beautification improvements that will be implemented by the City, as the site characteristics along Superior Avenue will not change. Response to Comment No. 24 Although the technical studies (i.e., traffic, noise, and air quality) reflect page numbers, the appendices of those studies (e.g., computer output sheets, letters, etc.) were not numbered. This comment, which suggests that the lack of page numbering of those materials is acknowledged and the appendices will be numbered with the preparation of the Final EIR. Response to Comment No. 25 The preface to Section 4.6 (refer to page 4.6 -1) indicates that the analysis of public health and safety is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and related studies (refer to page 12 -1 of the Draft EIR) conducted on the subject site to evaluate the potential health and safety impacts resulting from project implementation. As indicated in the preface (and requested in this comment), the findings and recommendations of those reports are summarized in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR. All of the applicable studies are available for public review at the City of Newport Beach in the Planning Department. Response to Comment No. 26 The NOP comment referenced here by the EQAC relates to the preliminary analysis presented in the initial study conducted for the proposed project. Since the preparation of the initial study, subsequent analysis was conducted that determined that all of the ACM and LBP has been removed /abated from the existing structures. The surveys documenting the removal /abatement of the asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) in the existing structures are also available at the City of Newport Beach. Hoag Heattb Center Responses to Public Comments November 2007 Page 11 71 Response to Comment No. 27 As indicated in the response to Comment No. 26, project implementation does not require the removal /abatement of ACM and /or LBP from the structures. Further, demolition of existing structures is not proposed; therefore, no hazardous materials will be removed from the site that would generate heavy truck traffic and, consequently, additional noise and air quality impacts. Response to Comment No. 28 The discussion cited in this comment from the initial study makes reference to the demolition of the existing structure that will be replaced by the parking structure that was approved as part of UP 2006 -010 in December 2006. The potential impacts associated with the prior Use Permit have been evaluated and addressed through mitigation measures prescribed as part of the environmental analysis conducted for that project. As indicated in the response to Comment No. 26 check out, all of the ACM and LBP has been removed /abated. Therefore, project implementation would not result in any emissions (i.e., dispersal) of hazardous materials and/or contaminants (e.g., ACM and LBP) from the project site. Response to Comment No. 29 All prior studies related to the site's environmental characteristics are available at the City of Newport Beach (Planning Department) for review. Provision of the studies with the Draft EIR is not needed because issues discussed in the prior studies related to prior approvals and not to the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 30 During the environmental review process, the City of Costa Mesa was contacted and the list of "related" (i.e., cumulative) projects in the City at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed was provided by the City. The Westside Costa Mesa mixed use development projects were not identified by the City and, therefore, were not included in the analysis of cumulative project. Further, the Superior Avenue beautification project, which has been proposed by the City of Newport Beach, includes the integration of landscape medians along portions of Superior Avenue; however, the improvements do not extend north of Dana Road in the vicinity of the project site and, more importantly as it relates to traffic flow and vehicle capacity, no changes to the existing number of travel lanes along Superior Avenue are proposed by the City's beautification project that would adversely affect the capacity of that roadway. Therefore, implementation of the Superior Avenue beautification project improvements will not result in any long -term cumulative impacts to traffic in conjunction with the implementation of the proposed project. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November2007 Page 12 --)3 1 COUNTY OF ORANGE RESOURCE'S & DEVELOPMENT AL4NAGEMENT DEPARTMENT October 19, 2007 Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 PifiJI ING D FAR'. -tri OCT 22 HIP CITY OF NFI C 1 BEACH Letter No. 6 Bryan S7V1 Director 300 N. lower Street Santa Am, CA P.O. Box 4048 Santa Am, CA 92702 -4048 'telephone: (714) 8342300 Fax: (714) 8345188 NCL 07 -032 SUBJECT: DEIR —Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Dear Mr. Murillo: The above mentioned item Is a DEIR for Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment located in the City of Newport Beach. The County of Orange has reviewed the DEIR and offers the following comments regarding Water Quality concerns: WATER QUALITY The DEIR states that the water quality impacts from the project will be less than significant since the project site is currently developed and almost completely Impervious. The proposed project is considered a priority project under the 2003 Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Additionally, the project location is within the sensitive Newport Bay watershed, which has multiple 303(d) listings and Total Maximum Daily Loads assigned. Redevelopment of the scope of proposed project has the potential to cause significant water quality impacts during both the construction and post - construction phase. The EIR should evaluate these potential impacts as follows: The water quality impacts of the project should be evaluated in accordance with the provisions outlined in Exhibit 7 -1 of the 2003 Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). At a minimum, the following information should be provided: a. A description of project characteristics with respect to water quality issues, such as project site location in a given watershed, site acreage, change in percent Impervious surface area, and BMPs to be incorporated into the project design. —) q 2 Jaime Murillo NCL 07 -032 Page 2 b. A review of DAMP Exhibit 7.1 Table 7 -1.1, Priority Projects Categories. This project is considered a Priority Project and will require the development of a Water Quality Management Plan. c. Identification of receiving waters. The EIR should identify all receiving waters that may receive runoff from the project site. d. A description of the sensitivity of the receiving waters. In particular the DEIR should identify Areas of Special Biological Significance, water bodies with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), 303(d) listed impaired water bodies. e. A characterization of the potential water quality impacts from the proposed project and identification of the anticipated pollutants to be generated by the project. f. An identification of hydrologic conditions of concern, such as runoff volume and velocity; reduced infiltration, and increased flow, frequency, duration, and peak of storm runoff. g. An assessment of project impact significance to water quality. h. An evaluation of thresholds of significance. I. If a proposed project has the potential to create a major new stormwater discharge (major land development project that has the potential to convert large amounts of pervious land surface to impervious surface area) to a water body with an established TMDL, the EIR should consider quantitative analysis of the anticipated pollutant loads in the stormwater discharges to the receiving waters. j. A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project together with past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects (related projects) that could produce cumulative impacts with the proposed project. 2. The EIR should describe implementation of post - construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) program in Section 7 and Exhibit 7 -11 of the 2003 Countywide DAMP. This includes describing commitments to installation and maintenance of site design, source control and treatment control BMPs consistent with the DAMP New Development and Significant Redevelopment Program. Under the new Municipal Stormwater NPDES permit and the 2003 DAMP, this project will be considered a priority project and will require appropriately sized treatment control BMPs to be included in the WQMP which should be targeted to address the pollutants of concern and to achieve the highest level of treatment either singly or in combination (see Table 7.2 -6). �5 Jaime Murillo NCL 07 -032 Page 3 13. Mitigation for the construction phase of the project should include compliance with $ the State General Construction Permit and the inclusion of the following as general or specific notes on project plan sheets: a. Sediment from areas disturbed by construction shall be retained on site using structural controls to the maximum extent practicable. b. Stockpiles of soil shall be properly contained to eliminate or reduce sediment transport from the site to the streets, drainage of facilities or adjacent properties via runoff, vehicle tracking, or wind. c. Appropriate BMPs for construction - related materials, wastes, spills or residues shall be implemented to minimize transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities, or adjoining properties by wind or runoff. d. Runoff from equipment and vehicle washing shall be contained at construction sites unless treated to reduce or remove sediment and other pollutants. e. All construction contractor and subcontractor personnel are to be made aware of the required best management practices and good housekeeping measures for the project site and any associated construction staging areas. f. At the end of each day of construction activity all construction debris and waste materials shall be collected and properly disposed in trash or recycle bins. Construction sites shall be maintained in such a condition that a storm does not carry wastes or pollutants off the site. Dischargers other than stormwater (non - stormwater discharges) are authorized under California's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity only where they do not cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard and are controlled through implementation of appropriate BMPs for elimination or reduction of pollutants. Non - stormwater discharges must be eliminated or reduced to the extent feasible. Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, solvents, detergents, glues, lime, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, wood preservatives, and asbestos fibers, paint flakes or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants and hydraulic, radiator or battery fluids; concrete and related cutting or curing residues; floatable wastes, wastes from any engine /equipment steam cleaning or chemical degreasing; wastes from street cleaning; and superchlorinated potable water line flushing and testing. Jaime Murillo NCL 07 -032 Page 4 During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on -site physically separated from potential stormwater runoff, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state and federal requirements. h. Discharging contaminated groundwater produced by dewatering groundwater that has infiltrated into construction site is prohibited. Discharging of contaminated soils via surface erosion is also prohibited. Discharging of non - contaminated groundwater produced by dewatering activities requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. If you have any questions, please contact Sally Hohnbaum at (714) 834 -5907. ff Rbnald L. Tippet"hief Current and Environmental Planning `71 6. Orange County Resources Development & Management Department (October 19, 2007) Response to Comment No. 1 As stated both in the Initial Study (page 22 of Appendix A of the DER) and in the project description (section 3.4 of the DEIR), the proposed project will not involve construction of a substantial amount of new structures. The proposed improvements will occur as modifications to the interiors of the existing structures to accommodate the conversion of the structures to medical office floor area from the existing R &D and general office uses. With the exception of the 20,586 square foot structure proposed to be constructed in the future, no other new development requiring site modification is proposed. It would appear that the commenter may be basing its comments on a misunderstanding regarding the proposed project, assuming that much more new construction /redevelopment exposed to the elements is proposed than is actually involved in the proposed project. The existing, mostly - impervious condition of the site will be largely unchanged with the implementation of the proposed project, with the only addition of any impervious areas being the new 20,586- square -foot building. As per the requirements of the City's Local Implementation Plan (LIP), implementing the County -wide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the proposed project was evaluated against the thresholds of significance found in both the DAMP and LIP. Per that analysis, found in the Initial Study on pages 22 -27 of Appendix A of the DER, the City found that the proposed project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact regarding water quality and hydrology for both the construction and long -term operational phases. In accordance with CEQA regulations, given the conclusions of less than significant water quality and hydrology impacts, no additional analysis of water resource issues of the type suggested by the commenter is required beyond the analysis presented in the Initial Study and summarized in section 5.5 of the DEIR. (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15128.) Response to Comment No. 2 Section A -7 (New Development/Significant Redevelopment) of the City's LIP prescribes several conditions of approval for projects such as the proposed project. As such, the following conditions will be applied by the City to the future development of the proposed 20,586 square foot structure incorporated into the proposed project: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval a Project Water Quality Management Plan (W QMP) that: Discusses regional or watershed programs (if applicable); Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas; - Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP; - Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP; - Generally describes the long -term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs; - Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long -term operation and maintenance of the treatment Control BMPs; and - Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November 2007 Page 13 Prior to grading or building permit closeout and /or the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications; Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non - structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP; Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers; Submit for review and approval by the City an Operations and Maintenance (O &M) Plan for all structural BMPs. As discussed on page 25 of the Initial Study (Appendix A of the DEIR), a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the existing development approved for the Hoag Health Center project site. The WQMP prepared for the subject property will be updated to comply with current and future requirements prescribed by the City's LIP, including the incorporation of elements required by the LIP and as stated in the conditions of approval quoted above and including incorporation of site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by the LIP. The only aspect of the proposed project that will trigger the need to revise the WQMP will be the construction of the new 20,586 square foot building, as all other project aspects will involve remodeling of building interiors. The new building proposed by the proposed project would qualify as a "Priority Project," per the City's LIP, and the future modification of the subject property's WQMP would be revised consistent with the requirements for Priority Projects with respect to the new building. To this end, the revisions to the WQMP will incorporate specific BMPs to address the specific hydrologic and water quality characteristics of the proposed new building ensuring that all BMPs proposed will act in concert to address any potential pollutants of concern or hydrologic conditions of concern identified as part of the WQMP revisions. As required by the City's LIP, the revisions to the WQMP necessitated by the proposed will also account for any downstream sensitive water resources, including any identified impairments and will ensure that selected treatment BMPs for the new building address downstream impairments as required by the LIP. Because the subject property is presently developed, and because implementation of the WQMP revisions required per the City's LIP will involve the implementation of the BMPs (including treatment controls) not presently incorporated into the existing development at the project site, it is expected that surface water quality runoff from the proposed project could improved over the existing conditions. Response to Comment No. 3 Section A -7 (New Development/Significant Redevelopment) of the City's LIP prescribe a condition of approval that will apply to the future development of the proposed 20,586 square foot structure incorporated into the proposed project; the relevant condition of approval that will be imposed by the City follows: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for projects that will result in soil disturbance of one or more acres of land, the applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for City review on requires. As prescribed in Section A -7.5.5 (Plan Check: Issuance of Grading or Building Permit) of the City's LIP, construction activities for the new 20,586 square foot building will comply with the Statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. Compliance with this General Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November 2007 Page 14 �q Permit will require implementation and maintenance of BMPs during the construction phase that meet the technology -based standards of the General Permit and that ensure runoff from the future construction site does not cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards in downstream waterways. Additionally, compliance with the City's LIP will require inclusion in the plan notes, requirements suggested by the commenter (plan note requirements included in the City's LIP are nearly identical those plan notes suggested by the commenter, with only minor non - substantive differences). Through inclusion of the plan notes and adherence to the requirements of the General Permit and conditions of approval discussed above, runoff during the construction phase will not significantly impact water quality (see page 25 of the Initial Study included as Appendix A of the DEIR). Hoag Health Center Responses to Pub& Comments November2007 Page 15 \M 1 2 DEPARTMENT.OF T"NSPORTATION District 12 3337 MiJmisVn of sides 38U Irvin, CA 92612 -8894 Tel: (949) 714 -2241 ' Fax: (949) 724 -2592 October 22, 2,007 Jaime Murillo! City of Newport Bench 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Call£rnmia 92685 Subject: Hoag Health Center FAX & MAIL Letter No. 7 Files IGR/CE A SCK #: 2006 1105 Log* 179 PCH,SR -55 Dear Mr. Murillo, Thank you for the ppportunity to review and comment on dte Draft Enviroul Report (DEIR) add Traffic Impact Analysis for the Hoag Health Centei applicant Newport $each Healthcare Center, is requesting the approval of an am existing use permit to allow the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square fe, medical offices, an4 construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of rued ancillary uses on -silo. The project site is located on 500 -540 Suporior Avenue Newport Beach T6 nearest State routes to the pmject site are PCH and SR -55. Caltrans District -12 Is a responsible agency on this project and we have comments: 1. As shown. in Tale 10 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (pg, 64), the following ix or will be _experjencing LUS' of b or worse. Volume capacity ratio increase b those intersections will be 1% or above (Table 9, pg. 55). Please iden measures for thu' following intersections: • Newport Boulevard at 196 Street — LOS F, V/C Tatio increase 1.2% • Newport Boulevard at 18' Street — LOS F, V/C ratio increase 0.9% ■ . Newport Boulevard at I?* Street — LOS F, V/C ratio increase 2.5% • Wes$ Coast Highway at Superior Avenue — LOS very close E, V/C 1 2. This project is anticipated to adversely impact intersection turning pockets. noted that demands at turning pockets are at or reaching capacities. Plea storage length *adysis for left and rigbt turn pockets at the intorsoction Boulevard and P. CH within the study area, 3. On Page 67, 3 Avenue. Nev Analysis shoi additional; Sy. report states that a Synchro Analysis has been conducted ' Boulevard may also be impacted by the project. There [so be conducted for intersections along Newport Boulevard > files accordingly. -- Poe*Ir" Fax Note 7671 onrecl .tom o-1 IM5 -4 � Jgtl^� MUfiS O crow 1- �cVl�'i 15 rd co.romw. G�' n+ Ff w rl i� cn. {,.,.�j'<ran • D.s'1r1c� i1 phd * 4t f,% 44,1 320" -1 Phan" 141 -?I Li 1.1b 1) Fax C C-.4 LJ ' - L--TCi Fax t g`ii?a �J Flayorvp9nw! Be Ma8v g8tcaanu sntal Impact project. The ldment to the office use to at office and a the City of = ;rsecttons are the project at f r mitigation 3.5% It should be provide the on Newport g Superior a Synchro ase submit I i Please continue to beep us informed of this project and any future developments which could potentially impact & State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questioits or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Marlon Regisfozrl at (949) 724 -2241. 