No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 19 - Exhibit 19 - Supplemental EIR - Volumes I & IIExhibit No. 19 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Separate —Volume I & II) N-I ' I THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY BLANK VOLUME[ DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN MASTER PLAN UPDATE SC H No. 1991071003 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Prepared by: C O N S U L T I N c 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E -200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 T: (714) 444 -9199 F: (714) 444 -9599 www.BonTerraConsulting.com September 2007 MONO r Volume I DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN MASTER PLAN UPDATE SCH No. 1991071003 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Contact: James Campbell Prepared by: BonTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E -200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 444 -9199 Contact: Dana C. Privitt, AICP September 2007 Section 2.0 Description of the Proposed Project ............................. ............................... Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Section Page Section 1.0 Executive Summary..._ ...................................................... ............................1 -1 1.1 General Introduction .................................................. ............................1 -1 1.2 Project Location ........................................................ ............................1-1 1.3 Background ............................................................... ............................1 -1 1.4 Project Summary ....................................................... ............................1 -3 1.5 Purpose and Scope of the Supplemental EIR and Previous Project Description .................................................... ............................2 Environmental Documents ........................................ ............................1 -4 1.5.1 Final EIR No. 142 ...................................... ............................... 1 -5 1.6 Areas of Controversy /issues to be Resolved ............. ............................1 -7 1.7 EIR Focus and Effects Found Not to be Significant ... ............................1 -8 2.5 1.7.1 E/ RFocus .............-...................................... ............................1 -8 -6 1.7.2 Effects Found Not to be Significant ............ ............................... 1 -9 1.8 Organization of the SEIR .......................................... ...........................1 -13 1.9 Referenced Documents and Availability of Studies and Reports ......... 1-13 1.10 Summary of Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures That Would 2.6.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies .......................... :............... Reduce or Avoid That Effect ..................................... ...........................1 -14 Section 2.0 Description of the Proposed Project ............................. ............................... 2 -1 2.1 Project Location ........................................................ ............................2 -1 3.4 2.1.1 Surrounding Land Uses ............................. ............................... 2 -1 2.2 On -site Land Uses and Permitted Development ......... ...........................2 -2 2.3 Project Objectives ................................................................................ 2 -3 2.4 Project Description .................................................... ............................2 -4 2.4.1 Proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments........... 2-4 2.4.2 Development Agreement Amendment ....... ............................... 2 -6 2.5 Project Phasing ......................................................... ............................2 -6 2.6 Intended Uses of the Supplemental EIR .................... ............................2 -6 2.6.1 City of Newport Beach ............................... ............................... 2 -7 3.2 2.6.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies .......................... :............... 2 -8 Section 3.0 Existing Conditions, Project Impact Analysis, Mitigation Program, Cumulative Impacts, and Level of Significance After Mitigation ................ 3 -1 3.1 Introduction ............................................................... ............................3 -1 3.2 Existing Conditions .................................................... ............................3 -1 3.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................ ............................3 -1 3.4 Project and Cumulative Impacts ................................ ............................3 -1 3.5 Mitigation Program .................................................... ............................3 -2 . 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs ............... ..........................3.1 -1 3.1.1 Summary of Final EIR No. 142 ............... ............................... 3.1 -1 3.1.2 Existing Conditions ................................. ............................... 3.1 -2 3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................... .........................3.1 -f0 3.1.4 Environmental Impacts ................................ ..........................3.1 -9 3.1.5 Mitigation Program ....................................... .........................3.1 -18 3.1.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........... .........................3.1 -19 3.2 Transportation and Circulation ................................. ..........................3.2 -1 3.2.1 Summary of Final EIR No. 142 ............... ............................... 3.2 -1 3.2.2 Methodology and Assumptions .................... ..........................3.2 -1 3.2.3 Existing Conditions ................................. ............................... 3.2 -5 3.2.4 Thresholds of Significance ...................... ............................... 3.2-8 RAPm1wMWewportV0 0raftEIRTOC -091807.EOC i Table ofcontems Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update DraftSuoolemental EIR Section 5.0 Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project ............................ - ....... 5 -1 5.1 Introduction ............................................................... ............................5 -1 5.2 Growth Patterns and Trends ..................................... ............................5 -2 5.2.1 Historical Trends ........................................ ............................... 5 -2 5.3 Growth Inducing Analysis .......................................... ............................5 -3 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program ............................................................ ............................6 -1 6.1 Aesthetics ................................................................. 3.2.5 Environmental Impacts ..........................................................3.2-8 6.1.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ..... 3.2.6 Mitigation Program ....................................... .........................3.2 -26 6.2.1 Final EIR No. 3.2.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........... .........................3.2 -31 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk .......................... ..........................3.3 -1 142 Previously Adopted Mitgation Measures ... 3.3.1 Summary of Final EIR No. 142 ............... ............................... 3.3.1 3.3.2 Methodology and Assumptions ............... ............................... 3.3-1 3.3.3 Regulatory and Planning Requirements for the SCAB........... 3.3-2 3.3.4 Existing Conditions ...................................... .........................3.3 -10 3.3.5 Thresholds of Significance ........................... .........................3.3 -16 3.3.6 Environmental Impacts ................................ .........................3.3 -18 3.3.7 Mitigation Program ....................................... .........................3.3 -29 3.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........... .........................3.3 -41 3.4 Noise ........................................................................ ..........................3.4 -1 3.4.1 Background .................. ............................... ..........................3.4 -1 3.4.2 Noise Criteria Background ...................... ............................... 3.4-1 .3.4.3 Methodol ogy ................. ............................... ..........................3.4 -7 3.4.4 Existing Conditions ................................. ............................... 3.4 -8 3.4.5 Thresholds of Significance ........................... .........................3.4 -15 3.4.6 Environmental Impacts ................................ .........................3.4 -16 3.4.7 Mitigation Program.............. : ................................................. 3.4 -30 3.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........... .........................3.4 -37 3.5 Aesthetics ................................................................ ..........................3.5 -1 3.5.1 Summary of Final EIR No. 142 ............... ............................... 3.5 -1 3.5.2 Existing Conditions ...................................... ..........................3.5 -2 3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance ...................... ............................... 3.5-4 3.5.4 Environmental Impacts ................................ ..........................3.5 -4 3.5.5 Cumulative Projects Impact Anal ysis ........... .........................3.5 -11 3.5.6 Mitigation Program ....................................... .........................3.5 -11 3.5.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........... .........................3.5 -13 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ............................ ............................... 4 -1 4.1 Introduction ............................................................... ............................4 -1 4.1.1 Project Summary ....................................... ............................... 4 -2 4.1.2 Project Objectives ...................................... ............................... 4 -3 4.2 Alternative to the Proposed Project ........................... ............................4 -3 4.2.1 Reduced Transfer of Entitled Development Atemative ............. 4 -3 Section 5.0 Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project ............................ - ....... 5 -1 5.1 Introduction ............................................................... ............................5 -1 5.2 Growth Patterns and Trends ..................................... ............................5 -2 5.2.1 Historical Trends ........................................ ............................... 5 -2 5.3 Growth Inducing Analysis .......................................... ............................5 -3 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program ............................................................ ............................6 -1 6.1 Aesthetics ................................................................. ............................6 -1 6.1.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ..... 6 -1 6.2 Air Quality and Human Health Risk ........................... ............................6 -3 6.2.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitgation Measures ..... 6 -3 6.3 Biological Resources ................................................ ...........................6 -14 6.3.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitgation Measures ... 6 -14 AMAoO nWeepwIWMraftERTOC-09180T.doc ii Table of Contents Hoag Memonal Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 6.4 Cultural Resources ................................................... ...........................6 -15 2 -3 6.4.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ... 6-15 6.5 Geology and Soils .................................................... ...........................6 -16 -15 6.5.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ... 6-16 6.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................... ...........................6 -18 -10 6.6.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ... 6 -18 6.7 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................... ...........................6 -23 6.7.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ... 6 -23 6.8 Land Use and Planning Programs ............................ ...........................6 -25 6.8.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ... 6 -25 6.9 Noise ............................................................ ....................................... 6 -26 6.9.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ... 6 -26 6.10 Public Services ......................................................... ...........................6 -30 6.10.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ... 6 -30 6.11 Recreation ................................................................ ...........................6 -31 6.11.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ... 6 -31 6.12 Transportation and Circulation ................................. ...........................6 -31 6.12.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ... 6-31 6.13 Utilities and Service Systems ................................... ...........................6 -35 6.13.1 Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ... 6 -35 Section 7.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted and Preparers and Contributors.......... 7 -1 7.1 Agencies and Persons Consulted ............................. ............................7 -1 7.2 Preparers and Contributors ....................................... ............................7 -1 Section8.0 References ...................................................................... ............................... 8-1 Section 8.0 Acronyms and Glossary of Terms .............................................................. 9-1 9.1 Acronyms .................................................................. ............................9 -1 9.2 Glossary of Terms ..................................................... ............................9 -4 TABLES Table Page 2 -1 2 -2 2 -3 3.1 -1 3.2 -1 3.2 -2 3.2 -3 3.2 -4 3.2 -5 3.2 -6 3.2 -7 3.2 -8 Hoag.Existing Entitled Square Footage ............................................ ............................2 - -3 Hoag Existing Uses Statistical Summary ..................... ................................................. 2 2 -3 HoagProposed Project .................................................................... ............................2 - -4 Consistency of the Proposed Project With Land Use - Related Goalsand Policies .......................................................................... .........................3.1 - -15 ExistingTrip Generation .................................................................. ..........................3.2 - -5 Existing (2007) Levels of Service/ ICUs ............................................ ..........................3.2 - -6 Hoag Development Assumptions ................................................... .........................3.2 - -10 TripGeneration Rates .................................................................... .........................3.2 - -10 Trip Generation Estimates . Year 2015 Without and With Proposed Master Plan Update Project: Intersection Levels of Service ..................................... ..............................: Year 2025 Without and With Proposed Master Plan Update Project: Intersection Levels of Service ..................................... ............................... Vehicle Queues at Hoag Access Points ..................... ............................... ...........3.2 -14 .............. 3.2 -17 .............. 3.2 -22 R:wopmwm"r(,ioae,oren Eimroc-0eie07.mo iii Table of Contents Hoag Memanal Hospital Presbylenan Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental On 3.2 -9 Project Parking Requirements ........................................................ .........................3.2 -24 3.2 -10 Consistency of the Proposed Master Plan Update Project With Transportation - Related Goals and Policies .................................... .........................3.2 -25 3.3 -1 Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................................... .........................3.3 -7 3.3-2 Designations of Criteria Pollutants for the SCAB ............................. ..........................3.3 -8 3.3 -3 Air Quality Levels Measured at Costa Mesa Monitoring Station ..... .........................3.3 -12 3.3 -4 Air Quality Levels Measured at Mission Viejo Monitoring Station .... .........................3.3 -13 3.3 -5 Existing (2007) Hoag Emissions ..................................................... .........................3.3 -15 3.3 -6 Existing Hoag Emissions Compared Regional Emissions ............... .........................3.3 -15 3.3 -7 Existing Health Risk Summary ........................................................ ........................3.3 -16 3.3-8 SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emissions Thresholds of Significance .......................3.3 -16 3.3 -9 SCAQMD Thresholds of. Significance for Toxic Air Contaminants .. .........................3.3 -17 3.3 -10 Year 2015 Hoag Emissions: No Additional Development ............... .........................3.3 -22 3.3 -11 Year 2015 Hoag Emissions With Existing Master Plan Approved Land Uses (Final EIR No. 142) ................................................................ .........................3.3 -22 3.3 -12 Year 2015 Hoag Emissions Increase With Existing Master Plan Approved Land Uses (Final EIR No. 142) ............................... .........................3.3 -23 3.3 -13 Year 2015 Hoag Emissions With the Proposed Master Plan Update Project ........... 3.3 -24 3.3 -14 Year 2015 Hoag Emissions Increase With Proposed Master Plan UpdateProject ............................................................................... .........................3.3 -24 3.3 -15 Future Emissions Existing Master Plan compared to Proposed Master Plan Update Project ............................................................ .........................3.3 -25 3.3 -16 Health Risk Summary ..................................................................... .........................3.3 -26 3.3 -17 Proposed Master Plan Update Project Emissions Compared to RegionalEmissions ........................................................................ .........................3.3 -27 3.3-18 Consistency of the Proposed Master Plan Update Project With Air Quality - Related Goals and Policies ................................................ .........................3.3 -28 3.4 -1 City of Newport Each Noise Ordinance Standards .......................... ..........................3.4 -5 3.4 -2 Ambient Noise Measurements .................................................. ................................ 3.4 -8 3.4 -3 Existing Roadway Traffic Noise Levels ............................................ ..........................3.4 -9 3.4 -4 Cogeneration Facility Noise Measurement Results (dBA) .............. .........................3.4 -14 3.4 -5 Proposed Master Plan Update Project Traffic Noise Level Changes .......................3.4 -19 3.4-6 Future Noise Levels With Proposed Master Plan Update Project ... .........................3.4 -21 3.4 -7 Future Traffic Noise Levels Impacting Hoag ................................... .........................3.4 -29 3.4 -8 Consistency of the Proposed Project With Noise - Related Goalsand Policies .......................................................................... .........................3.4 -30 3.5 -1 Consistency of the Proposed Master Plan Update Project With Aesthetics - Related Goals and Policies ............................................ ..........................3.5 -9 4 -1 Reduced Transfer of Entitled Development Alternative .................... ............................4 -4 4 -2 Project Trip Generation Estimates .................................................... ............................4 -6 4 -3 Year 2015 Without and With Project Alternative Intersection Levels of Service ............4 -7 4-4 Year 2025 Without and With Project Alternative Intersection Levels of Service .......... 4-10 4 -5 Year 2015 Hoag Emissions With Project Alternative ....................... ...........................4 -13 4 -6 Year 2015 Hoag Emissions Increase With Project Alternative ......... ...........................4 -13 4 -7 Future Emissions Existing Master Plan Compared to Project Alternative ...................4 -14 4 -8 Project Alternative Emissions Compared to Regional Emissions ..... ...........................4 -14 4 -9 Project Alternative Emissions Compared to Proposed Master Plan Update Project .... 4 -15 4 -10 Project Alternative Traffic Noise Level Changes .............................. ...........................4 -16 4-11 Future Noise Levels With Project Alternative ................................... ...........................4 -18 4 -12 Comparison of Traffic Noise Levels For The Project Alternative and Master Plan Update Project ( dB) ................................................................. ...........................4 -21 5 -1 Growth Projections for RSA F -39 and County of Orange .................. ............................5 -3 R.9Rroje \NexponU0080raR EMTDC.091807.dw iv Table of Contents EXHIBITS Exhibit Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SUDDlemental EIR Follows Page 2 -1 Regional Location ............................................................................ ............................2 -1 2 -2 Local Vicinity .................................................................................... ............................2 -1 2 -3 Project Site ....................................................................................... ............................2 -1 2 -4 Hoag Upper Campus and Lower Campus Boundaries ..................... ............................2 -2 2 -5 Loading Dock Area Noise Standards ................................................ ............................2 -5 3.1 -1 Existing Land Uses ........................................... ............................... ..........................3.1 -2 3.1 -2 PC Text Development Criteria ......................................................... ..........................3.1 -8 3.2-1 Traffic Study Area ........................ : ............................................................................ 3.2 -2 3.2 -2 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls .................. ..........................3.2 -5 3.2 -3 Existing (2007) AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................... ..........................3.2 -7 3.2-4 Existing (2007) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................... ..........................3.2 -7 3.2 -5 Proposed Master Plan Update AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... .........................3.2 -11 3.2-6 Proposed Master Plan Update PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... .........................3.2 -11 3.2 -7 Year 2015 Without Project (Existing Master Plan) AM Peak Hour TrafficVolumes .............................................................................. .........................3.2 -13 3.2 -8 Year 2015 Without Project (Existing Master Plan) PM Peak H our TrafficVolumes .............................................................................. .........................3.2 -13 3.2 -9 Year 2015 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project AM Peak Hour TrafficVolumes .............................................................................. .........................3.2 -15 3.2 -10 Year 2015 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project PM Peak Hour TrafficVolumes .............................................................................. .........................3.2 -15 3.2 -11 Year 2025 Without Project (Existing Master Plan) AM Peak Hour TrafficVolumes .............................................................................. .........................3.2 -16 3.2 -12 Year 2025 Without Project (Existing Master Plan) PM Peak Hour TrafficVolumes ................................... . ....................... .............. ......... .... ................. 3.2 -16 3.2 -13 Year 2025 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project AM Peak Hour TrafficVolumes ........................................................... ........... ................................. 3.2 -18 3.2 -14 Year 2025 With Master Plan Update Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..........3.2 -18 3.2-15 Roadway Cross Section ................................................................. .........................3.2 -20 3.2 -16 Hoag Drive /Hospital Road .............................................................. .........................3.2 -20 3.5 -1a Photograph View Locations ............................................................. ..........................3.5 -2 3.5-1b Site Photographs ............................................................................. ..........................3.5 -2 3.5-1c Site Photographs ............................................................................. ..........................3.5 -2 3.5-1d Site Photographs ........................................................... ........ ..... . .............................. 3.5 -2 3.5-1e Site Photographs ............................................................................. ..........................3.5 -2 3.5 -if Site Photographs ............................................................ :..... ...... . .............................. 3.5 -2 3.5-1g Site Photographs ............................................................................. ..........................3.5 -2 3.5 -1h Site Photographs ............................................................................. ..........................3.5 -2 3.5-1i Site Photographs ... . ......................................................... ... ........ . ....... .... ................... 3.5 -2 3.5-2 Development Criteria ....................................................................... ..........................3.5 -4 4-1 Project Alternative AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................... ............................4 -5 4 -2 Project Altemative PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..................... . ................................. 4 -5 4 -3 Year 2015 With project Alternative AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .. ............................4 -9 4-4 Year 2015 With project Alternative PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .. ............................4 -9 4-5 Year 2025 With project alternative AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .. ............................4 -9 4 -6 Year 2025 With Project Alternative PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . ............................4 -9 5 -1 Regional Statistical Area/Community Analysis Areas ....................... ............................5 -2 alPrq rkmweMwmaoeknraneimrocooieot.dw v Table of Contents Hoag Memonal Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E1R VOLUME 11 TECHNICAL APPENDICES A Notices of Preparation and Initial Studies B Draft Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and District Regulations (PC Text) C Traffic Report D Air Quality E Human Health Risk Assessment F Noise Report Planned Community Development Criteria a: wropwmwawpmnraeXaanFJMTO"91WTm A Table of Contents Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR SECTION 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION In 1992, the City of Newport Beach (City) certified the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 142 (Final EIR No. 142) for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan and adopted the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (PC Text). This document is a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Supplemental EIR or SEIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 1991071003) to Final EIR No. 142 and is prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § §21000, et seq.) and its implementing State regulations (CEQA Guidelines) (14 Cal. Reg. § §15000, et seq.). Final EIR No. 142 is summarized in Section 1.3 below. Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, this SEIR incorporates by reference the findings and recommendations of Final EIR No. 142 and focuses on the proposed modifications to the Hoag Master Plan. The proposed Master Plan Update Project (or Project) is described below in the Project Summary and is discussed in detail in the Project Description section of this SEIR. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Hoag) is an existing facility at One Hoag Drive in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The approximate 38 -acre site is generally bound by Hospital Road to the north, West Coast Highway to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and residential development and open space to the west. Superior Avenue is the closest major street to the west. Hoag consists of two planning areas: the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus. The Upper Campus is generally bound by Hospital Road to the north, the Lower Campus to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and West Hoag Drive (on -site roadway) and condominium residences to the west. The Lower Campus is generally bound by the Upper Campus to the north, West Coast Highway to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and Superior Avenue to the west. Sunset View Park is an undeveloped consolidated and a linear park that extends along much of the northern boundary of the Lower Campus and separates Hoag from the Villa Balboa and Versailles at the Bluff condominium complexes. Vehicular access to Hoag is provided at three locations. The Upper Campus can be accessed from Hospital Road, which serves as Hoag's northern boundary. The main entrance is a signalized intersection located at the intersection of Hospital Road at Placentia Avenue -Hoag Drive. A non - signalized secondary access, West Hoag Drive, is accessed from Hospital Road, leads into the Upper Campus, and follows the western boundary. West Hoag Drive is gated to limit vehicular access between 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM. A second signalized intersection, located on West Coast Highway at Hoag Drive, serves as the main entrance to the tower Campus. Hoag Drive, South Hoag Drive, and West Hoag Drive provide internal vehicular access throughout Hoag. 1.3 BACKGROUND Hoag Hospital was constructed in 1952 as a 75 -bed, 50,000 square -foot (sf) facility. The complex has undergone several major construction phases that have expanded and remodeled the facilities. In 1979, the first Master Plan and EIR were prepared and approved for Hoag. At R?ProleMNew rKMMralt EIR11.0 EZ5um- 091W7.tlac 1 -1 Section 1.0 Executive summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental EIR the time the 1979 Master Plan was prepared, Hoag facilities were located solely on what is now known as the Upper Campus (this is discussed in more detail below). The 1979 Master Plan provided for 217,600 sf of additional uses, included a new 10 -story hospital tower, and provided for the expansion of the existing tower (the West Tower); a new hospital tower was not constructed until 2005 as the Sue and Bill Gross Women's Pavilion (East Tower). At the time of the 1979 Master Plan was approved, Hoag did not own the Lower Campus area. On June 19, 1984, Hoag purchased the approximate 22 -acre Lower Campus from the.State of California. Subsequent to that purchase and prior to the, 1992 Master Plan and EIR, Hoag constructed the Patty and George Hoag Cancer Center and a child care center in 1991 on the Lower Campus. The development of the Lower Campus was completed with separate CEQA documentation. In 1992, the City certified the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final EIR No. 142 for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan and adopted both PC Text and the "Development Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian' (Development Agreement). In 1994, the City approved Ordinance No. 94 -8 to readopt the Development Agreement. The existing Master Plan allows for up to 1,343,238 sf of uses at Hoag, inclusive of the Upper and Lower Campuses. Of the 1,343,238 sf of permitted development, the Master Plan allocates 765,349 sf of uses to the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf of uses to the Lower Campus. Currently, 698,121 sf have been constructed on the Upper Campus and 188,149 sf have been constructed on the Lower Campus. It should be noted that the Master Plan provides for redevelopment of current uses at Hoag. The Master Plan assumed that development on the Upper Campus would be primarily reconstruction and redevelopment because the Upper Campus contained the early hospital development. The Lower Campus, which was essentially undeveloped at the time the Master Plan was approved in 1992, provided for new development. It also provided for the relocation of some services from the Upper Campus to the Lower Campus. The Master Plan was intended to guide development at Hoag over a period of approximately 21 years. The PC Text and the Development Agreement set forth the development standards and terms and conditions by which Hoag may be developed, and it included maximum permissible building area, building height limits,.and permitted land uses. Since the 1992 Master Plan and Final EIR No. 142 were approved, Hoag has constructed a cardiac services addition, a parking structure, a new inpatient hospital tower (the Sue and Bill Gross Women's Pavilion [East Tower]), and a minor expansion to the James Irvine Surgery Center on the Upper Campus. On its Lower Campus, Hoag has constructed a conference center with an associated parking structure, two auxiliary parking lots, an employee childcare center, and a cogeneration facility. Additionally, Hoag relocated the methane gas flare and upgraded the scrubbing /cleaning technology associated with the methane gas flare onto the Lower Campus. The Lower Campus is currently under construction with the relocation and expansion of Hoag's child care center; a retaining wall project was recently completed. In 2002, the City Council approved the First Amendment to the PC Text. The First Amendment changed the definition of "Gross Floor Area Entitlement" so that certain unoccupied building areas are not counted toward the maximum permissible building floor areas for the project site. Unoccupied building areas were defined to include areas such as stairwells and elevator shafts (except on the first floor); areas used for structural systems upgrades directly related to the requirements of government agencies (and are therefore not for general or routine occupancy); and rooftop enclosures for mechanical equipment (not for general or routine occupancy). RAPmjeM \NmponU=8\Draft EIR\1.0 Ex5um 0918V.dm 1 -2 Section 1.0 Execulive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E1R 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY The existing Hoag Hospital Master Plan currently allows for up to 1,343,238 sf of development at Hoag, inclusive of the Upper and Lower Campuses. No additional square footage is proposed as a part of this Project. The Project proposes to reallocate up to 225,000 sf of previously approved (but not constructed) square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. The maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus would be 990,349 sf (if all 225,000 sf is reallocated) and the maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus would be 577,889 sf (if no square footage is reallocated). However, in no event could the combined total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. No site - specific development projects are proposed as a part of the Master Plan Update Project. Under the existing provisions of the PC Text, mechanical equipment noise generated from Hoag Hospital shall not exceed 55 decibels (dB) at all Hoag property lines. This noise restriction, which was established prior to the creation of the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance, is proposed to be eliminated. Instead, noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 below and as depicted on Exhibit 2 -5 (see Section 2.0, Project Description, Exhibit 2 -5). The applicable noise standard at the Hoag property line adjacent to the loading docks shall be as follows: 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. Hoag Hospital, the Applicant, has requested the following approvals as a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project: General Plan Amendment. The proposed Master Plan Update Project requires an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to establish maximum allowable building areas for the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus. The General Plan authorizes maximum allowable building areas of 765,349 sf for the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf for the Lower Campus, for a total of 1,343,238 sf. The amendment would allow up to 225,000 sf to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus — with up to 577,889 sf of development in Lower Campus and up to 990,349 sf in the Upper Campus (assumes entire 225,000 sf is transferred), provided that the total square footage for the Upper and Lower Campus combined does not exceed 1,343,238 sf. • Hoag Hospital PC Text Amendment. The Project requires an amendment to the PC Text to establish maximum allowable building areas for the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus. Existing noise restrictions set forth in the PC Text would be eliminated. Noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise noted. Development Agreement Amendment., As a part of the project, the Applicant is requesting a Development Agreement Amendment to allow up to 225,000 sf of authorized development to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance RAProjec XNewpoMU"MraN EIR \1.0Ex5um- 0918U.EOC 1 -3 Section 1.0 Executive Summary ka Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 58 dBA 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. Hoag Hospital, the Applicant, has requested the following approvals as a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project: General Plan Amendment. The proposed Master Plan Update Project requires an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to establish maximum allowable building areas for the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus. The General Plan authorizes maximum allowable building areas of 765,349 sf for the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf for the Lower Campus, for a total of 1,343,238 sf. The amendment would allow up to 225,000 sf to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus — with up to 577,889 sf of development in Lower Campus and up to 990,349 sf in the Upper Campus (assumes entire 225,000 sf is transferred), provided that the total square footage for the Upper and Lower Campus combined does not exceed 1,343,238 sf. • Hoag Hospital PC Text Amendment. The Project requires an amendment to the PC Text to establish maximum allowable building areas for the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus. Existing noise restrictions set forth in the PC Text would be eliminated. Noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise noted. Development Agreement Amendment., As a part of the project, the Applicant is requesting a Development Agreement Amendment to allow up to 225,000 sf of authorized development to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance RAProjec XNewpoMU"MraN EIR \1.0Ex5um- 0918U.EOC 1 -3 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR except as otherwise noted. An amendment to the Development Agreement would also provide for an extension of the term, an increase in the public benefits through the payment of a proposed Development Agreement fee of $3 million for City public works improvements, designation of the City as the point of sale for major hospital equipment purchases, allow for a one -time waiver of the administrative fee for the issuance of health care revenue bonds, and eliminate unnecessary references. Although not a party to the original Development Agreement, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) would review and approve the Development Agreement. A detailed description of the proposed Master Plan Update Project is provided in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this SEIR. 1.5 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR AND PREVIOUS CEQA §21166 states that the lead agency must prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR when one of the following events occurs: 1. Substantial changes to the project are proposed that require major revisions to the EIR. 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions in the EIR. 3. New information, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, becomes available. CEQA Guidelines §15162 provides that a subsequent EIR is required if: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project requiring major revisions to the previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following: (a) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) mitigation measures or altematives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. CEQA Guidelines §15163 allows a lead agency to prepare a supplement to an EIR when any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines §15162 (stated above) would require the R:Trojects \Ne ortl/908TraH EIR11.0 EX&M-091807AOC 1 -4 Section 1.0 - Executive Summary Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR preparation of a Subsequent EIR, but only minor additions or changes are necessary to make a previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. CEQA Guidelines §15163(b) further states, 'the supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised" and 'the supplement may be circulated by itself without re- circulating the previous Draft or Final EIR." The City has determined that a Supplement to Final EIR No. 142 is required to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the proposed modifications to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. Additionally, the SEIR will provide an analysis of whether new and /or revised mitigation measures are appropriate. Although alternatives to the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not need to be addressed in this SEIR, the Applicant has requested that the City include one alternative. for informational purposes. Analyzing a mid -range reallocation scenario allows for the assessment of impacts should less than the maximum square footage relocation occur as would be permitted with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. As such, this alternative has been included in this SEIR. 1.5.