1 Sincerel ' It Ch�berlain, lzaneh Chief LOCaI DevelopmentJ�ntergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, 001re of Planning and Research i "Cdfr baprorea Plobalo,"maa Wifomia b'Z 7. California Department of Transportation (October 22, 2007) Response to Comment No. 1 Table 10 of the traffic study (Appendix C of the DEIR) shows the Delay increase (in seconds) at the study area intersections required by the California Department of Transportation based upon the Notice of Preparation comments for the Hoag Health Center project. Section 6 of the traffic study states that the project will result in a significant impact at a study area intersection if the project generates an increase of one - percent or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D during the morning /evening peak hours. Based upon the City of Newport Beach traffic study guidelines, a significant impact is based upon the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology. Based upon the Intersection Capacity Utilization (volume to capacity ratios) shown in Table 9 of the traffic study, the following Levels of Service are projected at the study area intersections: • Newport Boulevard at 19th Street — Not worse than Level of Service D. • Newport Boulevard at 18th Street — ICU increase greater than 1 %. The project will contribute its fair share toward improvements or alternative mitigation measures determined to be appropriate (providing equal or better effectiveness) by the City of Costa Mesa. • Newport Boulevard at 17th Street — Not worse than Level of Service D. West Coast Highway at Superior Avenue — Not worse than Level of Service D. Response to Comment No. 2 The study area intersections where the project is projected to utilize the left and right turn lanes on a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) facility are analyzed below. The projected average queue has been obtained from the Delay worksheets in Appendix G of the traffic study (Appendix C of the DEIR). Existing + Approved Pro'ects + Cumulative Pro'ects + Project Traffic Conditions Queue (Number of Queue Turning vehicles Der lane ) Length Mornin Evenin Intersection Movement satisfied? Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Northbound Harbor Boulevard (EW) Left 4 12 Yes Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Southbound 17th Street (EW) Right NIA N/A NIA Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Southbound Industrial Way EW ) Ri ht WA N/A N/A Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Northbound Hospital Way EW ) Left 8 11 No Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Southbound West Coast Highway EW ) Leff 8 10 Yes Superior Avenue (NS) at: Eastbound West Coast Highway EW ) Left 13 10 Yes N/A = Not Applicable, right turn lane shared with through lane. Hoag Health Center Responses to Pubtic Comments November2007 Page 16 0 With regard to the Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road intersection, the DEIR identified project impacts to this intersection (refer to page.4.2 -16). The preceding table shows an increase to the impacts for which mitigation would be required. The mitigation measure to be added to the DEIR (see Errata to the DEIR) that addresses queuing is as follows: 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 10 -year bond to lengthen the northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Newport Boulevard/Hospital Way to provide sufficient storage length. The City will be responsible for completing the roadway improvements and the applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs associated with the improvements. With the addition of this MM 4.2 -3 and in light of the analysis presented above, traffic impacts related to queuing at Caltrans facilities, inclusive of the intersection at Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road, will be less than significant. Response to Comment No. 3 As noted in Section 9 of the traffic study (Appendix C of the DEIR), a traffic signal is projected to be warranted at the following study area intersection for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + project traffic conditions: Superior Avenue (NS) at: Project Central Driveway (EW) This traffic signal is a project design feature A Synchro operational analysis has been conducted on the study area intersections along Superior Avenue to address operation of the new traffic signal at the project central driveway (see Appendix I of the traffic study). Based upon the Synchro operational analysis, the study area intersections along Superior Avenue are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for existing (Year 2009) + approved projects + cumulative projects + project traffic conditions. As shown in Table 9 of the traffic study, the project - generated traffic resulted in a significant impact at the intersection of Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street (increase of one - percent or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D during the morning /evening peak hours). As mitigation for the significant cumulative impacts, mitigation measure 4.2 -2 (refer to page 4.2 -23 of the DEIR) states that the project would contribute its fair share toward the following improvements at the Newport Boulevard (NS) /181h Street- Rochester Street (EW) intersection: provide a southbound through /right turn lane. The southbound improvement would require street widening. With the improvements discussed in MM 4.2 -2, the project is projected to not have a significant impact at the study area intersections along Newport Boulevard. It should be noted that with the mitigation measure above, the intersection of Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street is projected to operate within acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours and the Newport Boulevard intersections will not be impacted by the project. Therefore, a Synchro analysis along Newport Boulevard is not required. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November 2007 Page 17 Letter No. 8 October 25, 2007 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CAL(FORNIA 92028 -1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Murillo: The City of Costa Mesa appreciates the positive working relationship with the City of Newport Beach in collectively analyzing development projects that may have interjurisdicctional land use impacts. The City is submitting our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact repot (EIR) for the Hoag Health Center. The proposed project involves the development of medical offices in the Newport Technology Center site located at 500 -W Superior Avenue. Please address the following comments in the Final EIR. 1) Exisfin(z.Raft Volumes. The analysis of Newport Boulevard Intersections in the City of Costa Mesa were conducted using 2004 traffic counts. A growth factor of 1 percent per year was applied to develop 2007 traffic volumes. Recently, the City conducted traffic volume counts at several study intersections along Newport Boulevard. The recent volumes on Newport Boulevard, especially during evening peak period, are higher by 10 to 15 percent compared to 2004 volumes. The new volumes are attached and should be incorporated in the study. It is likely that with the new volumes, the Intersection of Newport Boulevard— Harbor Boulevard as well as other intersections may also be impacted due to the Project, resulting in the need for identification of further mitigations. 2) Proiect Trafflc. While the traffic analysis does not identify any mitigation measures at Newport Bouevard -17th Street Interscetien. the City is concerned with the number of 2 vehicles added to this intersection due to the Project, A total of 333 vehicles are added to the eastbound movements in the evening peak period per Figure 11 of the traffic study. The left -turn storage is limited and is already being exceeded. Other measures to divert this traffic to other parallel streets should be considered. 3) Profectl-ratHc fmnacts. Per Table 9, even with the proposed mitigation, the intersection 3 of Superior Avenuef17th Street is projected to operate at Level of Service E during both peak periods. This is of significant concern as options for additional improvements are limited due to right- of-way constraints. 1 4) Recommended /mnroyements. The City Is concerned about the recommendation for an 4 additional southbound through lane at the Newport Boueivard -18th Street intersection. In addition, with the new traffic volumes, there may be a need for similar improvement at BuldhV Diwltm (714) 7545275 • Code Enl4r4ernent (714) 7444428 • Plannht00iVIGIM (714) 754.52!5 FAX (714) 754sSN • TO0 (714) 74452" . w GLC4¢a` w.w.ua f� Mr.MuriNo October 25, 2007 Page 2 the Newport Boulevard- Harbor Boulevard Intersection. The City requires that the applicant Initiate the process for this Improvement with involved agencies (State of California Department of Transportation and Costa Mesa). 5) Improvements along 17th Streaft. The City Is also concerned about 17th Street between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. The recommended improvement does not address the lack of storage in the eastbound direction for the significant addition in trips due to the Project, In order to address this high demand for access to Newport rJ Boulevard from northbound Superior Avenue, the City requires that the applicant consider improvements to Industrial Way to the north of the site. These include full improvements to the street between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard, and addition of signage along Superior Avenue directing traffic to use Industrial Way to reach Newport Boulevard. 6) Feasibility of Newport/f8th St Mftioation Messure, The EIR indicates that suggested mitigation at Newport Blvd. and 18 Street not of feasible because the City "does not have a mechanism for accepting the fair share fee program" (page 4.2 -24 of EIR]. The City believes that this not adequate justification to render a mitigation measure infeasible_ In fact, if the applicant provides for 100% the cost of the improvement and adequate right -of -way is acquired, the Newport/18" Street mitigation measure could be Implemented. The EIR would need to evaluate the following: • Identification of the project's share toward the circulation improvement; • Assessment of the required right- of-way to Implement the improvement; • Discussion of any necessary coordination with the City and Caltrans regarding implementation of the improvement; • Imposition of a condition of approval requiring the developer to provide for 100% of the cost of the Improvement. The proposed expansion of the Hoag Health Center needs to include traffic mitigation measures which are correctly Identified and implemented. Consideration of these comments would help minimize the project's traffic impacts in both the Cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. Thank you for addressing these comments. If you have any questions /comments regarding this letter, please contact Claire Flynn, Principal Planner, at (714) 754 -5278. nce ly, DON L JgW_"' Deputy City Mgr., Development Svs. Director Cc: Peter Naghavi, Transportation Manager Rata Sethuraman, Associate Engineer Claire Flynn, Principal Planner 1� �0 2007 TMC VOLUMES SBL BBT SSR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR ESL EBT _. ERR SSA ,° ���� SSSSS #SS�SS�SSSSSS�SSS�SSS�SSS� �S�iFiiS�Jf�S� ®��:E' ' mil-`• t��I�O�'' SI{l �SSS��SSSSSS�SSSSSS�SS�SSSSSS�SSSSSSS�SSSS� S� © ©oS�S�S�S�S�S�aS�o ■� S�S�S�S�S�aS��S�S�S�S� ©� �■����S�rs�S�S�S� S�S� ©o■S�dS�S���oS��s�a rm�ir�o�0��a■��fa��a�� m .. .:... S�S�S�S�■�a��rS�S�S�s�S� S�S�z��iaS� ®mom- x�s��s�s��■� ©� !S�oS�■S�oS��S�S� ®S�S�� ®�aar�� 8. City of Costa Mesa (October 25, 2007) Response to Comment No. 1 Appendix B of the traffic study (Appendix C of the DEIR) includes the traffic count worksheets of Newport Boulevard intersections in the City of Costa Mesa. Traffic counts for the Newport Boulevard intersections were not taken from 2004, as stated by the commenter; rather, Newport Boulevard intersection traffic counts in the City of Costa Mesa were conducted in March 2007: Newport Boulevard (NS) at: 19th Street (EW) — 3/14/2007 Broadway (EW) — 3/14/2007 Harbor Boulevard (EW) — 3/14/2007 18th Street/Rochester Street (EW) — 3/14/2007 17th Street (EW) — 3/14/2007 16th Street (EW) — 3/14/2007 Industrial Way (EW) — 3/14/2007 Traffic counts suggested for use by the commenter appear on an undated table without attribution or other information regarding the authenticity of the figures. Traffic counts utilized as a basis for analysis in the DEIR were taken from the most recent available data (March 14, 2007) at the time of the Notice of Preparation (March 26, 2007). Use of the March 2007 data is consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) which discusses establishing the existing conditions for use in the EIR as of the date of the Notice of Preparation. Given the consistency of the traffic analysis with CEQA regulations and the lack of detailed information regarding the figures discussed by the commenter, use of the March 2007 traffic counts was justified in the DEIR traffic analysis and no additional analysis is required. Response to Comment No. 2 As shown on Exhibit 4.2 -5 of the DEIR, the traffic analysis assigned 35% of the project traffic on Superior Avenue to 17th Street based upon a City of Costa Mesa comment on an earlier draft of the traffic study. (A prior draft (dated July 31, 2007) of the traffic study had assigned 15% of the project traffic on Superior Avenue to 17th Street.) Assignment of 35% of project traffic to 17th Street resulted in a total of 333 vehicles added to the eastbound movements in the evening peak hour. Considering all traffic at the Newport Boulevard/17th Street intersection (project - related and non - project related traffic), and considering the assignment of 35% of project traffic to 17th Street, the Levels of Service during the peak hours at the Newport Boulevard/17th Street intersection was projected to be acceptable and the traffic impacts at the Newport Boulevard/17th Street intersection were concluded to be less than significant with implementation of the proposed project (inclusive of mitigation). (DEIR pages 4.2- 16 -17.) Although the traffic analysis in the DEIR has concluded that there would be no significant impacts at the Newport Boulevard /17th Street intersection, and thus no mitigation for that intersection is required, there is an opportunity to encourage traffic away from the Newport Boulevard/17th Street intersection and onto Industrial Way, where traffic volumes are much lower than at the Newport Boulevard/17th Street intersection. The following project design feature is to be made part of the proposed project, with the consent of the City of Costa Mesa: An existing sign on northbound Superior Avenue (south of Industrial Way) currently routes traffic to the 1- 405/SR -55 Freeways via northbound Superior Avenue to 17th Street. This sign will be replaced with a sign that routes traffic to the 1- 405/SR -55 Freeways via either northbound Superior Avenue to 17th Street or eastbound Industrial Way to Newport Boulevard. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November2007 Page 18 E 0► Implementation of the signage alerting drivers to the Industrial Way alternative of reaching the 1- 405 /SR- 55 Freeways will not create any significant impacts. An earlier version of the traffic study (July 31, 2007) assigned 15 %, of the project traffic on Superior Avenue to 17th Street. This resulted in a total of only 143 vehicles added to the eastbound movements in the evening peak hour (reduction of 190 vehicles). The remaining 20% was assigned to Industrial Way between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. Assuming the traffic reductions along 17th Street and commensurate increases in traffic on other parallel streets (in comparison to the final traffic study analysis included with the DEIR), additional traffic from the proposed project as well as other approved projects and cumulative projects (and considering existing conditions on other streets), would have a less than significant impact as other intersections were predicted to operate within acceptable levels of service during the peak hours. These other Intersections would include Superior Avenue (NS) at 16th Street/Industrial Way (EW) anti Newport Boulevard (NS) at Industrial Way (EW). Thus, including the additional signage encouraging traffic to utilize Industrial Way would not have any significant adverse impacts. Response to Comment No. 3 As shown in Table 9 of the traffic study (see also page 4.2 -19 of the DEIR, the intersection of Superior Avenue /17th Street is projected to operate at the following Levels of Service during the peak hours without and with the project: As shown in Section 6 of the traffic study and on pages 4.2 -15 -19 of the DEIR, the project - generated traffic resulted in a significant impact at the intersection of Superior Avenue /17th Street (increase of one - percent or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D during the morning /evening peak hours); therefore, the mitigation for project impacts at Superior Avenue/l7th Street was included in the DEIR. Mitigation measure 4.2 -1 (on page 4.2 -23 of the DEIR) states: Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project applicant shall be required to restripe to provide a westbound left turn lane, shared left/through lane, through lane, and right turn lane. This improvement would require modification to the traffic signal phasing and interconnect with the Newport Boulevard/l7th Street intersection. As stated on page 4.2 -19, with the proposed mitigation, the LOS at the Superior Avenue /17th Street intersection would be less with the proposed project (with mitigation) than without the proposed project, and project impacts with mitigation are considered less than significant. By improving the LOS at the Superior Avenue /17th Street intersection, the proposed project is providing a benefit to the City of Costa Mesa, although the proposed project's mitigation will not alleviate all of the congestion at this intersection. Response to Comment No. 4 As concluded in the DEIR, proposed project traffic impacts at Newport Boulevard/Harbor Boulevard are less than significant and levels of service will remain at acceptable levels (see DEIR pages 4.2 -15 and 4.2 -16). The mitigation proposed (MM 4.2 -2) for Newport Boulevard /181h Street - Rochester Street was deemed legally infeasible due to the lack of an established program to accept fair share fees for the proposed improvements at that intersection (refer to page 4.2 -24 of the DEIR). Thus, there is no assumption in the DEIR that MM 4.2 -2 would be implemented. Therefore, there was no need to assess in Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November2007 Page 19 Q6 1 Morning Evening Peak Peak Descriptor Hour Hour Existing + Approved Pro'ects + Cumulative Pro'ects F E Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project F E As shown in Section 6 of the traffic study and on pages 4.2 -15 -19 of the DEIR, the project - generated traffic resulted in a significant impact at the intersection of Superior Avenue /17th Street (increase of one - percent or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D during the morning /evening peak hours); therefore, the mitigation for project impacts at Superior Avenue/l7th Street was included in the DEIR. Mitigation measure 4.2 -1 (on page 4.2 -23 of the DEIR) states: Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project applicant shall be required to restripe to provide a westbound left turn lane, shared left/through lane, through lane, and right turn lane. This improvement would require modification to the traffic signal phasing and interconnect with the Newport Boulevard/l7th Street intersection. As stated on page 4.2 -19, with the proposed mitigation, the LOS at the Superior Avenue /17th Street intersection would be less with the proposed project (with mitigation) than without the proposed project, and project impacts with mitigation are considered less than significant. By improving the LOS at the Superior Avenue /17th Street intersection, the proposed project is providing a benefit to the City of Costa Mesa, although the proposed project's mitigation will not alleviate all of the congestion at this intersection. Response to Comment No. 4 As concluded in the DEIR, proposed project traffic impacts at Newport Boulevard/Harbor Boulevard are less than significant and levels of service will remain at acceptable levels (see DEIR pages 4.2 -15 and 4.2 -16). The mitigation proposed (MM 4.2 -2) for Newport Boulevard /181h Street - Rochester Street was deemed legally infeasible due to the lack of an established program to accept fair share fees for the proposed improvements at that intersection (refer to page 4.2 -24 of the DEIR). Thus, there is no assumption in the DEIR that MM 4.2 -2 would be implemented. Therefore, there was no need to assess in Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November2007 Page 19 Q6 1 the DEIR any impacts of implementation of MM 4.2 -2 on the Newport Boulevard /Harbor Boulevard intersection as suggested by the commenter. Response to Comment No. 5 This comment is acknowledged. Please refer to City of Costa Mesa Response to Comment 2. Response to Comment No. 6 The City of Costa Mesa has requested that the City of Newport Beach include a mitigation measure requiring the project applicant to pay 100 %, of the cost the improvements and right -of -way acquisition to implement mitigation at Newport Blvd. and 181h Street- Rochester Street (i.e. adding a southbound through/right turn lane) rather than the proposed mitigation (MM 4.2 -2 on DEIR page 4.2 -23). Because the project has a cumulative impact on the Intersection, the City of Newport Beach could require the project applicant to pay a proportionate share of the improvement costs tied to the mitigation of the identified impact. However, a mitigation measure that would require the project applicant to construct the improvement or pay 100% of the cost to construct the improvement and acquire the right -of -way is not supported by applicable regulation, case law or Costa Mesa's own establish fair share traffic fee mitigation program. (See, Costa Mesa Municipal Code §13 -275; and Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't V. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors 91 Cal. App. 4" 342, 364 (2001).) Here, the City of Costa Mesa's fair share fee program only allows for the collection of fair share fees if a project has been identified as being part of its fair share fee program. The improvements and right -of -way acquisition proposed as a mitigation measure for this project have not been identified as part of the City of Costa Mesa's fair share fee program. Therefore, it is infeasible to require the payment of the proportionate share of mitigation fees to the City of Costa Mesa because Costa Mesa does not have an enforceable mitigation program that is tied to mitigation of the identified impact. Given that the only appropriate mitigation for the subject intersection is payment of a fair share fee —not the construction or financing of the entire improvement —the acquisition of right of way for the suggested intersection improvement would be accomplished by the City of Costa Mesa or other government agency (e.g., Caltrans) constructing the improvement —not by the project applicant. Furthermore, any coordination between government agencies related to the suggested intersection improvement is outside the purview of private entities such as the project applicant. Additionally, the determination of the amount of proposed project's fair share obligation toward the circulation improvement can only be accomplished by the City of Costa Mesa, pursuant to the program it has established for determining fair share fees. In light of the above discussions, the justification provided on page 4.2 -24 of the DEIR as to why the proposed fair share fee mitigation proposed for the Newport Boulevard118" Street - Rochester Street intersection is not legally feasible, is adequate. The additional analyses requested by the commenter are not warranted and would not yield legally defensible mitigation for the proposed project's cumulative impacts at the subject intersection. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November 2007 Page 20 j,T South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4178 s (909) 39&2000 • www.agmd.Sov FAXED.- OCTOBER 26.2007 October 26, 2007 Mr. Jaime Murillo City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Letter No. 9 Dear Mr. Murillo: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment (September 2007) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above - mentioned document, and thanks the lead agency for allowing additional time for submitting comments. The following comments are meant as guidance for the lead agency and should be incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact Report. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The SCAQMD would be available to work with the Lead Agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Charles Blankson, Ph.D., Air Quality Specialist— CEQA Section, at (909) 396 -3304 if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely s Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment SS: CB ORC07 911 -01 Control Number a� LI 2 Mr. Jaime Murillo -1- October 26, 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment 1. Overational Emission The lead agency states on pages 4.3 -15 and 43 -16 of the DEIR that although operational emissions would be significant for carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM10), the proposed project is not expected or likely to "significantly deteriorate regional air quality or contribute to significant health risk, ... or 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..." Not only does the SCAQMD disagree with this type of post hoc rationalization, it is internally inconsistent with the discussion of cumulative air quality impacts in Section 9.3.5 of the Draft EIR. In Section 9.3.5 the lead agency states that because the incremental operational emissions exceed the significance thresholds they will be significant on a cumulative basis. The SCAQMD, therefore, recommends that the inconsistent statement on page 4.3 -16 be deleted. 2. Mitfeating- Oporatiotra})Smisslons: The lead agency states on page 4.3 -23 of the DEIR that there are no feasible measures that would reduce the significant operational emissions impacts to a less than significant level. Because of the magnitude of the significant adverse emissions from the proposed project's operations, the lead agency should consider the following measures, in addition to those listed on page 34 of Appendix D: • The health center should initiate a program to convert its fleet of vehicles, either for patient delivery or deliveries of supplies and materials, to alternative- fueled vehicles or lowest emitting vehicles in that vehicle class. • Install light - colored roofing materials to deflect heat and conserve energy. • Install solar panels on roofs to supply electricity for air- conditioning. • Install high energy - efficient appliances such as refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. • Install automatic lighting occupant sensors on/off controls. For additiong mitigation measures for the lead agency's consideration, refer to the following URL: htto• /1w N agmd gov /ceoa/handboek/miti2stion/MM intr011ml VIZ 3 Mr. Jaime Murillo -2- October 26, 2007 3. Health Risk. Assessment The 14RA for the diesel emergency backup generator is based on Rule 1470 requirements, using an emission factor of 0.01 gm/hp -hr and 12 hours of testing per year. These parameters are applicable if there is a school within 500 feet of the engine. If there are no schools within 500 feet, Rule 1470 allows the use of emergency backup generators with an emission rate of 0.15 gm/hp -hr and allows 50 hours of testing per year. If there are no schools within 500 feet of the engine, use of the more stringent parameters, is more health protective and should be required by the lead agency when submitting permit applications for the emergency backup engines to the SCAQMD, since these parameters are included as part ofthe project description. The engine parameters presented in the Air Quality Analysis include a stack diameter of 0.82 meter and a stack exit velocity of 45.4 meters per second. These stack parameters are not typical for the size of engine analyzed (800 bhp). For an 800 bhp engine the stack diameter is expected to be about 0.3 meter and the stack velocity is expected to be eight meters per second. The stack parameters used by the lead agency result in an overly optimistic health risk result. The SCAQMD requests that the HRA be revised to include the more typical stack width and exhaust velocity parameters or provide the manufactures engine specification sheet verifying the engine parameters used in the BRA in the Draft EIR. A site map identifying the sensitive receptor was not included in the Draft EIR. Please include a site map identifying sensitive receptors in the Final EIR. 9. South Coast Air Quality Management District (October 26, 2007) Response to Comment No. i The statements made on pages 4.3 -15 and 4.3.16 are intended to describe, in a qualitative manner, the fact that even though emissions from a project may exceed the air district thresholds for the entire region, the effect of those emissions on the health of individuals living near the project is likely to be less than significant, due to the dispersed nature of the emission sources and other factors that affect the distribution of pollutants in air. However, because the statements of concern to the commenter do not affect the overall air quality conclusions reached in the DEIR, the statement of concern to the commenter has been deleted, to wit, the paragraph below Table 43 -6 on page 4.3 -16 will be deleted in its entirety. Response to Comment No. 2 The operational emissions are more than 98% mobile source emissions, which are principally privately owned motor vehicles. The project is expected to generate 17,500 daily vehicle trips. Implementation of the additional measures suggested by the commenter would not reduce the proposed project's air quality impacts to below a level of significance. Thus, proposed project impacts would remain significant and unavoidable as concluded on page 4.3 -23 of the DEIR. Only one of the measures suggested by the commenter relates to mobile sources —the recommendation for the project applicant to convert its fleet vehicles to alternative -fuels or low emission vehicles. The project applicant does not own or operate a fleet of vehicles servicing the proposed project and thus has no fleet to which the commenter's suggestion would apply. The shuttle vehicles to be used at the proposed project are not controlled by the project applicant, and thus, the project applicant has no ability to mandate the fuel type or emissions efficiency of those vehicles. With.regard to the commenter's other suggested measures related to non - mobile sources and site design/energy efficiency: The buildings at the project site are already constructed and have light colored roofing. These existing buildings are not proposed to be modified on the exterior as part of the proposed project. The additional building to be constructed as part of the proposed project would have roofing similar to the existing buildings in keeping with the common design elements of the site. Because the buildings at the project site are already built with electrical infrastructure already in place, removal of the existing electrical systems and replacement with alternative solar systems suggested by the commenter are not feasible economically or reasonable technically. The automatic lighting suggested by the commenter is already incorporated into the existing buildings and would be included in the interior remodeling and new construction involved in implementation of the proposed project. Energy efficient appliances are already incorporated into the existing buildings and would continue to be utilized as the remodeling and new construction of the proposed project takes place. Response to Comment No. 3 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. Consistent with the recommendations of the commenter, 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 requested by SCAQMD have also been implemented. The resulting values are a Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November2007 Page 21 A 4 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. The Revised Screening Level Health Risk Assessment has been attached with these responses. To reflect the new health risk analysis included as part of this response, Table 43-8 on page 4.3 -19 of the DEIR is revised as reflected below. Table 4.3 -8 Screening Level Health Risk Assessment for Generator Exhaust Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Additionally, a map showing the sensitive receptors near the project site (as requested by the commenter) will be included in the DEIR Errata. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November2007 Page 22 " 1� Cancer Risk No. in 1,000,000 Chronic Risk HI Nearest Residence 2.3 0.0015 Threshold 10 1 Significant Impact? No No SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. November 2007 Additionally, a map showing the sensitive receptors near the project site (as requested by the commenter) will be included in the DEIR Errata. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November2007 Page 22 " 1� Liter No. 10 Murillo, Jaime From: Don Krotee [dkrotee@krotee.com] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:58 AM To: Wood, Sharon; Murillo, Jaime Subject: Hoag in Tech Center- CEQA comment Jaime: Our HOA has some questions and concerns about the traffic produced by an R & D property being purchased and used by a considerably more intense use, Med Office. We know that Hoag has put efforts into the delicate balance of the old R &D parking (and assuredly the increased ADT for the R &D vs. the new and more intense Med. Center) but, we would like to agree that it's enough. To do this we understand that the user struck at least a portion of this balance by the tearing down of a building as I recall. I'd like to see a PDF of the latest site plan, the most recent parking tabulation and the traffic report(s) manifesting this balance. If they are inseparable from the Environmental document please direct me to where they are available on line. I am very appreciative. In this same regard, if I have addressed this to the wrong staff planner, please forward. The City should accept this as both a general and specific comment in regard the the traffic, noise and air quality mitigations associated with the CEQA document and include this with other such comments. Further, where there is noticed public hearings, please contact our organization as a concerned and affected community. Don Krotee Newport Heights Improvement Association www. newportheights.org don@newportheig hts. M 11/09/2007 hL 10. Don Krotee /Newport Heights Improvement Association (September 20, 2007) Response to Comment No. 1 Although this comment makes reference to "... the traffic, noise, and air quality mitigations associated with the CEQA document ... ", no specific comments are provided. City staff responded to the commenter on September 20, 2007. That response provided information on the project requested by the commenter and advised the commenter that the Draft EIR was available for public review at the City's libraries and in the Planning Department. The City's response to Mr. Krotee's inquiry is attached. No further response is necessary. Hoag Health Center Responses to Public Comments November 2007 Pege 23 �, Page 1 of 2 Murillo, Jaime From: Murillo, Jaime Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:02 PM To: 'Don Krotee' Cc: Wood, Sharon; 'Keeton Kreitzer' Subject: RE: Hoag in Tech Center- CEQA comment Don, Thank you for your comments in regards to the Hoag Health Center project and Draft EIR. Your community association will be added to the public hearing mailing list for the project. You are correct, Use Permit No. 2006 -010 approved in Dec. 06 authorized the demolition of an 86,079 square - foot office/R &D building on the northeasterly portion of the site and construction of a new parking structure in its place. Additionally, that Use Permit authorized 97,000 square feet of medical office use on -site. Staff is currently processing Hoag's request to amend Use Permit No. 2006 -010 authorizing the conversion of the remaining 232,414 sq. ft. of general office and R& D floor area, of the existing 329,414 sq. ft. of existing floor area (after demolition), to medical office use. Additionally, construction of an additional 20,586 sq. ft of medical office space on -site is proposed, for a total of 350,000 sq. ft. of medical gross floor area on -site, consistent with the General Plan precise development limitation for the site. The Draft EIR has been prepared for the project and is available for public review at the City's libraries or here at City Hall within the Planning Department. Additionally, a copy of the document has been posted on the City's website at the following link: hftp: / /www6. city. newport- l>each.ca.us/GISDownloads- 100104 /Downloads/Plann ingMoag Please refer to page 3 -14 of the document for the latest site plan for the project. Please refer to page 4.2 -1 of the document for a detailed analysis of Traffic and Circulation, and Appendix C of the document to review the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project. Please refer to page 4.2 -22 of the document for a discussion on parking. A total of 1,985 parking spaces are proposed as follows: Surface Spaces 427 Existing Structure Spaces 861 Proposed Structure Spaces 697 Total 1,985 parking spaces Please send any further comments on the Draft EIR to my attention at: Planning Department, 3300 Newport Blvd.,Newport Beach, CA 92658. Comments will be accepted until October 25, 2007. A Planning Commission hearing is anticipated on Nov. 8, 2007. Thanks, Jaime Jaime Murillo Associate Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3209 (949) 644 -3229 Fax j murillo@city.newport- beach.ca.us 11/09/2007 %11 EXHIBIT 5 Errata �4 � ub 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 Page 14 (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 Boulevardl18th 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/le Street - Rochester Street intersection will remain significant and unavoidable and will also necessitate the adoption of a statement of overriding consideration." 3. 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 left/through lane, through lane, and right turn lane at the Superior Avenue/11" Street intersection. This improvement would require modification to the traffic signal phasing and interconnect with the Newport Boulevardllr Street intersection. The applicant shall work in conjunction with the City of Costa Mesa to complete this improvement." 4. 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 Boulevard1le 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)." Errata — Draft EIR Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project November 2007 Page t 1 bI 5. 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 10 -year bond to lengthen the northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Newport Boulevard /Hospital Way to provide sufficient storage length. The City will be responsible for completing the roadway improvements and the applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs, expenses and fees associated in any way with these improvements. Level of Significance After Mitigation Column: Less than Significant 6. 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)." 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 le Street Bridge over the Santa Ana River from the MPAH.° 8. 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. As a result, it is Errata — Draft EIR Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project November2007 Page 2 ►DZ anticipated that the potential reduction of those personal vehicle trips would have the effect of further reducing potential traffic, noise and air quality impacts. As a result, this change in the shuttle proposed by the applicant would not result in any potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. As a result of this change, 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." 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 left/through lane, through lane, and right turn lane at the Superior Avenue/17th 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. 10. 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 /18th 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). Errata — Draft E!R Hoag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project November 2007 Page 3 I o3 11. Page 4.2 -23 (Traffic and Circulation) Add the following impact and mitigation measure in Section 4.2.5 (Mitigation Measures). Impact 4.2 -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 10 -year bond to lengthen the northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Newport Boulevard /Hospital Way to provide sufficient storage length. The City will be responsible for completing the roadway improvements and the applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs, expenses and fees associated in any way with these improvements. 12. 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." 13. 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 area 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." Errata — Draft EIR Haag Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project November 2007 Page 4 1 D� 14. 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 The Revised Screening Level Health Risk Assessment portion of the Air Quality Analysis has been attached with this Errata. 15, 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 reduce the potentially significant mobile- source missions to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project - related CO, ROC, NO., and PM1a emissions will be unavoidable and significant." Errata — Draft E!R Hoeg Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project November 2007 Page 5 lUs Cancer Risk No. in 1,400;040 Chronic Risk HI Nearest Residence 2.3 0.0015 Threshold 10 1 Significant Impact? No No SOURCE: LSA Associates Inc. November 2007 The Revised Screening Level Health Risk Assessment portion of the Air Quality Analysis has been attached with this Errata. 15, 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 reduce the potentially significant mobile- source missions to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project - related CO, ROC, NO., and PM1a emissions will be unavoidable and significant." Errata — Draft E!R Hoeg Health Center Use Permit Amendment Project November 2007 Page 5 lUs � � _,�* -`, +r�,.�• /CJs/ ���. vo sw � � �'` � ' 1 ° J AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS HOAC HEALTH CENTER L S A November 2007 Iv► 1Df� LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS NOVEMBER 2007 HOAG 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 I 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 URBEMIS model output. Table K: Summary of Operational Localized Significance Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Note: PM2s is calculated from PM10 by assuming that they are the same for the area sources; for the mobile sources, however, the fraction Of PM10 that is PM25 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 1, 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: W 000701 WrAm .08/07/07» I aq Emission 12ates lbs /da CO NOx PMIQ PM25 Proposed Project 23 5.0 2.8 0.54 Localized Significance Threshold 964 345 4 2 Exceed Significance? No No No No Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2007. Note: PM2s is calculated from PM10 by assuming that they are the same for the area sources; for the mobile sources, however, the fraction Of PM10 that is PM25 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 1, 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: W 000701 WrAm .08/07/07» I aq LEA ASSOCIATES, INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS NOVEMBER 2001 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. 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 Associate& 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 P.\KKC0701w;r.dm «08/07/07» III Cancer Risk (# in 1,000,000 Chronic Risk H Nearest Residence 2.3 0.0015 Threshold 10 1 Significant Im act? No No Source: LSA Associate& 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 P.\KKC0701w;r.dm «08/07/07» III LEA ASSOCIATES, INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS NOVEMBER SOOT HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA Screening Health Risk Assessment of Diesel Exhaust 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 [PAHs], 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! 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 SCREEN3 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 PM10 emission rate. Table A: Emergency Generator Averaged Emission Rate Emission Operating I Operating Average PMIO Factor Generator days per 1 hours per Emission Rate (gm/hp-hr Rated HP year da da 0.15 800 52 0.5 8.5 Source: LSA 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. 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. P'\KKC0701Wir.dm 48/07/07. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOVEMBER 2007 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS HOAG HEALTH CENTER 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 guidances. 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 I lrhan/Rural Ontion = Urban Following OEHHA methodology and using the following equation: Inhalation Cancer Risk = ((Cair * DBR * A * EF * ES * I xl0-6) / AT * Inhalation Cancer Potency Factor Where: Cair Concentration of PM, in air DBR 303 Daily breathing rate (L/kg -day) A I Inhalation absorption factor EF 350 Exposure frequency (days /yr) ED 70 Exposure duration (years) AT 25,550 Avg. time period of exposure (days) Diesel PMIO 1.1 Inhalation cancer potency factor (mg/kg -d)" Diesel PMIO 5.0 Inhalation chronic REL (µ911111) Source: OEHHA Guidelines, August 2003. 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. s Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel - Fueled Engines and Vehicles, Appendix VII, ARB, October 2000. PAKICCO701 Air.doc x06/07/07» LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS NOVEMBER 3001 HOAG HEALTH CENTER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Table C: SCREENS Modeling Results & HRA Results Dist m PM'0 Concentrations 1 -Hr Annual m' itgtm3 Inhalation Cancer Risk # in 11000,000 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:UCICC070IWir.dm OW7/07n 03 1 �� EXHIBIT 6 Draft Resolution of Certification 115 Il( RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH. NO. 2006101105) FOR HOAG HEALTH CENTER LOCATED AT 500 -540 SUPERIOR AVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO, APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, an application was filed by Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC requesting approval of an amendment to Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2007 -002, 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: 1) allow the full conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet of general office and R &D floor area of the existing 329,414 square feet of floor area to medical office use; and (2) authorize the future construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space on -site, for a total of 350,000 gross square feet of medical office floor area. Additionally, the applicant requests approval of a traffic study pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO); and WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.) that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "); and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2007, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR; mailed that NOP to public agencies, organizations, and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR "), which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from, and on September 11, 2007, circulated the DEIR for public and agency comments; and WHEREAS, the public comment period closed on October 25, 2007; and WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQN); and WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments received on the draft EIR, has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on September 22, 2006 distributed the responses in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21092.5; and I) -) Planning Commission Resolution No. 1705 Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California, did on the 15`" day of November, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations and adopt statement of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information and the comments pertaining to the DEIR and FEIR at duly noticed meetings held on the 15th day of October, 2007; and WHEREAS, a combined Final Environmental Impact Report (collectively, "FEIR ") for the Project was presented to the Planning Commission, as the decision making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the FEIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, prior to action on this Project, the Planning Commission has considered all significant impacts and Project alternatives identified in the FEIR and has found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require, where the decision of the Planning Commission allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the EIR, but are not mitigated, the Planning Commission must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and /or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations of the City of Newport Beach. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and /1g Planning Commission Resolution No. 1705 Page 3 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission certifies that the FEIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2. CEQA Findinq and Statement of Facts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the Planning Commission has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the Planning Commission has reviewed and hereby makes the Statement of Overriding Considerations to adverse environmental impacts, attached also as Exhibit "B" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Mitigation Monitorinq and Reportinq Program. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15097, the Planning Commission has reviewed and hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program" which is included as Exhibit "C ", which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTIONS. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). SECTION 6. Notice of Determination. The Planning Director shall cause the filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the state Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 7. Certification, Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, and the Secretary to the Planning Commission shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed. 1)y Planning Commission Resolution No. 1705 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November 2007. M AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Robert Hawkins, Chairman BY: Bradley Hilgren, Secretary /ao EXHIBIT A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HOAG HEALTH CENTER PROJECT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2006101105 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs., Section 15091 require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2: Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be, adopted by such other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subsection (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fad November2007 Page 1 12,1 (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: (a) CEQA requires the decision- making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the speck economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable ". (b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, reviewed.and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Hoag Health Center Project, SCH No. 2005101105, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Newport Beach (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for current discretionary action to be undertaken by the City for the implementation of the Hoag Health Center Project, which includes the approval of the Use Permit Amendment and Traffic Study by the City of Newport Beach. These actions and the approval of the proposed medical office development are collectively referred to herein as the Project. A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: (1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. (2) Section 2 provides a summary of the Project and overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the Project, and a statement of the Projects objectives. (3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the Project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the Project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the Project. (4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding those environmental impacts which were determined as a result of the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period either not to be relevant to the Project or which were determined to clearly not manifest at levels which were deemed to be significant for consideration at the Project - specific level. Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November 2007 Page 2 JZZ (5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the FOR which the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of standard conditions, and /or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to standard conditions, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. Section 5 also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the FOR which will or which may result from the Project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level. (6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed Project. (7) Section 7 reflects the General Findings related to the preparation of and conclusions related to the environmental effects and mitigation measures presented in the Draft and Final documents. B. Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials, which constitute the administrative record for the Citys actions related to the Project, are located at the City Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92658. The City of Newport Beach is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project. 2. PROJECT SUMMARY A. Project Location The subject property, which encompasses approximately 13.7 acres located at 500 — 540 Superior Avenue in the City of Newport Beach (the "Property *). The Property is bounded by Superior Avenue on the northwest and by Dana Road on the southwest; Newport Boulevard abuts the Property on the east and southeast. The City of Newport Beach Corporate Yard is located along the northeastern Property boundary; the Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Center is located southeast of the site. Multiple - family residential development and the Flagship Medical Care Center are located southwest of the Property and the Harbor Homes Trailer Park and Superior Medical Center are located to the northwest, across Superior Avenue. B. Project Description Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is requesting the approval of: (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet general office and research and development (R &D) floor area, of the existing 329,414 square feet of existing floor area, to medical office use within the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zoning district; and (2) the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space on -site, for a total of 350,000 square feet of gross floor area. The total new medical office floor area requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the 13.7 -acre site as Commercial Medical Office and the precise development limitation of 350,000 square feet of floor area. This land use designation is intended to provide primarily medical - related uses. Additionally, approval of a traffic study is being requested pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). As indicated above, a total of 1,985 parking spaces are provided to accommodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,558 spaces in two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on -site parking requirement of 1,750 spaces prescribed by the City's parking code. The detailed project description is contained within Chapter 3.0 of the Draft EIR. Hoag HeaRh Center Project Findings of Fact Abvember2007 Page 3 1z3 C. Discretionary Actions Project approval will necessitate an amendment to the existing Use Permit (UP2006 -010) to allow the development as proposed by the Project applicant and the approval of a traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. . D. Statement of Project Objectives A number of Project- specific objectives have been formulated for the Project. These objectives include, but are not limited to, the following: • To provide 350,000 square feet of medical office space that can be utilized to meet the growing demand for outpatient health care services, including imaging, urgent care, rehabilitation and health care education programs. • To provide the highest quality health care available. • To support Hoag Hospital's delivery of patient centered care for those hospitalized as an inpatient and by providing additional outpatient care and services. • To recognize that as Orange County's population ages, and expands, so grows the need for increased health care services. • To have medical office space conveniently located near the hospital, and supported by imaging, rehabilitation and educational programs allowing the hospital to attract new physicians to the community. • To provide the much - needed space for physician offices. There is in great need for primary care and specialty physicians. It is Hoag's objective to provide the space for them to practice. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The environmental review process for the Hoag Health Center Project is summarized as follows: In accordance with CEQA requirements, the City prepared an Initial Study and published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 26, 2007. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse (SCH) Number 2006101105 for the document. The NOP and Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on March 23, 2007 for a 30 -day public review. The review period ended on April 24, 2007. The Initial Study and Notice of Preparation were included in the Draft EIR as Appendix A. Comments received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix B of the DEIR. In accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on September 10, 2007. The Draft EIR consisted of a single volume, including technical appendices. Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact Abvember2007 Page 4 )�_>V • The Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City of Newport Beach. A forty -five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to CEQA, which commenced on September 11, 2007 and ended on October 25, 2007. • Comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were addressed in a Response to Comments document dated November 2007, which was published by the City on November 5, 2007, as Appendix G to the Final EIR for the Hoag Health Center Project, SCH No. 2006101105. • The Final EIR (Responses to Public Comments) was distributed to responsible agencies, agencies and individuals submitting comments on November 5, 2007. • The following components comprise the Final EIR on the Hoag Health Center Project (a) Draft EIR, dated September 2007; (b) Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments, included as Appendix G to the Final EIR, dated November 2007; and (c) All attachments, incorporations, and references to the documents delineated in items a. and b. above, and submitted to the City as part of the EIR process. The Newport Beach Planning Commission considered the Final EIR on the Hoag Health Center Project at its hearing on November 15, 2007. The Hoag Health Center Project EIR was a Project Environmental Impact Report as described in Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Project EIR prepared for the Hoag Health Center Project examined the potential environmental impacts of the specific actions proposed by the City of Newport Beach necessary to implement the conversion of the existing R &D and professional office uses to medical office uses. Further, the Draft EIR focuses on the specific issues where potentially significant impacts were identified in the initial study that was prepared for the proposed Project. The Draft EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the implementation of the Project components, including the conversion of the existing uses to medical office uses and the construction of 20,586 square feet of additional medical office uses in a new structure for a total of 350,000 square feet. The Draft EIR examines all phases of the Project, including planning, construction, and operation, as required by Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT As a result of the Initial Study that was circulated with the Notice of Preparation by the City on March 23, 2007, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the Project would not result in significant potential environmental impacts in several areas; therefore, the City determined that the these potential environmental effects would not be addressed in the Draft EIR. In addition, the analysis of aesthetics also concluded that no significant visual impacts would occur as a result of the redeveloping the Hoag Health Center on the subject Property. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Final EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence has been submitted to or identified by the City that indicates that the Project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November2007 Page 5 1Zs- (a) Aesthetics: The Property is located west of Newport Boulevard and is bounded by Superior Avenue on the west, and Dana Road on the south. Neither Newport Boulevard nor Superior Avenue is designated as a scenic roadway. The subject Property and surrounding area are characterized by higher density development, including the City's Corporate Yard to the north, a care and rehabilitation center to the east, multiple - family residential and medical care center to the south, and a mobile home park and medical center on the west Hoag Hospital and related medical facilities are located south of the subject Property. Building 3 (520 Superior Avenue) and Building 4 (530 Superior Avenue) are visible from Newport Boulevard. In 2001, the City granted a Use Permit to exceed the maximum permitted height of 32 feet to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of the then existing industrial development. The project at issue in 2001 consisted of the demolition and reconstruction of approximately 214,210 square feet of existing buildings and the remodel of another 201,283 square feet. It was noted at the time that, since 1981, the Property has historically had buildings exceeding the 32 feet minimum, with an existing parking structure of 46 feet to the top of the parapet and 50 feet to the top of the elevator. The office/laboratory building was 32 feet to the top of the parapet with its mechanical penthouse structure taking it up to 41 feet. Additionally, the increased height was approved based on a finding that it resulted in more public visual open space between buildings and reduced Property coverage, than otherwise could have been achieved without the increased height. Although future construction of the 20,586 square feet of additional medical office floor area could result in a reduction in the public visual open space, any future expansion occurring on the subject Property must be in substantial conformance with the approved Use Permit to ensure that it complies with the intent of that Use Permit for height. If not, an amendment to the Use Permit would be required. Most recently (December 2006), the City approved UP 2006 -010 for the Property that allows the demolition of one existing building and the construction of an additional parking structure and the conversion of existing office/R &D space to 97,000 square feet of medical office space. The aesthetic impacts associated with the demolition of the existing parking structure and its replacement with a new office building were evaluated in the Initial Study prepared for that 2006 project, which concluded that the no significant visual impacts would occur as a result of that project. The parking structure approved to replace Building No. 4, which will be demolished, will be substantially the same height as the building it will be replacing. Design of the proposed parking structure would not result in any significant visual impacts. As previously indicated, the proposed project will result in the addition of 20,586 square feet of new medical office floor area, which will be constructed between the parking structures and not be visible from Newport Boulevard. Although the existing structures and the approved but yet -to -be constructed parking structure would be visible from Newport Boulevard, views of the development would be the same as the views of the views identified and described in the prior environmental analysis for the new parking structure from locations along that roadway. Redeveloped medical office floor area will be constructed on the interior of existing buildings and will not change views of the buildings from Newport Boulevard. The east elevation of the parking structure, which would be visible from Newport Boulevard, has been designed to be compatible with the existing structures and, therefore, would not result in any significant adverse effect on the existing views. A series of views from the north and east is included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, which illustrates the existing and post - development views from three locations along Newport Boulevard. As indicated in those views, the approved parking structure appears to encroach into the same visual envelope as the existing office building that currently occupies the Property. As reflected in those views, the approved parking structure is primarily designed as a concrete shear -wall, with metal panels and a metal trellis. Other elements on the east elevation include storefront glazing with aluminum mullion and perforated metal panels. The combination of these features and design of the structure, which does not exceed the height of the existing office building, will not significantly alter views from Newport Boulevard. Therefore, no significant aesthetic impacts are anticipated with implementation of the proposed Project and no mitigation measures are required. Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November2007 Page 6 1ZL The Property does not possess any unique aesthetic features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, or historic structures or features. In addition, the Property is not located along a state scenic highway. As indicated above, two existing structures are visible from Newport Boulevard; however, this arterial highway is not designated as a scenic corridor. Although the proposed Project includes the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area on the subject Property, it is not anticipated that the addition of this floor area would create a significant visual impact to scenic resources. As previously indicated, the subject Property is devoid of native trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings or other amenities that constitute a visual resource. No significant aesthetic impacts are anticipated with implementation of the proposed Project and no mitigation measures are required. The area surrounding the Property is also intensively developed with a variety of commercial, industrial, residential and medical office uses. The conversion of the remaining non - medical office space to medical office uses and the construction of the additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area on the Property will not significantly change the existing visual character or quality of the Property or its surroundings. The additional structure proposed on the Property to accommodate the additional floor area would be designed to be compatible not only with the existing office buildings and parking structures but also the surrounding non - residential development. In particular, the new structure would not exceed the height of the existing buildings and would not be an intrusive element within the area. Therefore, less than significant visual impacts are anticipated with implementation of the proposed Project and no mitigation measures are required. (b) Aaricultural Resources: The subject Property is substantially developed with industrial uses. In addition, the surrounding properties are also Intensively urbanized with a variety of land uses, including residential and commercial development. Because the Property and surrounding areas are developed, the area is not recognized by the State of California as having any agricultural significance, Implementation of the Project will not result in the conversion of any designated prime or otherwise significant farmland. Project implementation will not result in any impacts to agricultural soils or important farmland. (c) Air Quality: Objectionable odors are not currently present within the Project Property or environs. Approval of the proposed Project would not ultimately result in the creation of objectionable odors, as there is no change in the nature of the land use. Although some of the equipment may emit some odors, they would not be significant during construction 'due to the short term nature of construction and the fact that the vast majority of construction associated with the Project will take place inside existing buildings. Therefore, implementation of the Project will not create significant impacts with regard to odors. (d) Biological Resources: The subject Property is located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach. No sensitive species (or candidate species) inhabit the Property and no significant, valuable habitat presently exists at the Project site. The Property does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No portion of the subject Property contains federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Specifically, no marshes, vernal pools or other wetlands defined by either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Game are located within the limits of the Project site, which has been extensively altered and is devoid of natural habitat and does not support sensitive species. Finally, the developed Property is not included in the Southern Orange County NCCP and, therefore, is not protected by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, development pursuant to the proposed site development plan will not conflict with local, regional or State resource preservation and conservation policies. Although intensification of the existing land uses will result in some short-term construction impacts, including dust and pollutant emissions that may have some minor effect on plant species throughout the region, no direct impacts to sensitive species will occur as a result of Project implementation due to the proximity of Hoag Health Center Project Findings or Fact November 2007 Page 7 1L7 the nature center and mitigation of short-term, construction - related air emissions. Therefore, no significant impacts to biological resources are anticipated to occur as a result of Project implementation. (e) Cultural Resources: The Property encompasses several structures comprising the Newport Technology Center. The Property was developed in the late 1950s. Since that time, buildings have been added and remodeled as needs evolved. All of the existing structures are contemporary in nature and do not possess historic value or significance. Further, there are no identified structures and /or other historical resources currently known to exist within the immediate Project vicinity that would be affected as a result of implementing the approved parking structure and related facilities. Neither the subject Property nor the surrounding properties are identified as historic resources in the City's General Plan. No significant adverse changes to any historical resources will occur. Project implementation will necessitate some grading and site alteration in order to implement the proposed structure; however, it is not anticipated that any historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources will be affected. Therefore, no significant impacts to these resources will occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. (f) Soils and Geology: The Project is located in the seismically active southern California region. Primary ground rupture or fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. In addition, the Project site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. However, other faults without surface expression (i.e., blind faults) or other potentially active seismic sources also capable of generating an earthquake may be present under the Property at depth but not yet identified. Implementation of the Project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to fault rupture during a seismic event. As indicated above, the Property is located in a seismically active region. The potential for severe damage and loss of life resulting from earthquake activity exists within the City of Newport Beach. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site (and the Property is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone), it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The Property and environs are located within an area designated as Category 2 by the Newport Beach Public Safety Element (Newport Beach Public Safety Element "Potential Seismic Hazards Areas "). Areas in Category 2 are characterized by stronger shaking potential than Category 1, which is the lowest ground shaking category identified in the City. All of the structures and facilities proposed by the applicant will be designed and constructed in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code to ensure that potential damage to seismic shaking will be minimized. Further, design level geotechnical studies will be conducted to ensure that on -site characteristics can be evaluated and the proposed building properly designed to address the existing soils and geologic conditions. Implementation of proper grading and design measures will ensure that significant potential impacts associated with groundshaking will not occur with implementation of the Project. (g) Hazards and Hazardous Material: The subject Property is not located within the limits of the John Wayne Airport land use plan or other public airport or private airstrip. Neither that commercial airport nor any other public airport or private airstrip is located within two miles of the Property. As a result, Project implementation will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the Project area. No significant impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. (h) Hvdroloov and Water Quality: The subject Property is located in an area that is completely developed. Although site alteration will occur, implementation of the Project will not affect any existing groundwater recharge activities. No groundwater wells are located on the Property or in the vicinity of the Project that would be adversely affected by the Project. Site development as proposed will not result in any impacts to nearby wells that would affect any domestic water well capacity or their ability Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November 2007 Page 8 12- t6 to provide adequate water service to the existing and planned land uses in the City. In addition, Project implementation will not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns, either on the Property or in the vicinity of the Property. No alterations to existing watercourses are proposed by the applicant. Surface runoff currently flows from the Property to the perimeter streets (i.e., Superior Avenue, Dana Road). The proposed site plan will maintain the existing grades and will not substantially change the volume and rate of surface flows emanating from the Property. The subject Property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. No residential development is proposed by the applicant for the Property. Therefore, development of the Property as proposed will not result in the placement of housing within a flood -prone area identified by FEMA or the City of Newport Beach. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. Demolition and construction activities associated with the implementation of the Project would result in a potential temporary increase in erosion and the potential release of sediment and construction pollutants into storm water runoff. Although Project implementation will result in the exposure of the site soils to the elements during the construction phase, appropriate erosion control techniques prescribed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan required as a condition of applicable statewide stormwater permit regulations will address the specific nature of any potential erosion. Upon completion of construction, potential erosion of the site soils will be eliminated. The incorporation of the mandated best management practices required as part of applicable stormwater regulations will ensure that potential erosion of the site soils and release of construction pollutants remain less than significant. No potential erosion of off -site soils will occur as a result of Project implementation. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any significant changes in the quality of surface water that could affect water quality at other nearby locations because the Property is currently developed and nearly completely impervious. Nonetheless, the applicant is proposing uses that are consistent and compatible with the existing land uses and those reflected in the adopted long -range plans for the Property. The types and concentrations of pollutants are similar to those resulting from the same uses that exist on the Property and those in other areas in the City and include: silt (during construction), petroleum hydrocarbons from parking areas, pesticides and fertilizers, and other pollutants common to urban development. It is important to note that no unusual contamination or pollutant is anticipated as a result of implementing the Project and, further, that the increases in pollutant and /or contaminant concentrations will be addressed in the best management practices required as part of the City of Newport Beach regulations related to the Water Quality Management Plan applicable to the Property and other standard conditions that have been prescribed for the Project. Therefore, the potential impacts relative to water quality will be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the Project. (i) Land Use and Planning: The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the Project site is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the area. The subject Property, operating as the Newport Technology Center, encompasses approximately 13.7 acres that are developed with a variety of industrial uses. No natural features and/or habitat that would support sensitive species exist on the Property. In particular, no portion of the City is located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, Project implementation will not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and/or resources. No significant impacts with regard to open space or conservation areas are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November 2007 Page 9 Iz-9 (j) Mineral Resources: There are no mineral resources of regional or Statewide importance within the Project site. The Property and adjacent properties are currently developed with urban uses (i.e., industrial park). Project implementation would not adversely affect any significant mineral resources. (k) Noise: It is unlikely that any activities occurring as a result of Project implementation will expose the area to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Potential noise impacts will result from typical construction activities but construction will not require unusual grading or construction techniques that would cause excessive groundbome vibrations (i.e., pile drivers). Further, no use proposed on the Property would result in vibration impacts; therefore, potential vibration impacts with implementation of the proposed Project will be less than significant. (1) Population and Housing: Project implementation includes the conversion of existing non - medical office uses on subject Property to medical offices totaling 350,000 square feet. The Property is located in an industrial area of the City. No existing dwelling units or residents would be displaced by implementation of the proposed Project and, further, Project implementation would not require new or unplanned infrastructure. Because the environs and City of Newport Beach are nearing buildout, no population growth would occur as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, no significant impacts related to population or housing are anticipated with implementation of the Project. (m) Public Services: All of the existing public facilities and services, including police and fire protection, schools, libraries and City services are adequate to serve the proposed Project. No significant impacts to public services are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (n) Recreation: Project implementation includes the conversion of existing office/R &D floor area to medical office uses and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area on the Property. The Project will result in an increase of approximately 6 percent over the currently entitled floor area. No residential development is proposed that would create a new demand, or increase an existing demand, for recreational facilities. Existing parks in the vicinity of the Project site will not be physically altered nor will their total acreage be reduced as a result of Project implementation. Further, given the nature of the Project (i.e., non - residential), a greater demand for parks and recreation would not occur because the Project would not result in an increase in population that would necessitate new or expanded recreational facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts to City-wide recreational opportunities are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (o) TransportationlTraffic: The subject Property is currently developed as a technology center, which is located approximately three miles southwest of John Wayne Airport. Project implementation, which includes the conversion of all of the remaining non - medical office floor area to medical office uses (i.e., 232,414 square feet) and the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office floor area, will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. Therefore, no significant impacts to air traffic patterns are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Access to the Property is adequate to accommodate Project - related traffic as well as provide emergency access. The existing Project north driveway currently provides full access to Superior Avenue with stop sign control. A two -way left turn median is currently provided on Superior Avenue for left turns into the Project site and a right turn lane is striped on Superior Avenue at the Project central driveway, which will incorporate a traffic signal (analyzed as part of prior approvals at the Property). The existing Project south driveway is proposed to accommodate right turns in /out only access to Superior Avenue with stop sign control. Future construction of the additional medical office floor area would be designed to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. As a result, no significant impacts related to emergency access would occur with Project implementation. Hoag Health Center Pro fact Findings of Fact November 2007 Page !0 )3u (p) Utilities: Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the generation of demolition and construction debris during the construction phase. In addition, solid waste will be generated at the Property associated with the proposed land uses. The applicant is proposing to convert some of the existing floor area to medical offices. The addition of the medical office floor area could result in the generation of some medical /biohazard waste; such waste would be disposed properly at facilities certified to accept it. Further, the County landfill system (i.e., three landfill sites) has a capacity in excess of 30 years. The City is required to comply with AB939, which requires reducing the amount of solid waste by 50 percent. Site development will be subject to the requirements established in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) that reflect the manner in which solid waste reduction will occur. Compliance with the SRRE will ensure that such reductions occur, not only at the Project site but also throughout the City of Newport Beach. It is possible that some of the demolition debris could be recycled, which would result in a reduction in the amount of construction debris that would be landfilled. Therefore, no significant impacts relative to solid waste generation or disposal are anticipated to occur as a result of Project implementation. The Project site will remain subject to provision that it must comply with the City's SRRE. S. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The.following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the Final EIR. Where as a result of the environmental analysis of the Project and the compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and the identification of feasible mitigation measures, the following potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1) that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment," which is referred to herein as "Finding 1." Where the potential impact can be reduced to less than significant solely through adherence to and implementation of standard conditions, these measures are considered "incorporated into the Project' which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant effect, and in these situations, the City also will make "Finding 1" even though no mitigation measures are required. A finding that concludes that where mitigation measures have been identified that are feasible and can be implemented but those changes or alterations (i.e., mitigation measures) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not, in this case, the City of Newport Beach, "Finding 2 ", as identified above, would be made by the lead agency. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be, adopted by such other agency. Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the Project, the City has determined that either (1) even with the identification of standard conditions, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and /or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report," referred to herein as "Finding 3.° Hoag Health CenterProjec[ Findings of Fad November2007 Page 11 13) A. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION IMPACT Lono -Term Impact: Project implementation will result in significant Project - related and cumulative impacts to the Superior Avenue/171h Street intersection, which is forecast to operate at LOS F (ICU 1.105) during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F (ICU1.054) during the p.m. peak hour with the addition of Project - related traffic. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4,0, Section 4.2 of the EIR, Finding: Implementation of the changes or alterations required by MM 4.2 -1 are within the jurisdiction of the neighboring City of Costa Mesa as the particular intersection at issue lies with the boundaries of Costa Mesa. The City of Costa Mesa has agreed to allow for the implementation of the change described below and the Project applicant will work in conjunction with the City of Costa Mesa to complete the implementation of MM 4.2 -1. Finding: All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the measure described above. No significant, unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. 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 left/through lane, through lane, and right turn lane at the Superior Avenue/171h Street intersection. This improvement would require modification to the traffic signal phasing and interconnect with the Newport Boulevard/171h Street intersection, The applicant shall work in conjunction with the City of Costa Mesa to complete this improvement Facts in Support of the Findings: Implementation of the mitigation measure is intended to reduce the potential traffic and circulation impacts by increasing the capacity of the Superior Avenue/171h Street intersection to accommodate future traffic volumes projected at that intersection. This mitigation measure will reduce potential long -term Project - related traffic impacts at the Superior Avenue/171h Street intersection to a less than significant level. Implementation of the mitigation measure can be carried out by the Project applicant but only with the coordination and approval of the City of Costa Mesa, as the Superior Avenue 1171" Street intersection lies within the jurisdiction of the City of Costa Mesa. The City of Costa Mesa has agreed to allow the implementation of the improvement described in the mitigation measure. Thus, although the recommended changes are within the jurisdiction of the City of Costa Mesa and not the City of Newport Beach the recommended changes have agreed to by the City of Costa Mesa and will be able to be implemented by the Project applicant. Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November 2007 Page 12 1 3Z 2. IMPACT Lono -Term Impact: Project implementation will result in significant cumulative impacts to the Newport Boulevardll8'h Street-Rochester Street intersection, which is forecast to operate at LOS E (ICU 0.941) during the p.m. peak hour with the addition of Project - related traffic. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.2 of the EIR. Finding: Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be, adopted by such other agency. 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 grovide a southbound through/right turn lane at the Newport Boulevardl18 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). Facts in Support of the Fiudinas. Implementation of the mitigation measure is intended to reduce the potential traffic and circulation impacts by increasing the capacity of the Newport Boulevardl1 81h Street - Rochester Avenue intersection to accommodate future traffic volumes projected at that intersection. This mitigation measure will reduce potential long -term Project - related traffic impacts at the Newport Boulevardl17th Street - Rochester Avenue Intersection to a less than significant level. The Newport Boulevardlle Street - Rochester Street intersection in the City of Costa Mesa is forecast to operate at an unacceptable level of service (i.e., LOS E) in the future (2009) without the proposed Project; Project implementation will contribute traffic to that intersection that will exacerbate the unacceptable intersection operating condition forecast for that intersection. Although the City of Costa Mesa has adopted a fair share fee program to implement circulation Improvements identified in the City -wide long -range circulation improvement program, the mitigation measure identified in MM 4.2 -2 is not included in the City's circulation system improvement program. Therefore, the City of Costa Mesa does not have a mechanism for accepting the fair share fee contribution from the Project applicant intended to pay for the Newport Boulevardl18t° Street - Rochester Street improvements recommended in MM 4.2 -2. As a result, because the implementation of MM 4.2 -2 cannot be assured, the mitigation is considered legally infeasible, and cannot be implemented. Therefore, the Project-related cumulative impact identified for the Newport Boulevardll8'h Street - Rochester Street intersection will remain significant and unavoidable. 3. IMPACT Lonq -Term Imoact: Project implementation will result in inadequate northbound left -turn vehicle stacking capacity at the Newport Boulevard /Hospital Way intersection. Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November 2007 Page 13 03 Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.2 of the EIR. Finding All potentially significant environmental effects have been avoided by virtue of the measures described below. No significant, unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. 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 10 -year bond to lengthen the northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Newport Boulevard /Hospital Way to provide sufficient storage length. The City will be responsible for completing the roadway improvements and the applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs, expenses and fees associated in any way with these improvements. Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measure is intended to increase the capacity of the Newport Boulevard/Hospital Way intersection to accommodate future traffic volumes projected at that intersection that would exceed the left -tum lane capacity. This mitigation measure, which has been prescribed, will require the lengthening of the left -turn pocket to provide sufficient vehicle storage length to ensure this impact can be reduced to a less than significant level. This mitigation measure will ensure that potential long -term Project - related traffic delay impacts at the Newport Boulevard /Hospital Way intersection remain at a less than significant level. B. AIR QUALITY IMPACT Short-Term Impact: Construction activities necessary to implement the proposed Project would be anticipated to generate fugitive dust and pollutant emissions associated with site preparation and the use of construction equipment. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.3 of the EIR. Finding: All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the measure described below. No significant, unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. MM 4.3-1a The dust suppression measures identified in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook will be implemented to supplement the measures prescribed in Rule 403 (refer to SC 4.3 -1). Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November2007 Page 14 ►3Y • All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. • All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically or chemically stabilized. • The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. MM4.3 -1b The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high - energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. MM 4.3 -1c The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline powered engines where feasible. MM 4.3 -1d The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended, which would decrease the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. MM 4.3 -1 a The Construction Contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagger shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. MM 4.3 -1f The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. MM 4.3 -1g Architectural coatings will be applied using high volume -low pressure (HVLP) equipment and techniques to minimize Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) emissions. Facts in Support of the Findings: Implementation of the mitigation measures, which are intended to avoid or eliminate the construction - related emissions that may be associated with the proposed medical office project, will reduce potential short-term Project - related land use impacts resulting from the construction activities to a less than significant level. Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November 2007 Page 15 ►3,-� C. NOISE Lonc Term Impact: Project implementation will result in pollutant emissions from both mobile and stationary sources that would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for Carbon Monoxide (CO), ROC, Oxide of Nitrogen (NO,), and particulate matter (PM1e) in both winter and summer months. Because there are no feasible measures that would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level, Project - related operational pollutant emissions would remain a significant unavoidable adverse impact. Finding: Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be, adopted by such other agency. Finding: Given the lack of available mitigation measures, Project impacts will remain significant for CO, ROC, NO, and PM1e emissions Facts in Support of the Findings: The vast majority of air emissions associated with the Project are from mobile sources (vehicles). Although the proposed Project does include elements, such as shuttle service, to reduce traffic and its associated air impacts, there are insufficient feasible mitigation measures available to fully mitigate Project related traffic and its related air impacts, primarily because control of air emissions from mobile sources lies outside the ability of the Project applicant or the City of Newport Beach to regulate. As a result, no mitigation measures are available to reduce the potentially significant mobile - source missions to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project - related CO, ROC, NO, and PM10 emissions will be unavoidable and significant. PI9T08111 Short-Term Impact: Construction activities will result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Although not significant, the increase in noise associated with construction activities (e.g., demolition, grading and excavation, and construction) will constitute a short- term adverse impact to sensitive uses in the vicinity of the subject Property. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4 of the EIR. Finding: All potentially significant environmental effects have been avoided by virtue of the measure described below. No significant, unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. MM 4.4 -1 The following measures shall be implemented during all phases of construction. During all Project site excavation and grading, the Project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November2007 Page 16 131 The Project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site (existing trailer park to the west and apartments to the south). The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise sources and noise - sensitive receptors (existing trailer park to the west and homes and condominiums to the south) nearest the Project site during all Project construction. Facts in Support of the Findings: The City of Newport Beach's Noise Ordinance constitutes the threshold of significance for noise impacts, and per that ordinance, construction noise is allowed to exceed noise criteria so long as construction occurs during specified hours. The Project is required to adhere to the noise ordinance, thus construction noise impacts will be less than significant. Implementation of the mitigation measure is intended to further avoid or reduce the construction - related noise impacts associated with the proposed medical office Project. 2. IMPACT Long -Term Impact: The new 20,586 square foot building proposed on the subject Property along Superior Avenue is approximately 65 feet from the Superior Avenue centerline and would be potentially exposed to traffic noise reaching 70 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in'detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4 of the EIR. Finding : All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the measure described above. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. MM 4.4-2 Prior to the issuance of the building permit, a form of mechanical ventilation, such as an air - conditioning system, shall be implemented as a project design feature for the medical office buildings located directly adjacent to Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue. This feature shall be included in the project's architectural drawings, and shall be in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Facts in Support of Findings: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is intended to avoid or reduce the long -term noise impacts associated with the proposed medical office Project, will reduce potential Project- related noise impacts. With implementation of the mitigation measure, windows at the Project's buildings would be capable of remaining closed while comfortable air conditions in the buildings are maintained. With the windows closed, the impacts of the traffic noise on the occupants of the Project's buildings will be less than significant as interior noise criteria will be met. Hoag Neagh Center Project Findings of Fad November 2007 Page 17 J3D D. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT Short-Term Impact: The elevated concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in soil gas suggest the possibility of VOC- contaminated soil. Personnel involved in excavating soils to potential health hazards may be exposed to potential health hazards if it is determined that elevated ambient air concentrations of VOC exist Finding: Changes or alterations have been required In, or incorporated into the Project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.6 of the EIR. Finding: All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the measures described below. No significant, unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. MM 4.6 -1a Prior to and during excavation, soil shall be monitored for concentrations of VOCs. A mitigation plan as outlined in Appendix A of SCAQMD Rule 1166 shall be submitted to the SCAQMD for review and approval prior to excavation. Excavation may begin only after a minimum 24 -hour notification to the SCAQMD and must proceed in accordance with the mitigation plan and Rule 1166, which includes continuous VOC monitoring, segregation of non -VOC contaminated stockpiles from VOC- contaminated stockpiles, spraying water and/or approved vapor suppressants on VOC- contaminated stockpiles, and covering VOC- contaminated stockpiles with plastic sheeting. MM 4.6 -1b If monitoring indicates elevated concentrations of VOCs in ambient air, additional health and safety measures may have to be implemented. Specific measures will be identified and submitted to the RWQCB for review and approval prior to implementation and will be designed and implemented to ensure persons are not exposed to significant levels of hazardous materials that would create a potential health hazard. Facts in Support of the Findings: Implementation of the mitigation measures, which is intended to avoid or eliminate the exposure of tenants and patients to potential health hazards that may be associated with the proposed medical office project, will reduce potential long -term Project - related land use impacts resulting from the medical office project to a less than significant level. Compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules, which require monitoring to determine if VOCs that exceed regulatory standards, will ensure that, if necessary, specific measures will be prescribed to reduce the potential health hazard to an acceptable level. 2. IMPACT Lonq -Term Impact: Soil and groundwater contamination at the Property has resulted from operations conducted by former site occupants (i.e., Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon Company). The primary contaminants at the Property are volatile organic compounds. Chemical vapors resulting from VOCs in the subsurface at the Property could degrade indoor air quality until site remediation is completed by the responsible party ( Ratheon Company). Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November2007 Page 18 )3g Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.6 of the EIR. Finding: All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the measure described above. No significant, unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. MM 4.6 -2 Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall prepare and submit a corrective action plan to implement measures to control potential vapor intrusion into Building 510 and other buildings proposed for occupancy, if determined necessary. The corrective action plan shall include a timetable to implement the corrective measures as well as a timetable to conduct additional indoor sampling. Facts in Support of the Findings: Implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure, which is intended to avoid or eliminate the exposure of future tenants and patients to potential health hazards that may be associated with the proposed medical office project, will reduce potential long -term Project - related land use impacts resulting from the facility's operations to a less than significant level. If determined necessary, the corrective action plan will identify specific measures to control vapor intrusion into the buildings to acceptable levels prescribed by the regulatory agencies. 3. IMPACT Long-Term Impact: Methane concentrations detected in the northwest portion of the Property exceed the lower explosive level (LEL) for methane. Concentrations that exceed the LEL could result in potential safety impacts to future site development. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.6 of the EIR. Finding: All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the measure described above. No significant, unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. MM 4.6 -3 During excavation on the northeastern boundary of the site, soil shall be monitored for concentrations of methane. A methane mitigation plan shall be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for review and approval prior to excavation. Excavation may begin only after approval of the methane mitigation plan. If monitoring indicates elevated concentrations of methane in ambient air, additional health and safety measures may be required as delineated in the methane mitigation plan. Hoag Health Center PrCYW Findings of Fact November 2007 Page !9 131 Facts in Support of the Findings: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which is intended to avoid or eliminate potential methane gas migration and related effects though the preparation of a methane gas plan. If determined necessary, the methane gas plan would identify specific measures to be implemented to ensure that concentrations of methane do not exceed allowable levels. Therefore, potential effects on future tenants of the medical office would be reduced to a less than significant level. 6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES The Final EIR identified four alternatives as follows: No Project No Development/Existing Amended Use Permit Reduce Intensity Development Non - Medical Office Alternative The City's findings and facts in support of findings with respect to each of the alternatives considered are provided below: No Project Alternative Description: The implementation of this alternative would be extended over a longer period of time, compared to the proposed Project. The long -term buildout of this alternative is based on the assumption that the applicant is not proposing the Project at the present time; however, the Property would ultimately be converted entirely to medical office floor area, and the 20,586 square feet of floor area would also be constructed to achieve the maximum permitted floor area of 350,000 square feet, over a longer period of time than proposed by the Project applicant. Environmental Effects: All of the impacts identified in Chapter 4.0 (Environmental Analysis) of the Draft EIR would occur as a result of implementing the "No Project' Alternative. Specifically, the Project would result in the same increases in traffic, which could affect the same intersections identified in the analysis; however, depending on when the conversion of floor area occurs, coupled with the potential future development in the area (including regional growth), potential Project - related traffic impacts could be more significant, if the Project - related trips, when added to the baseline conditions, exceed the desired acceptable levels of service established by the cities in which the intersections are located. Abilitv to Achieve Proiect Objectives: The No Project Alternative would ultimately achieve all of the Project objectives desired by the Project applicant; however, many of the objectives would be deferred until conversion of the Property occurs on a timeline other than that currently proposed. Finding: The Planning Commission finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social, technical or other considerations make the No Project alternative identified in the DEIR and FEIR infeasible. Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the No Project alternative would result in the deferral of converting the existing professional office and research and development floor area to medical office floor area, as well as the construction of the additional 20,586 square feet of floor area to some future time. However, because the Property owner, Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is affiliated with Hoag Hospital, which currently is experiencing a significant need for medical office space and related medical facilities to accommodate physicians, medical staff and critical /special care facilities needed to serve the growing demands both in the City of Newport Beach and in the County of Orange. Deferral of the proposed Project would exacerbate the current shortage of medical office space, which could result in Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November2007 Page 20 11/b a significant impact on the quality of medical services provided by Hoag Hospital and within the area in general. 