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 Final EIR No. 142, which was certified in 1992, was prepared to address the potential impacts associated with construction of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Development program. The Final EIR addressed the impacts associated with the phased reconstruction and development of the Upper Campus and development of the Lower Campus. The Final EIR included a supplemental EIR volume (Final EIR No. 142, Volume V), which was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15163, provided clarifications to the EIR and project, and was distributed for public review before Final EIR No. 142 was certified. The existing Master Plan assumed the single -story and low -rise structures (approximately 500,000 sf) on the Upper Campus would be demolished and replaced with multi -story buildings. In addition to the reconstruction and existing uses, approximately 285,349 sf of new development was approved for the Upper Campus. The City's approval of the Master Plan project in 1992 allowed for 765,349 sf of development for the Upper Campus. Final EIR No. 142 identified uses on this portion of Hoag to include, but not be limited to: an emergency care unit, an intensive care unit, birth suites, a cardiology unit, and a critical care unit. Appendix B of this SEIR provides the draft revisions to the PC Text for the Master Plan Update and includes a complete list of permitted uses for the Upper and Lower Campuses. Final EIR No. 142 identified that the existing heliport may be relocated on the Upper Campus, but would be subject to a separate Conditional Use Permit, which would be addressed with subsequent project- specific environmental documentation. In addition, approximately 577,889 sf of development was approved for the Lower Campus. This included a cancer center (65,000 sf) and employee child care center (7,800 sf), which existed at the time the EIR was prepared, in addition to 505,089 sf of new development. Uses for the Lower Campus addressed in Final EIR No. 142 included, but were not limited to: • outpatient uses (skilled nursing /rehabilitation, clinical center, surgery center /day hospitalflaboratory); • residential care (substance abuse and residential care); • support services (health education, food services, conference center, medical library, pharmacy, and power /mechanical /auxiliary support and storage); • administrative offices; and RNWr easNMPW 10091➢raR EIRWO ExSUm091807.d 1 -5 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR • medical support offices. Final EIR No. 142 identifies that an emergency room and heliport are prohibited on the Lower Campus. The topics below were identified in Final EIR No. 142 as significant, unavoidable adverse impacts: • Land Use: The placement of hospital uses closer to residential units on the western side of the Upper Campus would result in significant impacts as a result of a combination of land use compatibility, shade and shadow, and noise impacts. Although the existing PC Text for the existing Master Plan provides for a greater setback than is required by the City Code, Final EIR No. 142 identified this as a significant unavoidable impact. • Land Use? The Project would contribute to a significant unavoidable impact because increased development on the Upper Campus would increase the use of internal site roads on both the Upper and Lower Campuses and, in turn, contribute to noise and land use impacts on adjacent residential uses. • Air 4uality: The Project would result in significant cumulative air quality impacts associated with motor vehicle and stationary source pollutant emissions. The Project itself did not exceed thresholds, but when considered with all other present and future projects, a significant cumulative impact was identified because the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) continued to exceed State and federal air quality standards. • Noise: The Project would not result in significant project- specific exceedances of noise thresholds; however, it would contribute to significant unavoidable cumulative noise impacts. Roadway noise would exceed the 65 Community Noise Equivalency Level (CNEL) along roadways surrounding Hoag. • Construction, Air 4uality: Air pollutants emitted by construction equipment, construction vehicles, and dust generated by grading and site preparation would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. • Construction, Noise: Noise during construction would reach high levels and would create a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Because the noise would occur intermittently over a 20 -year period, Final EIR No. 142 identified construction noise as a significant unavoidable impact. Final EIR No. 142 identified the following potential impacts as significant, but reduced to a level of less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. Earth Resources. The substantial change in the topography would be a significant impact; however, implementation of standard grading and erosion - control practices would reduce these impacts to levels considered less than significant. • Earth Resources: The Newport- Inglewood Fault and several other potentially active faults could result in impacts associated with ground shaking. Standard building practices would reduce these impacts to a level considered less than significant. This significant impact was identified in both the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation sections of Final EIR No. 142. RAPrgedS\NewWrWO 8\DMft EIR \1.0 ExSum- 091807AM 1.6 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR • Earth Resources: Expandable and corrosive soils may be encountered during Project construction. Testing for soil corrosivity and implementation of remedial measures would reduce the associated impacts to a level.considered less than significant. • Hydrology/Water Quality. The exposure of soils during construction would create the potential for short-term erosion and associated water quality impacts. Implementation of standard construction practices would reduce this impact to less than significant. • Hydrology/Water Quality. If infectious, hazardous, or radioactive materials and wastes are not handled properly, the Project could result in the contamination of water quality. Compliance with the Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infectious Control Manual would reduce this potential impact to a level considered less than significant.2 • Noise: Any increase in mechanical equipment use as a result of the Project would exacerbate exceedances to the existing noise level standard. The objective of the adopted - mitigation was to reduce existing noise levels (associated with on -site exhaust fans and .noise generated by new mechanical support equipment) to applicable standards. • Biological Resources: Project implementation would result in the removal of a minimum of 1.52 acres of wetlands. Wetland removal was subject to compliance with the mitigation requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the CCC. • Cultural Resources: Construction could result in the disturbance of undetected archaeological and paleontological resources during construction. Monitoring during grading activities is required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. • Public Health and Safety. The Lower Campus is exposed to methane and hydrogen sulfide gas seepage. Development of the site could increase the gas seepage. A Soil Gas Sampling and Monitoring Plan combined with a Site Safety Plan will provide for adequate protection to public health and safety. Other impacts were identified in Final EIR No. 142; however, they were found to be less than significant. Extensive mitigation measures were adopted in conjunction with the Final EIR. 1.6 AREAS OF CONTROVERSYASSUES TO BE RESOLVED The areas of controversy, as determined through comments received on the Notices of Preparation, applicable to the proposed Master Plan Update Project are discussed below. • Residential development, which is considered a sensitive land use, is located adjacent to Hoag to the west and north. Additional residential development is located south of Hoag and West Coast Highway. Hoag, by the very nature of the fact that it is a hospital facility, is a 24 -hour operation. While mitigation was adopted as part of the 1992 Master Plan, there will be occasions when conflicts between the two land uses (i.e., residential and 2 This significant impact was identified in both the Hydrology/Water Quality and Public Health and Safety sections of Final EIR No. 142. R:ProleM\Nm o0110081Dra8 EIRl1.0 ExSum-091807.dw 1.7 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR hospital uses) arise. This SEIR has evaluated whether the proposed project would result in an increased conflict with the surrounding land uses. • The Applicant is requesting a change in the allowable noise levels for Hoag. Opposition to modifications to the noise standards for Hoag has been noted by commenters (i.e., those who expressed concern when the Notice of Preparation was distributed). Commenters have indicated that Hoag should continue to be required to comply with the noise standards set forth in the PC Text and Development Agreement. This SEIR has evaluated potential noise effects associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. • Because of Hoag's prominent location within the City, many of its buildings and facilities are visible. This SEIR addresses the compatibility of Hoag with surrounding land uses. 1.7 EIR FOCUS AND EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 1.7.1 EIR FOCUS In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15063, the City prepared an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed Project and distributed it along with the Notice of Preparation (NOP) to responsible and interested agencies and key interest groups. The NOP and IS were distributed to 27 individuals or agencies for a 30 -day review period that began on April 15, 2005, and ended on May 16, 2005. Comments were received on the April 15, 2005, NOP from the following organizations and individuals: • California Department of Transportation, District 12 • City of Costa Mesa • City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) • The Gas Company • Philip H. Bias • John P. and Suzanne V. Chamberlain • Ross A. and Belle M. Ribaudo Subsequent to the distribution of the NOP on April 15, 2005, the Applicant requested certain modifications to the Master Plan Update Project. The City elected to prepare a revised IS /NOP that outlined those changes. The revised IS /NOP was distributed to 29 individuals or agencies for a 30 -day review period that began on May 10, 2007, and ended on June 11, 2007. Comments were received from the following organizations and individuals/groups: • California Department of Transportation, District 12 • California Department of Toxic Substances Control • South Coast Air Quality Management District • City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) • Newport Beach Townhomes Home Owners Association R9Projeds\Newpo000081 ,aN EIRU.0 Ex8um•091807.doc 1 -8 . Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbytenan Master Plan Update Dratt Supplemental EIR • Villa Balboa Community Association, Hoag Hospital Liaison Executive Committee In summary, the changes made to the proposed project and reflected in the May 10, 2007, NOP are: a. The Applicant is no longer requesting an increase the maximum allowable building area on the Hoag Hospital site by 29,807 sf: 24,215 sf associated with the previously approved cogeneration facility and 5,592 sf associated with the relinquishment of an unused easement. The maximum allowable building area would not be revised from the already approved 1,343,238 sf., b. The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Development Agreement to eliminate the 55 dBA noise level restriction at the Hoag Hospital property line, which is currently contained in the PC Text, and to replace it with a requirement that noise at Hoag be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise noted. Copies of Initial Studies, NOPs, and the comments received on the NOPs are included in Appendix A. Based on the environmental analysis presented in the Initial Studies, the City determined that a supplement to Final Program EIR No. 142 is required to evaluate potential impacts in the following topical areas: • Land Use • Transportation, Parking, and Circulation • Noise • Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment • Aesthetics • Growth- inducing Impacts 1.7.2 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The following summarizes the findings of the Initial Studies for those topical areas which the City has determined to be less than significant or would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with the adopted Mitigation Program in Final EIR No. 142 and therefore need not be addressed in this SEIR. Aesthetics: The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State - designated scenic highway. The topography of the site has been modified from its original condition through grading and development. Contiguous to Hoag, West Coast Highway is not a designated State Scenic Highway. Other issues related to aesthetics are addressed in this SEIR. • Agricultural Resources: No portion of Hoag is covered by a Williamson Act Contract or is located on land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance according to 2000 Natural Resource Conservation Service mapping. The proposed Master Plan Update Project (reallocation of approved square footage) would have no effect on agricultural resources. Air Quality: Hoag's uses do not generate significant odors. Other issues related to air quality for the proposed Master Plan Update Project are addressed in this SEIR. R:Wraje=NNewponV0081Drak EIR \1.0 E.Sum•091807.dm 1-9 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Biological Resources: Final EIR No. 142 identified limited biological resources, including wetlands, on the site. As a result of construction of facilities consistent with the Hoag Hospital Master Plan and Final EIR No. 142, those resources have been removed. Additionally, on February 23, 2005, a qualified Biologist from BonTerra Consulting conducted a field review of Hoag to evaluate on -site resources. The findings were that Hoag is a developed site that supports minimal decorative landscaping. It supports habitat that is of low value for wildlife. There are no plant or wildlife species expected to occur at Hoag that are considered sensitive at either the federal, State, or local level. Hoag is not part of any wildlife movement corridor. There are no riparian or wetland habitats or any other environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Implementation of the Project would not result in a decrease in the diversity of species or in the number of plants or animals; it would not result in a reduction in the number of unique, rare, or endangered plant or animal species; and it would not conflict with provisions of Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan Program (NCCP) or any other habitat conservation plan. Further, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would only result in the removal of non - native landscaping that would be replaced by landscaping. Because of the limited on -site vegetation, no significant impacts to animal life are expected. As the proposed Master Plan Update Project would have no impacts on wildlife (as defined in the California Fish and Game Code §711.2), the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not contribute to potential cumulative development impacts to such wildlife. Final EIR No. 142 addressed biological resource impacts resulting from the development of the Hoag Master Plan; therefore, any potential issues concerning existing development on Hoag or full buildout of Hoag were already addressed in the previous EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would not alter analysis or conclusions reached in Final EIR No. 142. NOP commenters raising biological resources issues are directed to the analysis in Final El R No. 142. Cultural Resources: Hoag has been subject to three previous cultural resources investigations. A records search was conducted through the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton, which is part of the California Historical Resources Information System and provides records data for Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties. The records search (conducted on February 22, 2005) included a review of all recorded archaeological sites within a one -mile radius of Hoag and included a records review of the California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historic Places, National Register of Historic Places, and California State Historic Resources Inventory. Hoag is developed and has been subject to ongoing demolition and construction activities. Associated with these activities, no prehistoric archaeological or paleontological resources have been noted. However, archaeological and paleontological resources can be uncovered and consequently impacted by excavation and construction activities. Mitigation set forth in Final EIR No. 142, which requires monitoring by an Archaeologist during grading activities, would apply to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. For general plan and specific plan projects, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18 (Government Code §65352.3), local governments are required to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of protecting and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places. In compliance with SB 18, the City of Newport Beach has contacted tribal representatives to offer to initiate government -to- government consultation if requested. R:Wrcj d \NawpotlU909\Waft EIR \1.0 E %Sue 0918M.doc 1 -10 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Geology and Soils: Hoag is not in an Alquist- Priolo Zone nor has it been identified as being in an area subject to liquefaction (CDMG 1998). There is no visible or documented evidence of on -site conditions that could result in landsliding or slope failure. Additionally, the proposed Master Plan Update Project does not require the use of a septic tank or an alternative wastewater disposal system. All geological resource . potential impacts related to development of the Hoag Master Plan were analyzed and conclusions reached in Final EIR No. 142. Development of the proposed Master Plan Update Project (reallocation of square footage within the maximum allowable development cap) would not modify the analyses contained in the previous EIR. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Hazardous materials are used in small quantities during medical diagnosis and treatment, research, and facility operation and maintenance. Similarly, different types of hazardous wastes are generated (usually in small quantities) through these activities. Hoag is not on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Facility Index System Database (FINDS) as having any violations related to the use and /or storage of hazardous materials (EDR Environmental Resources, Inc. 2007). The analysis conducted as part of Final EIR No. 142 adequately addresses the potential impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials to provide the City of Newport Beach with an understanding of the potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Final EIR No. 142 determined that significant impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. In addition, current federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the handling (including transport and disposal) of hazardous materials would apply to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would. not alter the type of uses proposed on the site nor would it substantially increase the intensity of these uses. Therefore, NOP commenters who had concerns regarding the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials are directed to the previous EIR analysis. Demolition of buildings and building features could expose construction personnel, staff, patients, and visitors to asbestos- containing building materials and lead -based paint. The disposition of hazardous materials is subject to regulations established at both a federal and .State level. Potential impacts and mitigation for any significant impacts related to demolition associated with development at Hoag are addressed in Final EIR No. 142. Final EIR No. 142 also notes that the Lower Campus is located in the city's methane gas mitigation district and that methane gas is a public nuisance and public safety hazard for the Lower Campus and in the immediate vicinity of Hoag (Balboa Coves). Hoag relocated the methane gas flare and upgraded the scrubbing /cleaning technology on the Lower Campus to alleviate the potential nuisance and safety hazard. The phased implementation of the Master Plan Update Project would, in part, minimize disruptions to emergency response /evacuation plans. The adopted Mitigation Program requires construction phasing plans to ensure that emergency access is maintained during construction activities. Therefore, issues related to hazards and hazardous materials have been fully addressed in Final EIR No. 142. The Master Plan Update Project would be required to comply with mitigation set forth in Final EIR No. 142. R1Proj c WmponW00310 EIn11.0 ExSum091907.dm 1 -11 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR • Hydrology and Water Quality: The proposed Master Plan Update Project is not expected to change drainage patterns, increase runoff, or generate substantial increases in or the degradation of the quality of runoff because Hoag is predominately developed with the exception of landscaping and areas currently subject to construction activities; Hoag has limited amounts of pervious surfaces. Additionally, the Federal Clean Water Act establishes a framework for regulating potential surface water quality impacts; mandating sewage treatment; and regulating wastewater discharges. It also requires communities and industries to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits to discharge storm water. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not alter the types of uses proposed at Hoag nor would it substantially increase the intensity of the uses. The Master Plan Update Project would be required to compty with: (1) mitigation adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142 and (2) regulations associated with the NPDES permit that are applicable to industrial activities and runoff from developed areas that enter the City's urban storm water system. Hoag is located outside the main groundwater basin of the Orange County Coastal Plain. Perched groundwater is present in the terrace deposits on the slope of the Lower Campus, but not in the Upper Campus. Final EIR No. 142 determined that potentially significant impacts to groundwater could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not after the findings of the Final EIR and would require compliance with the adopted Mitigation Program. Hoag is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, no Hoag structures would be subject to flooding in such a flood event. Thus, all issues related to hydrology and water quality are addressed in Final EIR No. 142. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not affect the prior analyses, conclusions, or mitigation measures. • Land Use and Planning: Hoag is currently developed with medical facilities and will not displace any land uses unrelated to its existing facilities. Further, the site is not in or contiguous to an NCCP area. Issues related to land use compatibility are addressed in this SEIR. • Mineral Resources: Hoag does not contain any known mineral resources (Newport Beach 2006c). Therefore, all analyses related to the Hoag Master Plan and potential effects on mineral resources are contained in Final EIR No. 142; the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not alter the analyses or conclusions contained therein. • Noise: Hoag is not.located within any airport land use plan and is located more than two miles away from a public or public use airport or private airstrip. No further assessment of the effects of airport- related noise is required in the SEIR. Other potential noise impacts relative to the proposed Master Plan Update Project are addressed in this SEIR. • Population and Housing: There is no existing or planned housing at Hoag. Therefore, no housing or persons would be displaced as a part of the implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. • Public Services and Utilities: With respect to schools, the change in intensity of the Upper Campus proposed as a part of the Master Plan Update Project would not result in impacts to schools. The Project is not proposing any uses that would generate additional students. As a part of the existing Master Plan approval, the Applicant provided a A:Trolect WmponV0 Draft EIM1.0 ExSum- 09150744 1 -12 :Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbytenan Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 0.28 -acre public view park (Sunset View Park) and a 0.52 -acre linear view park. The parks were provided as a community amenity; no park/recreational impacts were identified in Final EIR No. 142. The proposed Master Plan Update Project is not expected to have impacts to other public facilities or to utility service; no significant impacts were identified in Final EIR No. 142. All issues related to potential impacts of Hoag on public services and utilities were adequately addressed in Final EIR No. 142. Transportation and Circulation: No changes are proposed as a part of the Master Plan Project Update that would result in unsafe conditions to motorists or pedestrians due to design features or incompatible uses. With respect to parking, in accordance with the PC Text, all parking for Hoag must be provided on site in surface lots, subterranean lots, and /or parking structures. Parking requirements are set forth in the PC Text. The proposed Master Plan Update Project proposes PC Text amendments that would not alter the parking requirements associated with implementation of the proposed project. The Project would not affect air traffic patterns at the nearest public airport (John Wayne Airport). Final EIR No. 142 noted that implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan would contribute to an increased demand for public transit. Although Final EIR No. 142 did not consider this to be a significant impact, mitigation was incorporated to ensure transit service accessibility for Hoag employees, visitors, and patrons. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not conflict with any adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Other transportation and circulation impacts relative to the proposed Master Plan Update Project are addressed in this SEIR. 1.8 ORGANIZATION OF THE SEIR This document has been divided into sections and is bound in two volumes. Volume I contains nine sections. Section 1.0 provides an overview of the proposed Master Plan Update Project and potential environmental impacts. Section 2.0 provides the Project Description, outlines the Project objectives, and details the intended uses of the SEIR. Sections 3.1 through 3.5 provide the environmental setting, impacts (both project- related and cumulative), and Mitigation Program associated with the topical areas. For each topical area, the thresholds for determining the significance of an impact have been identified. Section 4.0 addresses one alternative to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Section 5.0 provides a discussion of potential growth- inducing impacts. All the mitigation measures identified in Final EIR No. 142 and this SEIR that are determined to be applicable to the future implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Project are compiled in Section 6.0 to facilitate a review of the measures proposed for adoption as part of this proposed Master Plan Update Project. Section 7.0 lists the persons and organizations consulted and those preparers and contributors who helped complete this document. The references used in preparing the document are contained in Section 8.0. A list of acronyms and glossary of terns are provided in Section 9.0. Volume II of this SEIR contains the technical appendices. The technical appendices include technical studies prepared for the proposed Master Plan Update Project as well as the proposed PC Text amendments, Initial Studies, NOPs, and related comment letters. 1.9 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF STUDIES AND REPORTS The Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as other parties requesting a copy of the SEIR in R:1Roje=\Newpo"V00810ratt EIR11.0 EZS=- 091807.dw 1 -13 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR accordance with Public Resources Code §21092. The Notice of Completion for the EIR has also been filed with the State of California Department, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), as required by CEQA Guidelines §15085. Environmental comments and their responses are included as part of the environmental record for consideration by the decision makers for the project. During the 45 -day public review period, the Draft SEIR and draft Development Agreement are available for review at the following locations. The Draft SEIR can also be accessed at the City of Newport Beach Web page: http : / /www.city.newport- beach.ca.us. City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Central Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660 Mariners Branch Library 1300 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660 Balboa Branch Library 100 East Balboa Boulevard Balboa, California 92661 Corona del Mar Branch Library 420 Marigold Avenue Corona del Mar, California 92625 Written or electronic comments on the Draft SEIR should be addressed to Mr. James Campbell with the City of Newport Beach Planning Department at the address provided above. Upon completion of the 45 -day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and available for review prior to public hearings before the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council when certification of the Final SEIR will be considered. These environmental comments and their responses will be included as part of the environmental record for consideration by the decision makers for the project. 1.10 Table 1 -1 presents a summary of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Master Plan Update Project; measures to mitigate Project impacts to the extent feasible; and the status of effects following the implementation of the Mitigation Program. A more detailed evaluation of these issues is presented in Sections 3.1 through 3.5. If the text of the mitigation measure was deemed too lengthy to include in tabular format, it is briefly summarized in the table. All mitigation measures are listed in their entirety in the appropriate portion of Sections 3.1 through 3.5, and in Section 6.0. The Mitigation Program set forth in this SEIR includes the measures adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 that are still applicable to the proposed Master Plan Update; additional mitigation is identified as needed. Mitigation measure numbering reflects that provided in Resolution No. 92 -43 for certification of Final EIR No. 142. Minor modifications to the mitigation measures are proposed to reflect the current status of the Master Plan Update Project; some of the mitigation measures in Final EIR No. 142 have been implemented and are no longer applicable. Measures that are no longer applicable are not identified in Table 1 -1. Strikee, A W)d is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. Justification for all proposed modifications to the adopted Final EIR No. 142 mitigation measures is provided in Sections 3.1 through 3.5, and in Section 6.0. F1PMWM \Ne OAW0080reft EMU .0 E.Sum -091 807.dw 1-14 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update ,Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM - r w, - , Level Of S1gnjflcance After rentabon�„of Project Daslgn-- °'` 11a l ,�Featu es CondiNons'ofiApprovaP Impacts�� 9n g , - Mrt1 etfan Pra rams or fditiF r k ation, 3.1 Land Use and Planning Impact 3.1 -1: Implementation of development on the Mitigation Measures Proposed For Revision Significant Unavoidable Upper Campus as proposed with the Master Plan Impact. Update Project would have no greater or different land 24. The proposed project is subject to all applicable use effect than the existing Master Plan, and would requirements of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning therefore not have a significant project impact. Code, and Local Coastal Program (LCP). Those requirements that However, the Project will not alleviate the significant are superseded by the PCDP and District Regulations are not unavoidable land use impact to residences to the west considered applicable. The following discretionary approvals are of Hoag on the Upper Campus identified in Final EIR required by the City of Newport Beach: EIR certification, adept G No. 142. As such, the significant and unavoidable land eE- the - Master - Plan;. adoption of an Amendment to the Planned use compatibility impact identified in Final EIR No. 142 Community Development Plan and District Regulations, adoption would continue to exist with buildout of Hoag under the of an Amendment to the General Plan; approval of an Amendment proposed Master Plan Update Project scenario. This is to the Development Agreement, not considered a new impact. The proposed Master PlanRed CommuRity D grading permits, and building permits Plan Update Project is considered compatible with for some facilities. The California Coastal Aevelepmen land uses to the north, south, and east. No significant Commission has the discretionary responsibility to issue a Coastal land use compatibility impacts 'would be associated Development Permit for the Lower Campus And a 6esal Geastal with the Lower Campus. 118. For any building subject to the issuance of the building permit by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Hoag Hospital shall submit to OSHPD the State AFGh tAR a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that review of the seaskustiea development plans has been completed and that the plans are in compliance with all City requirements. Impact 3.1 -2: The proposed Master Plan Update See above. Less Than Significant Project, as conditioned, would be consistent with the City's General Plan. The Project requires a General Plan Amendment, PC Text Amendment, and Development Agreement Amendment. As conditioned, the Project would not have significant impacts related to applicable plans and policies. EIR11.0 ExSvm-091807.doc 1 -15 &action 11.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM - �rl� "�`n'IL �t�'s V°' 7 Im lementatlan.of Prc Ipacts sr,t" 111 } ��a'_Mlti a��� , +M �� i1eatUreConditions of Approval, m _� �_, -, a,s. 9 UonPfpgrartt�.,.,� arMltl atron , -r ,, 3.2 Transportation and Circulation - Impact 3.2 -1: The proposed Master Plan Update Project would generate fewer daily traffic trips than the Construction Traffic: Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward Less than Significant number of daily trips associated with the 1992 Master 101. In conjunction with the application for a grading permit, the Plan approved in Final EIR No. 142. When compared Project Sponsor shall submit a, construction phasing and traffic to the 1992 Master Plan, the proposed Master Plan control plan for each phase of development. This plan would Update Project would have the same or less impact at identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist intersections in 2015 and 2025 when compared to the truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street existing Master Plan. The proposed Master Plan system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc.). This plan shall consider Update Project would not result in a 0.01 or greater scheduling operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours, increase in ICU for intersections that currently exceed extending the construction period and reducing the number of or are projected to exceed level of service standards of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be the Cities of Newport Beach or Costa Mesa. reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to Therefore, the proposed Master Plan Update Project is issuance of the grading permit. not expected to cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and t03. The Project Sponsor shall provide advance written notice of capacity of the street system. temporary traffic disruptions to affected area business and the public. This notice shall be provided . at least two weeks prior to disruptions. 104, The Project Sponsor shall ensure that construction activities requiring more than 16 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour, such as excavation and concrete pours, shall be limited between June 1 and September 1 to avoid traffic conflicts with beach and tourist traffic. At all other times, such activities shall be limited to 25 truck (i.e., multiple axle . vehicle) trips per hour unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Haul operations will be monitored by the Public Works Department and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion problems arise. Construction Traffic: Mitigation. :Measures Proposed for Revision 102. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUAll FRIAOR shall hA ORAIIACIACI _ :R.'Tr0jec1s\Newp0IW008 \Draft EIRtl.0 ExSum- 091807.doc 1.16 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master. Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM Impacts �, F , .. - F F Fn. �d Mitigatron,Pirograme �,., Le "vel OE Slgnifirance After implementation of Project i)esign Features, Coridrtions of Approval = or:Miti atron g 108. Prior to issuance of any grading and building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit a Trip Reduction Plan for construction crew members where the number of construction employees would be 50 or greater. This plan shall identify measures, such as ride - sharing and transit incentives, to reduce vehicle miles traveled by construction crews. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Project Traffic: Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward 25. The Project Sponsor shall conduct a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis for each Master Plan development project. The analysis shall identify potential intersection impacts, the proposed project traffic volume contributions at these impacted intersections, and the schedule for any 'intersection improvements identified as necessary by the study to ensure a satisfactory level of service as defined by the TPO. This report shall be approved by the City prior to commencement construction of the development project. 29. The project shall comply with the City of Newport Beach Transportation Demand Management Ordinance approved by the City Council pursuant to the County's Congestion Management Plan. Project Traffic: Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision 27. Frigneer. The the tFR#A te 138 study shall analyze WhAthAF by the dBYGIOPFRGRt generated SU13686iLIBRt phases Of (Phase" and 111) will 1,866 P.M. how tF te4he exeeed peak p6 when added 40pe by the Phase 1) Hoag Hespi generated existing (inslud ng For the Master Plan Development Project, the Project Sponsor R:1Pro1e0slNewpan00080raft EIR11.0 Ex8um-091807aac 1 -17 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM ' :� ' i�. . ' °Level Of Stgnificance�After Impiemen UAW fioffProtect Desrgn Impacts ": , Y • Featuies; Conrji ;Ions1 if Approval, -- — .1,:! +�, ,mod,.,j, .a. Mltlgati0o, ?rog�em shall conduct a project trip generation study prepared in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) guidelines and to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer Prior to permit issuance for future phases. 28. The Project Sponsor shall continue to comply with all applicable regulations adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District that .pertain to trip reductions such as ARgutation 16 Rule 2202. 30. In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for employees, visitors and patrons of the Hospital, the following transit amenities shall be incorporated into the Master Plan Project: Bus turnouts shall be installed if; and as required by the City Traffic Engineer, after City consultation with OCTA, at all current bus stop locations adjacent to the project site.. Bus turnouts shall be installed in accordance with standard design guidelines as indicated in OCTA's Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities. 34. Depending on actual site build -out, intersection improvements may be required at the Hoag Drive - Placentia Avenue /Hospital Road intersection (Upper Campus access), Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road intersection, and at the INCH Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway intersection (Lower Campus access). The need for these improvements shall be assessed during subsequent traffic studies to be conducted in association with Mitigation Measure 25. Improvements could include restriping, traffic signal timing, etc. 35. As each phase of the Master Plan Project is constructed, the Project Sponsor shall provide each new employee a packet outlining the available ridesharing services and programs and the number of the Transportation Coordinator. All new employees shall be included in the yearly update of the trip reduction plan for Hoag Hospital, as Faquilred by Aegulatisin X, in compliance with the City of Newport Beach Trip Reduction Plan. RAPrejeCs \NewpcOV00810ra1t EIR\1.O EXSUM-091801.dac 1 -18 Section 1.0 Executive: Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoblemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM Impacts _ fVlrtlga6on Program e Implementation of 0'ii' dt Design Featurss, op Mitioatron, Appravah 9 '38. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each Master Plan development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorporate the site development requirements_ of Ordinance No. '91 -16, as appropriate, to the Traffic Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and Planning Commission approval. Requirements outlined in the Ordinance include: a. A minimum of five percent of the provided parking at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These parking spaces shall be located near the employee entrance or at other preferred locations. b. A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employees shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided at such time as demand warrants. c. A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. d. Information of transportation alternatives shall be provided to all employees. e. A rideshare' vehicle loading area shall be designated in the parking area. f. The design of all parking 'facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. g. Bus stop improvements shall be coordinated with the Orange County Transportation Authority, consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 30 required fer exists OF s aRt G palled Ile ex s! with n five years. h. The exact number of each of the above facilities shall be determined by the City during review of grading aadbuilding permit applications for each development project. The types and numbers of facilities required of the project will reflect the content of the Ordinance at the time that a. permit application is deemed complete by the Planning Department. R:Wmie=We.pvduooMD,au EiRmi.oEzsum osieozdoc 1 -19 - Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial. Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM R.�roledslNewpo0W0o81Dra11 EIR11.0 Ertsum- 091807.doo 1 -20 Section 1.0 Executive Summary '� � ^ , mplementation of Pro ect Desr n' APProval,a: No mitigation required. ��eatures;iCondwLtfons�of Impact 3.2 -2: Based on the significance criteria for CMP intersections, the proposed Master Plan Update Less than Significant Project would not significantly impact the one CMP intersection within the traffic study area. Impact 3.2.3: Implementation of the proposed Site Access and Circulation: Mitigation Measures to Carry Less than Significant Master Plan Update Project would not result in any Forward significant impacts related to on -site circulation or access, and therefore would not significantly impact 33. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits for Master Plan any emergency response evacuation plans. development that includes new, or modifications to existing, internal roadways (other than service roads), the Project Sponsor will prepare an internal circulation plan for submittal to and approval by the Director of Public Works that identifies all feasible measures to eliminate internal traffic congestion and facility's ingress and egress to the site. All feasible measures identified in this study shall be incorporated into the site plan. 91. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by the City Public Works and Fire Department. 95. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Fire Department that all existing and new access roads surrounding the project site shall be designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless the accessway meets minimum width requirements of the Public Works and Fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width. Impact 3.2 -4: All future development projects at Parking: Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward Less than Significant Hoag would be required to comply with the parking requirements set forth in the PC Text and are subject 32. Prior to issuance of approvals for development projects, the to approval by the City. No significant parking impacts applicant shall submit to the City Traffic Engineer for his /her are attributable to the proposed Master Plan Update review and approval, a study that identifies the appropriate project. parking generation rates. The findings of this study shall be based on empirical or survey data for the proposed parking rates. R.�roledslNewpo0W0o81Dra11 EIR11.0 Ertsum- 091807.doo 1 -20 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM R:TRoie= \NewpoRW008}Draft EIR \1.0 ExSum- 091807.dw 1 -21 Section 1.0' Executive Summary Level Of Sigmf nce Aner 4 ^Impleinentatron of P oject Design' = '; , ,, Fr3etures, Conddtons of Approval - im acts G ar r p ,. A i "' ri ui u� 3== y. is to ' � °' ., ,�. _ �,.,a,,,,P�1tigifon,Program wIr,zorMltljatlon, Impact 3.2 -5: The proposed Master Plan Update No mitigation required. No Impact Project would not conflict with any goals or policies of the City of !Newport Beach General Plan. 3.3 Air Quality Impact3.3 -1: Although the proposed Master Plan Construction Emissions: Mitigation Measures to Carry Significant Unavoidable Update project would not generate any significant air Forward Impact quality impacts not previously disclosed in Final EIR No. 142, grading and demolition activities associated 82. Before the issuance of building permits, the Project with the proposed Master Plan Update project may Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of result in significant short-term PM10 impacts and Newport Beach demonstrating compliance with all applicable would be expected to result in significant short-term District Rules, including Rule 401 and Visible Emissions, Rule 402, NOx impacts. VOC emission thresholds are expected Public Nuisance. to be exceeded during the application of architectural coatings. Sensitive receptors could be affected by the 89. The Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Building increase in emissions over existing conditions, These Department that methods and materials which minimize VOC short-term impacts would be reduced with proposed emissions have been employed where practical, available and mitigation, but not to a level considered less than where value engineering allows it to be feasible. significant. Diesel particulate matter emissions would be less than significant. 106. Project Sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall be performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance, . which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, erosion and :siltation control, noise, and other grading related activities. 1.10. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that low emission mobile and stationary equipment is utilized during construction, and low sulfur fuel is utilized in stationary equipment, when available. Evidence of this fact shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any grading or building. permit. Construction Emissions: New Mitigation Measures MM 3.3 -1: During construction of the Project, the Applicant and its Contractors shall be required to comply with regional rules, which assist in reducing short-term air .pollutant emissions. The South Coast Air Quality ' Management District's (SCAQMD) Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control R:TRoie= \NewpoRW008}Draft EIR \1.0 ExSum- 091807.dw 1 -21 Section 1.0' Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM _ — Impacts - yqr *tti r x '? ,M m _ Mrtl atiao ro rtia'_ k t 9 , 4' . 9, c lalrtiplementation of Profeet Desrgn , F�aturesp Condit ions of9 rovali Ir Pp o Mrh anon, measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Two options are presented in Rule 403: monitoring of particulate concentrations or active control. Monitoring involves a sampling network around the 'project with no additional control measures unless specified concentrations are exceeded. The active control option does not require any monitoring, but requires that a list of measures be implemented starting with the first day of construction. (Refer to Section 3.3 for full text of MM 3.3 -1.) MM 3.3 -2: Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the Applicant shall include the following notes on the Contractor Specifications submitted for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Department of Public Works: To reduce construction equipment emissions, the following measures shall be implemented: • Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. • Use existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when available. This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators. • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Minimize obstruction of through - traffic lanes. Construction shall be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum. • Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off- peak hours when possible. • Develop a Traffic Plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service). MM 3.3 -3: Prior to issuance of each building permit for the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the Applicant shall include the following notes on the Contractor Specifications submitted for R: \Pmjeds \Newp0rt\J008Mrah EIR\1.0ExSum- 091807.doc 1 -22 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM R:\Prolects \Newpo0W008Traft SM1.0 SxSum- 081807,dm 1 -23. Section 1.0 Executive Summary - level Of,Stgnificance After Implementation of Prblect Design Features, Condi ons of Approval, Impacts Mltigation Programs ,, ! _ = or.Mitgabon x -_ review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Department: • Minimize the amount of paint used by using pre- coated, pre - colored, and naturally colored building materials. • Use high- transfer efficiency painting methods such as HVLP (High Volume Low Pressure) sprayers and brushes /rollers were possible. Impact 3.3 -2: Based on the modeling from the No mitigation required. Less than Significant AOMP and the fact that the proposed Master Plan Update project would not substantially affect intersection operation, in terms of CO generation, all intersections in the vicinity would not be expected to experience CO concentrations in excess of the State standards. The Master Plan Update Project would not result in any changes in air pollutant emissions from stationary on -site sources that could affect local air quality in the vicinity of Hoag. Therefore, the project would not result in a. significant local air quality impact. lmpact 3.3.3: Although the proposed Master Plan Operational Emissions — Energy Efficiency: Mitigation Significant Unavoidable update Project would not result in a significant impact Measures to Carry Forward - Impact when compared to the air quality impacts identified for the existing Master Plan in Final EIR No. 142, 37. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update each phase of development, the project proponent shall provide Project would result in an exceedance of SCAOMD's evidence for verification by the Planning Department that energy thresholds of significance for three criteria pollutants: efficient lighting has been incorporated into the project design. CO; VOC, and NOx. 88. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase of development, verifying that energy efficiency will be achieved by incorporating appropriate technologies and systems into future structures, which may include: • High efficiency cooling /absorption units • Thermal storage and ceramic cooling towers • Cogeneration capabilities • High efficiency water heaters R:\Prolects \Newpo0W008Traft SM1.0 SxSum- 081807,dm 1 -23. Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM Impacts — -' u `= u Mlti ation Pro ram k " g g • LTevel30f Significance After= . - I�implamentation of Project Design,. FeaturesfCpndrttons of Approval, m .-- . or Mitigatron • Energy efficient glazing systems • Appropriate off -hour heating /cooling /lighting controls • Time clocks and photovoltaic cells for lighting controls • Efficient insulation systems • Light colored roof and building exteriors , • PL lighting and fluorescent lighting systems • Motion detector lighting controls • Natural interior lighting—skylights, clerestories • Solar orientation, earth berming and landscaping 96. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that the thermal integrity of new buildings is improved with automated time clocks or occupant sensors to reduce the thermal load. 97. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods have been incorporated into building designs. 98. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate that building designs incorporate efficient heating units and other appliances, such as water heater, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. 99. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate into building designs, where feasible, passive solar designs and solar heaters. Operational Emissions: Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision 36. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment incorporated within each phase. An air R? Projects \NewponW009 \Orak EIR \1.0E%Sum-091B0].dw 1 -24 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM R9Pr61egs \Newp0rtU008T1aIt EIM1.0. Ex$um- 091807.dm 1 -25 - Section 1.0 Executive Summary _. ,Level ,Of Sjgnificance After Impacts - s :., = Mitlg`ation Programs Implgmantation.of.Pi!oject Design Features, Conditions of Approval, ., 'r , or Mitigat 6 quality analysis shall be conducted prior to each phase of development for the proposed mechanical equipment contained within that phase that identifies additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment to be installed in the phase. If thE) R8W 9MOSS GAS, when added te exist Rg PFGjeG - analysis �hal be reviewed by and appreveel !he SGAQMD. 38. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of Master Plan development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorporate the site development requirements of Ordinance No. 91 -16, as appropriate, to the Traffic Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and Planning Commission approval. Requirements outlined in the Ordinance include (Refer to Section 3.3 for full text of MM 38). Impact 3.3 -4; Ongoing operation of the cogeneration facility would have a less than significant No mitigation required. Less than Significant impact health risk impact based on the criteria set forth by the SCAQMD. Impact 3.3 -5: The proposed project is consistent with the relevant goals and policies related to air quality. No mitigation required. No Impact 3.4 Noise Impact 3.41: Construction noise represents a short- term effect on ambient noise levels. Construction Construction Activities: Standard Conditions and Requirements Less Than Significant activities conducted consistent with the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance is not considered a significant impact, SC 3:4 -1: During construction, the Applicant shall ensure that all noise generating activities are limited to the hours of 7 AM to 6:30 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays. No noise generating activities shall occur on Sundays or national holidays in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. R9Pr61egs \Newp0rtU008T1aIt EIM1.0. Ex$um- 091807.dm 1 -25 - Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memonal Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan EI R TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM R:1Pro1eM \Newp0nV00ErDra11 EIR\1.0 : E%Bum;091807.d= 146 Section 1.0 .Executive Summary S ' Leve! Of ignifican& After r a 5ti s� I, �, �„ ri T1 Implementation of Protect Design a r Ys fl a,` t :Features CondltionslofJlpproval ' ' �rt�aCt9 d4r Mdlgapon p�ogia_mefif — --- - �, x ' Construction Activities: Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward 111. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all internal combustion, engines associated with construction activities shall be fitted with properly maintained mufflers and kept in proper tune. Impact 3.4.2: Project demolition and construction Construction Activities: New Mitigation Measures Less Than Significant activities associated with the proposed Master ,Plan Update Project would ,generate vibration. This impact MM 3.1.2: Prior to the initiation of vibration- generating demolition is considered significant, and construction activities, the Hoag construction project manager shall notify building /department representatives that these activities are planned. This notification will allow for the relocation of vibration- sensitive equipment in portions of buildings that could be affected. The Hoag construction staff shall work with the project contractor to schedule demolition and construction activities that use heavy equipment and are located within 50 feet of buildings where vibration- sensitive medical procedures occur, such that demolition and construction activities are not scheduled concurrent with sensitive medical operations. A system of communications would be established between selected vibration - sensitive uses /areas and the construction managers to avoid noise or vibration affecting patient care or research activities. Impact 3.4 -3: The proposed Master Plan Update No mitigation is required. Less than Significant Project would not result in a. project- specific or contribute to a. cumulative traffic noise increase along a roadway segment that adjacerttoa noise sensitive land use. Impact3.4 -4: Prior to mitigation, on -site activities Operational Activities—Emergency Vehicles: Mitigation All on -site activities would generate could result in significant noise impacts thereby Measures to Carry Forward less than significant noise impacts impacting sensitive receptors. with the exception of loading dock. 42. The City of Newport Beach shall send a letter to each area :activities. Loading dock area emergency vehicle company that delivers patients to Hoag activities would generate a Hospital requesting that, upon entrance to either the Upper or significant unavoidable noise impact. Lower Campus, emergency vehicles turn off their sirens to help R:1Pro1eM \Newp0nV00ErDra11 EIR\1.0 : E%Bum;091807.d= 146 Section 1.0 .Executive Summary Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM Impacts" 3, T 7' ,,,Mtigation ^progrema ' tic. '. ",,. , 3r„„ level Of Significance After implementation of Pialcct'besit d,4 10 Features F or Mitigatton':A'pprovai'S _,... minimize noise impacts to adjacent residents. Hoag Hospital will provide the City with a list of all emergency vehicle companies that deliverto Hoag Hospital. 117. Use of the heliport/helipad shall be limited to emergency medical purposes or the transportation of critically ill patients in immediate need of medical care not available at Hoag Hospital. Helicopters shall, to the extent feasible, arrive at, and depart from the helipad, from the northeast, to mitigate noise impacts on residential units to the west and south. Operational Activities — Loading Dock Activities: Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward 119. Non - vehicular activities, such as the operation of the trash compactor, which occur in the vicinity of the service /access road shall be operated only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM daily. Operational Activities — Mechanical Equipment: New Mitigation Measures MM 3,4 -2: The final HVAC plans for the Ancillary Building and West Tower shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The plans shall be reviewed by an Acoustical Engineer to ensure that they will achieve 58 dBA (Leq) at the property line adjacent to the loading dock area. These plans need to be submitted within six months of the certification of the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Final Supplemental EIR (SEIR). If Hoag does not pursue the redesign of the HVAC systems for the Ancillary Building and West Tower, Hoag shall submit to the City within six months of the certification of the Final SEIR a plan detailing how Hoag will bring the current equipment into compliance with the 58 dBA nighttime noise limit when measured at the property line adjacent to the loading dock area. R:WrajecwNewponV0081Dralt EIRU.0 Ex5um.09180I.doc 1 -27 Section 1.0 Executive Summsry Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM r 4 'impacts tFi ' G fi it jtf1 1 f -_ � N 4 4 L °ovei Of St nifrcance diter g� Implementation of Protect Design Features Condttfons of A roval }r -�A +or Mrtgatton y �a if ' '� MM 3.4-3: Prior to issuance of building permits for any project that _ includes HVAC equipment an acoustical study of the noise generated by the HVAC equipment shall be performed. This report shall present the noise levels generated by the equipment and methodology used to estimate the noise levels at nearby residential uses or property boundary, as applicable, and demonstrate: that combined noise levels generated by all new HVAC equipment does not exceed the applicable Development Agreement limits. This study shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. After installation of the equipment noise measurements shall be performed and provided to the City demonstrating compliance with applicable noise level limits. MM 3.4 -4: Truck deliveries to the loading dock area are restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. It is noted that special situations may arise that require the delivery outside of these hours. MM 3.4 -5; Sound absorption panels on the east wall of the loading dock shall be installed. Approximately 450 square feet of absorptive panels shall be used to cover major portions of the back wall of the loading dock area. The Noise -Foil panels by Industrial Acoustics or a panel with an equivalent or better sound rating shall be used. MM 3.4 -6: The trash compactor shall be relocated within the loading dock. The trash compactor and baler shall be enclosed in a three -sided structure. The walls shall be concrete block or similar masonry construction. The roof shall be lightweight concrete roof or a plywood surface with concrete tiles; a built -up roof with 5 feet 5 inches of insulation on the inside would be acceptable alternative. The open side shall face away from the residents. Doors may be on the side of the enclosure facing the residents, but must be closed when the baler or compactor are operating. The compactor and baler should only be operated between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. sw1.0 Exsum-091807.doc. 1 -28 - Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian. Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E1R TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM � � 'level Of Slgrithcance:After Implementatwn of Pr`oject:Design Features Conditions Impacts Mit igation P►ogiama of Approiral ? &-mitigation- -; MM 3.5 -7: "No Idling' signs shall be posted in the loading dock area and any area where the trucks might queue. Impact 3.4 -5: Prior to mitigation, future on -.site land Operational Activities – Mechanical Equipment: New Mitigation Less Than Significant uses could be impacted from traffic noise. Measures MM 3.4 -10: Prior to the issuance of building permits for any Hoag patio use proposed to be located closer to the roadway then the 65 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 3.4 -8, a detailed acoustical analysis study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the City for review and approval. The acoustical analysis report shall. describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the area and the measures required to meet the 65 CNEL exterior residential noise standard. The final building plans shall incorporate the noise barriers (wall, _ berm or combination wall /berm) required by the analysis and Hoag shall install these barriers prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. MM 3.4 -11: Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed acoustical study using architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to and approved by the City for Hoag buildings proposed to be located closer to the roadway than the 65 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 3.4- 8, and for office buildings proposed to be located closer to the roadway than the 70 CNEL contour distance (Table 3.4 -8). This report shall describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the building(s), the amount of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction provided by the design in the architectural plans, and any upgrades required to meet the City's interior noise standards (45 CNEL for hospital uses and 50 CNEL for office uses). The measures described in the report shall be incorporated into the architectural plans for the buildings and implemented with building construction. Impact 3.4 -6: As identified, the proposed Master No mitigation required. No Impact Plan Update Project would be considered consistent with the relevant goals and polices related to noise. RTroie0sWewpcMJ0080ra11 EIm11.0 Ex3uln- 091807.dac 1 -29 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental OR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM o"': � lr l { 'r� ' LeL` @l Ot 5rgniftcance ll(ter� i a Implementation.df'Project Destgri. - t Impact eft , A Fea ures,7CondtticnsT f Approval, - -- Mlti'ationP "ro "ra'm ri {, " � L3 9 . 9 " ., ` i, „, ” ..2 _, or Mitigetion� 3.5 Aesthetics Impacts 3.5 -1 and 3.5 -2: Final EIR No. 142 identified Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward Less than Significant that the Master Plan would not result in significant aesthetic or visual impacts. The Final EIR found that 43.. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor as an individual project effect, shade and shadow shall ensure that a landscape and irrigation plan is prepared for impacts were considered less than significant. The each building /improvement within the overall Master Plan. This proposed Master Plan Update Project would not result plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The in any significant visual impacts either prior to or after landscape plan shall integrate and phase the 'installation of mitigation that were not previously identified in Final landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. The plan EIR No. 142. Impacts associated with the Project shall be subject to review by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation would be no greater than identified in Final EIR. 142. Department and approval by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 45. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas will be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. 46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit 'plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the rooftop of any structure on the Lower Campus. Rather, such buildings will have clean rooftops. Minor rooftop equipment necessary for operating purposes will comply with all building height criteria, and shall be concealed and screened to blend into the building roof using materials compatible with building materials. 48. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any Lower Campus structure, the Project Sponsor shall prepare a study of each proposed building project to assure conformance with the EIR view impact analysis and the PCDP and District Regulations,: to ensure that the visual impacts identified in the EIR are consistent with actual Master -Plan development. This analysis shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planning Department. R:1Pf0ied9VeWpDRW008Mra9 EIR \1,0 EaSvm-091807aoc 1 -30 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 1 -1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM R: \ProledsWewpoRV00MDre EIR \1,0 E%Sum-W1e07.dw i -31 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Level Of Significance After Im te' entatlor of Pro ect Design oflA Impacts Mitigation Programs _, FeaI ies, Conditions provat or Mitigation I,p Impact 3.5 -3: As an existing 24 -hour land use, Hoag Lighting- Standard Conditions and Requirements Less than Significant has existing night lighting. Ongoing development of Hoag would not result in significant new sources of SC 3.5 -1: Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable lighting or glare; standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -.site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 30 feet in height. SC 3.5 -2: 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. SC 3.5 -3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Department. SC 3.5 -4: Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare.. Impact 3.5-4: The proposed project is consistent No mitigation required. No Impact with the goals and policies set forth in General Plan. a Mitigation measure numbering reflects that provided in Resolution No. 92 -43 for certification of Final EIR No. 142. Minor modifications to the mitigation measures are proposed to reflect the current status of the Master Plan Update Project: some of the mitigation measures in Final EIR No. 142 have been implemented and are no longer applicable. Strike011 text is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. Justification for all proposed modifications to the adopted Final EIR No. 142 mitigation measures is provided in Sections 3.1 through 3.5, and in Section 6.0 R: \ProledsWewpoRV00MDre EIR \1,0 E%Sum-W1e07.dw i -31 Section 1.0 Executive Summary Hoag Memonal Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIA SECTION 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Hoag) is an existing facility located at One Hoag Drive in the City of Newport Beach (City). The approximately 38 -acre site, inclusive of the Lower Campus and Upper Campus, is generally bound by Hospital Road to the north, West Coast Highway to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and residential development and open space to the west. Superior Avenue is the closest major street to the west. Exhibits 2 -1 and 2 -2 depict the project site in a regional and local context, respectively. Vehicular access to Hoag is provided at three locations. The Upper Campus can be accessed from Hospital Road which serves as the northern boundary of Hoag. The main entrance is a signalized intersection located at the intersection of Hospital Road at Placentia Avenue —Hoag Drive. A non - signalized secondary access, West Hoag Drive, on Hospital Road into the Upper Campus, follows the western boundary of Hoag. West Hoag Drive is gated to limit preclude vehicular access between 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM. A second signalized intersection, located on West Coast Highway at Hoag Drive, serves as the main entrance to the Lower Campus. Hoag Drive, South Hoag Drive, and West Hoag Drive provide internal vehicular access throughout Hoag. 2.1.1 SURROUNDING LAND USES Hoag is located within an urban setting. Exhibit 2 -3 provides an aerial view of Hoag and the surrounding area. Land uses surrounding the Upper and Lower Campuses include those described below. Upper Campus North • Hospital Road • Medical office, administrative, and financial uses north of Hospital Road • Assisted living complex north of Hospital Road South • Lower Hoag Campus East Hoag Drive Newport Boulevard Residential and retail uses east of Newport Boulevard West • West Hoag Drive • Villa Balboa and Versailles at the Bluff Condominiums • Superior Avenue RaProiec \NewponuoMDren eiR2.0 Proi Desc- Nl9W.aoc 2 -1 Section 2.0 Prulect Description Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R • Additional multi - family development west of Superior Avenue Lower Campus North • Upper Hoag Campus • Sunset View Park, a consolidated and a linear park site that extends along much of the northern boundary of the Lower Campus to Superior Avenue South • West Coast Highway • Residential uses at Balboa Cove and the Newport Beach Townhouses South of West Coast Highway within West Newport East • Newport Boulevard • Retail commercial and residential development east of Newport Boulevard west • Superior Avenue 2.2 ON -SITE LAND USES AND PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT As depicted on Exhibit 2 -4, Hoag contains two planning areas: the Upper Campus, which is 17.57 acres, and the Lower Campus, which is 20.41 acres. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element (2006) and the approved Hoag Hospital Master Plan' allows for up to 1,343,238 square feet (sf) of development at Hoag, inclusive of the Upper and Lower Campuses. Table 2 -1 identifies that, of the 1,343,238 sf of permitted development, the General Plan and the Hoag Hospital Master Plan allocates 765,349 sf of uses to the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf of uses to the Lower Campus. Table 2 -2 identifies existing land uses on the Upper and Lower Campuses. There is currently 890,005 sf of medical and medical - related uses at Hoag, of which 701,856 sf are inpatient, outpatient, and support uses on the Upper Campus and 188,149 sf of outpatient and support uses on the Lower Campus. Therefore, of the remaining 453,233 sf of approved but not constructed uses, 63,493 sf could be developed on the Upper Campus and 389,740 sf could be developed on the Lower Campus. Hoag's facilities include a 409 -bed acute care, not - for - profit hospital. The Hoag Hospital Master Plan does not identify a maximum number of permitted beds. Of the remaining approved but not constructed uses, the Hoag Hospital Master Plan permits additional hospital beds, which is a function of the square footage allocation for Hoag. Therefore, all or a portion of the approved but not constructed square footage for the Upper Campus can be used for additional hospital beds. ' Approved in 1992. RAPrgectsWVM0rtu008TraR EIR 2.0 Prof beso-091807.dw 2 -2 Section 2.0 Project Descnption N - - d Vi C dorvilla �798 6 N 9 C N rY I Santa - C Clarl -M Hesperia U: Angeles National r�it Forest 101 Ranchu Glentle l3 Cucamonga 2. Rialto \ 10 Wert Hollywood -- __ Santa Monica West Covina Los Angeles onbrio ex WhiLLier ' Riverside 1 42' II' Down - ]t Ill Hawthorne l Oran e --` Varba Linda ill91! 11} �� Buaoa Canon Palov Vardar Long Beach 5 Beach � Santa Cablind Island Santa Ana Project Location r Beach J, .. LaFe �18t Cevelantl Nator l Forest 26 \ jryjpe \ ancho ants rgarlb Lake Mission IVbjo pa, Elsinore J3' una Beach an Juan ,z; Capistrano Soil .e \� Diego S' Clam a Camp �v Pendleton Regional Location Exhibit 2 -1 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR Ae w Y ` 10 5 0 10 J6-14 a�0i s Miles consul T N nm,ore�� :ubw�N.ione�capn�.z.� ni onzzoz poi walAabev� Fw9^ 1 _ Sar,(a Asti Rh'.rs I I 0 Upper Campus 0 Lower Campus Local Vicinity ^a� 4 �4 waad•.3 4 x _ Barbee :FS r9 ilc S � n 5 N i a� .AB,A "ape, Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR w�E 0.5 0.25 o os s Miles Exhibit 2 -2 C O O N� ^ Y O V ~ quxeel _ O NN�yoid m walAabev� Fw9^ 1 _ Sar,(a Asti Rh'.rs I I 0 Upper Campus 0 Lower Campus Local Vicinity ^a� 4 �4 waad•.3 4 x _ Barbee :FS r9 ilc S � n 5 N i a� .AB,A "ape, Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR w�E 0.5 0.25 o os s Miles Exhibit 2 -2 C O O N� Aerial View Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR 300 150 0 300 e Feet Exhibit 2 -3 A01270— or RL CON Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update TABLE 2 -1 HOAG EXISTING ENTITLED SQUARE FOOTAGE Location Approved (af) Existing/ Constructed (sf) Remaining (at) Upper Campus 765,349 698,121 67,228 Lower Campus 577,889 188,149 389,740 Total Approved (sf) 1,343,238 27,114 Total Constructed (sf) 886,270 5,335 Total Remaining Approved (sf) 456.968 TABLE 2 -2 HOAG EXISTING USES STATISTICAL SUMMARY Use Square Feet (sf) Upper Campus Inpatient 643,436 Outpatient: Women's Pavilion 15,392 Outpatient: James Irvine Expansion 800 Outpatient: Cardiac Services Building 5,544 Outpatient: MRI Waiting 500 Support Services: Women's Pavilion 27,114 Support Services: Emergency Generator Addition 5,335 Total Upper Campus 698,121 Lower Campus Outpatient: Cancer Center 65,000 Outpatient: Conference Center 13,270 Support Services: Conference Center 77,864 Support Services: Child Care Center 7,800 Support Services: Cogeneration Facility 24,215 Total Lower Campus 188,149 Total Upper and Lower Campuses 886,270 Source: City of Newport Beach 2007b (as amended). 2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES CEQA Guidelines §15124(b) indicates that an EIR should include "a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project." The following are the objectives for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Project, as set forth by the Applicant, Hoag Hospital. To provide the highest quality health care available. • To recognize that, as Orange County's population ages and expands, so grows the need for increased health care services. • To allow greater flexibility in the placement of land uses within the Hoag Hospital Master Plan in an effort to allow the hospital to respond to changes in the health care industry. R:Tro1Ws\Ne onV0MDraN EIR12.0 Prq Da 091807.dw 2 -3 Section 2.0 Project Description Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR To allow the transfer of square footage between the Lower Campus and the Upper Campus while maintaining an overall development cap. 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Master Plan Update Project is intended to allow for greater flexibility in the placement of land uses at Hoag. Specifically, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for up to 225,000 sf of medical uses that are currently approved for the Lower Campus to be reallocated to the Upper Campus. As a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the Applicant is not requesting the approval of any project- specific land uses or development projects, only the ability to reallocate square footage. Table 2 -3 identifies the existing, currently permitted, and proposed reallocation square footage changes associated with the Project. TABLE 2 -3 HOAG PROPOSED PROJECT 2.4.1 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS To accommodate the reallocated square footage, amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the Development Agreement. and the Hoag Hospital Planned Community and District Regulations (PC Text) are required. Each of these required approvals is discussed in this section. General Plan Amendment The General Plan Land Use Element (2006) designates the Hoag site as "Private Institutions." The General Plan identifies a maximum allowable building area of 765,349 sf for the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf for the Lower Campus, for a total of 1,343,238 sf. R. ^Proiws%Newpo 008\Drah EIR2.0 Proj Deso091907.0oc 2 -4 Section2.0 Project Description Remaining Proposed Remaining After Location Approved (at) Constructed (af) Approved (sf) Reallocation (at) Reallocation (sf)a Upper Campus 765,349 698,121 67,228 +225,000° 292,228 Lower Campus 577,889 188,149 389,740 — 225,000° 164,740 Total Approved (sf) 1,343,238 Total Constructed (at) 886,270 Total Remaining Approved (sf) 456,968 Proposed Maximum Allowable (at) Upper Campus: 990,349` Lower Campus: 577,889 Total not to exceed: 1,343,238° Assumes full reallocation of 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. ° Up to 225,000 sf can be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. The maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus would be 990,349 sf (existing + currently approved but not developed + the maximum reallocation of 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus), and a maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus would be 577,889 sf (existing + currently approved but not developed; assumes no reallocation of square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus). However, in no event could the combined total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 at. This means that if the Upper Campus develops at the maximum allowable building area, then the amount of development on the Lower Campus would have to be reduced accordingly. Square footage is inclusive of inpatient hospital beds. ° Demolition of some existing structures on the Upper Campus would occur to ensure maximum square feet would not exceed 1,343,238 sf. Source: City of Newport Beach 20071b (as amended). 2.4.1 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS To accommodate the reallocated square footage, amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the Development Agreement. and the Hoag Hospital Planned Community and District Regulations (PC Text) are required. Each of these required approvals is discussed in this section. General Plan Amendment The General Plan Land Use Element (2006) designates the Hoag site as "Private Institutions." The General Plan identifies a maximum allowable building area of 765,349 sf for the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf for the Lower Campus, for a total of 1,343,238 sf. R. ^Proiws%Newpo 008\Drah EIR2.0 Proj Deso091907.0oc 2 -4 Section2.0 Project Description z 210PA,MSLANE 21OLILL ffi- i Z 270CAMMANE x- UPPER CAMPUS .14 I N 8 = NDSPRAC ROAD NMUNPARVA MucaRm -a WEIT 'A BLDG ww, wWlffwlllga #Owwgwu Jul luvilullwUW1, vulvv Willy Hoag Upper Campus and Lower Campus Boundaries Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental FIR WMIN-SKURM Exhibit 2-4 - s "� C 0 N S U L T I N G Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R The General Plan Amendment would allow up to 225,000 sf to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. The maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus would be 990,349 sf (if all 225,000 sf are reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus) and the maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus would be 577,889 sf (if no square footage is reallocated). However, in no event could the combined total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. What this means is that if the Upper Campus develops to the maximum square footage, then the amount of development on the Lower Campus would have to be reduced accordingly. For example, if the Upper Campus were to develop at the maximum allowed density of 990,349 sf, then only 352,889 sf of development would be allowed on the Lower Campus. Conversely, if the Lower Campus is developed to the maximum allowed density of 577,389 sf, the Upper Campus would only be allowed to have 765,349 sf. It should be clearly understood that the maximum allowable building area is the 1,343,238 sf. It is not the maximum combined square footage for the Upper and Lower Campuses added together. This provides for development flexibility and would ensure a reasonable distribution of development on the site. Planned Community (PC) Development Criteria and District Regulations Amendment The PC Text would be amended to establish maximum allowable building areas of 990,349 sf (if all 225,000 sf are reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus) for the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf (if no square footage is reallocated) for the Lower Campus; consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment. In no event would the total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. The existing PC Text provides that mechanical equipment noise generated from Hoag not exceed 55 decibels (dB) at all Hoag property lines. This noise restriction, which was established prior to the creation of the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance, is proposed to be eliminated. Instead, noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 below and as depicted on Exhibit 2 -5. 1. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag property line adjacent to the loading docks shall be as follows: 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. In addition, the grease pit,cleaning, which is exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance because it is a maintenance activity, would occur on a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Other changes may be required in the PC Text to reflect and be consistent with changes to the Development Agreement and General Plan and /or to provide clarification of standards applicable to future development approvals. These minor revisions include general clarification of definitions and proposed uses; updated references to identify completed activities; modification to the Building Area Statistical Analysis in order to establish square footage limitations; clarification of existing exhibits to better reflect height limitations; and clarification R1Proje=1 Newpon0JOWDratl EIRr2.0 Prof Desa091807.dm 2.5 Section 2.0 Project Description R Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 58 dBA 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. In addition, the grease pit,cleaning, which is exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance because it is a maintenance activity, would occur on a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Other changes may be required in the PC Text to reflect and be consistent with changes to the Development Agreement and General Plan and /or to provide clarification of standards applicable to future development approvals. These minor revisions include general clarification of definitions and proposed uses; updated references to identify completed activities; modification to the Building Area Statistical Analysis in order to establish square footage limitations; clarification of existing exhibits to better reflect height limitations; and clarification R1Proje=1 Newpon0JOWDratl EIRr2.0 Prof Desa091807.dm 2.5 Section 2.0 Project Description Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterdan Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR and updating the sign program and landscaping regulations. Please refer to Appendix B for the proposed revisions to the PC Text. 2.4.2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT An amendment to the Development Agreement would provide for an extension of the term, an increase in the public benefits through the payment of a proposed Development Agreement fee of $3 million for City public works improvements, designation of the City as the point of sale for major hospital equipment purchases, allow for a one -time waiver of the administrative fee for the issuance of health care revenue bonds, and eliminate unnecessary references. Further, the Development Agreement Amendment would incorporate the changes to the PC Text to: (i) Maintain the absolute maximum allowable building area of 1,343,238 sf for development at Hoag comprised of the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus while allowing the transfer of up to 225,000 sf of buildable area from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus, which, if all 225,000 sf are reallocated, would result in a maximum allowed density of 990,349 sf for the Upper Campus and 352,889 sf of allowable development for the Lower Campus, and if none of the 225,000 sf were reallocated, would maintain the current cap of 577,889 sf allowable density for the Lower Campus and 765,349 st for the Upper Campus. (ii) Identify that noise generated from Hoag is proposed to be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 below (Exhibit 2 -5): The applicable noise standard at the Hoag property line adjacent to the loading docks shall be as follows: 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. 2.5 PROJECT PHASING Implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan is expected to take approximately 10 years, with buildout projected for the year 2018. The precise timing of the improvements would be determined based on service priorities and available funding. 2.6 INTENDED USES OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR As a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the Applicant is requesting approval of the previously described amendments (i.e., a Development Agreement Amendment and a PC Text Amendment). The City, as lead agency, and the following responsible and trustee agencies are expected to use the information contained in this Supplemental EIR (SEIR) for consideration of future approvals and actions related to and involved in the implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Project. RAPMffl SWewpWW080ratt EIRT.0 Prol Dec-091sp.doc 2.6 $B`olion 2.0 Project Description LEGEND PROPERTY UNE AS IDENTIFIED IN SECTION M.1., DISTRICT REGULATIONS LOADING DOCK AREA AS IDENTIFIED IN SECTION M.2., DISTRICT REGULATIONS ,w 210ULLELANE '.t 290 LANE •I" ..% 2TD CACdLEYIAtff A \ Rh Q Vi "iRf MODULAR Mftl'E$ LOWER CAMPUS Note: Bulldings labeled for identtflcation purposes only Loading Dock Area Noise Standards Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR N E s r:'.rT7 C I PAN09t } � f+H+ I D PNOON6 UPPER CAMPUS _ yap RRDO ALRQAD y/uwr�� lam( i�IHP / WOMER'SPAWWON SOUTH PARON STRUCTURE 1Y� Ill � If r i r jf i i 1 Exhibit 2 -5 C O N S U L T I N G Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 2.6.1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The City of Newport Beach, as the lead agency for the Project, would rely on the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 142 (Final EIR No. 142) and this SEIR as the primary environmental documentation for the approval of the discretionary actions discussed below. Certification of the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report. The Master Plan Update Project requires the acceptance of the environmental document as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines, as well as certification that the information contained in the SEIR was considered in the final decisions on the Project. General Plan Amendment: The Project requires an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to establish a maximum allowable building area for the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus. PC Text Amendment. The Project requires an amendment to the PC Text to establish a maximum allowable building area for the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus. Existing noise restrictions set forth in the PC Text would be eliminated. Noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise noted. Development Agreement Amendment. As a part of the Project, the Applicant is requesting a Development Agreement Amendment to allow up to 225,000 sf of authorized development to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance, except as otherwise noted. The Development Agreement Amendment would provide for an extension of the term, an increase in the public benefits through the payment of a proposed Development Agreement fee of $3 million for City public works improvements, designation of the City of Newport Beach as the point of sale for major hospital equipment purchases, allow for a one -time waiver of the administrative fee for the issuance of health care revenue bonds, and eliminate unnecessary references. Further, the Development Agreement Amendment would incorporate the changes to the Planned Community Text to relevant to noise generation at Hoag. Although not a party to the original Development Agreement, the California Coastal Commission would review and approve the Development Agreement. Additionally, Final EIR No. 142 and this SEIR may be used as the environmental documentation for subsequent approvals required for the implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. Subsequent discretionary and ministerial approvals by the City that may rely on Final EIR No. 142 and this SEIR include: • Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis • The California Coastal Commission's (CCC) Approvals in Concept (AIC) or future Coastal Development Permits upon certification of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. • Site Plans • Building Permits • Grading Permit RAPYge0sWewpotlll0 Urak EIRQ.0 Prol Desc- 091807 doc 2 -7 Section 2.0 Project Description Hoag Memoriat Hospitat Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR • Water Quality Management Plan • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan • Demolition permits 2.6.2 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES Final EIR No. 142 and this SEIR would also provide environmental information to responsible and trustee agencies and other public agencies which may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with the City as a part of Project implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to, the following: • The California Coastal Commission • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): Encroachment Permits + California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) • State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): NPDES Permit • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD): "Permits to Construct' for three additional cogeneration natural gas internal combustion engines within the existing cogeneration facility. RaProjedmewp m\J00Mran ElR12.0 Pmj Des -091809.dm 2 -8 Section 2.0 Project Description Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR SECTION 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS, MITIGATION PROGRAM, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 3.1 INTRODUCTION This Supplemental EIR (SEIR) provides analysis of impacts for those environmental topics where it was determined that the proposed project could result in "potentially significant impacts," as identified in the Initial Study included in Appendix A. Each topical section (Sections 3.1 through 3.5) includes the following information: description of the existing setting; identification of thresholds of significance; analysis of potential project- specific and cumulative impacts; identification of a mitigation program, if required, to reduce the identified impacts; and, identification of the level of significance of impacts after mitigation, including unavoidable significant adverse impacts, as applicable. 3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS CEQA Guidelines §15125(a) states that, "An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant..." As a part of the CEQA analysis provided in this Hoag Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR, the SEIR addresses the proposed Master Plan Update Project's consistency with applicable policies and programs. 3.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The State CEQA Guidelines §15064.7 addresses thresholds of significance and encourages each public agency to develop thresholds of significance through a public review process. Subsequently, these thresholds must be published and adopted by agency ordinance, code, or regulation. The City of Newport Beach (City) uses thresholds of significance based primarily on the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For each topical issue in this section, the impact analysis is formatted to analyze the potential impacts of the project related to each identified threshold of significance. 3.4 PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As stated in the State CEQA Guidelines §15064: In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project. (1) A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project. Examples of direct physical changes in the environment are the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of the plant. RNProjeMt New onU003NDraft EIR\3.0 IMr 091907. oc 3 -1 Section 3.0 Introduction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR (2) An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect physical change in the environment. For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution. (3) An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable... A cumulative impact "...refers to two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts... The cumulative impact from several projects is 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 time" (source: CEQA Guidelines §15355). The State CEQA Guidelines §15130 states that an EIR "shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable ... a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.. 3.5 MITIGATION PROGRAM The mitigation program identified to reduce potential project impacts consists of Project Design Features, Standard Conditions and Requirements, and Mitigation Measures. By including all these components of the Mitigation Program, they would all be tracked in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program required for the project. The components of the Mitigation Program are described below. • Project Design Features. Project Design Features are specific design elements proposed by the Applicant that have been incorporated into the project to prevent the occurrence of, or reduce the significance of, potential environmental effects. Because Project Design Features (PDFs) are incorporated into the project, they do not constitute mitigation measures as defined by CEQA. However, they are identified in the mitigation section for each topical issue and will be included in the mitigation monitoring program to be developed for and implemented as a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project because in their absence a significant impact would occur. • Standard Conditions and Requirements. Existing requirements and standard conditions are based on local, state, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review and also serve to offset or prevent specific impacts. Typical standard conditions and requirements include compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code, South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules, local agency fees, etc. Additional conditions may be imposed on the project by the City during the approval process, as appropriate. R: \ProjedsWewportU0081nrafi EIR13.0 lntro-WlEW.dao 3 -2 Section 3.0 Introduction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbytenan Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Mitigation Measures. Where a potentially significant environmental effect has been identified and is not reduced to a level considered less than significant through the application of PDFs and Standard Conditions and Requirements, project- specific mitigation measures have been recommended. As a part of the previously certified Final EIR No. 142 for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan, a Mitigation Program was adopted. This Mitigation Program has been modified, as necessary, based on the assessment and implementation of site - specific developments set forth in the Master Plan. Where mitigation set forth in Final EIR No. 142 is still applicable to the proposed Master Plan Update project, this mitigation is incorporated into this Supplemental EIR. Additionally, minor modifications to Final EIR No. 142 mitigation measures are proposed to reflect the current status of the project and some of the mitigation measures in Final EIR No. 142 have been implemented and are no longer applicable. As applicable, the Mitigation Program for each environmental topic provides strikeout text to show deleted wording and italic text to show wording that has been added. For projects that require issuance of a building permit by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development ( OSHPD), the City has limited jurisdiction in the review and approval of development plans. As such, while OSHPD may have building permit authority over certain structures at Hoag, the City retains ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with and the implementation of the Mitigation Program. A comprehensive list of measures applicable to the proposed project is provided as Section 6.0 of this Supplemental EIR. It should be noted that any PDF or mitigation measure and timing thereof, which will have the same or superior result and will have the same or superior effect on the environment, may be approved and /or substituted at the discretion of the City. The City of Newport Beach Planning Department, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed "environmental equivalent/timing" and, if determined necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission and City Council. Any costs associated with information required in order to make a determination of equivalency and timing shall be borne by the applicant. R: \Projects \Ne o"W0W\Drefi EIR\ .O Intro-091807.doe 3 -3 Section 3.0 introduction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1 LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING PROGRAMS This Supplemental EIR (SEIR) section describes the existing land uses on the project site and in the surrounding project area. On -site and off -site land uses and the potential land use compatibility issues associated with the Master Plan Update Project have been evaluated and addressed. This section also addresses the relationship of land use changes to relevant planning policies. The information in this SEIR section is based on Final EIR No. 142 (LSA 1992), field reconnaissance, and the review of aerial photography and relevant planning documents as identified herein. 3.1.1 SUMMARY OF FINAL EIR NO. 142 Final EIR No. 142 evaluated land use impacts on the basis of whether the project "conflicts with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community; disrupts or divides the physical arrangement of an established community; and converts prime agricultural land to a non- agricultural use or impairs the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land." In addition, Final EIR No. 142 indicated that "a project that degrades property values to a point of physical deterioration of the individual structure and /or residential or commercial development is considered a significant land use impact." On the basis of these criteria, it was determined that the Master Plan Project would result in significant, unavoidable impacts on the condominiums located adjacent to the western boundary of the Upper Campus. The placement of the hospital buildings adjacent to the existing condominiums, in combination with shade and shadow and noise impacts, were considered significant and unavoidable impacts of the Master Plan Project. Final EIR No. 142 states: This perceived impact is based on the significant difference in scale and height of the residential structures, as compared to .the proposed Hospital structures. Other issues that contribute to this perceived significant land use impact include: the potential for (1) visual impacts; (2) increase in vehicle use of the service road that runs parallel to the common property line at the west side of the Upper Campus; and (3) increase in noise related to Hospital equipment.... the above identified Upper Campus land use impacts are in most cases circumstances that currently exist... and individually do not represent significant unavoidable adverse impacts. However, with development of the Master Plan these impacts are expected to increase incrementally and, in combination, are considered a significant unavoidable adverse land use impact to the residential units located adjacent to and west of the Upper Campus (page 4 -59). Final EIR No. 142 found the project consistent with the applicable land use designations and planning policies. The project required a zone change for the Lower Campus from an Unclassified District to a Planned Community District; Final EIR No. 142 noted that "this change does not represent a significant impact due to the fact that the land uses proposed in the PCDP [Planned Community Development Plan] and District Regulations are consistent with the existing General Plan designation and therefore, are consistent with the unclassified district designation" Final EIR No. 142 also concluded that "development of the Master Plan facilities is not expected to reduce the property values of residential units located in the general project vicinity to a level of physical deterioration ... the project does not represent a significant impact to property values." R:Trci SlNevgaWW0081Draft EIR13.1 Land Use­091 B07.nbc 3.1 -1 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existinq On -site Land Uses As addressed in Section 2.0, Project Description, Hoag is divided into the 17.57 -acre Upper Campus and the 20.41 -acre Lower Campus (Exhibit 2 -4). As depicted on Exhibit 3.1 -1, the Upper Campus includes the following facilities: • Two parking structures and surface parking lots ( #1, #10)' • James Irvine Surgery Center ( #2) • Emergency Generator Facilities /Power Plant ( #3) • Hoag Hospital ( #9) — Ancillary Building ( #4) — Chemical Dependency Center ( #7) • West Tower ( #5) • Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute (adjacent to #5) — Cardiovascular Rehabilitation — Congestive Heart Failure Program — Pacemaker and Arrhythmia — Stress Lab — Vascular Lab • North Tower ( #6) • Sue and Bill Gross Women's Pavilion ( #8) The main entrance (signalized intersection) and the secondary entrance to the Upper Campus are provided along Hospital Road, which serves as the northern boundary of the Upper Campus. Primary vehicular access to the Lower Campus occurs at West Coast Highway /Hoag Drive; West Coast Highway serves as the southern boundary of the Lower Campus. The Lower Campus can also be accessed internally to the site from Hospital Road. The Lower Campus includes the following facilities: • Patty and George Hoag Cancer Center ( #11) • One parking structure and surface parking lots ( #12 and #17) • Hoag Conference Center ( #13) — Business Services — Community Outreach — Personnel Services • Former Childcare Center building ( #14) • Cogeneration Plant ( #15) ' Refers to notations on Exhibit 3.2 -1 R'.Trge \NewponQMTratt EiR\3.1 Land use-oe1e07.doc 3.1 -2 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Existing Land Uses Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR N Source: Hoag Hospital Legend 1. North Parking Structure 2. James Irvine Surgery Center 3. Power Plant 4. Ancillary Building 5. West Building 6. North Building 7. Chemical Dependency Center 8. Women's Pavilion 9. Original 1952 Building 10. South Parking Structure 11. Cancer Center 12. Conference Center Parking Structure 13. Conference Center 14. Former Childcare Center 15. Cogeneration Plant 16. Childcare Center Site 17. Surface Parking Exhibit 3.1 -1 NI O„ C D N 5 U L T I H G Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E1R • Kathryn C. Fishback Childcare Center (for Hoag employees) ( #16) Surrounding Land Uses Hoag is located in the West Newport Mesa area of the City of Newport Beach. West Newport Mesa includes a mix of public, residential, office, retail, and industrial uses. Hoag is a major activity center that has generated a strong market for the development of supporting uses such as medical offices, convalescent and care facilities, and pharmacies. Hoag's Upper Campus is generally bound by the following land uses (Exhibit 2 -4): North • Hospital Road • Newport Lido Towers (medical buildings affiliated with Hoag) north of Hospital Road • Medical office, administrative, and financial uses north of Hospital Road • Assisted living complex north of Hospital Road South • Lower Hoag Campus East • Newport Boulevard • Residential and retail uses east of Newport Boulevard West • Villa Balboa Condominiums and The Versailles at the Bluff Condominiums • Superior Avenue, west of the condominiums • Additional multi - family development west of Superior Avenue The Lower Campus is generally bound by the following land uses (Exhibit 2 -4): North • Villa Balboa Condominiums and The Versailles at the Bluff Condominiums • Upper Hoag Campus • Sunset View Park, a consolidated and a linear park that extends along much of the northern boundary of the Lower Campus South • West Coast Highway • Residential uses within Balboa Cove and Newport Beach Townhouses south of West Coast Highway within West Newport (multi - family residential and low density residential) RAPrcjWslNewpodU00BIDra@ EIR13.1 Land Use- 091807.doc 3.1-3 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SuDDlemental EIR East • Newport Boulevard and Newport Boulevard off -ramp to West Coast Highway Retail commercial development fronts the east side of Newport Boulevard, with residential development further to the east West • Superior Avenue (approximately 700 feet west of the Lower Campus) • Open space and multi - family residential units west of Superior Avenue Related Plannina Proarams Land use issues addressed in this section include the City of Newport Beach's related planning programs that govern the existing and future conditions on the Hoag. The following applies to development in and around the site: City of Newport Beach General Plan, City of Newport Beach Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations for Hoag Hospital (PC Text), and the Local Coastal Program. The discussion below addresses these ongoing programs. Newport Beach General Plan The City of Newport Beach General Plan is the long -range guide for growth and development in the City. On July 25, 2006, the General Plan was adopted and the Final EIR was certified by the Newport Beach City Council. At the General Municipal Election held on November 7, 2006, the City Electorate approved a measure related to City Charter Section 423 (often referred to as the "Greenlight Initiative "), which required Electorate approval of any major amendment to the General Plan. A general plan functions as a guide for the type of community that is desired for the future and provides the means to achieve it. The City of Newport Beach General Plan contains the following ten elements: Land Use; Harbor and Bay; Housing; Historical Resources; Circulation; Recreation; Arts and Cultural; Natural Resources; Safety; and Noise. Goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan that are relevant to the proposed Master Plan Update Project are discussed in the respective sections of this SEIR, with the exception of the Land Use Element, which is addressed below. Goals and policies set forth in the Housing Element, Harbor and Bay Element, and Conservation of Natural Resources Element are not applicable to the issues addressed in this SEIR. Land Use Element The General Plan Land Use Element presents goals and policies pertaining to how existing development is to be maintained and enhanced and how new development is to be implemented. The Land Use Element focuses on how population and employment growth can be strategically inserted to the City's distinguishing and valued qualities. The Land Use Element has developed goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Hoag is designated as , "Private Institutions." The Private Institutions designation is intended to provide for privately owned facilities that serve the public, including places for religious assembly, private schools, health care facilities, cultural institutions, museums, yacht clubs, congregate homes, and comparable facilities. The Upper Campus has a development limit of 765,349 square feet (sf) and the Lower Campus has a development limit of 577,889 sf. % R'.1PmjeM wpo&JOOBTD EIR \3.1 Laf Use 91907.d 31-4 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R The Land Use Element also contains goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Table 3.1 -1 later in this section identifies these goals and policies and provides a project consistency analysis. Newport Beach Zoning Code Hoag is designated as a Planned Community (PC) District. The purpose of the Hoag PC District is to provide a method whereby property may be classified and developed for hospital- related uses. The specifications of the PC District are intended to provide land use and development standards that support the proposed uses while ensuring that there is compliance with the intent of all applicable regulatory codes. The PC Text has been developed in accordance with the Newport Beach General Plan, The PC District includes district regulations and a development plan for both the Upper and the Lower Campuses of Hoag. In general, over the long term, the Upper Campus would become oriented primarily towards emergency, acute, and critical care (predominantly inpatient) uses and the Lower Campus will be developed with predominantly outpatient uses, residential care, and support services. Whenever the regulations contained in the PC Text conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained in the PC Text take precedence (Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations for Hoag Hospitao. The Municipal Code regulates development when such regulations are not provided within the PC Text. All development within the PC District is also required to comply with all provisions of the California Building Code and other governing building codes. Permitted and Prohibited Uses As set forth in the PC Text, the following regulations apply to all development at Hoag. The uses listed are not exhaustive; other hospital - related uses which fit into the permitted use categories are allowed by definition. Lower Campus Permitted Uses A. Hospital facilities, including, but not limited to: Outpatient Uses Antepartum Testing; Cancer Center; Skilled Nursing; Rehabilitation; Surgery Center; Clinical Center; Day Hospital; Back and Neck Center; Biofeedback; Breast Imaging Center; Dialysis; EEG /EMG /NICE Laboratory; First Aid Center; Fertility Services; Gastrointestinal (G.I.) Laboratory; .Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Nuclear Medicine; Occupational Therapy; Pediatrics; Pharmacy; Physical Therapy; Pulmonary Services; Radiation Therapy; Respiratory Therapy; Sleep Disorder Center; Speech Therapy; Ultrasound; Urgent Care. Administration Admitting; Auxiliary Office; Business Offices; Information Desk; Registration; Patient Relations; Social Services. RAProjWs \NewpotlU008 \Draft EIR\0.1 Land Use- 09190].d. 3.1 -5 Section S. 1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Support Services Employee Child Care; Health Education; Power /Mechanical /Auxiliary Support and Storage; Food Services; Cashier; Chapel /Chaplaincy Service; Conference Center; Dietitian; Gift Shop; Laboratory; Medical Library; Medical Records; Pharmacy; Parking Facilities? Engineering/Maintenance; Shipping /Receiving; Microwave, Satellite, and Other Communication Facilities. Residential Care Substance Abuse; Mental Health Services; Extended Care; Hospice Care; Self or Minimal Care; Congregate Care. Medical /Support Offices B. Methane gas flare burner, collection wells, and associated system components. C. Accessory uses normally incidental to hospital development. D. Temporary structures and uses, including modular buildings. Prohibited Uses Emergency room; heliport; conversion of mechanical or structural spaces to uses that allow general or routine occupancy or storage. Upper Campus Permitted Uses A. Hospital facilities, including, but not limited to: Inoatient Use Critical Care; Emergency Department; Birthing Suites; Cardiology; Cardiac Care Unit; Intensive Care Unit; Mother/Baby Unit; Surgery; Laboratory; Pharmacy; Patient Beds Outpatient Services As allowed on the Lower Campus Administration As allowed on the Lower Campus Support Services As allowed on the Lower Campus 2 Parking structures or decks do not count toward square footage. R: \PrgecSS \Newport'J008 \Oratt EIR \3.1 Lantl Use- 09180J.tloc 3.1 -6 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental ElR Residential Care As allowed on the Lower Campus Heli ort Subject to Conditional Use Permit3 B. Accessory uses normally incidental to hospital development. C. Temporary structures and uses, including modular buildings. Prohibited Uses Conversion of mechanical or structural spaces to uses that allow general or routine occupancy. Height Restrictions: The maximum building height is based on the following height zones, as set forth in the PC Text and depicted on Exhibit 3.1 -2. Upper Campus Tower Zone: Maximum building height not to exceed the existing tower (235 feet above mean sea level [msl]). Upper Campus Mid -rise Zone: Maximum building height not to exceed 140 feet above msl. Upper Campus Parking Zone: Maximum building height not to exceed 80 feet above msl, excluding the elevator tower. Lower Campus Zone Within each sub -area, no building shall exceed the height (Sub -areas A, B, C, F, G): of the existing slope and shall conform to the range of maximum building heights indicated in the development criteria (Exhibit 3.1 -2). Lower Campus Zone Maximum building height shall not exceed the height of the (Sub -areas D and E): existing Hoag Cancer Center (57.5 feet above msl). Building Setbacks: Building setbacks for the Upper and Lower Campuses are described below. • Setbacks along property boundaries adjacent to the Villa Balboa Condominiums: a. The Upper Campus's western boundary setback shall be the prolongation of the westerly edge of the existing cafeteriaAaboratory building to the points of intersection with the easterly curb line of the existing service drive, then continuing along said line of the existing service drive. b. The Lower Campus's northern boundary will have a 20- foot -wide minimum building setback. 3 Does not count toward square footage. RA9rojedS \NewpodU0080rak EIR\3.1 Land Use- 091807.doc 3.1 -7 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan OR • West Coast Highway is 15 feet east of the hospital entry signal. Vertical articulation is required for buildings east of the signal within 150 feet of the West Coast Highway frontage as follows: — First Floor: Up to 18 feet in height, no additional articulation is required. If the first floor exceeds 18 feet in height, it shall be subject to the articulation requirements of the second floor. Second Floor (up to 32 feet in height): A minimum of 20 percent of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average second floor setback of 20 feet. — Third Floor and Above: A minimum of 20 percent of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average third floor and above setback of 25 feet. • The setback on West Coast Highway west of Hoag's entry signal shall be 45 feet. Vertical articulation is required for buildings west of the signal for buildings within 150 feet of the West Coast Highway frontage as follows: — First Floor: For up to 18 feet in height, no additional articulation is required. If the firstfloor exceeds 18 feet in height, it is subject to the articulation requirements of the second floor. — Second Floor (up to 32 feet in height): A minimum of 20 percent of the building frontage is articulated in such a manner as to result in an average second floor setback of 55 feet. Local Coastal Program Portions of Hoag are within the coastal zone and are subject to regulation by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in accordance with the Coastal Act of 1976. The Coastal Commission's mandate is to protect and enhance the resources of the coastal zone, as mapped by the State legislature. Implementation of Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation of a Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP is typically prepared and adopted by a municipality or county and then reviewed and approved by the CCC. An LCP typically consists of a Land Use Plan and an Implementation Plan. The Coastal Land Use Plan indicates the type(s), location(s), and intensity of land uses; the applicable resource protection and development policies; and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. The Implementation Plan consists of the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments necessary to implement the Land Use Plan. As set forth in Public Resources Code 30001.5, the basic goals of the Coastal Act are to: a. Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. b. Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. R ^,Proj�s \NewponW9oe \O�afi BR \3.1 L nd Use- 091t*7. o 3.1 -8 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs LEGEND ,ANC HEIGHTZONES UPPER CAMPUS ZONES ® TOWER ZONE- MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 235' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL BtIR.67NG MIDRISE ZONE- MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 140' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL ® PARKING ZONE- MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 80' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL, EXCLUSIVE OF ELEVATOR TOWER �A LOWER CAMPUS ZONES c211lPIft M IfTimum s.m.ac LOWER CAMPUS ZONE- SUB AREAS A, B, C, F, AND G- NO BUILDING SHALL WEST EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING SLOPE OR THE ` F RANGE OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS INDICATED i 2O W jM WjQBWjQ BUILDING HEIGHT SUB AREAS O TYPICAL RANGE OF BALDING HEIGHT, ABOVE PROPOSED GRAM (82) TYPICAL RANGE OF MAXIMUM W nunfto Wwq L; y 12p Wry2 L, yy, BUILDING HEIGHTS, MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSQ pnkwrM Zn A8W0 rrdM50�9u0nW ,a2AO L22LBOBFa a AVERAGE SLOPE ELEVATION awl Opn Ami 020 (12=IIUF 210 PARIS LANE 5 210LNLELJY@ 280 LALIEIAlE Note: Buildings labeled for Identification purposes onty PC Text Development Criteria Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR *,Tie F � M,n:m'.Fn BW 1 x HOSPITAL ROAD_ NORTH PARTONG j� RE nfr,r , WOMEN'S PAVIWON X� Q / a . r ' I 2 _ l kfn um Exhibit 3.1 -2 J!rp�el?wf C O N 5 U L T I N G ,ANC s BtIR.67NG LOADING DOCK AREA wwt Eap. a Yr Bwlm2 AneAnY eWlan2 Bete �A c211lPIft M IfTimum s.m.ac WEST Alaq OU YYAN P'WMIY LYw ` F BLDG i 2O W jM WjQBWjQ 280 CAGNEy LANE ' 27000NEVIANE WOMEN'S PAVIWON X� Q / a . r ' I 2 _ l kfn um Exhibit 3.1 -2 J!rp�el?wf C O N 5 U L T I N G Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental EIR c. Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. d. Assure priority for coastal- dependent and coastal - related development over other development on the coast. e. Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone. The CCC approved the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (LCP Land Use Plan) on October 13, 2006, and the City Council adopted it on December 13, 2005 (Resolution No. 2005 -64). Since that time, the City adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan in 2006. Changes in the types, location, and intensity of land uses resulting from the adoption of the General Plan update necessitates an update to the Coastal Land Use Plan to provide consistency between the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan. Public meetings will be held by the City on the updates to the Coastal Land Use Plan. Formal adoption of the LCP Coastal Land Use Plan would require a separate action by the City Council following CCC approval. Upon completion of the Coastal Land Use Plan, the Implementation Plan will be prepared. After certification of an LCP, coastal development permit authority is delegated to the appropriate local government (in this case, the City of Newport Beach). The CCC retains original permit jurisdiction over certain specified lands (such as submerged lands, tidelands and public trust lands) and has appellate authority over development approved by the local government in specified geographic areas. In authorizing coastal development permits, the City must make the finding that the development conforms to the certified LCP. The Lower Campus in its entirety and 0.21 acre of the Upper Campus are within the coastal zone. The LCP Land Use Plan designates these areas as "Public Facilities." The Public Facilities designation is "intended to provide public and quasi - public facilities, including educational institutions, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, community centers, hospitals, religious institutions, and utilities. Development intensity ranges from a floor area to land area ratio of 0.50 to 1.00." 3.1.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The City has determined that the Project would result in a significant impact on the environment if it would: Threshold 3.1 -1 Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity Threshold 3.1 -2 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 plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. R.TrgedsWeWPOOV MDraREIROAL dUse091807.doc 3.1 -9 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Future implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in a variety of environmental impacts to the natural and urban systems in the area that affect land use and land use compatibility; these relate to traffic, air quality, noise, and visual resources. These impacts, although related to land use, are addressed in individual sections of this SEIR. This section focuses on the Project's compatibility with on -site and surrounding land uses, and its consistency with adopted planning programs and their requirements. The approved Hoag Hospital Master Plan currently allows for up to 1,343,238 sf of development at Hoag, inclusive of the Upper and Lower Campuses. No additional square footage is proposed as a part of this Master Plan Update Project. The Project proposes to reallocate up to 225,000 sf of previously approved (but not constructed) square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus, Of the remaining approved but not constructed uses, the Hoag Hospital Master Plan permits additional hospital beds as a function of the square footage allocation for Hoag. The maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus would be 990,349 sf (if all 225,000 sf are reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus) and the maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus would be 577,889 sf (if no square footage is reallocated). However, in no event could the combined total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. As previously noted in this SEIR, site - specific development is not proposed as a part of the Master Plan Update Project. No substantive modifications to the development criteria adopted in conjunction with the 1992 Master Plan are proposed. Because the proposed Master Plan Update Project does not provide for the approval of any specific development project, no specific building designs, locations, or features are evaluated. Similar to Final EIR No. 142, this SEIR addresses potential effects associated with development consistent with existing PC Text development criteria for Hoag, with the exception of proposed modifications to noise standards. The existing PC Text provides that mechanical equipment noise generated from Hoag Hospital not exceed 55 decibels (dB) at all Hoag property lines. This noise restriction, which was established prior to the creation of the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance, is proposed to be eliminated. Instead, noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 below (Exhibit 2 -5). The applicable noise standard at the Hoag property line adjacent to the loading docks shall be as follows: 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. R \Pmjec \NV pmCd00&\D EIR\ A La dUse- M807.doc 3.1 -10 section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs SAM -10 PM Daytime, . 16PM�.iAM` I�rttime Leq (15 min) 70 d8A 58 d8A 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. R \Pmjec \NV pmCd00&\D EIR\ A La dUse- M807.doc 3.1 -10 section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Impact AnaIvsIS Threshold 3.1 -1: Would the project be compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? On -site Land Uses: Conversion/Dislocation of Existing Land Uses As envisioned in the existing Master Plan, it is likely that the existing four -story hospital building and other smaller buildings in the Upper Campus would be demolished and replaced with a multi -story structure or structures. Although this change was anticipated in the existing Master Plan, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow greater flexibility for increasing the size of structures through the proposed square footage reallocation to the Upper Campus. The potential displacement of existing structures internal to Hoag was previously considered in Final EIR No. 142 and was not considered a significant land use impact. This SEIR finds that conclusion to be accurate for the proposed Master Plan Update Project as well. Compatibility with Existing On -site Land Uses As previously discussed, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow greater intensity of development on the Upper Campus. Up to 225,000 sf of the previously approved but not constructed square footage for Hoag could be reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. This intensification of uses on the Upper Campus would have a commensurate reduction in development on the Lower Campus. This would not result in significant land use compatibility impacts within Hoag. Without specific development plans, it is unknown exactly how this approved but not yet constructed development may be sited, but it would still occur within the same building envelope assumed in the existing Master Plan and PC Text (Exhibit 3.1 -2). Increased development on both the Upper and Lower Campuses was anticipated in the previous EIR. No significant land use impacts internal to the site are anticipated. Compatibility with Surrounding Off -site Land Uses Land use incompatibility can occur where differences between proximate uses result in differences in the physical scale of development, noise levels, traffic levels, etc. that impact these uses such that project- related significant unavoidable indirect effects preclude use of the existing land uses as they were intended. Upper Campus The Upper Campus has 67,228 sf of currently approved but not constructed development. As previously noted, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for the reallocation of up to 225,000 sf of currently approved but not constructed square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus resulting in a maximum of 292,228 sf of medical- related uses to be buitt on the Upper Campus. The maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus would be 990,349 sf (if all 225,000 sf are reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus) and the maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus would be 577,889 sf (if no square footage is reallocated). However, in no event could the combined total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. Land Uses to the North: Land uses to the north include Hospital Road; the Lido Towers (medical buildings associated with Hoag Hospital) located north of Hospital Road; medical office, administrative, and financial uses north of Hospital Road; and an assisted living complex north of Hospital Road. Continued use of the northern portion of the Upper Campus for medical R?Pr0J6MkNewponW008VMt EIRM1. i Land usaaerem.dw 3.1.11 section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR and ancillary (e.g., parking) uses would be considered compatible with existing off -site uses. Contiguous properties to the north of Hospital Road between Newport Avenue to the east and Superior Avenue to the west have General Plan land use designations of "Private Institutions" and "Medical Commercial Office" (east to west). Land Uses to the South; The Lower Campus is located to the south. As noted in the previous analysis of on -site compatibility, no land use compatibility impacts are expected internal to Hoag. Land Uses to the East: The Upper Campus is adjacent to Newport Boulevard, which is a major six -lane divided roadway. Residential and retail uses are located east of Newport Boulevard and have General Plan land use designations of "General Commercial Office," "Single -Unit Residential Detached," 'Two -Unit Residential," and "General Commercial." At Hoag, from north to south, the following on -site uses are sited parallel to Newport Boulevard: the visitor's parking structure (North Parking Structure), the seven -story Women's Pavilion, the four -story hospital building, and the physicians and employees parking structure (South Parking Structure). Because of the distance between the existing and proposed development at Hoag with land uses east of Newport Boulevard (across a major six -lane, divided roadway), off -site land uses would not be adversely affected by the proposed modification of the Master Plan. No significant land use impacts are anticipated to the east of Hoag. Land Uses to the West: Surrounding land uses to the west of the Upper Campus are the Villa Balboa Condominiums and The Versailles at the Bluff Condominiums; Superior Avenue; and additional multi - family development west of Superior Avenue. Three four -story condominium buildings and two tennis courts are adjacent to Hoag and are separated from Hoag by dense vegetative landscaping and West Hoag Drive, a service access road that runs north -south along the western boundary of the Upper Campus. The condominiums have a General Plan land use designation of "Multiple -Unit Residential." In total, the Villa Balboa and The Versailles at the Bluff Condominium complexes have 673 dwelling units. As previously noted, no changes in the building height or building setback standards set forth in the PC Text are proposed. The Upper Campus Tower Zone's maximum building height is 235 feet above msl (Exhibit 3.1 -2). The Upper Tower Zone generally includes the existing hospital site, West Tower, and Women's Pavilion site and extends south to the physicians and staff parking structure (known as the Parking Zone). The Parking Zone has a maximum building height of 80 feet above msl. To accommodate additional square footage in the Upper Campus, it is reasonable to assume that some of the smaller and shorter buildings (e.g., the hospital) on the site would be demolished to allow for a multi -story structure or structures in the Tower Zone. The existing condominium development is contiguous to the Upper Campus Midrise Zone which permits buildings up to 140 feet above msl. West Hoag Drive, the loading dock area, trash collection, power plant, the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute, the James Irvine Surgery Center, and emergency room are included in the land uses in this zone. Although increased development was anticipated in the existing Master Plan, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for more square footage in the Upper Campus than was anticipated in the existing Master Plan, including development in the Mid -rise Zone. The PC Text states that the building setbacks for Hoag adjacent to the Villa Balboa Condominiums are as follows: Upper campus western boundary setback shall be the prolongation of the westerly edge of the existing cafeteria /laboratory building to the points of intersection with the R:1RMgectM\Nevportl \Draft ER3.l land Use 09 /B9T.doc 31-12 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft supplemental EIR easterly curb line of the existing service drive, then continuing along said line of the existing service drive (page 16). While new development could be constructed up to 140 feet above msl adjacent to the existing condominiums, such development would be no closer or taller than development currently permitted under the existing Hoag Master Plan. As addressed in greater detail in Section 3.5, Aesthetics, the aesthetic impacts of the proposed Master Plan Update Project, including shade and shadow effects, are less than significant. Residential units along the western edge of the Upper Campus, especially units on upper stories, have views of the uses along West Hoag Drive and beyond, including the loading dock area and service areas at Hoag. Final EIR No. 142 found that implementation of the Master Plan would have less than significant aesthetic impacts (page 4 -59). As addressed in Section 3.4, Noise, the anticipated noise impacts from loading dock activities associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project will be significant and unavoidable. Final EIR No. 142 found that the project's incremental addition to cumulative traffic noise impacts was a significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impact (page 5 -8). The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not result in any new significant land use impacts to residences west of Hoag because the aesthetic and noise impacts of the Project would not increase or differ from the affects set forth in Final EIR No. 142. However, the significant unavoidable land use impact identified in Final EIR No. 142 would not be reduced to a level considered less than significant through the implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Lower Campus The Lower Campus has 389,740 sf of remaining approved but not constructed square footage. With the proposed reallocation of up to 225,000 sf to the Upper Campus, the Lower Campus could be constructed with between 164,740 sf and 389,740 sf of additional approved but not constructed square footage could be constructed on the Lower Campus. The maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus would be 577,889 sf (if no square footage is reallocated) and the maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus would be 990,349 sf (if all 225,000 sf are reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus). In no event could the combined total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. No land use impacts for the Lower Campus were identified in Final EIR No. 142. Land Uses to the North: Land uses to the north include the Villa Balboa Condominiums and The Versailles at the Bluff Condominiums; the Hoag Upper Campus; and Sunset View Park, a 0.28 -acre consolidated park site and a 0.52 -acre (20- foot -wide) linear park that extends along much of the northern boundary of the Lower Campus. The park separates the condominium developments from the Lower Campus. There is a substantial elevation difference between these uses. As previously noted, no changes in the building height or building setback standards set forth in the PC Text are proposed. While between 164,740 sf and 389,740 sf of additional development (approved but not constructed) could be constructed in the Lower Campus depending on how much square footage is transferred and constructed on the Upper Campus rather than the Lower Campus; Final EIR No. 142 assumed no reallocation. As such, the proposed Master Plan Update Project represents a reduction of up to 225,000 sf from that which is currently permitted for this portion of Hoag. Final EIR No. 142 noted: R:%PMjWMVOWpoOUDOBDfBll EIRQ.1 Land USC 091807.doc 3.1 -13 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Residents in the Villa Balboa/Sea Fair condominiums will have direct view of the Hospital development... However, all of the building development on the Lower Campus will be at an elevation lower than the residential units.... The reduced elevation of the Hospital facilities and the presence of the park, bicycle trail and access road with controlled use will provide a buffer between the existing residential units and proposed Hospital uses. Therefore, a land use impact is not identified for the Lower Campus. (page 4 -62) Because less development may be implemented on the Lower Campus than is currently approved and the allowable uses and heights of development are not proposed for change as a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project, no significant land use impacts to uses to the north are expected. Land Uses to the South: The Lower Campus borders West Coast Highway. Residential uses within Balboa Cove and the Newport Beach Townhouses are located south of West Coast Highway. West Coast Highway is a major six -lane divided roadway. Residential uses located south of the highway are designated "Single -Unit Residential Detached" and "Multiple Unit Residential." Because of the distance between existing and proposed development at Hoag with land uses south of West Coast Highway and the potential reduction in development on the Lower Campus, off -site land uses would not be adversely affected by the proposed Master Plan Update Project. No significant land use impacts would be anticipated for uses to the south. Land Uses to the East: The Lower Campus is adjacent to both the Newport Boulevard westbound off -ramp to West Coast Highway and the physicians and staff parking structure for the Upper Campus. Residential and retail uses are located east of Newport Boulevard and have General Plan land use designations of "General Commercial Office," "Single -Unit Residential Detached," "Two -Unit Residential," and "General Commercial." Because of the distance between existing and proposed development in the Lower Campus with land uses east of Newport Boulevard, no significant off -site land use impacts would be anticipated for uses to the east of the Lower Campus. Land Uses to the West: The Lower Campus borders vacant land, a public parking lot, and Superior Avenue (approximately 700 feet west of the Lower Campus). Open space and multi - family residential development is located west of Superior Avenue. Hoag's cogeneration facility and the undeveloped Sunset View Park abut the western boundary of the Lower Campus. The view park and the open space area west of Superior Avenue are designated "Parks and Recreation" (which will become the future Sunset Ridge Park), and the residences west of Superior Avenue are designated "Multiple -Unit Residential" Because the Hoag cogeneration plant is a relatively new facility and is the closest Hoag facility to the western boundary, it is therefore reasonable to assume that this facility would not be removed and therefore no new development would occur closer to existing off -site uses to the west. Because of this factor and the distance from off -site residential uses, no land use conflicts are anticipated for uses to the west. impact 3.1 -1: Significant Unavoidable impact. Implementation of development on the Upper Campus as proposed with the Master Plan Update Project would have no greater or different land use effect than the existing Master Plan, and would therefore not have a significant project impact. However, the Project will not alleviate the significant unavoidable land use impact to residences to the west of Hoag on the Upper Campus identified in Final EIR No. 142. As such, the significant and unavoidable land use compatibility impact identified in RSPmjeastiNewpoft DMSSren EiRa.iL nd Use- ogiem.dm 3.1 -14 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Final EIR No. 142 would continue to exist with buildout of Hoag under the proposed Master Plan Update Project scenario. This is not considered a new impact. The proposed Master Plan Update Project is considered compatible with land uses to the north, south, and east. No significant land use compatibility impacts would be associated with the Lower Campus. Consistency with Applicable Planning and Programs Threshold 3.1 -2: Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Table 3.1 -1 provides a summary of the Master Plan Update Project's consistency with applicable goals and policies from both the City of Newport Beach General 'Plan and the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Additionally, the PC Text would be amended to establish maximum allowable building areas of 990,349 sf for the Upper Campus (if all 225,000 sf are reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus) and 577,889 sf (if no square footage is reallocated) for the Lower Campus, consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment. The Applicant is requesting modifications and clarifications to the PC Text. These changes would not substantively change the development standards supporting the proposed uses at Hoag, with the exception of noise standards (see Section 2.0, Project Description, and Section 3.4, Noise). No changes are proposed to permissible uses other than to provide clarifying language; building heights; and building setbacks established in the existing PC Text. TABLE 3.1 -1 CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH LAND USE - RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES `. Goafs;arrd Policies ' . CfinslStBnCy Evaiiiattott . ,'._; '.. City of Newport Beach General Plan Goal LU 1: A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, business, and visitors through the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community. LU 1.1: Maintain and enhance the beneficial and Hoag is a prominent feature in the West Newport area of the unique character of the different neighborhoods, City because of its visibility from West Coast Highway and its business districts, and harbor that together identify reputation as a leading medical facility. Continued development Newport Beach. Locate and design development to of Hoag with medical uses would not detract from the character reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural of the area. Buildings would be constructed in conformance diversity, and view sheds. (Imp 1.1) with the standards established in the PC Text. LU 1.5: Encourage a local economy that provides The City identifies Hoag is the largest employee (2,700) in the adequate commercial, office, industrial and marine- City (Newport Beach 2007). The proposed Master Plan Update oriented opportunities that provide employment and Project would provide for additional medical - related facilities in revenue to support high quality community services. support of the needs of the local community and region. (Imp 1. 