2. No DevelopmentfExisting Amended Use Permit Description: The No Development Alternative allows for development/redevelopment of the Property in accordance with Use Permit 2006 -010, which was approved by the City of Newport Beach in December 2006. Implementation of this alternative will result in a reduction in the overall building area with the demolition of one of the existing buildings located at 530 Superior Avenue (the "Existing Building "). Demolition of the 86,079 square foot Existing Building would leave a total gross floor area of 329,414 square feet on the Project site, including 97,000 square feet of medical office use. The remaining floor area would be divided into general office totaling 136,000 square feet and research and development totaling 96,414 square feet This alternative is consistent with the maximum permitted floor area ratio applicable to the Project site. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the elimination of 44 surface parking spaces. With the construction of the 697 -space parking garage, the Property will accommodate a total of 1,985 parking spaces (49 percent increase), which exceeds the City's adopted parking requirements for these types of uses. Environmental Effects: This potential impacts associated with this alternative were evaluated in an initial study in 2006. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was approved by the City of Newport Beach in December 2006. Ability to Achieve Project Obiectives: Although some of the Project objectives would be achieved, implementation of this alternative would not achieve several important objectives, including the provision of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area. However, this alternative would not permit the expansion of medical office floor area on the Property beyond that already approved by the City. Therefore, objectives such as proving the highest quality health available, support of Hoag Hospital level of care, and providing much needs office space for physicians would be limited by the amount of medical office floor area approved by the City with Use Permit 2006 -010. Finding: The Planning Commission finds, pursuant to Public Resources Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social, technical or other considerations make the No Development/Existing Use Permit alternative identified in the DEIR and FEIR infeasible. Facts in Support of the Finding: The No Development Alternative was approved by the City of Newport Beach in December 2006. Implementation of this alternative allows for the conversion of 97,000 square feet of existing floor area to medical office uses; the remainder would remain as professional office and R &D floor area, which could not accommodate medical office uses. Although the addition of 97,000 square feet of medical office floor area would accommodate some of the floor area that would serve the demands created by Hoag Hospital and within the area generally, it is inadequate to fill the existing and anticipated demands identified by the Project applicant intended to improve both the level and type of medical care envisioned for the Property. The Project site is designated Medical Commercial Office, which is intended to meet the growing demand for medical- related services in the City. The majority of the remaining floor area existing on the Property would be non - medical in nature and would be inconsistent with the long -range uses envisioned by the Newport Beach General Plan. 3. Reduced Intensity Development Description: The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the conversion of the remaining non - medical office floor area to medical office; however, this alternative does not include the additional floor area proposed by the Project applicant (i.e., 20,586 square feet). This alternative would allow for a total of 329,414 square feet of medical office floor area on the 13.7 -acre Property. Hoag Hea#h Center Project Findings of Fact November2007 Page 21 I�� Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in similar impacts as those identified by the proposed Project, although there would be a small reduction in vehicular trips. The reduction would not reduce any of the potential traffic impacts identified for the proposed Project. The reduction in vehicle trips associated with this alternative would have the effect of reducing air emissions and long -term noise increases; however, none of the reductions would eliminate a significant impact. No impacts to land use would occur and the impacts associated with public health and safety and utilities would be virtually the same as for the proposed Project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: With the exception of maximizing the developable area by providing 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area as allowed by the General Plan, the Reduced Intensity alternative would achieve all of the Project objectives. This alternative would allow for a significant increase in medical office space that would facilitate higher quality health care facilities, support Hoag Hospital's level of care, and increase the amount of office space in proximity to the hospital. Finding: The Planning Commission finds, pursuant to Public Resources Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social, technical or other considerations make the Reduced Intensity alternative identified in the DEIR and FOR infeasible. Facts in Support of the Findings: Although this alternative would reduce the potential traffic and, consequently air pollutant emissions and mobile -source noise as a result of the reduction in floor area (i.e., 20,586 square feet), none of the reductions in the potential impacts would reduce the significant air quality and traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of this alternative would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts similar to those associated with the proposed Project. In addition, while this alternative would be consistent with the long -range plan adopted by the City of Newport Beach, it would not maximize the medical office floor area permitted by the Newport Beach General Plan and, further, it would not meet all of the Project objectives that include the provision of 350,000 square feet of medical office floor area to meet the growing demand for health care services and potentially compromise the ability of the applicant to provide the highest quality health care available. 4. Non - Medical Office Alternative Description: This alternative encompasses a total of 329,414 square feet of office floor area, including the 97,000 square feet of approved medical office floor area (Use Permit 2006 -010); however, the remaining 232,414 square feet of floor area would be dedicated to general office uses. Environmental Effects: This alternative is considered to be environmentally superior when compared to the proposed Project. The small increase in vehicular traffic (compared with the proposed Project) would eliminate the potentially significant unavoidable adverse traffic; however, it would not reduce the air quality impacts associated with the this alternative to a less than significant level, which would also necessitate the requirement to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Ability to Achieve Project Obiectves: The Non - Medical Office alternative will not achieve any of the Project objectives, including providing a maximum of 350,000 square feet of floor area permitted by the General Plan. Finding: The Planning Commission finds, pursuant to Public Resources Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social, technical or other considerations make the Non - Medical Office alternative identified in the DEIR and FEIR infeasible. Hoag Heath Center Project Findings of Fact November 2007 Page 22 r L/z. Facts in Support of the Findinqs: The non - medical office alternative would be similar to the No Development project alternative, although the existing R &D floor area would be converted to general office floor area. Therefore, potential impacts would also be similar to the No Development alternative, which would reduce the significant traffic impacts, but would result in potentially significant mobile -source air quality impacts, necessitating the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations. Like the proposed Project, no feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce the significant impacts associated with this or other alternatives except the No Development (i.e., Existing Amended Use Permit) alternative. Further, because this alternative would not include any additional medical office floor area beyond that approved in December 2006 by Use Permit 2006 -010, none of the Projects objectives would be achieved. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. The plans for the Project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and CEQA processes. 2. The degree that any impacts described in the EIR are perceived to have a significant effect on the environment, or such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the environment, any significant effect of such impacts has been substantially lessened or avoided by the standard conditions and mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR. 3. Comments regarding the Draft EIR received during the public review period have been adequately addressed in written Responses to Comments attached to the Final EIR as Appendix G. Any significant effects described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the standard conditions and mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR. 4. The analysis contained in the Draft EIR of the environmental effects and mitigation measures represent the independent judgment and analysis of the City Newport Beach. Hoag Health Center Project Findings of Fact November 2007 Page 23 P y3 �y� EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS HOAG HEALTH CENTER A. Introduction The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the Final EIR for the project. As the Lead Agency, the City of Newport Beach is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed project. in making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: 1. CEQA requires the decision- making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." 2. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 3. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, Including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City of Newport Beach has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City of Newport Beach also has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which both meet the Project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. Haag Health Center Projed Appendix C — Statement of Overriding Considerations November J, 2007 Page f The Newport Beach Planning Commission, acting as Lead Agency, and having reviewed the Final EIR for the Hoag Health Center Project, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the project. B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Although most potential Project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, there remain some project impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For some impacts, mitigation measures were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency, however, even with implementation of the measures, the City finds that the impact cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant. For other impacts, no feasible mitigation measures were identified and no feasible alternatives were identified that would avoid or minimize these impacts. The impacts are described below and were also addressed in the Findings. The Final EIR identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project: 1. Traffic and Circulation Impact 4.2 -2 Project implementation will result in significant cumulative impacts to the Newport Boulevard(18'h Street-Rochester Street intersection, which is forecast to operate at LOS E (ICU 0.941) during the p.m. peak hour with the addition of project- related traffic. The Newport Boulevard /18P Street - Rochester Street intersection relevant to Impact 4.2 -2 would have operated at LOS E in the future with or without the proposed project traffic, and that traffic from the proposed project will add incrementally to the deficiency at this intersection. Proposed mitigation for Impact 4.2 -2 consists of payment by the project applicant to the City of Costa Mesa a fair share fee to construct physical improvements to the intersection to alleviate the deficiency. However, because the City of Costa Mesa has not yet established a mechanism to accept fair share fees for the necessary improvements, the proposed mitigation is considered legally infeasible per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Nonetheless, fair share fees are a requirement of the applicant to be paid prior to the issuance of a medical office tenant improvement permit which would cause the site to exceed 285,000 square feet of medical office floor area, provided that the City of Costa Mesa, through the City of Costa Mesa's established fee program, has established a mechanism to accept a fair share fee, to provide a southbound through/right turn lane. This statement of overriding considerations would relieve Hoag of paying the fair share fee if the City of Costa Mesa does not have an established fee program with a mechanism for accepting a fair share fee prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for medical office tenant improvements in the amount of 350,000 square feet 2. Air Quality Impact 4.3 -2 Project implementation will result in pollutant emissions from both mobile and stationary sources that would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO, ROC, NO., and PM10 in both winter and summer months. Because there are no feasible measures that would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level, project - related operational pollutant emissions would remain a significant unavoidable adverse impact. Hoag Health Center Project Appendix C — Statement of Overriding Considerations November 1, 2007 Page 2 4 With regard to Impact 4.3 -2, significant impacts will result from the proposed project largely due to the increase in traffic triggered by the proposed project Although the proposed project does include elements, such as shuttle service, to reduce traffic and its associated air impacts, there are insufficient feasible mitigation measures available to fully mitigate project - related traffic and its related air inipacts, primarily because control of air emissions from mobile sources lies outside the ability of the project applicant or the City of Newport Beach to regulate. C. Public Benefits The City of Newport Beach, in balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed Hoag Health Center Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above are considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations that outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. 1. Implementation of the Hoag Health Center Project will accommodate the growing demand for outpatient care in the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange, including the provision of imaging, urgent care, rehabilitation, and health care education programs that are currently adequate to serve the growing population. 2. The Hoag Health Center will provide much needed medical office space that is conveniently located and necessary to accommodate primary care and specialty physicians. The medical office space will enable these physicians to practice at Hoag Hospital, which has limited space to accommodate them. 3. A diabetes center will be located within Hoag Health Center, which will provide specialty that currently does not currently exist in Newport Beach or in the area. 4. The Hoag Health Center will include a pediatric section, which will be linked to Children's Hospital of Orange County (CHOC). This center will facilitate much needed pediatric service not only in Newport Beach but also in Orange County. The Newport Beach Planning Commission hereby finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been and will be implemented with the Project, and that any significant unavoidable effects remaining are acceptable due to the above stated specific economic, social and other considerations, based upon the facts set forth above, in the Final EIR and in the public record of the consideration of this Project. Hoag Health Center Project Appendix C — Statement of Ovamdmg Considerations November 1, 2007 Page 3 fy-7 V H m 2 W E La 0 IL m� L y 0Qa as V d � C O' s 0 r. mom '�— O O OIz zL 2 O O/ .Y zL C `C a C ° 'C x t 14� m < < le HEM le z r E m cc y m r •- tat E rtar a a a L n0 r a m n0 m c D n0 m c O O O Y m N .35 O N 45 0 N Y M80M -c pa COOCOO 3c 'c c3`o O O O c am m > aamaam > > a > m > m > a a a a a a m m m 16 16 16 O EE m ma `m � O `m �O `m �O mpm. N � f E � N 4 ° N 4 ° N 46 ° N m_ Q 0 ` E E E o `o a .c CL a - a` c C U C C ° iY1 L y N N N N O N c .m � a a a U � c O m p p.ct ayc mato �ayEa,Q O O X C L L m � 2M 0 z N mi c E ° m'om2Y�2Stmom � m 2 m r ��gcE -:iq rnE = �c `c°2 °,2O a nvU @W mg mm $, c'R cEa $ °` m cU 00EE m u m s'2 E i0 . do ° " E�- m o�v c'c > 1 t 2 0 N m N rm 0 n V 'r . m Q-C V ` r 0 m s !A •pC L N c L mov m Q-' E o - N C Q ¢ N Nr ta rn V — r a �dv m�Uc �m °w m Q a me :N mR 6m 16 m, ccmood r a c c E C cv E m Q mm Oa Co 1 V5 V1-- Oa.E o N N N i0 Z O N N N U1 U1 N U1 N U1 C `C a C ° 'C x t 14� N W m C� � m b i a E e c /Q� mr mr mr N W W E NOm y Om m LLa ii . O Y Y m y 5 U ,a ,a ,a m IL a a m m u� c me ° C U_u o c U_u O c °acim a+ H a c o m e a n %09 Cam F- 00 o 00 Wv > ° M c E - g M O 20 a o`- Bi E 0 0 - c It a 00 aei ° j c r o m EU o U M 2 `O a a - m o LO m We LL OU W a �p 2 C L rDi3 a m o O ° 'a '8 rF m ` V mw mN 1>O jt}mj 6 b C a o L >L o f�.iN y�m�r L m n W �N y_ a m.- � a -- =d , , om r 2 r N O 0 W W m ._ W a E > C 0'o ` E C y °w bda r ° °�M mr O > ._T >m aW .S2 E 2EO W>m'J OmN ' ° �S. - cdL E' pm WmiC 'i 3m ° O,NU nO a o > 0 E _m Mm0y N or:r E onw - 'm c > E � a m m m ' E: c 'a MM 6 O M c i C >Q � N ppp€iL m y°L0°3 m CL C vy O --'Z'6 L J W C O 0..c E P �C O N m�� � ` "q Lm C� JE : m r W O 5 ° : 0 a- m y 6 y $ L p5 'd tm i U TS m L VY` .L ! t.m W `L m C ° C m 0 E 0 3 > j N O N -- m r 1%:50 E Q m W C r L C H 2 LLp:5 :5� R � mr L T C° O m m � d r ° C E C r M N ME o m W 0 0,0 = r W m m Ea ° i m yy N m m m a�E r C C E O m ryry o 10 o m - a m a , m • apC a LOOOm _O$amN -C Q yyy�LO m �ppp WO mja-m mO m`g a vv N m L m O .L GO mOa? Ga 2 !C om wo �a . X cc c p>m 2 4 VZOE E m MnV 0 oa EE Wr a 25mm ° °r C Ly a m � „E W C a°0r " a LO L 2 F Q5 mZ LD {p .L F `m S "Lm ' CE Yr O = C W N a C ; O N _ m O Q Q L m N .O r.O c .L CC T a yr W y E ,C{W . J O a W C a ., W ° m at ` y W!r R yL .2 OL OmO lY � L �J Lmr -� Ny yyy m 05 o L>--2-90 C ELmO m �a Yl0 l yLLa Wi H C no M O rE j000 E d`WC y U C � mE HY�0 E.a a EBOOL.3 EmmO m mL E$ a m mO N l? N V N M Z V V V V N W m C� � m b i a E e c /Q� M 4 m4 a£ m a= mm mo c2 Q c c 4 `m C � SL) c � E c `o C O Om � � Om m N _c O c _c O U K 32 .5 ° 9 .5 f0 C1 m c O a a — m a 'p c co `o c c.4 cm °m2 rno �a �3 Fd �� 0 �� E g 9 `o a Na s� � s� �w �E m U �r m:. o` ci$ � qq cD 'o m 2 'o L° Q' c Q c OU OU om0 Na m4m mm m n Ca Mgsrn 0T.is >� £0c m .mc0 cUT Pm m =Nd m o5Eu m 5 U m `o m Mm'u m`� �� ' 3 w' mm°i `o c v mm m o ° c= a n N —m m C .5 8 9 o3m >. E'3 >a L m L N �yTp�c o` N a C N v aWm 3O n a' C -3'c NMC1 m Lrm N .Ji m N.N.. S V m 9 N L_ y° — L rC ; p a m 0 j L m C E 9 m N N Q C N C C T C d O m N 2 m 0 O a O N c C O h° ° r ° L E> °m o w m s £ c Z m m m �m a °c mo` "`°om 0 =m c �NN 3� > owmEc- Nyacmw Ta c`o nymQ' LcTE qt '`� a cm o = >� N mL o aE '� '� mcmaom£ N " —� `o m mm._. < �" N.+._ t c' 'v a c o —c@ 0 T$ N c �g y aq Gi? m r m mL m m a m c �! "E m r >a0 a — 0Lid m —= 35 m.. c Q'._ 3r `o m �r Eac.: m Aea N '� . m o Ewm m c '5 �m v° °m,m m 1O co L Na L N 38�a c.°_'oiRmmc L ._ y-- L T —om= N c — °$ N m yy a_ mcy" M m � c.c 'qc 3E L m m tO j .N.. m MM M L N N O E m _C J rm w N J �C' m C E m t0 O) O— N Q a m C N S N. C N E S .N.. C N E O E uLm N U Lj OI.0 0�or .Q ?� ii� L`m .¢c °m m L' m�gr�U3o' ng —L �° O cs > —�'omm o.c n n m m a - a co5�, �o j 1u $ m "�3m > 8i o ii ii b m m yUN v1 m m N m t .,�. m 'd I c 0 .. 8 o m Z N U 9 m mrn 9 m m T j as m m ���ff m G U ` [= 'Q> N ' �i �/ _o �i m V .�Nf m m QE$5 r^ c c �3a m m o. a dEmmU N`. F -�a�`m m 0 `o c m `AvmiO a.!9 .u°i o a EESc o. U q ❑Ba�Ed°. ?❑ aN n m m£mmL°�m'QE g mQ o.m ' FL£3aa NaEHUUFa' FLVIK N M m O M M M z v e v M 4 m4 a£ m a= mm mo c2 Q c c 4 `m C � SL) E Q 4aa �U gx m m �x c c L c c c E E `0 `0 E r w . C 0 0 ❑ o o ❑ r 0 0 0 0 ❑ C o+W a+ U U M 9 U U U U 32 ,o °o m 0 roU C C am a c a c _C a a c a c a c a c p .O O]O O)O 0O_ CO CO CO CO Eda f C O C O N C O .� U C O .a U C O .� U C O .� U c ❑ `o ❑ `0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ - a a` a c c C C '� t� 'c 'C •C 'C 'C m o 00 00 02 2- " 02 2- " 02 2`• O aE U E U aE U a m ' C a o C 0 C o 2 C o m C I? ?c cpc lo? O O O O OU OU Z O Ca on o a i o w d -CM c -- oa -0 $ arm zo -.2 ac2 m m m sCo$SE p m 0 + 0 m L =ZOO m am L E ic m L N N N C t0 N O C d .V U _ -E N m m $ M O `$ ryU E m m 0 �@mmc N° 0 0 Ow> mN L> ' O$mC m M o T .R Nm m N 9 F 0 m 0 v a ._ EmS M N m�U aL d � m ESE N m '$yN 0 mm a m m a m mr 0 m c t�' 0 g a °' �0 EROCB SO' `t 0 N o'iom L .. O� w C 8 m 3£ Q 0wm 0 Lr .- mc E U m m o od ao g o c L m0 C 8 o mm a N � N -R0 m N > 3 0 O FC 0 m- O mOm_ CCaO ,M y 0.� 2 m O O 80m Q m N r 0 0 0 % ym � - m C r d m3 Om u 0 � ` E N J u 0 m C N E L O p w 3 CE 0 v m L r m C m L O 3c) U 2 d yA 'Lr b O N m C C rN C a _O m N O C T ' m N E a° O� ° m m ='- O C m O" c m Uo C C o c $ a a t0 d ° 0 0 2q c 00 — _c r97i U�U Uco c ccm >nmN c " yc 0 }Tm 3 m rN m > yQ 'C aE £ r m ° U n i 30 ? 2 m $ v c Od � m `C E c0 O t'of 20 d 2 m '> $ - N d a C N 0 C _ �' > rmC N O N N 0 J rO m C m ¢E E ¢ 3 mE � Lt U . N $ 0E :E Z 2at p mmL2, L L mC U .I 0GCL r 0 • F m m F E- E H c 0 Q m U o c C M M M n ci v U E Q 4aa �U gx m m �x c c L EzW gx m0 c �x c a g �S� E CE rE r N O C C ❑� ❑� Ov� O N MW MW v'oc M c v� as O g a M M �? M m IL m m c c c m m 0 0 .