1, 24.1). Goal LU 2: A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, & protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. LU 2.1: Accommodate uses that support the needs The first hospital opened in September 1952 at Hoag and was Of Newport Beach's residents including housing, initiated to serve the needs of coastal Orange County 'R: \Projects \Newpod\J006\0re@ EIR \3.1 fwd Use 091807.doc 3.1-15 aecoon a. r Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.1 -1 (Continued) CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH LAND USE - RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES ... GoalS4hd PatiGfes IS'[eC1C'j7 retail, services, employment, recreation, education, residents. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would culture, entertainment, civic engagement, and allow for the continued compliance with this policy. social and spiritual activity that are in balance with community natural resources and open spaces. (Imp 1. 1, 2.1) LU 2.4: Accommodate uses that maintain or As noted above, the City has identified Hoag as the largest enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and employee in the City. Additional facilities would be constructed account for market demands, while maintaining and based on the medical needs of the local community and region improving the quality of life for current and future so that the quality of life for local residents will continue to be residents. (Imp 1- 1, 24.1) .enhanced. LU 2.8: Accommodate the types, densities, and The purpose of this Supplement to Final EIR No. 142 is to mix of land uses that can be adequately supported assess any potential significant environmental effects by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. As sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and identified in this SEIR, the Project would not result in any new public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, significant impacts to transportation, utility infrastructure, or youth, police, fire, and so on). (Imp 1. 1, 10.2, 11.1) public services. Goal LU 3.• A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. LU 3.1: Maintain Newport Beach's pattern of The proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for the residential neighborhoods, business and reallocation of previously approved development for Hoag employment districts, commercial centers, within the existing site boundaries and within the same corridors, and harbor and ocean districts. (imp 1.1) development envelope assumed in the existing Master Plan for Hoag. Therefore, the overall pattern of development for the area would not change. LU 3.2: Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, As previously stated, the objective of the proposed Master Plan and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with Update Project is to allow greater flexibility within the Hoag uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, Hospital Master Plan in an effort to allow Hoag to respond to and character. Changes in use and/or changes in the health care industry while maintaining an overall density /intensity should be considered only in those development cap. The proposed potential intensification on the areas that are economically underperforming, are Upper Campus with a corresponding potential reduction in necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share square footage on the Lower Campus is proposed to respond of projected regional population growth, improve to the changing needs of Hoag and how medical services are the relationship and reduce commuting distance provided to the residents of Newport Beach and the region. between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic levels of service. (Imp 1. 1, 2.1, 5.1, 10.2, 16.2, 16.3, 17.1, 18.1, 19.1, 22.1, 23.1, 232) Goal LU 4: Management of growth and change to protect and enhance the livability of neighborhoods and achieve distinct and economically vital business and employment districts, which are correlated with supporting infrastructure and public services, and sustain Newport Beach's natural setting. LU 4.1: Accommodate land use development The proposed Master Plan Update Project is consistent with consistent with the Land Use Plan [Figures LU1 the underlying land use definitions for Hoag provided in the through LU16 of the General Plan]. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, General Plan. 10.2) Goal LU 6.1: A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods. R'APT*dslNew n\J 8,Drall E{R13.1 Lnd Use- W1807.doc 3.1 -16 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E1R TABLE 3.1 -1 (Continued) CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH LAND USE - RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES .Goals:and Polfraes'. Cenais}encyl Eualua #eon LU 6.1.1: Accommodate schools, government The remaining square footage at Hoag represents approved administrative and operational facilities, fire stations but not constructed development. The proposed Master Plan and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, Update Project would permit the reallocation of this overall cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, allowable development from the Lower Campus to the Upper and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Campus. Beach's residents and businesses. (imp 1. 1, 2.1) LU 6.1.5: Support Hoag Hospital in its mission to The proposed Master Plan Update Project evaluates its provide adequate facilities to meet the needs of relationship to adjacent land uses. With mitigation, the area residents. Work with the Hospital to ensure reallocation of approved but not constructed square footage that future development plans consider its may result in improved noise attenuation and a reduction in relationship to and assure compatibility with traffic volumes. The City's Implementation Program 24.1 states adjoining residential neighbors and mitigate that 'The Economic Development Committee should complete impacts on local and regional transportation the Strategic Plan for Economic Sustainability for City Council systems. (imp 24.1) approval. This plan should outline the incentives to be provided and other City actions to be undertaken to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. This plan should be dynamic and reviewed and updated annually as a part of the City budget" As previously noted, the City identifies Hoag is the largest employee in the City. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would provide for additional medical - related facilities in support of the needs of the local community and region consistent with the City's economic needs. The buildout of Hoag in accordance with the proposed update to the Master Plan supports Hoag in its mission to provide adequate facilities to meet the needs of area residents. Goal LU 6.6: A medical district with peripheral medical services and research facilities that support the Hoag Hospital campus within a well - planned residential neighborhood, enabling residents to live close to their jobs and reducing commutes to outlying areas. LU 6.6.1: Prioritize the accommodation of Hoag is an existing medical facility that has been located in the medical - related and supporting facilities on City since 1952. No Hoag development is proposed outside the properties abutting the Hoag Hospital complex existing boundaries of the project site. The proposed Master [areas designated as "CO -M (0.5)" (Figure LU18, Plan Update Project would not preclude future off -site medical, Sub -Area A)] with opportunities for new residential retail, or residential uses adjacent to Hoag. units [areas designated as "RM (18 /ac) "] and supporting general and neighborhood retail services [ "CG (0.75)" and "CN (0.3)] respectively. (Imp 2.1) Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan 2.1.2 -1: Land uses and new development in the The Lower Campus in its entirety and 0.21 acre of the Upper coastal zone shall be consistent with the Coastal Campus are within the coastal zone. The LCP Land Use Plan Land Use Plan Map and all applicable LCP policies designates these areas as "Public Facilities." The Public and regulations. Facilities designation is "intended to provide public and quasi- public facilities, including educational institutions, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, community centers, hospitals, religious institutions, and utilities." (page 2-4) No changes in land use are proposed in the Lower Campus, only the ability to transfer a maximum of 225,000 sf of development to the Upper Campus. Because the CCC approved the existing Master Plan, the proposed Master Plan Update is considered consistent with this LCP policy. RAProiedsWewpoCJWMDraR EIR13.1 Land Use- M807.ccc 3.1-17 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.1 -1 (Continued) CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH LAND USE - RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES Goats tiff i" t5 otiti s Consislenclr Evallwtiix : 2.2.2 -1 Continue to allow redevelopment and p As previously addressed, no additional square footage is infill development within and adjacent to the requested as a part of the Project, only the ability to transfer existing development areas in the coastal zone currently approved but not constructed square footage from the subject to the density and intensity limits and Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. As noted above, only resource protection policies of the Coastal Land 0.21 acre of the Upper Campus is in the coastal zone. Use Plan. 2.2.2 -2 Require new development to be located The Project is not expected to have impacts to public facilities with adequate public services or in areas that are or to utility service; no significant impacts were identified in capable of having public services extended or Final EIR No. 142. No additional square footage is proposed as expanded without significant adverse effects on a part of the Project. coastal resources. Impact 3.1 -2: Less Than Significant. As indicated in the text above and in Table 3.3 -1, the Project would be consistent with applicable plans and policies. 3.1.5 MITIGATION PROGRAM The measures discussed below were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Mitigation measure numbering reflects that provided in Resolution No. 92 -43 for certification of Final EIR No. 142. Minor modifications to the mitigation measures are proposed to reflect the current status of Hoag; some of the mitigation measures in Final EIR No. 142 have been implemented and are no longer applicable. StFikeeul text is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. No additional mitigation is required as a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Prolect Design Features The Master Plan Update Project does not propose any project design features related to land use. Standard Conditions and Requirements All applicable standard conditions and requirements are incorporated into the adopted Mitigation Program for Final EIR No. 142. Mitigation Measures Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision 24. The proposed project is subject to all applicable requirements of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program (LCP). Those requirements that are superseded by the PCDP and District Regulations are not considered applicable. The following discretionary approvals are required by the City of fl: \PrgedsVJev,port00081Drak EIR \3.1 Lar UstM 807AOc 3.1 -18 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Newport Beach: SEIR certification, , adoption of an Amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulations, adoption of an Amendment to the General Plan, approval of an Amendment to the Development Agreement, grading permits, and building permits for some facilities. The California Coastal DevelepmeRt Commission has the discretionary responsibility to issue a Coastal Development Permit for the Lower Campus Rationale: This mitigation measure would be revised to reflect the current status of required actions associated with the Master Plan Update Project. 118. For any building subject to the issuance of the building permit by the Offing of the Riate Arslaitest California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development ( OSHPD), Hoag Hospital shall submit to OSHPD the SWte AFGhiteGt a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that review of the BeRStr IGVQR development plans has been completed and that the plans are in compliance with all City requirements. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 118 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142; however, for projects that require issuance of a building permit by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development ( OSHPD), the City of Newport Beach has limited jurisdiction in the review and approval of development plans. Therefore, this measure is being revised to indicate that the City of Newport Beach will provide a letter indicating review should the OSHPD request such documentation. Mitigation Measures No Longer Required The following mitigation measures, adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142, have been implemented and are no longer required. 23. The Project Sponsor shall construct, if feasible and by mutual agreement, and maintain a fence along the common property line west of Upper Campus. The proposed design of the fence shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. 113. Subsequent to the approval of this Agreement by the Coastal Commission and the expiration of any statute of limitation for filing a legal challenge to this Agreement, the Master Plan, or the EIR, Hoag shall deposit Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) in an account, and at a financial institution, acceptable to City. The account shall be in the name of the City provided, however, Hoag shall have the right to access the funds in the event, but only to the extent that, Hoag constructs or installs the improvements described in (i) or (ii). Funds in the account shall be applied to the following projects (in order of priority upon notice to proceed served by City on Hoag). (i) The construction of a sidewalk and installation of landscaping in the CalTrans right - of -way along the west side of Newport Boulevard southerly of Hospital Road; (ii) The construction of facilities necessary to bring reclaimed water to West Newport and /or the Property; Any funds remaining in the account after completion of the projects described in (i) and (ii) shall be used by the City to fund, in whole or in part, a public improvement in the vicinity of the property. RAProjWs\NewportU(=\Draft EIR\3.1 Lend Use-091W 3.1 -18 Section a1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Final EIR No. 142 found that the project will result in a significant and unavoidable land use impact on residential units located directly adjacent to the western buildings of the Upper Campus. Although the project setback limits are more stringent than City Code, the placement of Hospital buildings closer to residential units located to the west of the Upper Campus was identified as a significant impact when considered in combination with other impacts such as shade and shadow and noise impacts in this location. Consistent with the conclusions of Final EIR No. 142, this SEIR finds that the proposed Master Plan Update Project will also result in significant impacts to existing residential development west of the Upper Campus. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter or make these impacts more severe. Therefore, while the Project would cause a significant unavoidable land use impact, it would not constitute a new impact. No other significant land use impacts have been identified. RiRrojeds \N¢wpotN008WraR EIR�3.l lantl USn09180T.doc 3.1 -19 Section 3.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SNDDlemental EIR 3.2 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This Supplemental EIR (SEIR) section summarizes the findings of the traffic impact study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) (July 2007) to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the Master Plan Update Project. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) (August 2007) prepared a site access and on -site circulation study for Hoag. Both studies are included in their entirety as Appendix C to this SEIR. 3.2.1 SUMMARY OF FINAL EIR NO. 142 A traffic study was prepared for Final EIR No. 142 in 1991 by LSA (LSA 1991); Final EIR No. 142 was certified in 1992. That traffic study focused on the evaluation of Phase I traffic and parking - related issues, and also provided a detailed analysis based upon an assumed buildout size for the two remaining phases of the Master Plan: Phase II and Phase III. It should be noted that Hoag was not stipulated to build out the project site in three phases. Phasing was established in Final EIR No. 142 based on the expected buildout of Hoag and for purposes of the CEQA analysis. Final EIR No. 142 evaluated traffic impacts on the basis of whether the project would "cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the entire traffic load and capacity of the Circulation System. In the City. of Newport Beach, 'substantial' is defined as per the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)" (page 4 -72). Final EIR No. 142 determined that the Master Plan Project would not adversely affect intersections in the traffic study area, but that subsequent TPO analyses and Master Plan Trip Budget analyses would be required. As part of the list of mitigation measures that was developed for Phase I, a Phase II TPO analysis was required subsequent to the completion of Phase I and prior to Phase II. The same analysis would also be conducted prior to future phases. A Phase II TPO traffic study for the Sue and Bill Gross Women's Pavilion was completed on October 15, 2001. A Phase III TPO traffic study was completed on June 22, 2005, which evaluated the potential traffic impacts of developing 130,000 square feet (sf) of outpatient uses in a new building on the Lower Campus. Final EIR No. 142 also addressed potential traffic impacts associated with construction activities. It was noted that traffic delays could occur on Superior Avenue, Newport Boulevard, Hospital Road, and Coast Highway near Hoag. Final EIR No. 142 recommended that construction activities (particularly the use of multiple axle trucks) be limited during the months of June through September to avoid conflicts with beach and tourist traffic. This recommendation was noted to be subject to the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer. Traffic delays would be considered less than significant. This recommendation was adopted as a part of the Mitigation Program for Final EIR No. 142. In summary, Final EIR No. 142 found that traffic and parking impacts with buildout of the Master Plan would be less than significant with mitigation. 3.2.2 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS Traffic Study Area The traffic study methodology and study area were defined by the City of Newport Beach, in accordance with the City's traffic study guidelines and in consultation with the City of Costa Mesa. Because the City of Costa Mesa is within the Project's influence area, City of Costa Mesa staff requested that the traffic study include the evaluation of nine Costa -Mesa intersections. The City of Costa Mesa's traffic study guidelines were applied in the analysis of these nine Costa Mesa intersections. The study area for the traffic analysis is depicted on Exhibit 3.2 -1 and includes 24 intersections: 15 intersections in the City of Newport Beach and 9 intersections in the City of Costa Mesa. These study area intersections are identified below. Rr \Projects \Newpo6JODB .ft EIRl.2 Trans -091W A.0 3.2 -1 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR City of Newport Beach Intersections 1. Orange StreetNVest Coast Highway 2. Prospect StreetNVest Coast Highway 3. Balboa Boulevard— Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway 4. Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway 5. Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway 6. Bayshore Drive —Dover Drive/West Coast Highway 7. Bayside Drive /East Coast Highway 8. Jamboree Road /East Coast Highway 9. Newport BoulevardNia Lido 10. Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road 11. Superior Avenue /Placentia Avenue 12. Newport Boulevard southbound off- ramp/West Coast Highway 13. Superior Avenue /Hospital Road 14. Hoag Drive — Placentia Avenue /Hospital Road 15. Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway City of Costa Mesa Intersections 16. Superior Avenue /16th Street — Industrial Way 17. Newport Boulevard /Industrial Way 18. Newport Boulevard /16h Street 19. Superior Avenue /17th Street 20. Newport Boulevard /17h Street 21. Newport Boulevard /181h Street — Rochester Avenue 22. Newport Boulevard /Harbor Boulevard 23. Newport Boulevard /Broadway 24. Newport Boulevard /191h Street The traffic counts for the AM and PM peak periods (between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM, respectively) for 11 of the 15 key Newport Beach intersections were provided by the City and were collected in 2005 -2006 (most recent available counts). The traffic counts for Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard, and Jamboree Road were adjusted by a growth factor of one percent per year compounded annually to reflect 2007 conditions, as directed by the Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. Because the intersections of Superior Avenue /Hospital Road ( #13) and Hoag Drive — Placentia Avenue /Hospital Drive ( #14) were under construction during the preparation of this traffic study, the City's 2003 peak period counts (most recent available) were adjusted by growth factors derived from the adjacent intersections to reflect 2007 conditions. AM and PM peak period traffic counts were collected in March 2007 for two intersections: Prospect Street/West Coast Highway ( #2) and Hoag Drive/West Coast R'.\Pmjecls \NewportU008 \Oratt ElR\32 Tmna 91901, o 32 -2 Section 32 Transportation and Circulation E 2 ml U 2 Q d O t RiH 1 24 21 nt sr 2 " a r m �qY 19 17TH ST 4 18 W 16M ST 9 17 'k � R 13 1 HOSPITAL RD °n 14 2 �r 3 OA � m t a �b 9 hA rm 6 7 W CpA r Bqy OR Traffic Study Area Exhibit 3.2 -1 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental E1R P s� Y F' Source: Linscoll Law & Greenspan s c 0 a s e L r I N G ftYpmjecLlI sWJ013IGmphicsex3.2 -1 SIUOy_O619O7.ptl1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft supplemental E1R Highway ( #15). The City of Costa Mesa's AM and PM peak period traffic counts for the nine key intersections in Costa Mesa were collected in March and April 2007. Traffic Scenarios Traffic conditions were analyzed for the following scenarios: Existing (2007) Year 2015 Without Project (Existing Master Plan) Year 2015 With Proposed Master Plan Update Year 2025 (General Plan Buildout) Without Project (Existing Master Plan) Year 2025 (General Plan Buildout) With Proposed Master Plan Update Project Existing (2007): The analysis of existing traffic conditions provides a base of analysis for the remainder of the traffic study. Existing Conditions (2007) includes an assessment of the streets and highways in the traffic study area, current traffic volumes, and operating conditions. Year 2015 Without Project (Existing 1992 Master Plan): This scenario identifies future traffic conditions in 2015, which could be expected to result from regional growth and related projects, as well as buildout of Hoag in 2015 under the 1992 Master Plan assumptions. Therefore, the "Without Project' scenario does not preclude additional approved but not constructed development at Hoag. Rather, it assumes that Hoag development would occur consistent with the 1992 Master Plan assumptions. The Newport Beach Traffic Model "Constrained" network was used for the 2015 analysis. Key components of this network are identified below under Traffic Study Methodology. Year 2015 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project: This is an analysis of future traffic conditions in 2015 that could be expected to result from regional growth, related projects, and buildout of Hoag under the proposed Master Plan Update assumptions. The Newport Beach Traffic Model "Constrained" network was used for 2015 analysis. Year 2025 Without Project (Existing 1992 Master Plant This scenario projects future traffic conditions in 2025 (General Plan buildout) which could be expected to result from regional growth and related projects, as well as buildout of Hoag under the 1992 Master Plan assumptions. As noted above, both the 'Without Project' and "With Proposed Master Plan Update Project' scenarios assume additional development at Hoag. The differences relate to whether the approved but not constructed development would occur consistent with the 1992 Master Plan or the proposed Master Plan Update for Hoag. The Newport Beach Traffic Model "Buildout' network (also known as the currently adopted "General Plan Baseline" network) was used for the 2025 analysis. Differences between the "Constrained" and Buildour' network are identified below under Traffic Study Methodology. Year 2025 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project: This is an analysis of future traffic conditions in 2025 (General Plan buildout) which could be expected to result from regional growth, related projects, and buildout of Hoag under the proposed Master Plan Update Project scenario. The Newport Beach Traffic Model `Buildout' network (also known as the currently adopted "General Plan Baseline" network) was used for the 2025 analysis. R:TrgBdsU4awp0n\JOWD2ft EIR \32 Tmns- 091807.dm 3.2-3 bectfon 3.2 Transportation and circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolementa/ EIR Traffic Study Methodology A two -step process is used to develop Project traffic forecasts. The first step is to identify Project traffic generation which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic at the Project area on a peak period and daily basis. The second step in the forecasting process is the use of the current Newport Beach Traffic Model to complete the assignment by which Project- generated trips are allocated to specific links and intersections on the street system. Modeling, which was conducted by Urban Crossroads, Inc., produced the Project - generated forecasts at each of the 15 key intersections in Newport Beach during the AM and PM peak periods; modeling was also used to extrapolate Project traffic volumes for the nine intersections in Costa Mesa. The Project traffic generation estimates were provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. for input to the current Newport Beach Traffic Model and were used as the basis for the Project traffic assignment on the street system using the City of Newport Beach's model. The Newport Beach Traffic Model "Constrained" network was used for 2015 analysis and the City's "Buildout" network (also known as the City's currently adopted "General Plan Baseline" network) was used for 2025 analysis. Key roadway changes reflected in the Constrained (versus Baseline) analysis are: • No extension of State Route 55 (SR -55) • No widening of West Coast Highway through Mariner's Mile • No extension of 19`" Street across the Santa Ana River . • No widening of Jamboree Road north of Ford Road Intersection Level of Service Methodology Roadway performance is most often controlled by the performance of intersections, specifically during peak traffic periods. This is because traffic control at intersections interrupts traffic flow that would otherwise be relatively unimpeded except for the influences of on- street parking, access to adjacent land uses, and /or other factors resulting in vehicle interaction between intersections. For this reason, this traffic analysis focuses on peak period operating conditions for key intersections (rather than roadway segments) during the morning and evening commute peak hours (between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and 4:00 and 6:00 PM) on a typical weekday. Operating conditions at intersections are typically described in terms of a "level of service" (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative measure of a facility's operating performance and is described with a letter designation from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa have adopted LOS D as the peak hour operating standard for intersection locations. For signalized intersections, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value less than or equal to 0.90 satisfies both Cities' standards. Based upon City of Newport Beach and City of Costa Mesa guidelines, the ICU methodology was used to determine the volume -to- capacity (V /C) relationship for an intersection (based upon the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements) and that intersection's corresponding level of service. By assuming 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) as the practical capacity for through lanes, left -turn and right -turn lanes, the ICU method directly relates traffic demand to the available capacity (an ICU allowance for yellow light signal time is not required by either City's guidelines). The resulting ICU numerical value represents the greatest green light signal time requirements for the entire intersection. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. R.�Pmeds \NewpoM1Wp�JB�ralt EIR \3,2Trans- �18�i.6oc 3.2 -4 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 3.2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing (2007) An inventory of the street system adjacent to Hoag was prepared to describe existing traffic conditions. Exhibit 3.2 -2 depicts the existing physical characteristics of the streets, including lane configurations and traffic control at intersections, the number of travel lanes, the posted speed limits, and the median types along roadways. Trip Generation As an existing land use, Hoag currently generates traffic. Table 3.2 -1 identifies the existing daily trips and trips occurring during the AM and PM peak periods. Based on trip generation rates, Hoag currently generates 13,988 daily trips with 989 AM peak period trips and 953 PM peak period trips. Of these trips, the Upper Campus generates 11,312 daily trips with 738 AM peak period trips and 701 PM peak period trips. The Lower Campus generates 2,676 daily trips with 251 AM peak period trips and 252 PM peak period trips. TABLE 3.2 -1 EXISTING TRIP GENERATION LocaFFon GBP ;. Bens° 1Sai?p Erips Perioc! PM Pesh' :'; Period. ' Inpatient/inpatient South Building 643,436 409 10,552 666 630 Outpatient (Women's Pavilion) 15,392 0 526 50 50 Outpatient (James Irvine Expansion) 800 0 27 2 3 Outpatient (Cardiac Services Building 1995) 5,544 0 190 18 17 Outpatient (MRI Waiting) 500 0 17 2 1 Support (Women's Pavilion)' 27,114 0 0 0 0 Support (Emergency Generator Addition)' 5,335 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (South Building) 0 0 0 0 0 Support (South Building)' 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Imaging /ECU Expansion) 0 0 0 0 0 Upper Campus Total 698,121 409 11,312 738 701 Outpatient (Cancer Center) 65,000 0 2,222 208 209 Outpatient (Conference Center) 13,270 0 454 43 43 Support (Conference Center)' 77,864 0 0 0 0 Support (Child Care Center)' 7,800 0 0 0 0 Support (Cogeneration Building)' 24,215 0 0 0 1 0 Outpatient 0 0 1 0 0 0 Outpatient (Outpatient Building) 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Medical Office Building) 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Child Care Center Expansion)' 0 0 0 0 0 Lower Campus Total 188,149 0 2,676 251 252 Upper +Lower Campus 1 886,270 409 13,988 989 - 953 ' Ancillary uses under the "Support" category do not generate additional trips. ° "beds" refers to inpatient hospital beds Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers 2007. R: \PrgecsWewponW009\DraR EIR\3.2 Trans- 091807.doc 3.2 -5 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation This page intentionally left blank 3 Q n 0 E g < KEY APPROACH LANE ASSIGNMENT ! (t I • = TRAFFIC SIGNAL I s PHASE P = PARKING, NP - NO PARKING PHASE /aid SJJy c WSKIT U = UNDIVIDED, 0 = DIVIDED r ` 6 19TH T [(w — \ ^ 2 = NUMBER OF TRAVEL LANES ` W SPLIT so (XX) = POSTED SPEED LIMIT (MPH) v'I✓ \ B PHASE 2 16TH ST WO) P \ 6IPHASE • I EM SPLIT J PHASE ITTH ` 20 ST NP /�� SIGNAL 6 3 NP \\ v,/��` \ `J/( \ J )PHASE \ SIGNAL YI 16TH N P $T NP�i PHASE P NP P r \ \TTh SIGNAL /" \ ! /.(( \ —S 'SIGNAL I F \ T •�•� I -T ASE ' • s PRASE �\I. SCNAL LI `• �)) \ HOSPITAL RD \I I (� I S T,ttr/ /, \ 1 yr A HAG $g �i / \ J PH — S GNAL ASE I P \ S PHASE / ( j P i•%• I r •� I JJ .I _ 5 PRASE ! Y / P SIGNAL / 3 6 c \\ d I \ / a 6 PHASE \ ^� 8 PXPSE SIGNAL SIGNAL _2 RNA `SIGNAL l COAST N- / N -S SPLIT N -S SPLIT .. /7 NP 40 NP \ T \ PHASE / /11111 \ /— `SYp� 9 \1, BvHASE ���CCC SIGNAL \\ 0 A \ 8 PHASE \ T / SIGNAL / /I \ / / / ` W r III }� / ti III \ NP a NP _ NIPI SPLIT 3 PHASE N -S SPLIT V If/ `C I SIGIN N-S SPLIT I P I 881. \ I' R P DR s iy 2 \ E \ 2 PHASE \ J PHASE SIGNAL SIGNAL \ $ PHA SE \ —SIGNAL S J PHASE — SIGNAL Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls Exhibit 3.2 -2 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR CO N 5 U ITI N Source: Linscofl Law & Greenspan Engineers R:IPmled IN"pa J00BIGophiwEx.3.2 -2 exisl_061907.pdf Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Intersection Volumes ICU values and the corresponding levels of service for the traffic study area are identified in Table 3.2 -2. Existing AM and PM peak period intersection turning movement volumes for the traffic study area intersections are depicted in Exhibits 3.2-3 and 3.2 -4, respectively. Table 3.2 -2 shows that all intersections are operating at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better), with the exception of Superior Avenue /17th Street ( #19 in table below) intersection in the City of Costa Mesa, which operates at a deficient LOS E during the AM peak period. TABLE 3.2 -2 EXISTING (2007) LEVELS OF SERVICE/ICU lntaiseChor� . ' t?�k ,Petris�tt ICU'._ LAS': City of Newport Beach 1. Orange StreetiWest Coast Highway AM 0.64 B PM 0.69 B 2. Prospect Streel/West Coast Highway AM 0.77 C PM 0.65 B 3. Balboa Blvd. - Superior Ave. /West Coast Highway AM 0.75 C PM 0.76 C 4. Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway AM 0.74 C PM_ 0.78 C 5. Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway AM 0.74 C PM 0.59 A 6. Bay Shore Drive -Dover Drive/West Coast Highway AM 0.74 C PM 0.79 C 7. Bayside Drive /East Coast Highway AM 0.74 C PM 0.65 B 8. Jamboree Road /East Coast Highway AM 0.75 C PM 0.78 C 9. Newport BoulevardNia Lido AM 0.41 A PM 0.46 A 10. Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road AM 0.55 A PM 0.68 B 11. Placentia Avenue /Superior Avenue AM 0.60 A PM 0.55 A 12. Newport Boulevard Southbound Off- Ramp/West Coast Highway AM 0.80 C PM 0.65 B 13. Superior Avenue/Hospital Road AM 0.68 B PM 0.62 B 14. Hoag Drive - Placentia Avenue /Hospital Road AM 0.37 A PM 0.57 A 15. Hoag DriveMest Coast Highway AM 0.48 A PM 0.45 A R: \ProjedsWewp0MW008Zmfl 088 3.2 Trans-0918074M 3.2 -6 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Succlemental E1R TABLE 3.2 -2 (Continued) EXISTING (2007) LEVELS OF SERVICE/ICU lcaersacticxts Peatc. ;, Peeftxr :'fC0 LOS City of Costa Mesa 16. Superior Avenue /16t" Street - Industrial Way AM 0.42 A PM 0.42 A 17. Newport Boulevard /Industrial Way AM 0.57 A PM 0.55 A 18. Newport Boulevard/1do Street AM 0.50 A PM 0.49 A 19. Superior Avenue /17" Street AAA sf#t�t PM 0.67 B 20. Newport Boulevard /17'" Street AM 0.80 C PM 0.82 D 21. Newport Boulevard118'" Street - Rochester Street AM 0.73 C PM 0.88 D 22. Newport Boulevard /Harbor Boulevard AM 0.66 B PM 0.74 C 23. Newport Boulevard/Broadway Boulevard AM 0.60 A PM 0.70 B 24. Newport Boulevard /19'" Street AM 0.84 D PM 0.86 D Signalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Ranges 0.00 -0.60 LOS Free Flow ,0.60-0.70 LOS B Rural Design ,0.70-0.80 LOS C Urban Design ,0.80 - 0.90 LOS D Maximum Urban Design ,0.90-1,00 LOS E Capacity '1.00 LOS F Forced Flow Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers 2007. Parking Hoag is required to provide all parking on the site in surface lots, subterranean parking structures, and /or aboveground parking structures. For Upper Campus land uses, surface parking lots are provided for the James Irvine Surgery Center and for the Emergency Care Unit. Two parking structures are provided for hospital visitors, physicians, and employees. Parking on the Lower Campus is provided in surface lots and in one parking structure. Parking requirements are based on building types and the area allocated for land use function, as set forth in the PC Text. General Plan Policies The Circulation Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan addresses the movement of people and goods via automobiles, transit, bicycles, and other modes. It addresses the key issues of trip reduction; parking; bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian access; traffic flow; transportation improvements and funding; traffic safety; and enhancement of public R.W,ojeaslNewppgUWB�D,aR EIR`8.2 TransA9l8W.tloc 32-7 Jeclion J.2 Transportation and Circulation w g a i 'o /Ss�'s;��-titA 8✓i�r Tai � w I eeFF /X"s�'L, M kt � {� i o �� 1 /�, Jf e I .1 .. ztaa �f/ {•zu ="'/ , .� ,� � �•ti v �n�,�; � L .\ �, . NP ;ter � �I �.., � f 1 { r.,: r� 1 J ._. rasa i f 7.+ °aag 1 � ` a 1 i ��' (,... �'taal l zx... ^ azbi �'•`. Existing (2007) AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 3.2 -3 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR A.. s Source: Linsooll Law & Greenspan Engineers R:lPr jeclslNe poNJ008IGrap�ice A+=C"' W1 C ON 5 U C T I N G /Ea,3.2- 3_ampeak 081fio]:pol. a,�! 4N mry`O TH ST ,2o- _ sr _ \ )TH +17- , CT / HeSITM RD Z4 L \ `\/ gym L 34 \ J / \ J ! 1 � I / 5 \I A. s /I 9w L 212 6 /Sj =lq l rL - i2°8� \I s Ju634 \ 1 a- �\ \ +866-- NcN -h \ \�,_�� / / (r $8 39 \1 / n l 6es \I I \ / J Jl -19r6 7 @o \ `�4 \II z `°$+'ll J o�ry !l /C�z /(„z R \ _ Irzrq 1'WS+�d�4 1 25)1 �r �r59. ^F \'s4t��d Existing (2007) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 3.2 -4 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR Source: Linscott Law &Greenspan Engineers C O N S U L T I N G 0.lProJetlslNewpoNJODeIGraphicslEx .3.2- 4pm_081607.ptll Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR transportation services. Applicable goals and policies from the Circulation Element are provided in Table 3.2 -10 later in this section with a project consistency analysis. 3.2.4 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following threshold criteria are from the City of Newport Beach Initial Study Checklist. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in a significant traffic impact if it would: Threshold 3.2 -1 Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., resulting in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). Threshold 3.2 -2 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Threshold 3.2 -3 Result in inadequate emergency access. Threshold 3.2 -4 Result in inadequate parking capacity. Threshold 3.2 -5 Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Consistent with City of Newport Beach and City of Costa Mesa requirements, the following criteria are applied to identify those intersections where significant impacts occur and project - related mitigation is warranted. • The ICU value under "with project' conditions exceeds 0.90 (LOSE or F). • The ICU increase attributable to the project is 0.01 or greater. A significant traffic impact caused by the project is considered to be mitigated when project - related improvements would modify the ICU value to less than or equal to 0.90, or an ICU value to less than or equal to the "without project' ICU. Consistent with. the County Congestion Management Program (CMP), the following criteria applies to CMP intersections: • The ICU value under "with project' conditions exceeds 0.90 (LOS E), and • The ICU value attributable to the project is 0.10 or greater. 3.2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Proposed Master Plan Update Project The Master Plan Update Project proposes the reallocation of up to 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Although site - specific development is not proposed as a part of the Master Plan Project, for purposes of the CEQA analysis set forth in this SEIR, land use R: \Prajea5\NewPndW0080raH EIR\3.2 Trans- 091807.dm 3.2 -5 Section 32 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbytenan Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR assumptions have been made in order to adequately address the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project specifically related to the number of inpatient beds which have a different trip generation rate. Of the 1,343,238 sf of permitted development at Hoag (existing development plus approved but not constructed development), 765,349 sf of uses is allocated to the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf of uses to the Lower Campus. There is currently 890,005 sf of medical and medical - related uses at Hoag, of which 701,856 sf are inpatient, outpatient, and support uses on the Upper Campus and 188,149 sf of outpatient and support uses on the Lower Campus. Under the existing Master Plan, of the remaining 453,233 sf of approved but not constructed uses, 63,493 sf could be developed on the Upper Campus and 389,740 sf could be developed on the Lower Campus. The maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus would be 990,349 sf (existing plus currently approved but not developed plus the maximum reallocation of 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus), and a maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus would be 577,889 sf (existing plus currently approved but not developed; assumes no reallocation of square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus). However, in no event could the combined total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. This means that if the Upper Campus develops at the maximum allowable building area, then the amount of development on the Lower Campus would have to be reduced accordingly. Square footage is inclusive of inpatient hospital beds. For this SEIR traffic analysis, the Master Plan Update Project assumes the maximum reallocation of 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus by 2015. Table 3.2 -3 identifies the existing square footage at Hoag, how Hoag would be built out under the existing Master Plan scenario, and how Hoag would be built out under the proposed Master Plan Update assumptions. Trip Generation Rates Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one -way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation factors and equations used in the traffic forecasting procedure are from the Seventh Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2003). Empirical trip rates have been developed for Hoag Hospital's outpatient and inpatient uses as part of the Hoag Master Plan EIR Traffic Study (LSA Associates 1991) and Linscott, Law & Greenspan's prior TPO study for Phase II. Table 3.2 -4 identifies the Project trip rates used for the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Background data regarding trip rate formulation is provided in Appendix C of this SEIR. R: \Prget \NewPoAW008 \Draft EIR \3.2Trans- 091807.da 3.2 -9 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.2 -3 HOAG DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS tteseriptfon Existing iExistirLg Mosier Ptan: (Atift,000fj PrtrpCSad Master " Plan Update. (Adddtcttak5f); :_ Gross Inpadent SF Beds' ssF.. Gro S 111paUerL to Ir3pat%ttt'' Upper Campus Inpatienta 643,436 409 67,228 0 0 76 Outpatient (Women's Pavilion) 15,392 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (James Irvine Expansion) 800 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Cardiac Services Bldg. 1995) 5,544 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (MRI Waiting) 500 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Women's Pavilion) 27,114 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Emergency Gen. Addition) 5,335 0 0 0 0 0 Inpatient (South Building) (future) 0 0 0 0 131,335 0 Outpatient (South Building) (future) 0 0 0 0 26,268 0 Support (South Building) (future) 0 0 0 0 120,498 0 Outpatient (Imaging/ECU Expansion) (future) 0 0 0 0 14,127 0 Upper Campus Total (st) 598,121 409' 67,228 0 292,228 76a Lower Campus Outpatient (Cancer Center) 65,000 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Conference Center) 13,270 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Conference Center)' 77,864 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Child Care Center)a 7,800 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Cogeneration Building)a 24,215 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (future) 0 0 225,000 0 0 0 Outpatient (Outpatient Building) (future) 0 0 110,000 0 110,000 0 Outpatient (Medical Office Building) (future) 0 0 50,027 0 50,027 0 Outpatient( Child Care Ctr. expansion) (future) 0 0 4,713 0 4,713 0 Lower Campus Total (sf) 188,149 0 389,740 0 164,740 0 Existing Total 886,270 409a 0 0 0 0 Existing Master Plan Buildout 0 0 1,343,238 409 0 0 Proposed Master Plan Update Buildout 0 0 0 0 7,343,238 485' Inpatient beds are inclusive of square footage totals. Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers 2007. TABLE 3.2 -4 TRIP GENERATION RATES i)eseNption Daily AM:Peak period . PM Peak period !n. Qid .Total to 4Ut" Total` Inpatient: Trips per Bed 25.80 0.92 0.71 1.63 0.50 1.04 1.54 Outpatient: Trips per 1,000 sf 34.19 1.79 1.41 3.20 0.97 2.25 3.22 Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers 2007. R:Trgeds\Newpw UWMDratt EIR32 Trans- 091807.dm 3.2.10 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SuDDlemental E1R Traffic generation is based on specific land uses. As previously noted, no site - specific development projects are proposed as a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. For CEQA purposes, the traffic analysis identifies the total square footage for Hoag (inclusive of currently approved but not constructed square footage) and correlates to a portion of the square footage reallocation to inpatient hospital beds, specifically 76 inpatient hospital beds. Trip generation rates for inpatient hospital uses are expressed in terms of "trips per bed," rather than "trips per square feet" The number of beds is a better indication of (or a better correlation to) the trip - making potential of inpatient uses than is square footage. These inpatient "trips per bed" rates account for traffic generated by inpatient drop- off /pick -up activities, inpatient visitors, medical staff, administrative staff, and emergency room - related uses. The proposed update to the Master Plan would not require the Applicant to provide this number of beds nor would it preclude the Applicant from requesting more inpatient hospital beds as long as the square footage allocations set forth in this SEIR are not exceeded and no new environmental impacts would occur. The outpatient trip rates (expressed in terms of "trips per 1,000 sf') account for traffic generated by "stand alone" outpatient facilities at Hoag (i.e., James Irvine Surgery Center and the Cancer Center) and other medical office buildings at Hoag that provide outpatient care and receive medical referrals from the hospitaUinpatient facilities at Hoag. Outpatient trip rates include trips by outpatients, outpatient drop- off /pick -up activities, outpatient visitors, medical staff. and administrative staff. Trip rates were not derived for support services because the majority of traffic generated by support services (i.e., food services, engineering, maintenance, day care, education /conference facilities, and cogeneration facility) was determined by the City of Newport Beach to be the same trips accounted for in one or more of the other land use categories. Therefore, support service facilities are considered internal trip making within Hoag and would not generate additional trips at any key intersections. Impact Analysis Threshold 3.2 -1: Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., resulting in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Project Trip Generation: Existing Master Plan Compared to Proposed Master Plan Update Project Project trip generation was calculated using the proposed land uses and the trip generation rates (Table 3.2 -4). The proposed Master Plan Update Project- generated intersection volumes are depicted in Exhibits 3.2 -5 and 3.2 -6 for the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. Table 3.2 -5 compares the existing trip generation for Hoag to two scenarios. The first scenario is buildout of Hoag under the existing Master Plan assumptions. The second scenario is the buildout of Hoag under the proposed Master Plan Update Project assumptions. Buildout of Hoag under the existing Master Plan assumptions (Table 3.2 -3) would generate 27,152 daily trips with 2,222 AM peak period trips and 2,194 PM peak period trips. Of these totals, the Upper Campus would generate 11,312 daily trips with 738 trips in the AM peak period and 701 PM peak period trips. The Lower Campus would generate 15,840 daily trips with 1,484 AM and 1,493 PM peak period trips. RAProja We"r0.1008\Drah EIR3.2 TransAW1807.dm 3.2 -11 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation o °�` d� 1 J -o \ 1 ads 17 J _ ` -=r -- -, \\ / W Ism ST __ 0 \ 1 to o= �� HOSPITAL RD \ HOA r Q J 1 020 \) J l l 020 \I At a \ 1\ 0— ��,�I �� \\ \\ \ \\ La ^p \ °w o 1 � 20 / ^l.° \ I J �` -10 1 1 z eqr >l ��7 0-- \� / L -ro\ J / °\ Jam° Lo\ I (� O 1 �" X011 110 101 \ 0 —� �- 0 I 0 -? 0; ads, Proposed Master Plan Update Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 3.2 -5 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental E!R :i._� w 5 Source: Linscoll Law & Greenspan Engineers C o N 5 U L i f N G R:IPmjectelNewpoNJOOBIGmphlcW Ex.3.25ympAM_08160].pdf O° 1?,°` d° J O ~s /moo l\ P-10 o ly �0. add 1 s wlenf NOSPI-AL RD ` \ Rq O_, r /Jll —o10 \I Jll�o \I I I �0t0\ I -20I1 ��° II ( ^omll ^prOl _1/0—_ 0.i OR — � ads, `\ -201 Proposed Master Plan Update Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 3.2 -6 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR A Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers CO NS U I it N RJProiadslNewp WJNWGraphlcsl .3.2 6- propPM 061607.pE1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.2 -5 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES R.1Praje Newpad W8lDraft EIR \3.2 Trans- 091WTZ ­­ " Transportation and Circulation Existing + Existing Master Plan Existing + Master Plan Update Project Master Plan Update - Generated Trips i AM Peak Hr Trips Pj1n ak Hr Trips ^Existing Size (GSA AM Peak Hr Trips PM Peak Hr Trips Size (GSF� AM Peak Hr Trips PM Peak Hr Trips AM Peak Hr Trips PM Peak Hr Trips Size gaily Existing Total Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Existing Total Dail Addition + Addition Beds Trips In Out Total In Out Total Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Description GSF' gads Tdps In Out Total Out Total Addition +Addition Beds Upper Campus Inpatient/Inpatient (South Building) 643,436 409 10,552 376 290 666 205 425 630 67,228 710,664 409 1D,552 376 290 666 205 425 630 131,335` 774,771 485 12,513 446 344 790 243 504 747 1,961 70 54 124 38 79 117 Outpatient (Women's Pavilion) 15,392 - 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 - 15,392 - 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 - 15,392 - 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient 800 27 1 1 2 1 2 3 - 800 - 27 1 1 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (James Irvine Expansion) 800 - 27 1 1 2 1 2 3 - - Outpatient (Cardiac Serv. Bldg. 1995) 5,544 - 190 10 8 18 5 12 17 - 5,544 - 190 10 8 18 5 12 17 - 5,544 - 190 10 8 18 5 12 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient(MRIWaiting) 500 - 17 1 1 2 0 1 1 - 500 - 17 1 1 2 0 1 1 - 500 - 17 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Women's Pavilion)° 27,114 - - - - - - - - - 27.114 - - - - - - - - - 27,114 - - - 0 0 0 D 0 Support - 5,335 - - - - - - - - - 5,335 - - - - _ _ _ _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Emergency Gen. Addition 5,335 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26,268 26,268 - 898 47 37 84 25 59 84 898 47 37 84 25 59 84 Outpatient (South Building) - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (South Building)° - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 120,498 120,498 - - - - - - - Outpatient - - - - - - - - 14,127 14,127 - 483 25 20 45 14 32 46 483 25 20 45 14 32 46 (Imaging/ECU Expansion) - - - - - - - - - - - Upper Campus Total: 698,121 409 11,312 416 322 738 226 475 701 67,228 765,349 409 11,312 416 322 738 226 475 701 292,228 990,349 485 14,654 558 433 991 303 645 948 3,342 142 111 253 77 170 247 Lower Campus Outpatient (Cancer Center) 65,000 - 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 - 65,000 - 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 - 65,000 - 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Conference Ch.) 13,270 - 454 24 19 43 13 30 43 - 13,270 - 454 24 19 43 13 30 43 - 13,270 - 454 24 19 43 13 30 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Conference Center)° 77,864 - - - - - - - - - 77,864 - - - - - - - - - 77,864 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Child Care Center)" 7,800 - - - - - - - - - 7,800 - - - - - - - - 7,800 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Cogeneration Building)° 24,215 - - - - - - - - - 24,215 - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient - - - - - - - - - 225,000 225,000 - 7,693 403 317 720 218 506 724 0 - - - - - - - - (7,693) (403) (317) (720) (218) (506) (724) Outpatient (Outpatient Building) - - - - - - - - - 110,000 110,000 - 3,761 197 155 352 107 248 355 110,000 110,000 - 3,761 197 155 352 107 248 355 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient 50,027 50,027 - 1,710 90 71 161 49 113 162 50,027 50,027 - 1,710 90 71 161 49 113 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Medical Office Building) - - - - - - - - - ro Support (Child Care Center - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Expansion)° - - - - - - - - - 4,713 4,713 - - - - - - - 1 - 4,713 4,713 - - - - - - - Lower Campus Total: 188,149 - 2,676 140 111 251 76 176 252 389,740 577,889 - 15,840 830 654 1,484 450 1,043 1,493 164,740 352,889 - 8,147 427 337 764 232 537 769 (7,693) (403) (317) (720) (218) (506) (724) Upper and Lower Campuses: 886,270 409 13,988 556 433 989 302 651 953 456,968 1,343,238 409 27,152 1,246 976 2,222 676 1,518 2,194 456,968 1,343,238 485 22,801 985 770 1,755 535 1,182 1,717 (4,351) (261) (206) (467) (141) (336) (477) Gross Square Feet The ancillary uses under the "Support' category are not expected to generate additional trips. The entire project- related addition of 131,335 SF of inpatient square footage (inclusive of 76 new beds) is for the South Building. Source: Linscoft, Law & Greenspan Engineers 2007. R.1Praje Newpad W8lDraft EIR \3.2 Trans- 091WTZ ­­ " Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Buildout of Hoag under the proposed Master Plan Update assumptions (reallocation of a maximum of 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus) would generate 22,801 daily trips with 1,755 AM peak period trips and 1,717 PM peak period trips. Of these totals, the Upper Campus would generate 14,654 daily trips with 991 AM peak period trips and 948 PM peak period trips. The Lower Campus would generate 8,147 daily trips with 764 AM peak period trips and 769 PM peak period trips. This proposed reallocation would generate less traffic than development under the existing Master Plan. Outpatient uses typically generate more trips than inpatient uses. Specific to Hoag, prior field studies (per the Phase II TPO traffic study) indicate that the empirical outpatient trip rates for Hoag are 54 percent to 142 percent greater than inpatient trip rates derived from those same traffic generation surveys. Therefore, the reallocation of up to 225,000 sf of the greater, trip - generating outpatient uses from the Lower Campus would cause a major reduction in Lower Campus trips. Adding that same square footage to the Upper Campus as lesser, trip - generating inpatient use (translating to the addition of 76 inpatient beds, totaling 485 beds), some outpatient use (40,395 sf), and 120,498 sf of support uses (which do not generate additive trips) results in some increase in Upper Campus trips, but not as much as the reduction of Lower Campus trips. The net effect of having some increase in Upper Campus trips, and a major reduction in Lower Campus trips, is an overall decrease in trips for Hoag under the proposed Master Plan Update Project assumptions. It should be noted that this reduction would be dependent on how much square footage is eventually reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Therefore, when comparing traffic generation for the proposed Master Plan Update Project to the traffic generation of the existing Master Plan, the Project would not result in a significant traffic generation impact. Year 2015 Traffic Analysis Without Project (Existing Master Plan) The Year 2015 Without Project traffic scenario assumes implementation of regional growth, related cumulative projects, and buildout of Hoag under the existing Master Plan assumptions. For the 15 traffic study area intersections in Newport Beach, Year 2015 traffic projections were developed by Urban Crossroads, Inc. by using the Newport Beach Traffic Model. For the nine City of Costa Mesa intersections, a one percent annual growth rate was applied to existing traffic volumes, per direction from City of Costa Mesa staff. As previously noted, the "Without Proposed Master Plan Update' assumes buildout of Hoag under the existing Master Plan assumptions. Table 3.2 -6 identifies the LOS and ICU volumes for the traffic study area intersections in 2015 without and with the proposed Master Plan Update Project traffic scenarios. Year 2015 intersection volumes are depicted on Exhibits 3.2 -7 and 3.2 -8 for the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. As identified on Table 3.2 -6; six intersections (three intersections in Newport Beach and three in Costa Mesa) are projected to operate at a deficient LOS E or LOS F in 2015 with implementation of . Hoag under the existing Master Plan assumptions. One intersection, Superior Avenue /17th Street ( #19) in the City of Costa Mesa, currently operates at a deficient level of service (LOS E) during the AM peak period (Table 3.2 -2). RMr*a Wewp"fJ0081Lretl EIFN32Trmm�1807.d= 3.2 -13 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation ry0ry e5 a S 8 a e / /ltit��t ffi /K4�', M M Mo o 13TH ST \ / Is H03PIT& R0 I s, (.' I/ J I( a l to o A i, mo Jl�\II 2170U !lG -m \ os,°I r l dd� I 101 _ • \\ 1hlp,.�aId, ,2 I� \ 6 , \\1 d ,, ,, �'°v,/ Year 2015 Without Project (Existing Master Plan) AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 3.2 -7 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental E1R �.. Source: Linscog Law & Greenspan Engineers C O W 1 i � N G R: IProjedNNawpoNJ000 /Gmptii�s/Et.3.2- 7_20S U 5wp 081809.pEf ST r2�1 ,\ ft S•-1 .r `,,, °" Y $' J / 4001 go ZF351- VA rw ) `�� f 1 \ \ \ f ✓ r 1l tJi1\ % zlfii _ fi 1 r o +; as / R C i Year 2015 Without Project (Existing Master Plan) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 3.2 -8 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental E!R � Source: Linacott Law 8 Greenspan Engineers carosutrrrJa RlPraj @New WJ00WOmphlecl .2 _20151 Peek PM 8816W.pJ! Hoag Memorial: Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.2 -6 YEAR 2015 WITHOUT AND WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE F Key Inter`secttons ,_ 7 Peak _Perrbd Year-2015 , Ezlsting' 'Master Rlari Proposed Master Rian Update Project;,_ PICU ICU Significant - :10S _Contnbudon "' dmpact? I r CU LO$ City of Newport Beach 1. Orange Street/West Coast Highway AM 0.81 D 0.80 D =0.01 No PM 0.75 C 0.74 C -0.01 No 2. Prospect StreetM/est Coast Highway AM 0.87 D 0.86 D -0.01 No PM 0.77 C 0.77 C 0.00 No 3. Balboa: Boulevard- Superior Ave.NJest. Coast Highway AM 0.89 D 0.87 D -0.02 No IIPM#'1�1i �'4 98 ,E,,� 0.00 No 4. Riverside AvenueMfest Coast Highway AM 0.81 D 0.80 D -0.01 No PM 0.82 D 0.81 D -0.01 No 5. TustinAvenue/West Coast Highway AM 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.00 No P.M 0.70 B 0.70 B 0.00 No 6. .Bay Shore. Drive -Dover Drive/West Coast Highway AM 0,76 C 0.76 C O.OD No PM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 No 7. Bayside Drive /East Coast Highway AM 0.84 D 0.85 D 0.01 No PM 0.75 C 0.75 C 0.00 No 8. Jamboree Road /East Coast Highway AM 0.72 C 0.71 C -0.01 No PM 0.72 C 0.71 1 C -0.01 No 9. Newport BoulevardNia Lido AM 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00. No PM 0.42 A 0.42 A 0.00 No 10. Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road AM ,0.69 B 0.64 B -0.05 No PM 9A �9s- E 091-,'„ iE `', 0.03 No 11. Placentia Avenue /Superior Avenue AM 0.66 B 0.64 B -0.02 No PM 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.00 No 12. Newport Boulevard Southbound Off- RamplWest Coast Highway ;j;'i4M`; 109$; ;gE"s 0.84 D -0.44 No PM 0.84 D 0.78 C -0.06 No 13. Superior. Avenue /Hospital Road AM 0.68 B 0.70 C 0.02 No PM 0.48 A 0.48 A 0.00 No 14. Hoag Drive - Placentia Avenue /Hospital Road AM 0.39 A 0.38 A -0.01 No 'PM 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.00 No 15. Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway AM 0.58 A 0.56 A -0.02 No PM 0.56 A 0.51 A -0.05 No City of Costa Mesa 16. Superior Avenue /16th Street- Industrial Way AM 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.00 No PM 0.45 A 0.46 A 0.01 No 17. Newport Boulevard /Industrial Way AM 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.00 No PM 0.59 A 0.58 A -0.01 No 18. Newport Boulevard /16th Street AM 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 No PM 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.01 No R :TrojedsWewponVJMB \Draft EIR132 Trans- 091807.doc 3.2 -14 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.2 -6 (Continued) YEAR 2015 WITHOUT AND WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 11 1-1 Year'2095i l � Proposed Master Plarr Update Protect a : 'z ' � Peak ,,Existing Master'Plan .'ICU Si'-' r E 4 . ICey lnersechgns + Peri, d ICU. ICU LOS, Contd6ution ltnpact" rL03 ,.I 19. Superior Avenue /17th Street �'itlVis I 0 97y E ,, ,DT97 -,E t P 0.00 No PM 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 No 20. Newport Boulevard /17th Street AM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 No PM 0.89 D 0.88 D -0.00 No 21. Newport Boulevard/18th Street- AM 0.79 C 0.78 C -0.01 No Rochester Street 095a "E 094a �E1 -0.01 No - ,: 22. Newport Boulevard /Harbor AM 0.71 C 0.69 B -0.02 No Boulevard PM 0.80 C 0.79 C -0.01 No 23. Newport Boulevard /Broadway AM 0.65 B 0.65 B 0.00 No Boulevard PM 0.76 C 0.75 C -0.01 No 24. Newport Boulevard /19th Street AAA f0 °9,0,. Er 0:90 ` `E'=1 0.00 No PM= X0931: °,t`E, ,0:92, l;E :i 0.01 No Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers 2007. City of Newport Beach 3. Balboa Boulevard- Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway- 0.96, (LOS E) PM peak 10. Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road - 0.94 (LOS E), PM peak 12. Newport Boulevard Southbound Off- Ramp/West Coast Highway - 0.98 (LOS E), AM peak City of Costa Mesa 19, Superior Avenue /17th Street - 0.97 (LOS E), AM peak 21. Newport Boulevard /181" Street - Rochester Avenue -0.95 (LOS E), PM peak 24. Newport Boulevard /191h Street - 0.90 (LOS E), AM peak period; 0.93 (LOS E), PM peak With Proposed Master Plan Update Project This traffic scenario assesses the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Master Plan Update Project to determine if the reallocation of square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus changes the impact conclusions for 2015. Year 2015 With Master Plan Update Project intersection volumes are depicted on Exhibits 3.2 -9 and 3.2 -10 for the AM peak period and PM peak period, respectively. Table 3.2 -6 shows that implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not change the LOS at five of the intersections (two intersections in Newport Beach and three intersections in Costa Mesa) that are projected to operate at a deficient level of service in 2015 with the existing Master Plan. Furthermore, two of the five deficient intersections, Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road ( #10) and Newport Boulevard /181h Street - Rochester Street ( #21), would experience an improved ICU. These improvements are R:NrajedsWewpadiJ008\Dra1t EIRl3.2 Trans-091807.aoc 3.2 -15 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation � Sh 1 471 /Jog t`b\ rJILr\ X187 1T i Jrye` \ `� � �y I � d r o- - \2 W16 —a ;taT 1 1 HOSPITAL �J L_� \ I d \tat, { i / \ 6w-, r / I Bqr / J r eso o 1 J l— nro - ,_ 4 L i Year 2015 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 3.2 -9 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR �— " ` C0N5u1 Source: Unsood Law & Greenspan Engineers R:I" cIWNewpmVJ808 GtephicalEx,3.2 -8_ 2015wPrjCIAM_881607.pdf 9 j J / j S15 Off\ - I /t—�p rf \ 70 1 / rr,• r 7 eS / ✓ f t L 36ffi '� y` ♦\ `� ia` $z'�f \ '1 \h - Lh l� 1 \ 1 \ L` \\ ° - ... .. ___ _ -- \ h J s�\ / r r- r Lrxh ��r� / y $s 4 � r �g ` � r � �'�°° � � ° 7 aeR .+. �• a I 'o'Qel 3D \t / i Year 2015 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental E!R .. Source: Linseott Law &Greenspan Engineers Exhibit 3.2 -10 — vr'��. q CONS U+I l iNG Hoag Memorial Hospdal Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SUDDlemerdal EIR associated with the reallocation of square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. The sixth intersection, Newport Boulevard southbound off- ramp/West Coast Highway, would operate under an improved level of service (from LOS E to LOS D in the AM peak period) with the proposed Master Plan Update Project because of the square footage reallocation. Therefore, the proposed square footage reallocation proposed as a part of the Master Plan Update Project would not result in a significant traffic impact in 2015 when compared to the 1992 Master Plan project. Year 2025 (General Plan Buildout) Without Project (Existjna Master Plan) The Year 2025 Without Project scenario projects future traffic conditions in 2025 (General Plan buildout) which could be expected to result from regional growth and related projects in 2025 with Hoag built out consistent with the existing Master Plan. For the 15 traffic study area intersections located in Newport Beach, these traffic scenario forecasts were made using the Newport Beach Traffic Model. The City of Costa Mesa provided forecasts for its intersections. The table identifies that six intersections are projected to operate at a deficient level of service during one or both peak periods. Table 3.2 -7 identifies the ICU volumes and levels of service for the traffic study area intersections for the 2025 traffic scenario. Year 2025 Without Project intersection volumes are depicted on Exhibits 3.2 -11 and 3.2 -12 for the AM peak period and PM peak period, respectively. City of Newport Beach 4. Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway -0.92 (LOS E), AM peak period; 0.96 (LOS E), PM peak 6. Bay Shore Drive -Dover DriveMest Coast Highway —0.92 (LOS E), PM peak 12. Newport Boulevard Southbound Off- Ramp/West Coast Highway — 1.15 (LOS F), AM peak City of Costa Mesa 20. Newport Boulevard/17" Street — 0.97 (LOS E), AM peak period; 0.96 (LOS E), PM peak 21. Newport Boulevard/181h Street — Rochester Avenue — 0.99 (LOS E), AM peak; 0.97 (LOS E), PM peak 24. Newport Boulevard /1-0 Ctrcct — 1,nR (LOS F), AM peak period; 1.03 (LOS F), PM peak It should be noted that of the six intersections, four of these intersections (Nos. 12, 19, 21, and 24) are projected to operate at a deficient level of service in 2025 with implementation of the existing Master Plan. R{Pwja W9q" M09\Dra" EIRl92 Trap 091e07.dw 3.2 -16 Section 32 Transportation and Circulation r 80 110- - J "- \ WI — / HOSPITAL RD ,p P 50 . 1W rAI y . iA 1 40\ 40 a 80 90 P \ y pY \ "-.� / / /'-• L Ore\ / L 090\ J ]D\ J 1D\ `_ •' J �— 1 J— tam V I I l r aD I 1;s� m ad�, 12 1740\ 60\1 J 0 1 Year 2025 Without Project (Existing Master Plan) AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers Exhibit 3.2-11 -' O N 5 21 i 7 f N G l $�8 J��° ♦.map\ J 1 r`Tw ° I /Jf )~'P�y \� °' __ P ter•, -'" ~,.✓ list �TAL RD ST l I � � r �Lr�, i iii air w.,1� ILr I�t �\'6\ / Year 2025 Without Project (Existing Master Plan) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental E!R q )+ Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers r J1. Exhibit 3.2 -12 C0N5UL7rNG Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft. Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.2 -7 YEAR 2025 WITHOUT AND WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ,.. Intersections 'Peak Period Year 2025',,- {j Existing Master Plan Proposed Master Plan U000* 11I ICU, -' LOS' ICU Ito,: "1 LOS ontributiof% _. . Slgmftcant' . act; nP- City of Newport Beach 1. Orange Street/West Coast Highway AM 0.76 C 0.75 C -0.01 No PM 0.80 B 0.79 C -0.01 No 2. Prospect Street/West Coast Highway AM 0.89 D 0.88 D -0.01 No PM 0.76 C 0.75 C -0.01 No 3. Balboa Boulevard-Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway AM 0.84 D 0.82 D -0.02 No PM 0.78 C 0.75 C' -0.03 No 4. .Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway 0 No 47.'l �PM,a,, {' U�96 F rE=�� ,- +095 q � El „{ -O.ol No 5. Tustin Avenue/West Coast: Highway AM 0.87 D 0'.87 D' 0.00 No PM 0.73 D 0.73 C' 0.00 No 6, Bay Shore Drive -Dover Drive/ West Coast Highway AM 0,86 D 0.86 D X0.00 No :40M�LIiI p'ya' r.a�.iE ,,� 091 , :q`u'E' *', -0.01 No 7. Bayside Drive /East Coast Highway AM 0.88 D 0.89 D 0.01 No PM 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.00 No 8. Jamboree Road/East: Coast Highway AM 0,83 D 0.83 D 0.01 No PM 0,86 D 0.86 D 0.00 No 9. Newport Boulevard/Via Lido AM 0.50 A 0.50. A 0.00 No PM 0.52 A 0.52 A 0.00 No 10. Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road AM 0.77 C 0.67 B -0.10 No PM 0.86 D 0.84 D -0.02 No 11. Placentia Avenue /Superior Avenue AM 061 B 0.59 A -0.02 No PM 0.53 A 0.54. A 0.01 No 12. Newport Boulevard Southbound Off- Ramp/West Coast Highway 4 ^2 "iAM „t art 15 �,Frr ° -.; , 1 00 sFI;, -0.15 No PM 0.75 C 0.69 B -0.06 No 13. Superior Avenue /Hospital Road AM '0.66 B .0.67 B 0.01 No PM 0.59 A 0.59 A 0.00 No 14. Hoag Drive - Placentia Avenue/ Hospital Road AM 0.47 A 0.47 A 0.00' No PM 0.7T B 0.77 C 0.00 No 15., Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway AM 0.58 C 0.56 A -0.02 No PM 0.58 B 0.53 A -0.05 No City of Costa Mesa 16, Superior Avenue /16'" Street- Industrial Way AM 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.00 No PM 0.48 A 0.49 A 0.01 No 17. Newport .. Boulevard/Industrial Way AM 0.66 B 0.65 B -0.01 No PM 0.71 C 0.70 C: -0.01 No 18. Newport Boulevard /16th Street AM.. 0.67' B 0.67 B 0.00 No PM 0.70 C 0.69 B -0.01 No R\Proie0s \Newport\J008\Draf1 EIR \3.2 Trans.091807.dac 3.2 -17 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update TABLE 3.2 -7 YEAR 2025 WITHOUT AND WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAT! UPDATE PROJECT: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE With Proposed Master Plan Update Proiect The Year 2025 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project traffic scenario assumes buildout of Hoag under the proposed Master Plan Update assumptions rather than the existing Master Plan. The purpose of this scenario is to determine whether the proposed project would change traffic conditions in the traffic study area when compared to the existing Master Plan. Year 2025 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project intersection volumes are depicted on Exhibits 3.2 -13 and 3.2 -14 for the AM peak period and PM peak period, respectively. As identified in Table 3.2 -7 and discussed above, six intersections would operate at a deficient level of service during one or both peak periods. The level of service at these intersections would not further degrade with the proposed project when compared to the existing Master Plan project: Rather, the proposed Master Plan Update Project's ICU contribution at five of the six intersections would be less during one or both peak periods when compared to the existing Master Plan, Therefore, the square 'footage reallocation proposed as a part of the Master Plan Update Project would not result in a significant traffic impact in 2025 when compared to the 1992 Master Plan project. Construction- related Traffic As addressed in this SEIR, no site- specific development projects are proposed as a part of the Master Plan Update. During construction activities, there are typically temporary increases in truck trips in the project area. Construction activities can include grading, demolition, and construction. As addressed in Final EIR No. 142, construction- related traffic would use the existing regional and local road network and would most likely access the project site primarily via Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard, Superior Avenue, and Hospital Road. Traffic delays could occur on these roadways. Final EIR No. 142 found these delays to be less than significant. However, to facilitate the movement of construction traffic and to minimize potential disruptions, mitigation measures that were adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142 would continue to be applicable to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. R: \ProledMNewportV008\Dratr EIR332 Trans -091 807.doc 3.2 -18 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Yeir2025 r, Existing x �, 'H X k ' MasterfPlan , ,' �tiiFjoposed Master Plari,Update Pro ect ' . = lntersections Peak iPenotl >h 1 ICU -I .. SrgrVrficrit` ICU , LOS ,I,CU LOS ' Contribution ;impact? 19. Superior Avenue /17th Street AM. 0.82 D 0.82 D 0:00 No PM .0.76 C 0.76 C 0.00 No 20. Newport Boulevard /17th Street , AM,f ,c.;t}97 ,1i' E 41:9G f;iEtil `; •0.01 No 1PMn1' . -� c t`'096 _ hay "E`7 -{+ S ..� N O'95'`jfi - , _A "'E'i' it w . +E~ -0.01 No 21. Newport Boulevard /18th Street='AMi5 +r 1199fr �n �sEr0'98,,'j "��jytE��iA -0.01 No Rochester Street M E 'r a096 "r A' -0.01 No w 22. Newport Boulevard /Harbor AM 0.73 C 0.71 C -0.02 No Boulevard PM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 No 23. Newport Boulevard /Broadway AM 0.75 C 0.75 C 0.00 No Boulevard PM 0.73 C .0.73 C 0.00 No 24. Newport Boulevard /19th Street ;i4' QM; �4 ,,,t.Q6�i� 0.00 No T1 s',.`Fk 'i i 02t'` fi Fn a == -0.01 No r tY t Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers 2007. With Proposed Master Plan Update Proiect The Year 2025 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project traffic scenario assumes buildout of Hoag under the proposed Master Plan Update assumptions rather than the existing Master Plan. The purpose of this scenario is to determine whether the proposed project would change traffic conditions in the traffic study area when compared to the existing Master Plan. Year 2025 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project intersection volumes are depicted on Exhibits 3.2 -13 and 3.2 -14 for the AM peak period and PM peak period, respectively. As identified in Table 3.2 -7 and discussed above, six intersections would operate at a deficient level of service during one or both peak periods. The level of service at these intersections would not further degrade with the proposed project when compared to the existing Master Plan project: Rather, the proposed Master Plan Update Project's ICU contribution at five of the six intersections would be less during one or both peak periods when compared to the existing Master Plan, Therefore, the square 'footage reallocation proposed as a part of the Master Plan Update Project would not result in a significant traffic impact in 2025 when compared to the 1992 Master Plan project. Construction- related Traffic As addressed in this SEIR, no site- specific development projects are proposed as a part of the Master Plan Update. During construction activities, there are typically temporary increases in truck trips in the project area. Construction activities can include grading, demolition, and construction. As addressed in Final EIR No. 142, construction- related traffic would use the existing regional and local road network and would most likely access the project site primarily via Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard, Superior Avenue, and Hospital Road. Traffic delays could occur on these roadways. Final EIR No. 142 found these delays to be less than significant. However, to facilitate the movement of construction traffic and to minimize potential disruptions, mitigation measures that were adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142 would continue to be applicable to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. R: \ProledMNewportV008\Dratr EIR332 Trans -091 807.doc 3.2 -18 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation IM ST I J r wis HOSMAL J b\ cZ � `\ J50 1 ' /0 20/ l / 1 \a y 7 7 J u a j /erg /'R %S k_ i g -I I \ \\ \\ \`\ 2 �11b�1 Be i .s %k,� \-/ k, Stu \ / ,m\ J 20\ J b\ Il aa�/ 3p II( roas°VI owl ads / L i Year 2025 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 3.2 -13 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR wEe CO N5 0 ilNG Source: Linsoott Law & Greenspan Engineers R:lPro]W VNe poNJ00810raphlcWEx.3.2 -03 2025Pwk 081801.pM , P��,k 1+p/ p� J 1 wm ST HMT& spy \701 ���y� l/ 1 °•�',� o� // /° / � / J l l +x0( 1 lrio� l 5'i✓1 1 may` �. /' a J / \. m0 \/ 1�0ro11, Ji &�M\ JiB IA\ r 0'0701 Year 2025 With Proposed Master Plan Update Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 3.2 -14 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental E1R Source: Linscotl Law & Greenspan Engineers c o N S U t r? a G R:1Pra*ctslNmparUJOWGmpli s7E..0.2.1E 2025pgdPMpeak 081807.pa1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Impact 3.2 -1: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would generate fewer daily traffic trips than the number of daily trips associated with the 1992 Master Plan approved in Final EIR No. 142. When compared to the 1992 Master Plan, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would have the same or less impact at intersections in 2015 and 2025 when compared to the existing Master Plan. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not result in a 0.01 or greater increase in ICU for intersections that currently exceed or are projected to exceed level of service standards of the Cities of Newport Beach or Costa Mesa. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan Update Project is not expected to cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Threshold 3.2 -2. Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The intersection of the Newport Boulevard southbound off -ramp at West Coast Highway is a CMP intersection. This intersection currently operates at an acceptable level of service. In 2015 with the proposed Master Plan Update Project, this intersection is projected to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. In 2025 with the proposed Master Plan Project, the intersection is proposed to operate at a deficient level of service in the AM peak period (LOS F). However, the deficiency is not attributable to the Project. Rather, the Project would improve the capacity of the intersection when compared to conditions under the 1992 Master Plan. No significant impact would therefore occur associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Impact 3.2 -2: Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the significance criteria for CMP intersections, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not significantly impact the one CMP intersection within the traffic study area. Threshold 3.2 -3: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Site Access and Circulation LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA 2007) has prepared an analysis to assess the traffic operations of Hoag's site access and on -site circulation. On the site, vehicular traffic is distributed to parking lots and structures based on proximity to one's destination. The analysis distributed on -site trips per land use based on the proximity to parking and the number of parking spaces in each location. Primary access to Hoag Hospital is provided at the signalized intersections of Hoag Drive /Hospital Road and Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway, the Upper Campus and Lower Campus entrances, respectively. A secondary access driveway is located at the unsignalized intersection of West Hoag Drive /Hospital Road. Hoag Drive, South Hoag Drive, and West Hoag Drive are two -lane undivided roadways located internal to Hoag. The roadway cross sections and roadway widths are depicted on Exhibits 3.2 -15 and 3.2 -16, respectively. As shown in Exhibit 3.2 -16, these roadways generally provide standard 11 -, 12 -, and 13- foot -wide travel lanes with curb and gutter. Left- and right -turn lanes are not provided. Sidewalks are provided RAProjecMWe rN006 \Draft ElR .2Tmm- 081807.Aw 3.2 -19 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR throughout Hoag, with the exception of Hoag Drive between South Hoag Drive and West Hoag Drive, for safe pedestrian access to /from buildings, surface parking lots, and parking garages. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Signalized Intersection Operations methodology was used to determine intersection LOS at the Upper and Lower Campus entrances. Roadway link LOS was determined using the peak hour volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratios in each direction based on a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane. The City considers LOS D to be the upper limit of satisfactory operations for both intersections and roadway links. As identified in Tables 3.2 -8 and 3.2 -9, respectively, all analyzed intersections and links are forecasted to operate at satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better). TABLE 3.2 -8 YEAR 2025 WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AT ENTRANCES ', IMersecticm " Peak';,; Period;.. Decay 066onds) `LAS. 14. Hoag Drive-Placentia Avenue /Hospital Roada AM 27.1 C PM 34.3 C 15. Hoag Drive/West Coast Highwayb AM 11.5 B PM 15.4 B Cycle length: 90 seconds Cycle length: 120 seconds Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 2007 fllROjec�WewpottU008Nraft EIR�2 Tram- 091807.do 3.2.20 Jecrlon 3.G Transportation and Circulation HOSPITAL RO Cpfphln L. �� C Shucrure f v O c All, Aree 0 'A 2 m A A-- —AA * Soulh SbucNre Cogenvrellon ChIM Care Cancer �G Center Confer G B 1 JHOAG DRIVE 1B J B B Conference C.d., Sfruclure PACIFIC COAST HM Roadway Cross Section Exhibit 3.2-15 Hoan Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR hY it � e �m Source: LSA Associates 2007 C O N S U L 7 1 N G Rtlproledl Na WWJWelGraphics lev3.2- 15_roadway_Ml7e7.pdf HOSPITAL RD ...... . 7 '"200' . . . ........................ \A ... ..... .. . ..... .. ...... F Ili— kA V, HOAG DRIVE rt to Hoag Drive/Hospital Road Exhibit 3.2-16 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR N G Source: LSAA.ssociates 2007 C 0 N 3 U l T I N 0 R:Jpro1ec19Ne oWJ0 08/Graphimlex&2-16 h.9d11. 