� 0 e 05 m ED .E 0 O O C7a m0 ma E - 2 a 2 a ❑ 0 `o 0 `o a` a` M C m c c m c ._ c C c O o- 0 08 C x Y a 0 2 0 i i- `o L U L U r., c c 25 m m g v o 4' 0 4' 0 91. a a c O c O c 0 0 s M a O r w O O a Ll LD E J5rrW � L O C L � y C C N N C C C ... '. W N O C 8'2 C C 'CE > N N' oEA L� v �` .wa yc _ L 5 m L C 0 m�`� CO%Z~ 0c Q ii �a 0,04 -2 U M O' N ib o m E V o E ac Fd N _ O W^ .g' J C il{ a aW. c Q W J OI v N a 9 c o E N y 3 9 a E° o m e m b W va `� a 9 .{" y d A N m C 'y J y 0 m U t N _ W C y m L m N O a W "O m _ 0.6 i.. ' y m O N 0 C Wam m 3c�Q �SEoE W L r L y a- a 'E oo uyLay 0 �mEng'v N mn$ W E c . E N G« Q a n U N 6r O A C O C N a_Ei c a n s `° �' - v° 2 W L O. W y N W A$ Z y W 6 c `m �tOEt H°o A2 °c,0, ma a8 E, °aio ` a ��« °'�E'W ts' v "= c o vic °r�cE�a mr A O C N prW « N N W y O "O' T •� >v3 L' w v0' _2 >1Ec2vN d m v N N C m O 3 CN 'li «.� d W a y W O L f• S (O $ GS 6 H C a v p _ N t a J N C y .+ t 8 m 0` N E m y ll m W a y L•• W Z W i'1 W J C M-6 . N OC a °c C ppW } N '.N0 E Tl N N OI J C .L.. N r L W p C 0 � n E= '0' t W L �p 0 S W T~ ,Y• E J L T� W m mac° E u d C C s`- uJar O Z E y A .�? E 0 0 W O N W `• O C� O O SAS t r a y C J 2-D W C W m c 0M-X:5 t J 0 6'Fl Tj C s:.E26=vU J W O :5 Coo a J vuyc 0 1� W a N$r c LL 4'W = o nc'YS L^� 0v nc'c E LD t c W"O � aac� E Q Wa?- m« W vr3 .LW.. m d LC N �?o?yyEo2L�3.. C C Ec ms m'E Q?9w� w� y;aaQ� N m m W« N'S mQZN 15°Cmao 6wmtp ps c'Ga 5 ab 0 t E sc �°� o M.- W -L O•�j53 W_v O O T W N6 Q m ryrym J O N C W 0 FM OAS J O O'C W L O Q 6 L A N. L° J C N j ^ a N W ma$. t a= m�'Lt$Oay.�o s Y! ❑nmWE Hua nW fN9Nr arWEcLO O m O,= m U mad gc,_,mYm.S¢cmrcE!8mW mT V.r �y�ii u -6:2 ? a E 0T'-J u'- - OOW CECOWHmacCH- LJCOOLE OLL Ls cHn Ct aENa mrs L F3Q a a a a 7 c Z v 6 6 d U N 10 W EzW gx m0 c �x c a g �S� E o'D 4 4 a Z Q q O 'c /51 C m L E E�' '2aa m mQ� V. mp`p d a❑m a0 yay O Cm a 'C mFi a rmId a Cali O N O N N d C 111Oppp -SC ❑ C m ❑ C O ❑ C O ;U ❑ U O Y� C lcp_ C� c_ 1p 32 '5 2U 32 LL'j 2 o LL'j v o .0 LL a, a, ; m m m m CL a a m m c m c m m c 8v c c m m CO ° ° m 8= 16 16 �.� U Oar Eck aYi a'F� �2 L° 2 E @ 9 a �a i`a Sim Oc O c Oc y��a N N N m C° C° C° r O « « N J « J ❑ J ❑ J ❑ CL °- °- `o O CL a` a `o « 08 «U .° m c U c U c U N c U O OQ o 0 o rte° 'S 'C m m m 9 c c cYi g j a a a m a°91°'E9,� m O OU OU m m �i3 'rr `c rn -w oo am N � p 'oC YE om gN . cCm °'NC U c c E . o a £S 728 m c-o; c c N 0 m - { m C b O d r V V= N m S ZL S E N T �0 ~ m - E G -OE O mmE YCNJ 8 �vmm - m m -o ;ia Le -aa Ec v?N ° � YSiIL2ro �E ell m�°c m �E 2 N 8o 3Ea g i C r . mE �«c o .L.iCCC C�« o m l rU So E EB>m cqEU�L �a L pU i Qm CCN l 9 C._ p� 0m m pN m❑ E l QCri+ Nm da O 4ma �o _2LN� • mo 2va �> m m C5_ BmamC ga = m� m'c°" ° a C QQ� L5 - o L 2a m E m 0 ❑ Nm m c °«'° o2 m E 0 go ° m L Na0 5a« c 0 °g am E E c r N o0 4°�o d'K Ey m o Y >r 3'E8 ao t aa'0 °m O Q m N E g «pp mm�i � mN " '3�Q'2 0 E Ym o L mloE 2o °oT«2E E >N >°� vOd '>a rn E m8vdaE m « 0av O r r 8 0 a n 0 l a m 3 8 3- -:6 T 9 ZNm m§ J m m >62°LmL0.01 O Ca 'v a N« y ry �m mm Ey r m ^ L � _E-5 p- T U 1 m E "«°N- C •.Em0 - O 3ll ° �m2C ° o m L a2° d m O LL �a L C CNNO O c dc crOQr c m 7 ou a°50 `i C c . f a mS oEa v EEd N g N L R cmco « 0 `. m8o>,. {c " t8 oU cs > o °Lmm ° mc � mtam S FQas0 ma�= a>mmc 2a m N .iP 9 .4 N , E m > BZ rE° 8 0 m a Oo Qwcm6E'0 a 0£5 >Nm � =mL :9c m N M _ N m L z° v v N o b m li u L) U U E o'D 4 4 a Z Q q O 'c /51 m� U x m$ C �x t c c l.5� yF m Ea`E t��QQ f r E O w w o mw w w .5 E'5 32 IL 0 m m m m av a a w w a v 0 U w o m' O `° o O E ms w mw a mw ya JO ° E - o a O O 0 0 = a a a w,Z. w w c 0.0 = r o w c o 79 t U 0 0 c 0 0 U g° m E a ' a cm � 'o K r a O0 m c K J VL .29 L_Odm>L5 .Lm.. mO��m„'N0 .L..E Om OE'- C cc L�° qq ryry pp _ K L 'd O Uw > M2- m ooEo E o ° ac :522OL 3 0'5 O v 7; 1� NO«'^ mC�` go n n m w d �LD m c 0E0 0 � ° °-EE nu o9 a E >- E m 0 m c � 5 m « a._ V o c 6 m s t o8 Em m - oZm=mE ic `- mmc°ooz ccm t mc Rw °m '6 0O ,_- w Y m°Jc c c o c=E0m T .Z 'm _ o° 0 M.0 ' 0 ` 2 -t N m cE � a E > m $Nmc rUoS -- m c m Z V M,Fm m w 0 m F J O `E a= m Em C V wo E E T cE O ~` g. tovma M3 y w m w u a° c v no i m o «025.0 m>p '��i Nm EEo a mg$ c ymJOE0 a c wo -LE :SEE L 8aZE m m mou o -6 0Eo o m c mE mm -0 a n m` cccu« m -m 0 wo� V yE 0-6 0, ma=n m ° m c L m C L ❑ m m w L w N m °> o m° N m y y c EU r c o ? c ;mi E m E y 8 m =a BOB~ w v u om E m c w $` c t w` b .-� mam ��w ' 'E c r: !?' E -6.-. x ca `wt L« t o E° , ° °.O w a E w ` a O w E t5 >o 'i$ 6 a mm 4 J E'u °Oa a mnD E °L :0m om 3` om Z O O V O V m� U x m$ C �x t c c l.5� rz s� 44 $V a � g= m� E c c ,5L'S c t' mE 0 �E o m N a ya Om �❑ m 'c =m U 'c � m m a a sp D 0 m 1 a m G� S c spo Ed Na oz F: 1O � U E 0 `o a c E c o ° o c o m Z 0 0 a m £mN�o£� ym2 1�h$£c L �� C C--M$m m' m O° m�a �roZ.rn a om sp an room me oU��me rn�m 'E a 3 2 m N a m a m'& a n M rn o n Z$_ € o 019 a e- B m g t off $ ao �' o � X m a y m -mp Oan `°O mm.c °L'�a cEo`�oo r N UUsc'cO cm N a m ma01 p'1 pO �a M` 0 0 C 0 m N m a b > 0> amrm N�C_O�nSap d m'� 0 .0.. =06 �rn0 m ° O rj m t :c C N 0 J 0 O C 0 U a mCX16 °'0y�CL J` •L• N 0 0 0 �OCm0m'C N M O0Cm Cr L L - 0 0 0 as 0 a 0 N C D t'a L F C C m V01 m O m> E 0 °T �m S m C TJ C .L. a 0 L a° O N- J C C C Lo 0 t�0p _O N L 0 ', m TO a a .0 m °• N 0 O m 0 0 E '2 0 O 3m J C O N ryCy n mC =�mC�N pO m1U CONm OIm d_O N.. .L.. C..N� •sac «c$;�Em m c c m m n mmrna_mspmmm ���'E� a o c- �'- > o a_ N $Lt$;2' ^a am rat U 0 k O m �%' 0 �yy -'� m- m 0 t y C 0` U 1]3 $ m 5 0 s= 0 l C C C QZ UN L m W m 0 6 N 6 N U m L C C 0 m ._ N N �! m 0 N C a L j0 C a ryC 0 O O 9 m w m y 0 y C 6'm O O n O 0 a m 3 E WE m C 9 0 0 T E O C dE° "m E om�i rn «m °uc- gmEc�' p'g,`am HxQrE -m �EaccE 'ca��3J'c N m J r0 "g!t GCmsp!E'W�o :5 c O E Q N r JJ m L J 0 OR C 0 L= 6 N Nd�a mmmaa J LO m O m m m C 0 6 narnnuL3�mnma mmO p p �t Euu UEZ8= N M G a a rz s� 44 $V a � g= m� E c c ,5L'S 15'� EXHIBIT 7 Draft Resolution of Approval 157 "A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -010 AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2007 -002 FOR HOAG HEALTH CENTER LOCATED AT 500- 540 SUPERIOR AVENUE (PA2007 -013). WHEREAS, an application was filed by Newport Beach Healthcare Center, LLC requesting approval of an amendment to Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2007 -002, with respect to properties located at 500 -540 Superior Avenue, west of Newport Boulevard, east of Superior Avenue, and north of Dana Road, to: 1) convert 232,414 square feet of general office and research and development (R &D) floor area to medical office use; and, 2) authorize the construction of an additional 20,586 square feet of medical office space, for a total of 350,000 gross square feet of medical office floor area. 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 November 15, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2006101105) certified by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts to a less than significant level, and adopts a statement of overriding considerations for two significant unavoidable impacts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and WHEREAS, the General Plan includes goals and policies related to development within the City. Land Use Goal 6.6 (LU 6.6) promotes medical service uses that support Hoag Hospital and facilitates residential development in the West Newport Mesa area. Policy LU 6.6.1 (Hospital Supporting Uses Integrated with Residential Neighborhoods) states: "Prioritize the accommodation of medical - related and supporting facilities on properties abutting the Hoag Hospital complex (areas designated as "CO -M (0.5)" (Figure LU 18, Sub Area A)] with opportunities for new residential units (areas ) 5� Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 11 designated as "RM (18 1ac)'7 and supporting general and neighborhood - serving retail services (CG (0.75)" and "CN (0.3)], respectively". The project includes the conversion of existing general office and research & development floor area to medical office floor area to support Hoag Hospital. Project implementation is consistent with the policy indicating that development is compatible within a mixed -use area and that proposed land uses complement and support the major medical activity (Hoag Hospital) in the area; 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 (Revised) dated September 5, 2007" 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, 7r" 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 all fourteen of the study 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 fourteen 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. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach. 6. 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. \ \P o Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 11 WHEREAS, a use permit to allow the full conversion of the site to medical office use has been prepared and approved in accordance with Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following findings and facts in support of such findings: 1. Finding: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project is located in 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. There are no specific operational criteria for medical office uses in the Zoning Code. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and complies with all development standards. b. The City is currently in the process of updating the Zoning Code for consistency with the recently adopted General Plan. The proposed zoning designation for the site is OM (Office- Medical), which is intended to provide for medical - related offices, other professional offices, retail, short-term convalescent and long -term care facilities. Medical office uses are anticipated to be permitted by right within this new OM designation; therefore, the project should not conflict with future zoning implementation. 2. Finding: That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The proposed medical office use, pursuant to the conditions of approval, is consistent with the Medical Commercial Office (CO -M) land use designation of the 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 proposed overall total gross floor area of the site is consistent with the 350,000 square foot development limitation assigned for the site. 1 �� Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 11 b. The project has been conditioned to regulate the design and operation of the use to minimize impacts to adjacent uses, as well as occupants of the medical office buildings. Specifically, the project will not be detrimental to the public for the following reasons: • The 232,414 square feet of general office and R &D floor area to be converted to medical office floor area will result from interior remodeling within the existing buildings, with no changes to the exterior appearance. The future addition of 20,586 square feet of floor area is conditioned to be limited within a building envelope located between the two parking structures as shown on the proposed plans with a height not to exceed the 32 -foot height limitation. Given the location and height limitation of the proposed building envelope in relationship to the existing buildings on -site, the new building will be shielded from view from the residential developments to the west and south, as well as any views from Newport Boulevard. • With the completion of the previously- approved parking structure, the site will provide a total of 1,985 parking spaces on -site, exceeding the minimum code requirement by 235 spaces, thereby providing sufficient parking to accommodate the proposed project. • The Traffic Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed shuttle operation and has approved a route and operation that will avoid travel on streets adjacent to residences and convalescent homes. The increased frequency in the number of the shuttle trips per hour will serve to reduce personal vehicle trips between the hospital and proposed health center facilities and the shuttle is prohibited from travelling along the residential streets. The reduction of personal vehicle trips would have the effect of further reducing potential traffic, noise and air quality impacts. The project has been conditioned to include installation of the traffic signal at the main project driveway and completion of the related roadway improvements (medians, striping, widening, planting) prior to the issuance of any permit that results in the conversion equal to, or in excess of, 110,000 square feet of medical office floor area. The project has been conditioned so as to control and reduce excess lighting and to avoid off -site light spillage. 1Z Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 5 of 11 • 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, and more specifically, within the vicinity of the project site. • All potential environmental impacts have been analyzed in the Initial Study and DEIR and were found not to be significant with the incorporation of specific mitigation measures, with the exception of the long -term operational emissions and traffic impact to the intersection of Newport Boulevard /181h Street - Rochester Street in the City of Costa Mesa. No feasible mitigation measures exists that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels; therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been be adopted which find that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. 3. Finding: That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Facts in Support of Finding: The Zoning Code requires the approval of a use permit for medical offices The proposed conditions of approval and mitigation measures for this project will ensure that all conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the greatest extent possible or eliminated. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the amendment to Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2007- 002, all subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made hereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF NOVEMEBER, 2007. M M Robert Hawkins, Chairman Bradley Hilgren, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT: t�V3 1v Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 11 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval Amendment to Use Permit No. 2006 -010 & Traffic Study No. 2007 -002 (Project - specific conditions noted in italics) Planning Department The development shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan (sheet 2) of the plans dated January 15, 2007, 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 specified 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 350,000 square feet of gross medical office floor area. 7. Non - medical office uses shall be permitted, or conditionally permitted, on -site, consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code, so long as they do not increase the approved traffic generation for the project. 8. 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. 9. The final design of the parking structure shall provide all architectural treatments as shown on the proposed plans approved by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2006. l�5' Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 11 10. No ancillary parking shall be permitted to occur at the project site for the use of Hoag Hospital, except during the interim period, which concludes on December 7, 2009, to facilitate the completion of Hoag Hospital's construction of the Lower Campus. Use of the Hoag Health Center parking by Hoag Hospital personnel shall only be allowed so long as the minimum Zoning Code required number of parking spaces to facilitate the operation of on -site uses is provided. 11. The 20- passenger van shuttle between Hoag Hospital and the project site shall operate only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and limited to four round trips per hour. The shuttle 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, industrial Way). The shuttle shall only be used by physicians who have offices in Hoag Health Center, patients visiting physicians at Hoag Health Center who require further medical services to be provided at Hoag Hospital, and by Hoag staff who need to attend meetings or perform other duties at either Hoag Health Center or Hoag Hospital. 12. Prior to issuance of building Permits for anv 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. 13.AII 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. 14.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. Iti4 16. Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 8 of 11 construction, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare as specified by Mitigation Measure Nos. MM 4.7 -1 and MM 4.7 -2. notification of costs, the applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department. 17. New landscaping shall incorporate drought - tolerant plant materials and drip irrigation systems where possible. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. 22.Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 23. 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, attomey'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 Health Center Project including, but not limited to, the approval of the amendment to Use Permit No. 2006 -010 and Traffic Study No. 2007 -002, and/or the City's related Califomia Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program, and /or statement of overriding considerations for the Hoag Health Center 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 �lw-� Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 9 of 11 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, attomeys' 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. Building Department 24.The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. 25. 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. 26. Compliance with ADA code requirements shall be verified for the existing parking structure on -site and updated as required by the Building Department. Public Works Department 27. Double backf7ow preventers shall be installed to serve the site. 28. All existing on site catch basins shall be retrofitted with anti - bacterial filters to comply with the City's water quality requirements. 29.A set of bottomless trench drains shall be installed across the width of each driveway at the property line to comply with the City's on -site runoff retention requirements. 30. The site shall be graded in a manner so that no runoff will be discharged onto slopes above Newport Boulevard. 31.ADA compliant paths shall be provided within the areas identified and affected by the project's scope of work. 32. Prior to commencement of demolition and gradino of the proiect, 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. I o� Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 10 of 11 33.TrafBc 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 -tum in and right -turn out. The method to reinforce (i.e. signage, median, etc.) the right -tum in and right -tum out driveway shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 40. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs, expenses and fees associated in any way with the widening of Superior Avenue to the ultimate width of Superior Avenue along the project frontage as identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the installation of the traffic signal at the main project driveway (center driveway), including, but not limited to, all design, construction, project management acquisition, relocation assistance and other costs, consultant fees, expert fees, attorney fees, permit fees, and any litigation expenses related in any way thereto. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any new medical office tenant improvement the applicant shall post a new 10 -year performance bond with the City to guarantee payment of all fees, costs and expenses identified in this condition. The City will determine the bond amount by reasonably estimating the fees, costs and expenses identified in this condition. If at any point it is determined that the bond amount is insufficient to cover the actual or projected fees, costs, and expenses 1�� Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 11 of 11 identified in this condition as determined by the City, Hoag shall increase the bond amount accordingly. 41. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a medical office tenant improvement permit which would cause the site to exceed 110,000 square feet of medical office floor area, the installation of the traffic signal at the main project driveway and the widening of Superior Avenue shall have first been completed and in operation. Should the City be unable to complete the improvements within a reasonable timeframe, the applicant may elect to complete the improvements per the approval and direction of the Public Work's Department and shall reimburse the City for all costs and expenses associated with such an arrangement. 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. Fire Department 43. Automatic fire sprinklers and Class I standpipe shall be required in the new parking structure. Mitigation Measures 44. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006 - 101105) for the project. HOAG� One Hoag Drive PO Box Newport Beach CA 92658 -61 D-610 0 949/645 -8600 HOSPITAL www.hoaghospital.org Mr. Robert Hawkins Chairman Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Regarding: Special November Meeting of the Planning Commission Dear Chairman Hawkins and Members of the Commission: As you know, Hoag Hospital is processing two applications for entitlement with EIRs: the Hoag Master Plan Update and the Hoag Health Center CUP. Because of the timing of both these projects coming toward the end of the year, we wish to request a special meeting of the Planning Commission in November. Currently, the schedule only calls for one Commission meeting in November due to the Thanksgiving holiday. The timing of our projects indicate that it would be a tremendous help if a second meeting could be scheduled on November 15, 2007 in order to accommodate adequate hearing time for these important projects. Vice P esident, Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Cc: David Lepo Sharon Wood Dennis O'Neil Carol McDermott Gary McKitterick A NOT FOR- PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL. ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS a.,xes xrm