091707 Pdf Hoag Memonat Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SUDDIemental E!R TABLE 3.2-9 YEAR 2025 WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT LINK LEVELS OF SERVICE AT ENTRANCES In addition, the 2000 HCM Signalized Intersection Operations methodology was used to determine vehicle queues at Hoag Drive/Hospital Road and Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway (i.e., the Upper and Lower Campus entrances). The back of the queue is the number of vehicles queued, which depends on the number of arriving vehicles and vehicles that do not clear the intersection during a given green phase (overflow). The average queue is calculated based on uniform arrival patterns, signal progression for a given lane group, random arrivals, and overflow queues that can occur even when demand is below capacity. The .average vehicle queues at Hoag Drive /Hospital Road and Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway are provided in Table 3.2 -10. RAPm*mWev"OU0060rah EIM3.2 Trare0918NAW 3.2 -21 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation „ I 7 I►M How Y olarne .. lllC :. LOS- P11� Peak Hour Voiegtre V/C, L6S South of Hospital Road Northbound 1,600 459 .0.29 A 700 0.44 A Southbound 1,600 588 0.37 A 319 0.20 A North of South Hoag Drive Northbound 1,600 409 0.26 A 590 0.37 A Southbound 1,600 1 504 1 0.32 L A 1 301 1 0.19 A South of South Hoag Drive Hoag Drive Northbound/Eastbound 1,600 374 0.23 A 538 0.34 A SouthboundlWestbound 1,600 459 0.29 A 277 0.17 A West of West Hoag Drive Eastbound 1,600 377 0.24 A 398 0.25 A Westbound 1,600 383 0.24 A 350 022 A East of Child Care Center Eastbound 1,600 384 0.24 A 266 0.17 A Westbound 1,600 336 0.21 A 444 0.28 A South of Hospital Road Northbound 1,600 19 0.01 A 25 0.02 A West Southbound 1,600 22 0.01 A 16 0.01 A Hoag Drive North of Hoag Road Northbound 1,600 72 0.05 A 53 0.03 A Southbound 1,600 132 0.08 A 187 0.12 1 A Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 2007. In addition, the 2000 HCM Signalized Intersection Operations methodology was used to determine vehicle queues at Hoag Drive/Hospital Road and Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway (i.e., the Upper and Lower Campus entrances). The back of the queue is the number of vehicles queued, which depends on the number of arriving vehicles and vehicles that do not clear the intersection during a given green phase (overflow). The average queue is calculated based on uniform arrival patterns, signal progression for a given lane group, random arrivals, and overflow queues that can occur even when demand is below capacity. The .average vehicle queues at Hoag Drive /Hospital Road and Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway are provided in Table 3.2 -10. RAPm*mWev"OU0060rah EIM3.2 Trare0918NAW 3.2 -21 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft supplemental EIR TABLE 3.2 -10 VEHICLE QUEUES AT HOAG ACCESS POINTS Tqm Lane Pocket iengMr (it) Avgrmge:Vefticfe Eiueue AM Pe®k How ¢ftj PM Peak Hditt (tt} y Hoag Drive at Hospital Road Northbound left 50 44 44 Northbound through 50 44 44 Northbound right 50 154 242 Westbound left 200 176 66 Hoag Drive at West Coast Highway Southbound left 125 44 66 Southbound through 125 0 0 Southbound right 100 22 22 Eastbound left 265 22 44 Source= LSA Associates 2007. The existing turn pocket lengths at Hoag Drive /Hospital Road are sufficient to accommodate the forecasted inbound vehicle queues during the AM and PM peak hours. Although the forecasted northbound right -turn vehicle queue exceeds the length of the turn lane, vehicle stacking would occur on the site. Access and circulation would not be affected because vehicles entering the site via Hospital Road may access the emergency vehicle /drop -off driveway unobstructed. Queuing is not a concern on Hospital Road because the westbound left -turn queue at Hoag Drive /Hospital Road is not anticipated to exceed the length of the turn lane. Therefore, the westbound left -turn queue would not impact the through movement along Hospital Road. Because Hoag Drive /Hospital Road is forecasted to operate at LOS C or better during the peak hours, there is adequate Capacity at the intersection for all vehicles in the turn pocket to make a westbound left turn during each cycle. The existing turn pocket lengths at Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway are sufficient to accommodate the inbound and outbound vehicle queues during both peak hours. Because no site - specific development projects are proposed as a part of the Master Plan Update Project, a detailed site analysis cannot be provided for the internal roadways at this time. To ensure that site- specific projects do not impact the on -site circulation system, the following design criteria are proposed for use in evaluating applications for individual building projects. These criteria provide guidance on the minimum distance between on -site driveways, the minimum left -turn volume requiring a turn pocket, and a method for evaluating queuing at on -site parking garage entrances. Distance between Driveways When considering future access onto internal roadways, the distance between driveways should be considered. Because lower speeds on Hoag do not require extensive sight distance and drivers would not expect unimpeded progression, the primary function of minimum intersection spacing at Hoag should be to minimize conflict points along the internal roadways. Conflict points are created when a vehicle slows to turn into a driveway or when a vehicle turns out of a driveway. Drivers traveling along Hoag Drive can identify and avoid one conflict point; however, if multiple conflict points are located proximate to one another, the risk of collisions increases. To reduce the potential for overlapping right -turn maneuvers, a minimum driveway spacing of 185 feet is recommended on a roadway with a speed of 30 miles per hour (mph) (LSA 2007). The 185 -foot driveway spacing should be considered a guide when evaluating future on -site RdProjmM\NewpoMJ0081Dra[ EIR132 Tram-091807daa 3.2 -22 section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memonal Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft supplemental E1R development proposals and conditions such as the location of other driveways, traffic volumes on Hoag Drive, and speed limits. Left -Turn Lanes Left turns into and out of on -site driveways have the potential to create delays and queuing at Hoag. When traffic volumes are low, left turns can be made with relative ease and minimal delay. However, as Hoag is developed, on -site traffic volumes will increase, and the number of gaps in traffic that allow left turns may be reduced. The HCM states that "the presence of exclusive left -turn lanes is determined by the volume of left -turn traffic, opposing volumes, and safety considerations." When evaluating whether a left -tum lane will be required for future on- site driveways, the HCM criteria of 100 left -tum vehicles should be considered. In some cases, the 100 vehicle criterion may be exceeded without the need for a left -turn lane. The opposing traffic volume should be considered, and an HCM analysis of the potential queuing at the intersection should be prepared before determining the need for a left -turn lane at Hoag. Based on the analysis of the forecasted traffic volumes, the access intersections and internal driveways will operate at satisfactory LOS with build out of Hoag. The vehicle queues can be accommodated on site without blocking the driveways along Hoag Drive. The through movements along Hospital Road and West Coast Highway are expected to be unimpeded by the forecasted left -turn queues by vehicles entering Hoag Hospital. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not significantly impact the operation of the access intersections and on -site circulation, and therefore would not significantly impact any emergency response evacuation plans. Impact 3.2 -3. Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not result in any significant impacts related to circulation or access, and therefore would not significantly impact any emergency response evacuation plans. Threshold 3.2-4: Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? Parking As previously addressed, all parking is required to be provided on the site. Parking requirements for specific sites are based upon the parking criteria identified in Table 3.2 -11. It is determined based upon building type and the area allotted to specific functions, as identified in the table. Any area that is calculated as part of the total floor area limitation is included in the gross floor area to determine the parking requirement. FLV1rO =WO"rtlo0M6ftEIRl92Tmrn M1807.dw 3.2 -23 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memona/ Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.2 -11 PROJECT PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Category Parliang Aequiremerrts Outpatient Services' 2.31 spaces/1,000 square feet Support"' 0.0 spaces/1,000 square feet Administrative' 5.3 spaces /1,000 square feet Residential Care 1.0 spaces /1,000 square feet Medical Officesb 4.0 spaces /1,000 square feet Inpatienta 2.35 spaces /1,000 square feet Parking factor based on the Traffic Study 2001 -2002, which was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1542. b Parking factor based on DKS Associates traffic study. May 1997. Support Services generates parking demand that is already accounted for in one of the other categories as determined in Traffic Study 2001 -2002, which was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1542. Source: City of Newport Beach 2007b (as amended). The City requires that a parking study be provided and approved by the City Traffic Engineer for each individual building project at Hoag to determine the specific parking requirements for that project. Because adequate parking would be required to be provided as a condition of project - specific development projects, no significant impacts are expected associated with the provision of on -site parking at Hoag. Impact 3.2-4: Less Than Significant Impact. All future development projects at Hoag would be required to comply with the parking requirements set forth in the PC Text and are subject to approval by the City. No significant parking impacts are attributable to the proposed Master Plan Update project. Threshold 3.2 -5: Would the project 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 plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? General Plan Policies Table 3.2 -12 evaluates the consistency of the proposed Master Plan Update Project with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. R: \ProjwtaWewport 0088 raft ElR .2Tram -WI 07.d 3.2 -24 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memonal Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Oran Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.2 -12 CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT WITH TRANSPORTATION - RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES :Pofic ,- Yr CottsistetrcyEgaluatian Goal CE 1.1 - An overall transportation system that facilitates the movement of people and goods within and through the City of Newport Beach and accommodates conservative growth within the City of Newport Beach, but is not expanded primarily to accommodate growth in the surrounding region. CE 1.1.1: Provide a diverse transportation As set forth in Final EIR No. 142, the individual projects proposed system that provides mobility options for the under the existing Master Plan are required to comply with the community. (Imp 16.8, 16.11) City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. Further, Hoag is required to provide new employees with information CE 1.1.2: Provide an integrated transportation regarding ridesharing services and programs. The proposed system that supports the land use plan set forth Master Plan Update Project would be required to continue to in the Land Use Element. (Imp 2.1) comply with these mitigation requirements. CE 1.1.3: Establish level of service standards As previously noted, the existing Master Plan included a traffic that reflect the character of the various unique analysis that provides a mitigation program for the provision of districts and neighborhoods of Newport Beach. necessary traffic monitoring and improvements, as needed. The (Imp 16.2, 16.4, 16.6, 16.7) proposed Master Plan Update Project would not result in any new significant traffic impacts. The Project would not cause any roadway to exceed LOS D. Goal CE 2.1 -A roadway system that provides for the efficient movement of goods and people in the City of Newport Beach, while maintaining the community's character and its residents' quality of life. 1: Plan the arterial roadway system to As discussed above for Policy CE 1.1.3, the proposed Master Plan Fcwmmodate projected traffic at the following Update Project would not result in any new significant traffic service standards: A. Level of Service impacts. The Project would not cause any roadway to exceed LOS (LOS) °D" throughout the City, unless otherwise D. No specific roadway improvements are required. noted. (Imp 16.3) As previously noted, the adopted Mitigation Program set forth in CE2.12: Construct the circulation system Final EIR No. 142 and included in this SEIR requires the Master described on the map entitled Newport Beach Plan Update Project to prepare a TPO analysis for each phase of Circulation Element - Master Plan of Streets and development and to implement improvements for any identified Highways shown in Figure CE1 and Figure significant impacts associated with the project. The proposed CD2 (of the proposed Circulation Element). Master Plan Update Project would be required to comply with the (Imp 14.9, 16.3) mitigation requirement as future phases of development are CE 2.1.3: Monitor traffic conditions on an proposed. ongoing basis and update Master Plan as necessary. (Imp 16.4) CE 2.1.4: Pursue construction improvements shown on Figure CE3 or alternate improvements that achieve an acceptable level of service. (Imp 16.3) Goal CE 2.3 - Optimal roadway system operation. CE 2.3.4: Based on the monitoring of traffic As previously noted, individual development projects proposed conditions, consider additional improvements in under the existing Master Plan and proposed Master Plan Update areas with operations issues, such as require a TPO analysis to be conducted with each phase of Master intersections with heavy turn volumes (e.g., Plan implementation. This TPO requirement is consistent with additional turn lanes, traffic signal progression). Policy CE 2.3.4, which requires the monitoring of traffic conditions. (Imp 16.2) Goal CE 4.1 - A public transportation system that provides mobility for residents and encourages use of public transportation as an alternative to automobile travel. and Goal CE6.2 - Reduced automobile travel through the use of travel demand management strategies. CE 4.1.1: Support efforts by OCTA and other As discussed above for Policy CE 1.1.1, Hoag currently provides all agencies to increase the effectiveness and new employees with information regarding ridesharing services and productivity of transit services, possibly programs. Additionally, as addressed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of including local shuttle services. (Imp 14.4) this SEIR, the adopted Mitigation Program in Final EIR No. 142 and included in this SEIR requires each phase of Master Plan R3P.t bVgewparM0W01.ft EIRra Trans-0 IWTdw 3.2 -25 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memonal Hospital Presbytenan Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.2 -12 (Continued) CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT WITH TRANSPORTATION- RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES 1�olicy; .- Consistency Evaluation CE 4.1.2: Support efforts to increase development to include parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, accessible transit services and facilities for the showers and lockers, a ridesharing vehicle loading area, vanpool elderly, disabled, and other transportation parking, and bus stop improvements; the exact number of facilities disadvantaged persons. (Imp 16.8) will be determined by the City based on the project- specific land CE 6.2.1: Promote and encourage the use of use at Hoag. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would be aftemative transportation modes, such as required to continue to comply with these requirements. ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, and walking; and provide facilities that support such alternative modes. (Imp 16.8, 1611) CE 6.2.2: Require new development projects to provide facilities commensurate with development type and intensity to support aftemative modes, such as preferential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare vehicle loading areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop improvements. (Imp 16.8, 16.11) CE 6.2.3: Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. (Imp 16.8, 16.11) Goal CE 7.1 —An adequate supply of convenient parking throughout the City. CE 7.1.1: Require that new development As set forth in Final EIR No. 142, the current Master Plan requires provide adequate, convenient parking for a parking study be submitted for all development projects and that residents, guests, business patrons, and this parking study identifies the parking requirements for the visitors. (Imp 16.10) specific project. All parking is to be provided on site at Hoag. The CE 7.1.8: Site and design new development to proposed Master Plan Update Project would be required to avoid use of parking configurations or continue to comply with this mitigation requirement. management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. (Imp 2.1, 7.1, 8.1) CE 7.1.6: Encourage the use of commercial, Unlike more traditional commercial, office, and institutional uses office, and institutional parking areas for use as that may require less parking on weekends, Hoag is a 24 -hour public parking to serve coastal recreational medical facility. As such, extra parking is not expected to be areas during weekends and holidays, in available on a consistent basis. it would not be appropriate for conjunction with public transit or shuttles where Hoag to provide coastal recreational parking. However, Hoag is not appropriate. (Imp 8.1, 8.2, 16.10) precluded from providing excess parking for special events provided that it was determined to not interfere with the needs of Hoag. Impact 3.2-5., No Impact. As identified in Table 3.2 -12, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not conflict with any goals or policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan.. 3.2.6 MITIGATION PROGRAM The following transportation measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Mitigation measure numbering reflects that provided in Resolution No. 92 -43 for certification of Final EIR No. 142. Minor modifications to the mitigation measures are proposed to reflect the current status of the Project; some of the mitigation measures in Final EIR No. 142 have been implemented and are no longer applicable. R. \P,*jwW\Nmro M100"Taft EIR 32 Tram-091 807.d= 3.2-26 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR &Okeeut text is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. No additional mitigation is required as a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Project Design Features The Project does not propose any project design features related to transportation and circulation. Standard Conditions and Requirements The City's standard conditions and requirements have been incorporated into the Mitigation Program adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142. Mitigation Measures Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Final EIR No. 142 included several mitigation measures related to traffic. The adopted measures are presented below in three categories: (1) Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward; (2) Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision; and (3) Mitigation Measures No Longer Required. A rationale is provided for each measure in categories 2 and 3. Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward Construction Traffic 101. In conjunction with the application for a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit a construction phasing and traffic control plan for each phase of development. This plan would identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc.). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off-peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 103. The Project Sponsor shall provide advance written notice of temporary traffic disruptions to affected area business and the public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to disruptions. 104. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that construction activities requiring more than 16 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour, such as excavation and concrete pours, shall be limited between June 1 and September 1 to avoid traffic conflicts with beach and tourist traffic. At all other times, such activities shall be limited to 25 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Haul operations will be monitored by the Public Works Department and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion problems arise. Project Traffic 25. The Project Sponsor shall conduct a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis for each Master Plan development project. The analysis shall identify potential intersection fliPrajmt\Newport B\Drafl EIFN3.2 Tram- 091807.dm 3.2 -27 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft supplemental EIR impacts, the proposed project traffic volume contributions at these impacted intersections, and the schedule for any intersection improvements identified as necessary by the study to ensure a satisfactory level of service as defined by the TPO. This report shall be approved by the City prior to commencement construction of the development project. 29. The project shall comply with the City of Newport Beach Transportation Demand Management Ordinance approved by the City Council pursuant to the County's Congestion Management Plan. Site Access and Circulation 91. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by the City Public Works and Fire Department. 95. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Fire Department that all existing and new access roads surrounding the project site shall be designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless the accessway meets minimum width requirements of the Public Works and Fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width. Parking 32. Prior to issuance of approvals for development projects, the applicant shall submit to the City Traffic Engineer for his /her review and approval, a study that identifies the appropriate parking generation rates. The findings of this study shall be based on empirical or survey data for the proposed parking rates. Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision Construction Traffic 102. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 102 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. This SEIR recommends this measure be modified to clarify that haul route plans are not required to be submitted as a part of a grading plan application. A construction traffic plan is required as a part of Mitigation Measure 101. 108. Prior to issuance of any grading and building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit a Trip Reduction Plan for construction crew members where the number of construction employees would be 50 or greater. This plan shall identity measures, such as ride - sharing and transit incentives, to reduce vehicle miles traveled by construction crews. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 108 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. This SEIR recommends this measure be modified to require a Trip Reduction Plan only in cases where the number of construction employees would be 50 or greater. R:: \P�ojectsWewPOrCJOoB�Dratt E1R\3.2 TI.M-0IW7.dm 3.'L•'Lli J crion J.L Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Project Traffic d velepme t This study hall be a + d r: +n the issuaRGe of .. adiR For each Master Plan Development Project, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study prepared in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) guidelines and to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer Prior to permit issuance for future phases. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 27 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. This SEIR recommends this measure be updated to reflect the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements, which have been adopted since approval of Final EIR No. 142. 28. The Project Sponsor shall continue to comply with all applicable regulations adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District that pertain to trip reductions such as R9@JUlatieR -45 Rule 2202. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 28 has been updated to reflect changes to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's rules and regulations. 30. In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for employees, visitors and patrons of the Hospital, the following transit amenities shall be incorporated into the Master Plan Project: • Bus turnouts shall be installed if-,4R4-as required by the City Traffic Engineer, after City consultation with OCTA, at all current bus stop locations adjacent to the project site. Bus turnouts shall be installed in accordance with standard design guidelines as indicated in OCTA's Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 30 was adopted as part of the Final EIR No. 142. Minor modification to the wording of the measure is recommended to reflect that the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), not the City, would determine the location for bus turnouts. 34. Depending on actual site build -out, intersection improvements may be required at the Hoag Drive - Placentia Avenue /Hospital Road intersection (Upper Campus access), Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road intersection, and at the INCH Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway intersection (Lower Campus access). The need for these improvements shall be assessed during subsequent traffic studies to be conducted in association with Mitigation Measure 25. Improvements could include restriping, traffic signal timing, etc. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 34 has been modified to include the analysis of the intersection of Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road, as well as the two intersections previously identified in Final EIR No. 142. This measure is appropriate to be implemented as a part of proposals for site- specific development. 35. As each phase 91 the- Master Plan Project is constructed, the Project Sponsor shall provide each new employee a packet outlining the available ridesharing services and R: \Proje Wmvrort 00Zratl EIM32 Trend -0B1807.dw 3.2 -29 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR programs and the number of the Transportation Coordinator. All new employees shall be included in the yearly update of the trip reduction plan for Hoag Fequifed by Regbilaties XV in compliance with the City of Newport Beach Trip Reduction Plan. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 35 is proposed to be updated to reflect the City's Trip Reduction Plan. Since the Master Plan was approved in 1992, the South Coast Air Quality Management District has delegated the development and implementation of trip reduction plans to the local jurisdictions. 38. Prior to the issuance of grading-aad- building permits for each Master Plan development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorporate the site development requirements of Ordinance No. 91 -16, as appropriate, to the Traffic Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and Planning Commission approval. Requirements outlined in the Ordinance include: a. A minimum of five percent of the provided parking at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These parking spaces shall be located near the employee entrance or at other preferred locations. b. A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employees shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided at such time as demand warrants. c. A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. d. Information of transportation alternatives shall be provided to all employees. e. A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated in the parking area. f. The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. g. Bus stop improvements shall be coordinated with the Orange County Transportation Authority, consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 30 ;equi red to h. The exact number of each of the above facilities shall be determined by the City during review of ^�a and building permit applications for each development project. The types and numbers of facilities required of the project will reflect the content of the Ordinance at the time that a permit application is deemed complete by the Planning Department. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 38 was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142. A revision to item `g' is proposed to cross reference Mitigation Measure 30, which pertains to bus turnouts. The siting and design of bus turnouts is within the joint jurisdiction of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City. Site Access and Circulation 33. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits for Master Plan development that includes new, or modifications to existing, internal roadways (other than service roads), the Project Sponsor will prepare an internal circulation plan for submittal to and approval by RAN.lj o6\N v ,AIWBDraft EIR132 Tre - W1807-Ax 3.2 -30 � Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR the DiFRAtAF Of P1 - City Traffic Engineer that identifies all feasible measures to eliminate internal traffic congestion and facility's ingress and egress to the site. All feasible measures identified in this study shall be incorporated into the site plan. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 33 is proposed for revision to identify the City Traffic Engineer as the party responsible for the review and approval of Hoag internal circulation plans. Mitigation Measures No Longer Required 26. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I of the project, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. This study shall determine if the traffic to be generated by existing plus Phase I development will not exceed 1,338 PM peak hour traffic trips. In the event the Traffic Engineer determines that existing plus Phase I development will generate more than 1,338 PM peak hour trips, the project shall be reduced in size or the mix of land uses will be altered to reduce the PM peak hour trips to, at, or below 1,338. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 26 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. This measure applied to Phase I of the project and has been implemented. Further tracking of this mitigation measure through the Mitigation Monitoring Program is no longer necessary. New traffic analyses are required for all phases subsequent to Phase I in compliance with the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any of the proposed Master Plan facilities, the Project Sponsor shall implement a program, approved by the City Traffic Engineer, that monitors and manages usage of the Upper and Lower Campus service roads during non - working hours. Such controls may include requesting that the majority of vendors deliver products (other than emergency products) during working hours (i.e., 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM), signage to restrict use of the road by hospital employees, physicians, patients and visitors during non - working hours, and other methods by which to restrict use. The hospital shall also request that vendors not deliver (i.e., scheduled and routine deliveries) on the weekends. This restriction specifically applies to scheduled and routine deliveries. The results of this program shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of the grading permit. If the results indicate that such controls do not significantly impact the operations of the hospital, and provided that requests for specified vendor delivery times is consistent with future Air Quality Management Plan procedures, the City may require that the program. be implemented as hospital policy. If operation impacts are significant, other mitigation measures would be investigated at the time to reduce service road impacts to the adjacent residential units. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 31 was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented. 3.2.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Final EIR No. 142 found that all traffic impacts could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. No new significant traffic impacts have been identified associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Consistent with the conclusions of Final EIR No. 142, the Project's R.w Oisasws mart'dooe\mmft Eim32 Trans- 001e07.d« 32-31 . Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR contribution and all project - specific cumulative traffic, circulation, and parking impacts can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. R. \Projmc \New rN008\Drah EIR32 Trans-091807.dw 3.2 -32 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK This EIR section summarizes the findings of the Air Quality Assessment for Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update prepared by Mestre Greve Associates (August 2007) and the Health Risk Assessment on Cogeneration Plant Operations at Hoag Memorial Hospital prepared by CDM (June 2007). Both these reports are summarized below. The Air Quality Assessment and Health Risk Assessment are included in their entirety as Appendices D and E, respectively, of this Supplemental EIR (SEIR). It should be noted that Hoag is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or basin) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 3.3.1 SUMMARY OF FINAL EIR NO. 142 Final EIR No. 142 was certified in 1992, priorto the publication of SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook in 1993 and the significance thresholds presented in the handbook. Final EIR No. 142 found that construction emissions would result in significant, unavoidable impacts. The EIR found no significant impacts to long -tens, project emissions associated with carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), or reactive organic gases (ROG). However, it should be noted that the project - related CO, ROG, and NOx emissions presented in Final EIR No. 142 exceed the significance thresholds which were subsequently published in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). The analysis in Final EIR No. 142 compared project emissions with regional emissions for the basin and Source Receptor Area 18 (the SCAQMD- designated area within which Hoag is located), and concluded that since the project represented such a small portion of regional emissions, the project did not result in a significant impact. Final EIR No. 142 did determine, however, that development of the Master Plan in conjunction with present and future projects would have a significant unavoidable cumulative impact on regional air quality. 3.3.2 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS Air Quality AnaIvsIs The air quality analysis for the proposed Master Plan Update Project was based on federal, State, and regional regulations applicable to the project site. Operational emissions were calculated using the guidance and emission factors presented in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2003, as amended) and information presented on SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook web site. Assumptions used in preparing the model analysis were consistent with those recommended in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2003, as amended). Traffic volume information was derived from the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (May 2007). Mestre Greve Associates used emission factors from EMFAC2007 published on SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook web site to estimate vehicular emissions (SCAQMD 2003). EMFAC2007 is a CARB - generated computer program that calculates emission rates for vehicles. The data used to estimate the on -site combustion of natural gas usage is based on the proposed land uses in terms of building square footages and emission factors taken from the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Hoag operates .a cogeneration facility that generates electricity from natural gas extracted from the ground. Emissions from the cogeneration facility's generators were calculated based on the maximum permissible emission rates allowed by the SCAQMD permits for the units. R: \Projects \NewponW00Mrafl EIR\3.3 ArQua ity- 0919W.tloc 3.3-1 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoalemental E1R PM2.5 emissions due to natural gas combustion were calculated using the methodology presented in SCAQMD's "Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds" (October 2006). The PM10 emissions were calculated using the above methodologies and then multiplying the PM10 emissions by the applicable PM2.5 fraction derived from emission source, using PM profiles in the California Emission Inventory Data and Reporting System (CEIDRS) developed by CARB. This data indicates that PM2.5 emissions are 0.990 times the PM10 emissions. Health Risk Assessment Hoag's cogeneration facility is located at the western end of the Lower Campus. It currently has three permitted internal combustion engines fueled by natural gas, one boiler fueled by natural gas, and one standby internal combustion engine fueled by diesel. Air quality "Permits to Construct' were obtained in 2003 from the SCAQMD for these existing units. The cogeneration facility is designed to accommodate three additional future cogeneration natural gas internal combustion engines to meet Hoag's anticipated power and heating demand at buildout. In addition to the cogeneration facility, Hoag has an existing utility plant located in the northwestern corner of the Upper Campus. The utility plant has five diesel engine generator sets, four natural gas fueled boilers, and two natural gas fueled heater /chillers. A health risk assessment was prepared to address potential health risk impacts associated with the three future cogeneration internal combustion engines. The assessment was conducted following the Tier 4 Detailed Risk Assessment methods in SCAQMD's Risk Assessment Procedures for Rule 1401 and 212, Version 7.0 (2006c). As specified in SCAQMD's procedures, CARB's Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) model was used to calculate potential incremental and cumulative risks. The HARP model is comprised of three modules: emission inventory, dispersion modeling, and risk analysis. The analysis combines the emission rates and dispersion results to determine potential health risks at each receptor. For this SEIR health risk assessment, the "project" is the installation and operation of the three future cogeneration internal combustion engines at Hoag's existing cogeneration facility. Therefore, the health risk assessment addresses the potential incremental project health risks associated with the three future internal combustion engines, as well as the cumulative Hoag cogeneration facility and utility plant health risks. 3.3.3 REGULATORY AND PLANNING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SCAB In response to longstanding concerns about air pollution, federal, State, and local authorities have adopted various rules and regulations that require evaluation of the air quality impacts of a planned project and appropriate mitigation for air pollutant emissions. The following discussion identifies air quality planning efforts and the responsibilities of agencies involved in these efforts. A discussion of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( CAAQS) is also provided. Federal Attainment Status The USEPA is the primary federal agency for regulating air quality. The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), enacted in 1970 and last amended in 1990, establishes federal air quality standards (the NAAQS) and specifies future dates for achieving compliance with these standards. The USEPA designates areas with pollutant concentrations that do not meet the NAAQS as "non- attainment areas" for each criteria pollutant. The CAA requires States to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIP) for designated non - attainment areas. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to R.w,o�aswe wonwooe�wen EAR \3.3 NIQp hly- MS07.dm 3.3 -2 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental EIR include an additional standard for ozone (03) and to adopt an NAAQS for suspended particulates of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). SIPS must include pollution - control measures that demonstrate how the NAAQS will be met. The City of Newport Beach is located in the SCAB, which was designated a non - attainment area for certain pollutants regulated under the CAA. By a separate State statute, the SCAQMD was established as the local air pollution control agency for the SCAB. California Attainment Status In addition to federal requirements, each air basin must meet California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requirements. According to the CCAA, air pollution control districts must design their air quality attainment plans to achieve a reduction in basin -wide emissions of 5 percent or more per year (or 15 percent or more in a 3 -year period) for all non - attainment pollutants and their precursors. For emission reduction accounting purposes, the CARB established a seven -year initial reporting period (1988 to 1994) with reporting intervals every three years thereafter. Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) were adopted by the air districts in 1989 to meet federal standards and in 1991 to meet California standards. The CARB incorporates the AQMP into the SIP in an effort to satisfy the CAA requirements discussed above. These AQMPs were revised in 1994, 1997, 2003, and 2007 (however, the 2007 AQMP is not fully approved so the 2003 plan is the considered current AQMP). Re4ional Planning Hoag is located in the SCAB and, jurisdictionally, is the responsibility of both the SCAQMD and the CARB. The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin and works with the Southern California. Association of Governments (SCAG) to develop and implement Transportation Control Measures. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. The CARB establishes legal emissions rates for new vehicles and is responsible for the vehicle inspection program. Other important agencies in the air quality management for the SCAB include the USEPA and SCAG. The USEPA implements the provisions of the CAA, which establishes ambient air quality standards that are applicable nationwide. In areas that are not achieving the standards, the CAA requires that plans be developed and implemented to meet the standards. The USEPA oversees the efforts in this air basin and ensures that appropriate plans are being developed and implemented. The SCAQMD is the primary agency responsible for writing the AQMP, with SCAG's collaboration in preparing the transportation control measure component. The SCAQMD and the SCAG, in coordination with local governments and the private sector, have developed the SCAB's AQMP. The AQMP is the most important air management document for the basin because it provides the blueprint for meeting State and federal ambient air quality standards. The 1997 AQMP with the 199 amendments is the current federally approved applicable air plan for 03. The successor, the 2003 AQMP, was adopted on August 1, 2003, by SCAQMD's governing board. The CARB adopted the plan as part of the California SIP on October 23, 2003. The USEPA adopted the mobile source emission budgets from the plan on March 25, 2004. The PM10 attainment plan received final approval on November 5, 2005, with an effective date of December 14, 2005. The USEPA has not approved the 2003 03 attainment plan to date. For federal purposes, the 1997 AQMP with the 1999 amendments is the currently applicable ozone attainment plan. On June 1, 2007, the SCAQMD adopted the 2007 AQMP in response to the new federal PM2.5 and 8 -hour 03 standards. The plan focuses on control of sulfur oxides (SOx), directly emitted PM2.5, and nitrogen oxides (NOx) to achieve the PM2.5 standard. Achieving the 8 -hour 03 RdPmjeasVe P00U0080raft EIRQ.3 MQuality- 0918W.doc 3.3 -3 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR standard builds upon the PM2.5 attainment strategy with additional Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) reductions.' Control measures proposed by the SCAQMD for sources under their jurisdiction include facility modernization, energy efficiency and conservation, good management practices, market incentives /compliance flexibility, area source programs, emissions growth management, and mobile source programs. In addition, the CARB has developed a plan of control strategies for sources controlled by the CARB (i.e., on -road and off -road motor vehicles and consumer products). The 2007 AQMP now must be approved by the CARB prior to being submitted to the USEPA. The overall control strategy for the 2003 AQMP is to meet applicable State and federal requirements and to demonstrate attainment with ambient air quality standards. The 2003 AQMP contains short- and long -term measures. These measures are included in Appendix IV -B of the AQMP. Short-term measures propose the application of available technologies and management practices between 2005 and 2010. The 2003 AQMP includes 24 short-term control measures for stationary and mobile sources that are expected to be implemented within the next several years. The stationary source measures in the 2003 AQMP include measures from the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendment to the ozone SIP with eleven additional new control measures. In addition, a new transportation conformity budget backstop measure is included in the 2003 AQMP. One long -term measure for stationary sources is included in the 2003 AQMP. This control measure seeks to achieve additional VOC reductions from stationary sources. The long -term measure. is made up of Tier I and Tier II components. The Tier I long -term measure has an adoption date between 2005 and 2007 and an implementation date between 2007 and 2009. Tier II has an adoption date between 2006 and 2008 and an implementation date between 2008 and 2010. To ultimately achieve ambient air quality standards, additional emissions reductions will be necessary beyond the implementation of short-term measures. Long -term measures rely on the advancement of technologies and control methods that can reasonably be expected to occur between 2005 and 2010. Additional stationary- source control measures are included in Appendix IV -B of the AQMP, Proposed State and Federal Strategy for the California SIP. Contingency measures are also included in Appendix IV- Section 2 of the 2003 AQMP. On June 1, 2007, the SCAQMD adopted the 2007 AQMP in response to the new federal PM2.5 and 8 -hour ozone standards. The plan focuses on control of sulfur oxides (SO.), directly emitted PM2.5, and nitrogen oxides (NO.) to achieve the PM2.5 standard. Achieving the 8 -hour ozone standard builds upon the PM2.5 attainment strategy with additional VOC reductions. Control measures proposed by the SCAQMD for sources under its jurisdiction include facility modernization, energy efficiency and conservation, good management practices, market incentives /compliance flexibility, area source programs, emission growth management and mobile source programs. In addition, CARB has developed a plan of control strategies for sources controlled by CARB (i.e., on -road and off -road motor vehicles and consumer products). The 2007 AQMP now must be approved by CARB prior to being submitted to the USEPA. Some State and local agencies regulate vOCs as Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) since they possess similar characteristics. R:\P,oj.M\M wpohWJ D,e EIR \3.3 AkQuWity0916 .EOC 3.3 -4 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Criteria Air Pollutants Under the Federal CAA, the USEPA has established NAAQS for six major pollutants: ozone (03), respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb). These six air pollutants are often referred to as the "criteria pollutants." The NAAQS are two tiered: primary (to protect public health) and secondary (to prevent degradation to the environment (i.e., impairment of visibility, damage to vegetation and property). Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( CAAQS) to protect the health and welfare of Californians. State standards have been established for the six criteria pollutants as well as four additional pollutants; visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Ozone (03): Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed by the chemical reaction between volatile organic compounds (VOC) (also referred to as reactive organic gases [ROG]) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) under favorable meteorological conditions such as high temperature and stagnation episodes. An elevated level of ozone irritates the lungs and breathing passages which can cause coughing and pain in the chest and throat and can thereby increase susceptibility to respiratory infections and reduce the ability to exercise. Effects are more severe in people with asthma and other respiratory ailments. Long -term exposure may lead to lung tissue scarring and may lower lung efficiency. Carbon Monoxide (CO): Carbon monoxide is primarily emitted from combustion processes and motor vehicles because of incomplete combustion of fuel. Elevated concentrations weaken the heart's contractions and lower the amount of oxygen carried by the blood. It is especially dangerous for people with chronic heart disease. Inhalation of moderate CO levels can cause nausea, dizziness and headaches, and can be fatal at high concentrations. Even under the most severe meteorological and traffic conditions, high concentrations of carbon monoxide are limited to locations within a relatively short distance (i.e., up to 600 feet or 185 meters) of heavily traveled roadways. Overall, CO emissions are decreasing as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, which has mandated increasingly lower emissions levels for vehicles manufactured since 1973. Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5): The human body naturally prevents the entry of larger particles into the body. However, small particles, with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than ten microns (PM10) and even smaller particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), can become trapped in the nose, throat, and upper respiratory tract. These small particulates enter the body and could potentially aggravate existing heart and lung diseases; change the body's defenses against inhaled materials; and damage lung tissue. The elderly, children, and those with chronic lung or heart disease are most sensitive to PM10 and PM2.5. Lung impairment can persist for two to three weeks after exposure to high levels of particulate matter. Some types of particulate matter could become toxic after inhalation due to the presence of certain chemicals and their reaction with internal bodily fluids. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): Nitrogen gas, normally relatively inert (unreactive), comprises about 80 percent of the air. At high temperatures (i.e., in the combustion process) and under certain other conditions it can combine with oxygen, forming several different gaseous compounds collectively called nitrogen oxides (NOx). Nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the two most important compounds. NO is converted to NO2 in the atmosphere. Motor vehicle emissions are the main source of NOx in urban areas. NOx is a combination of primarily NO and NO2. While the NAAQS only addresses NO2, NO and the total group of nitrogen oxides is of concern to the USEPA. NO and NO2 are both precursors in the formation of 03 and secondary R: \Proje0s \NewpoMJD08 \Draft EIR13.3 AirQuality.091WTdoc 3.3-5 SeCtion 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental BR particulate matter. Because of this and the fact that NO emissions largely convert to NO2, NOx emissions are typically examined when assessing potential air quality impacts. Sulfur Dioxide (S02): Major sources of S02 include power plants, large industrial facilities, diesel vehicles, and oil- burning residential heaters. S02 emissions can aggravate lung diseases, especially bronchitis. It also constricts the breathing passages, especially in asthmatics and people involved in moderate -to -heavy exercise. S02 can potentially cause wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing. High levels of particulate matter appear to worsen the effect of sulfur dioxide, and long -term exposure to both pollutants leads to higher rates of respiratory illness. S02 reacts with other chemicals in the air to form tiny sulfate particles which are measured as PM2.5. Lead (Pb): Lead is a stable compound, which persists and accumulates both in the environment and in animals. Lead is emitted from industrial facilities and from the sanding or removal of old lead -based paint. Smelting or processing metal is the primary source of lead emissions, which is primarily a regional pollutant. Lead affects the brain and other parts of the body's nervous system. Lead exposure in very young children can impair the development of the nervous system, kidneys, and blood- forming processes in the body. Since 1975, lead emissions have been in decline due in part to the introduction of catalyst- equipped vehicles and decline in the production of leaded gasoline. In general, a lead analysis is limited to projects that emit significant quantities of the pollutant (i.e., lead smelters) and are not applied to transportation projects. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): Though VOCs are not directly a health hazard and are not considered a criteria pollutant, they react with NOx in the presence of sunlight to produce 03. Hence, VOC emissions are regulated as a precursor of ozone. However, some State and local agencies regulate VOCs as Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs), which possess similar characteristics as VOCs. Ambient Air Qualitv Standards Air quality impacts of a project, combined with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards (AAQS) in order to gauge their significance. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe (with an adequate margin of safety) to protect the public health and welfare. The standards are designed to protect sensitive persons who are most susceptible to further respiratory distress (e.g., the elderly, young children, and persons with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function caused by other illnesses). Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. The SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook defines land uses considered to be sensitive receptors as long -term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. California standards are generally stricter than national standards, but have no penalty for non - attainment. California and national ambient air standards are shown on Table 3.3 -1. R:AProposlNewpo ONZrah EIR\3 AirQuwiy -091 807.doc 3.3 -6 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.3 -1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS R:1Pr jeds%WwpoM 0080rak EIR13.3 NrOUafity- W1807.do 3.3 -7 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Averaglrig FedetalSffitldards° Pollutant 11 roe StaYeSdhdarde` Pntnary`s Seaandary`'' 1 Hour 0.09 ppm — — Ozone (03) (180 yg/m ) 8 Hour 0.070 ppm 037 yg/m3) 0.08 ppm (157 pg/m3) Same as Primary Respirable 24 Hour 50 yg/m3 150 pg/m3 Same as Primary Particulate Matter (PM10)h AAMf 20 log/m3 — Same as Primary Fine Particulate 24 Hour — 35 pg /m3 Same as Primary Matter (PM2.5)" AAMf 12 ug /m3 15 pg /m3 Same as Primary 1 Hour (23 20 ppm mg /m3) 35 ppm (40 mg /m 3) None Carbon Monoxide 8 Hour 9.0 ppm 9 pipm None (CO) (10 mg/m3) (10 mg /m3) 8 Hour (76m9/m3) — — AAMf 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Same as Primary Nitrogen Dioxide (56 ug /m) (100 pg /m ) (NO2) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm — — (338 ug/m3) AAMf — 0,030 ppm — (80 Vg /M3) 24 Hour Sulfur Dioxide (05 ug//M3) (365 VgP m3) 3 Hour — _ 0.5 ppm (S02) (1,300 Ng/m3) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 Vg /m3) — — 30 day Avg. 1.5 Ug /m3 — — Lead' Qua ear — 1.5 Vg/m3 Same as Primary Extinction coefficient of 0.23 R Visibility Reducing per km — visibility Particles 8 hour 10 miles ( 0.07 per km —?30 miles for Lake Tahoe) Sulfates 24 Hour 25 ug /m3 Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 ug /m3) Vinyl Chloride' 24 Hour 0.01 ppm' /m) (26 Ug California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except in Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, P1010, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. ° National standards (other than 03, PM10, PM2.5, 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 a highest 8 -hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For P1010, the 24 -hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24 -hour average concentration above 150 pgrm3 is equal to or less than 1. For PM2.5, the 24 -hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. R:1Pr jeds%WwpoM 0080rak EIR13.3 NrOUafity- W1807.do 3.3 -7 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan EIR TABLE 3.3 -1 (Continued) AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS I�oliutstnt i`tttte' 51810.St8nd3YdSaF Federal Startda►dSO . Pr&ttary`'e Secortt�ty°' Concentration is expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25'C and a reference pressure of 760 ton. Most air quality measurements are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25'C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. ' National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. Annual Arithmetic Mean 9 The CARB 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. On September 21, 2006, the USEPA published a final rule revoking the annual 50 pg/m' PM10 standard and lowering the 24 -hour PM2.5 standard from 65 pg/m3 to 35 pg/m3. Attainment designations are to be issued in December 2009 with attainment plans due April 2010. — No Standard South Coast Air Basin Air Quality Attainment Designations Based on monitored air pollutant concentrations, the USEPA and the CARB designate areas relative to their status in attaining the NAAQS and CAAQA, respectively. Table 3.3 -2 lists the current attainment designations for the basin. For the federal standards, the required attainment date is also shown. The unclassified designation indicates that the air quality data for the area does not support a designation of either "attainment' or "non- attainment." TABLE 3.3 -2 DESIGNATIONS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS FOR THE SCAB Pcillittar►i' ;, ': '`Federal:. State Severe -17 Ozone(03) Non - attainment Non - attainment (2021) Respirable Particulate Serious Matter (PM70} Non - attainment Non - attainment (2006) Fine Particulate Matter Non - attainment (P M2.5) (2015) on - attainment N Carbon Monoxide (CO) ) ttainment/Maintenance Attainment (2000) Nitrogen Dioxide Attain menf/Maintenanee (NO2) (1995) attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment Lead (Pb) Attainment Attainment Visibility Reducing Particles N/A Unclassified Sulfates N/A Unclassified Hydrogen Sulfide N/A Attainment Vinyl Chloride N/A Attainment R:\Projed.\NewpodU0o9T , ak Etm3.3 ArQuWdy- o91ao7.dm 3.3-8 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Under federal law, the USEPA has designated the SCAB as being in "Severe -1T' non - attainment for 03, in "Serious" non - attainment for PM10, in non - attainment for PM2.5, and an attainment /maintenance area for CO and NO2. The State has designated the basin as being in non - attainment for 03, PM10, and PM2.5. For the federal designations, the qualifiers (Severe -17 and Serious) affect the required attainment dates as the federal regulations have different requirements for areas that exceed the standards by greater amounts at the time of attainment/non- attainment designation. The SCAB is designated as being in attainment of the federal S02 and lead NAAQS as well as the State CO, NO2, SOZ lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride CAAQS. In July 1997, the USEPA issued an 03 NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) using an 8 -hour averaging time. Implementation of this standard was delayed by several lawsuits. Attainment/non- attainment designations for the new 8 -hour ozone standard were issued on April 15, 2004, and became effective on June 15, 2005. The SCAB was designated as being in Severe -17 non - attainment, which requires attainment of the federal standard by June 15, 2021. As a part of the designation, the USEPA announced that the 1 -hour 03 standard would be revoked in June 2005. Thus, the 8 -hour 03 standard attainment deadline of 2021 supersedes and replaces the previous 1 -hour 03 standard attainment deadline of 2010. The SCAQMD is requesting that the USEPA change the non - attainment status of the 8 -hour 03 standard to "Extreme." This will allow the use of undefined reductions (i.e., "black bo)e") based on the anticipated development of new control technologies or improvement of existing technologies in the attainment plan. Further, the "Extreme" classification could extend the attainment date by three years to 2024. On April 28, 2005, the CARB adopted an 8 -hour 03 standard of 0.070 ppm. The California Office of Administrative Law approved the rule and filed it with the Secretary of State on April 17, 2006. The standard became effective on May 17, 2006. California has retained the 1 -hour concentration standard of 0.090 ppm. For the State to redesignate the SCAB as an attainment area, the basin will need to achieve both the 1 -hour and 8 -hour 03 standards. The SCAB was designated as being in moderate non - attainment of the PM10 standards when the designations were initially made in 1990 with a required attainment date of 1994. In 1993, the basin was redesignated as being in serious non - attainment with a required attainment date of 2006 because it was apparent that the SCAB could not meet the PM10 standard by the 1994 deadline. At this time, the basin has met the PM10 standards at all monitoring stations except in Western Riverside where the annual PM10 standard has not yet been met. However, on September 21, 2006, the USEPA announced that it was revoking the annual PM10 standard as research had indicated that there was no considerable health effects associated with long -term exposure to PM10. With this change, the basin is technically in attainment of the federal PM10 standards, although the redesignation process has not yet begun. In July 1997, the USEPA issued NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The PM2.5 standards include an annual standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (Ng /m), based on the 3 -year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and a 24 -hour standard of 65 pg /m3, based on the 3 -year average of the 98`h percentile of 24 -hour concentrations. Implementation of these standards was delayed by several lawsuits. On January 5, 2005, the USEPA took final action to designate attainment and non - attainment areas under the NAAQS for PM2.5, effective April 5, 2005. The SCAB was designated as being a non - attainment area with an attainment required as soon as possible but no later than 2010. The USEPA may grant attainment date extensions of up to five years in areas with more severe PM2.5 problems and where emissions R: \Proleols \NewponW008\Drah EIR\3.3 XrQuality- 091807.doc 3.3 -9 Section 3.3 Air Ouality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E1R control measures are not available or feasible. It is likely that the SCAB will need this additional time to attain the standard. On September 21, 2006, the USEPA announced that the 24 -hour PM2.5 standard was lowered to 35 µg /m3. Attainmentlnon- attainment designations for the revised PM2 -5 standard will be made by December 2009 with an attainment date of April 2015, although the USEPA could grant an extension of up to 5 years. The federal attainment deadline for CO was to be December 31, 2000; however, the basin was granted an extension due to exceedances of the CO NAAQS. The SCAB has not had any violations of the federal CO standards since 2002. In March 2005, the SCAQMD adopted a CO Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan. On May 11, 2007, the USEPA announced approval of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan and that, effective June 11, 2007, the SCAB would be redesignated as an attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO NAAQS- The plan provides for maintenance of the federal CO air quality standard until at least 2015 and commits to revising the plan in 2013 to ensure maintenance through 2025. The federal annual NO2 standard was met for the first time in 1992 and has not been exceeded since. The SCAB was redesignated as being in attainment for NO2 in 1998. The basin will remain a maintenance /attainment area until 2018, assuming the NO2 standard is not exceeded. 3.3.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS Climate The climate in and around the project area, as with all southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. This maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity, and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter "wet' season. Temperatures are normally mild, except in the summer months, which commonly bring substantially higher temperatures. In all portions of the basin, temperatures well above 100 degrees F (°F) have been recorded in recent years. The annual average temperature in the basin is approximately 62 °F. The distinctive climate of this area is determined primarily by its terrain and geographical location. Seasonal variations in the strength and position of this pressure cell cause changes in the weather patterns. Local climatic conditions are characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime on -shore breezes, and moderate humidity. This normally mild climatic condition is occasionally interrupted by periods of hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana (hot easterly flow) winds. Winds in the project area are usually driven by the dominant land /sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime on -shore sea breezes. At night, the wind generally slows and reverses direction to travel towards the sea. Wind direction can be altered by local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from the south. The frequency of calm winds (less than two miles per hour) is less than ten percent. Therefore, there is little stagnation in the project vicinity, especially during busy daytime traffic hours. Southern California frequently has temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. Inversions are described as being either "ground based" or "elevated." Ground -based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear, cold, early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground -based inversion, very little mixing or R'.TTq la'MawpotlU0 Drafl EIM3,3 ArauaMy- maw.&.c 3.3 -10 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR turbulence occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur close to major local roadways. Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological phenomena. Elevated inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion, dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the basin and is responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the SCAB. Monitored Air Quality Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the basin. Estimates for the basin have been made for existing emissions (SCAQMD 2003). The data indicate that mobile sources are the major source of regional emissions. Motor vehicles (i.e., on -road mobile sources) account for approximately 45 percent of VOC emissions, 63 percent of NOx emissions, and approximately 76 percent of CO emissions. The SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring air quality in the SCAB and for adopting controls, in conjunction with the CARB, to improve air quality. The SCAQMD has established "source - receptor" areas (SRAS) for monitoring air pollution, based on topographical and meteorological barriers. The project site is located in SRA 18, North Orange County Coastal. The air quality monitoring station designated for this area is the Costa Mesa Station. This is the nearest air quality monitoring station to the project. The Costa Mesa Station is located near Mesa Verde Drive west of Harbor Boulevard and is approximately four miles north of the project site. The air pollutants measured at the Costa Mesa Station include 03, CO, NO2, and SOz. Monitored concentrations of these pollutants for 2003 to 2006 at the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station are identified in Table 3.3 -3; data for 2007 is not yet available. Since the project is located near the coastline, pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the project are best represented by the data from the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. However, particulates are not monitored at the Costa Mesa Station. It is likely that particulate levels in the vicinity of the project site are lower than those monitored at the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station, which is the designated station for SRA 19, Saddleback Valley. This station is located east of Los Alisos Boulevard between Jeronimo Road and Trabuco Road approximately 15 miles east of the project site. The air pollutants measured at the Mission Viejo Station include 03, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Monitored concentrations of these pollutants for 2003 to 2006 at the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station are shown in Table 3.3 -4. As shown in the tables, 03, PM10, and PM2.5 are the air pollutants of primary concern in the project area. The State 1 -hour 03 standard was exceeded 4 days in 2003, 2 days in 2004, and was not exceeded in 2005 or 2006 at the Costa Mesa Station. The standard was exceeded between 3 and 16 days each year between 2003 and 2006 at the Mission Viejo Station. As of June 15, 2006, the federal 1 -hour 03 standard was revoked with the implementation of the 8 -hour standard. The federal 1 -hour 03 standard has not been exceeded in the past 4 years at the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. The federal 1 -hour standard was exceeded 4 days in 2003, 1 day in 2005, and was not exceeded in 2004 or 2006 at the Mission Viejo Station. R: \Proie0s\WwP0HW009 \Drab EIR \3.3 AirQualiry- 091807.do 3.3 -11 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.3-3 AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT COSTA MESA MONITORING STATION R9Pm)eds\NewponV003\Drah PM3.3 ArQuabty- 09187/.doc 3.3-12 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk iExi* f Ia lktys ;Bays Wed Had 0111, 03 0.09 ppm for 1 hr 1 0.12 ppm` for 1 hr 2006 100 0.074 0 0 2005 92 0.085 0 0 2004 98 0.104 2 0 2003 100 0.107 4 0 03 0.070 ppm for 8 hr 0.08 ppm or 8 f hr ior 8 2006 100 0.062 — 0 2005 92 0.072 — 0 2004 98 0.087 — 1 2003 100 0.088 — 1 co 20 ppm for 1 hr 35 ppm for 1 hr 2006 98 3.5 0 0 �— Co 9.0 ppm for 8 hr 9 ppm for 8 hr E Flo new 2004 97 4.1 0 0 1 2003 97 59 0 0 NOz 1 0-18 ppm for 1 hr None 2006 98 0.101 0 N/A 2005 86 0,085 0 N/A uu4 2004 97 0.097 0 N/A �-2�003 96 0.107 0 N/A NO2 (Annual) 0.030 ppm AAM 0.053 ppm AAM 2006 98 0.015 N/A No 2005 86 0,014 N/A No 2004 97 0.016 N/A No 2003 96 0.018 N/A No S02 0.04 ppm for 24 hr 014 ppm for 24 hr 2006 92 0.005 0 N/A 2005 94 0,008 0 0 2004 98 0.008 0 0 2003 93 0.012 0 0 S02 (Annual) I None 1 0.030 ppm AAMd 2006 92 0.001 N/A No 2005 94 0.001 1 N/A No 2004 98 0.002 N/A No 2003 93 1 0.001 N/A No Percent of year where high pollutant levels were expected when measurements were made b For annual averaging times a yes or no response is given if the annual average concentration exceeded the applicable standard. For the PM,024 hour standard, daily monitoring is not performed. The first number shown in Days State Standard Exceeded column is the actual number of days measured that State standard was exceeded. The second number shows the number of days the standard would be expected to be exceeded if measurements were taken every day. With the Implementation of the federal 8-hour ozone standard, the 1-hour standard was revoked. The standard is shown for into" ation. d Annual Arithmetic Mean — Data Not Reported N/A Data not applicable to this standard. Source: CARB 2007. R9Pm)eds\NewponV003\Drah PM3.3 ArQuabty- 09187/.doc 3.3-12 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update TABLE 3.3-4 AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT MISSION VIEJO MONITORING STATION Poll U.— Z .... . . .... . ...... . ... . . Max 'Wdt:- a1+ys d State b Stan'daird Days Exceeded: National:. M b Sdafd:, 03 0.09 ppm for 1 hr 0.12 ppm` for 1 hr 2006 97 0.123 12 0 2005 99 0.125 3 1 2004 99 0.116 11 0 2003 99 0.153 16 4 03 0.070 ppm for 8 hr 0.08 ppm for 8 hr 2006 97 0.105 — 6 2005 99 0.085 — 1 2004 99 0.090 — 4 2003 99 0.105 — 8 Co 20 ppm for 1 hr 35 ppm for 1 hr 2006 99 1.8 0 0 2005 96 2.2 0 0 2004 97 2.4 0 0 2003 97 2.5 0 0 CO 9.0 ppm for 8 hr 9 ppm for hr 2006 99 1.6 0 0 2005 96 1.6 0 0 2004 97 1.5 0 0 2003 97 1.6 0 0 Particulates PM10 5-0 'pg/m for 24 hr 150 Pg/rnj for 24 hr 2006 75 57 1/6 0/0 2005 90 41 0/0 0/0 2004 94 1 47 0/0 0/0 2003 95 64 2113 1 0/0 Particulates PM106 20 pg/m 3 AA M° None 2006 75 57 1/6 0/0 2005 90 41 0/0 0/0 1 2004 94 47 0/0 0/0 2003 95 64 2113 0/0 Particulates PM2.5e None 65 pg/nn' for 24 hr 2005 — 35.3 N/A 0 2004 — 49.4 N/A 0 2003 — 50.6 N/A 0 2002 — 58.5 NIA 0 Particulates PM2.5 12 P9 /M3 AAMd 15 pg/nn AA Md 2006 --20-0-5 10.6 No No 2004 12.0 No No 2003 a Percent of year where high pollutant levels were expected when measurements were made. b For annual averaging times a "yes" or "no" response is given if the annual average concentration exceeded the :pplicable standard. N/A indicates that there is no applicable standard. For the PM10 24-hour standard, daily monitoring is not performed. The first number shown in "Days Exceeded State Standard" column is the actual number of days measured which the Stale standard was exceeded. The second number shows the number of days the standard would be exceeded if measurements were taken every day. Witt) the implementation of the federal 8-hour ozone standard, the 1-hour standard was revoked- The revoked 1-hour standard is shown for information. d Annual Arithmetic Mean On September 21, 2006, the USEPA announced that it was revoking the annual average PM10 standard and lowering the 24-hour PM2.5 standard to 35 pg/m3. The previous standards are presented as the new standards are not fully implemented at this time. Data Not Reported N/A Data not applicable to this standard. Source: CARB 2007. RAProjedsNew oftWOWNDran EIR\3.3 ArQuality-091807.dw 3.3-13 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E1R The federal 8 -hour 03 standard was exceeded one day each in 2003 and 2004 at the Costa Mesa Station. The standard was exceeded between one and eight days over the past four years at the Mission Viejo Station. The recently adopted State 8 -hour 03 standard has also been exceeded, but the CARB website is not currently reporting the total number of days. Based on data presented at the CARB website, the State 8 -hour 03 standard was not exceeded in 2006, was exceeded 2 days in 2005, and was exceeded at least 4 days each year in both 2003 and 2004 at the Costa Mesa Station. The standard was exceeded at least four days each of the past four years at the Mission Viejo Station. The data shows a distinct downward trend in maximum 03 concentrations and number of days with exceedances at the Costa Mesa Station. However, at the Mission Viejo Station there does not appear to be a trend in either maximum 03 concentrations or days of exceedances in the area. The State 24 -hour concentration standards for PM10 were exceeded 2 days in 2003 and 1 day in 2006 at the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station. This results in an estimate of 13 days of exceedances in 2003 and 6 days of exceedances in 2006 at the station because PM10 monitoring is not performed every day. The State annual average PM10 standard has been exceeded each of the past four years at the Mission Viejo Station. The federal 24 -hour PM10 standard has not been exceeded in the past 4 years at the Mission Viejo Station. There does not appear to be a noticeable trend in either maximum particulate concentrations or days of exceedances in the area. Particulate levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading operations, and motor vehicles. The federal 24 -hour standard for PM2.5 has not been exceeded in the past 4 years at the Mission Viejo Station. Note that on September 21, 2006, the USEPA revised the standard to 35 pg /m3. However, since designations for the revised standards will not be made until April 2010, only the number of days exceeding the original standard of 65 Ng /m3 is reported here. The State and federal annual average PM2.5 concentration standards were not exceeded in either 2004 or 2005 at the Mission Viejo Station. Complete data is not available for 2003 or 2006. There does not appear to be a noticeable trend in either maximum particulate concentrations or days of exceedances in the area. The monitored data shown in Tables 3.3 -3 and 3.3 -4 show that other than the 03, PM10 and PM2.5 exceedances identified, no State or federal standards were exceeded for the remaining criteria pollutants. Existing Emissions Because Hoag is developed, it currently generates air pollutant emissions. The primary source of emissions is generated by activity associated with staff, service, patient, and visitor motor vehicles. Other emissions are generated on the site from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. Off -site emissions are associated with the use of natural gas and oil for the generation of electricity. Table 3.3 -5 presents the estimated daily pollutant emissions attributable to existing Hoag operations. Hoag currently has 886,270 square feet (sf) of building space and generates 13,998 daily vehicle trips. Based on the uses and trip length data in the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook ( SCAQMD 2003), the average trip length at Hoag is 9.0 miles or 125,892 daily vehicle miles traveled associated with Hoag. R9Pr0je0tNNewp0MJ0081Drah EIR0.3 Ar0ualily.091807.doc 33-14 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.3 -5 EXISTING (2007) HOAG EMISSIONS vehicular Trips 1,533.1 161.7 303.0 15.8 11.2 1.5 Natural Gas Consumption 2.8 0.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 On -Site Electrical Generation 73.2 49.5 49.5 14.9 14.7 0.0 Total Area Emissions 1,609.1 212.0 369.3 30.7 26.0 1.5 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 Note: Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. - Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Table 3.3 -6 compares existing Hoag emissions to the SCAB's base year (2006) emissions, as presented in the 2003 AQMP. The table shows that the emissions associated with Hoag are a very small fraction of overall emissions in the SCAB. TABLE 3.3 -6 EXISTING HOAG EMISSIONS COMPARED REGIONAL EMISSIONS _. PWtufYiritEtmssons {tOt!S/ulrj CO RQG PO hMto _ . Existing Hoag Emissions 0.805 0.106 0.185 0.015 0.013 0.001 2006 South Coast Air Basina 3,973 730 950 293 - 60 Percentage of Basin 0.0203% 0.0145% 0.0194% 0.0051% - 0.0016% Sources: SCAQMB 2003 (Tables 3 -5A & 3 -513). Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Toxic Air Contaminants Emitted at the Hoag Cogeneration Facility As previously noted, Hoag's cogeneration facility has three permitted internal combustion engines fueled by natural gas, one boiler fueled by natural gas, and one standby internal combustion engine fueled by diesel. The cogeneration facility is designed to accommodate three additional future cogeneration natural gas internal combustion engines to meet anticipated power and heating demand of Hoag at buildout. Hoag's utility plant has five diesel engine generator sets, four natural - gas - fueled boilers, and two natural - gas - fueled heater /chillers. Table 3.3 -7 presents the cancer, chronic non - cancer, and acute risks for all existing equipment (cogeneration facility and utility plant) at Hoag. The existing peak receptor location is at the residences located west of the utility plant. As noted in the table, existing operations result in health risks well below SCAQMD's threshold. R1 Pr0jects \Newp0rtV008\DraR EIR\3.3 NrOuaity-091807.dm 3.3 -15 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.3 -7 EXISTING HEALTH RISK SUMMARY General Plan Policies The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan contains goals related to air quality. Relevant goals and policies are identified in Table 3.3 -18 with a project consistency analysis. 3.3.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The criteria used to determine the significance of potential project - related air quality impacts are based on the City's Initial Study and the Initial Study Checklist form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would: Threshold 3.3 -1 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, Threshold 3.3 -2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Threshold 3.3 -3 Exceed SCAQMD's construction and operational emissions thresholds. [The significance thresholds recommended in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook are presented in Table 3.3 -8, SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance.] TABLE 3.3 -8 SCAQMD REGIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Phase '' SCA.01. Eitisdng " Nt3x t€�k Type 0-11 #trek 4Slgrx'ficant?. Maximum Individual Cancer Risk 25 16.800 No (per million individuals) 55 150 Operation Hazard Index — Chronic (chronic 3.0 0.065 No non - cancer risk) 150 Source: SCAQMD 2003. Hazard Index — Acute (acute risk) 3.0 0.282 No ' SCAQMD Rule 1402 "Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources;' amended March 4, 2005. Note: Per million refers to per million persons exposed to the toxic air contaminants being analyzed. Source: CDM 2007. General Plan Policies The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan contains goals related to air quality. Relevant goals and policies are identified in Table 3.3 -18 with a project consistency analysis. 3.3.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The criteria used to determine the significance of potential project - related air quality impacts are based on the City's Initial Study and the Initial Study Checklist form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would: Threshold 3.3 -1 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, Threshold 3.3 -2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Threshold 3.3 -3 Exceed SCAQMD's construction and operational emissions thresholds. [The significance thresholds recommended in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook are presented in Table 3.3 -8, SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance.] TABLE 3.3 -8 SCAQMD REGIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Phase '' PWkitte t(I6si8ay} i+UC- Nt3x Cti , PRA1U PMze to Construction 75 100 550 150 55 150 Operation 55 55 550 150 55 150 Source: SCAQMD 2003. R:\Rajeds \N wpanV006\Drak EIM3.3 ArQuality- 01807.dac 3.3 -16 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR It should be noted that an exceedance of the thresholds presented in Table 3.3 -8 does not necessarily cause a violation or contribute to a violation of the federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) identified in Table 3.3 -1. The AAQS are in terms of pollutant concentrations, which are direct measurements of the level of exposure to the pollutants. Violations of the AAQS are measured at the ambient air monitoring stations operated by the SCAQMD and the CARB. The SCAQMD significance thresholds are measured in terms of total daily of pollutant emissions. Pollutant concentrations are dependent on the amount of pollutant emissions and weather patterns that disperse the emissions. Threshold 3.3 -4 Exceed SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for assessing health risk impacts. [These are presented in Table 3.3 -9 below. A project with impacts below these thresholds is considered to have a less than significant impact on long -term human health.] TABLE 3.3 -9 SCAQMD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS Threshold 3.3 -5 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Threshold 3.3 -6 Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. During preparation of the Initial Study, the City of Newport Beach determined that the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not have significant impacts for the threshold below and no further analysis is presented in this section. • The proposed Master Plan Update project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 3.3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impact Analysis Threshold 3.3 -1: Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? R:Troleos\Ne� 003\Draft Eim3.3 Arouafiry- 091e07.doc 3.3 -17 Section 3.3 Air Ouality and Human Health Risk SCAQMD Threshold ' .'. ilk ippe CumutaNve° .. . Iacremsnt . "' Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (per 25.0 10.0 million individuals) Hazard Index - Chronic (chronic non- 3.0 1.0 cancer risk) Hazard Index - Acute (acute risk) 3.0 1.0 a Cumulative Hoag health risks are compared to SCAQMD Rule 1402 forfacilitywide toxic air contaminant emissions (SCAQMD 2006b). Note: Per million refers to per million persons exposed to the toxic air contaminants being analyzed. Threshold 3.3 -5 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Threshold 3.3 -6 Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. During preparation of the Initial Study, the City of Newport Beach determined that the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not have significant impacts for the threshold below and no further analysis is presented in this section. • The proposed Master Plan Update project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 3.3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impact Analysis Threshold 3.3 -1: Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? R:Troleos\Ne� 003\Draft Eim3.3 Arouafiry- 091e07.doc 3.3 -17 Section 3.3 Air Ouality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Threshold 3.3 -2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Threshold 3.3 -3: Would the project exceed SCAOMD's construction and operational emissions thresholds? Threshold 3.3 -5: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Short-term Construction Impacts Regional Air Quality Impacts As previously noted, Final EIR No. 142 found that buildout of the Master Plan would result in significant, unavoidable air quality impacts during construction. The proposed Master Plan Update Project is limited to a reallocation of development previously approved in 1992 for Hoag. No specific projects are proposed. Therefore, a detailed analysis of air quality impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project cannot be performed. Because the proposed Master Plan Update Project does not change the allowable development of Hoag, the impact of air pollutant emissions with the Project would not be expected to change .significantly from development currently approved. Nevertheless, it can be reasonably assumed that temporary impacts would result from project construction activities. Air pollutants would be emitted by construction equipment; fugitive dust would be generated during grading and /or demolition at the project site; and VOCs (an ozone precursor) would be released during asphalt laying and the application of architectural coatings. Typically, the greatest levels of air pollutant emissions during construction activities occur during site grading and /or demolition. Operating more than 4 pieces of the largest heavy construction equipment for 8 hours a day or 6 to 8 pieces of smaller equipment for 8 hours a day would generate NOx emissions in excess of the SCAQMD's 100 pounds per day significance threshold. Active disturbance of more than 13.4 acres of exposed soil per day would be required to exceed SCAQMD's 150 pounds per day significance threshold for PM10 even when site watering is performed. During demolition, heavy equipment use would generate PM10 emissions and the debris haul trucks would also generate emissions. Heavy trucks traveling more than 2,500 vehicle miles (i.e., 50 trips with a 25 -mile, one -way trip length) generate NOx emissions greater than SCAQMD's 100 pounds per day threshold. For NOx emissions to remain below the significance threshold, truck trips would need to be significantly limited during construction because the combined emissions from the trucks and heavy equipment could greatly exceed SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Limitation of trucks and heavy equipment to the degree necessary to remain below the SCAQMD thresholds is not likely or feasible. Therefore, it is anticipated that project - related grading and demolition activities would result in a significant air quality impact. Other considerable emissions that can occur on a short-term basis include the off -gas (evaporative) emissions of VOC from the application of architectural coatings (e.g., painting) and off -gas emissions of VOC from asphalt paving. Based on the emission factor of 2.62 pounds per acre of asphalt paving (from URBEMIS2002), up to 28.6 acres could be paved daily without exceeding the threshold. It is unlikely that this amount of paving would be required WRrojepslNe pon\,C \Draft EIR43.3 NrQualiry-0 307.doc 33-18 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbytenan Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR at Hoag because the entire site is less than 38 acres. Therefore, asphalt paving is not expected to result in a significant air quality impact. Based on the emission factor of 0.0185 pound per square foot of painted surface (from URBEMIS2002), only 4,054 sf or less of surface could be painted each day without exceeding SCAQMD's thresholds of'significance. This is approximately 500 linear feet of an 8- foot -high surface. It is unlikely that painting would be limited to this amount. It should be noted that the emission factor used in this calculation assumes the use of paint with the highest VOC content available for use in the basin and the most inefficient method of application. While this might be very conservative, it is anticipated that VOC emissions during application of architectural coatings would exceed SCAQMD's 75 Ibs/day significance threshold. Local Air Quality Impacts The SCAQMD has developed a methodology to assess the localized impacts of emissions from within a project site (SCAQMD 2003). SCAQMD recommends, but does not require, comparing projects to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). The LSTs were developed to analyze the significance of potential local air quality impacts of projects and provides screening tables for smaller projects in which emissions may be less than the mass daily emission thresholds analyzed above. The SCAQMD also recommends project- specific air quality modeling for larger projects. Depending on the size and location of specific construction projects relative to sensitive receptors, it is anticipated that individual projects at Hoag would have a significant short-term localized impact for NO2. and PM10. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan Update Project is expected to have a significant impact on local air quality during construction. In 1998, the CARB identified particulate matter from diesel - fueled engines (Diesel Particulate Matter or DPM) as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). The majority of the heavy construction equipment used during construction would be diesel fueled and would therefore emit DPM. Impacts from toxic substances are related to cumulative exposure and are assessed over a 70 -year period. Cancer risk is expressed as the maximum number of new cases of cancer projected to occur in a population of 1 million people due to exposure to the cancer - causing substance over a 70 -year lifetime (Cal EPA 2003). Because of the relatively short duration of construction compared to a 70 -year lifespan, diesel emissions resulting from the construction at Hoag are not expected to result in a significant impact. Impact 3.3 -1: Significant Unavoidable Impact. Although the proposed Master Plan Update project would not generate any significant air quality impacts not previously disclosed in Final EIR No. 142, grading and demolition activities associated with the proposed Master Plan Update project may result in significant short-term PM10 impacts and would be expected to result in significant short-term NOx impacts. VOC emission thresholds are expected to be exceeded during the application of architectural coatings. Sensitive receptors could be affected by the increase in emissions over existing conditions. These short-term impacts would be reduced with proposed mitigation, but not to a level considered less than significant. Diesel particulate matter emissions would be less than significant. S RAPro W NewPort\JM80raft EIW3.3 ArQualily- 091807.doc 33-19 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Long -term Operational Impacts Local Air Quality Project Imoacts The primary potential source of local air quality emissions resulting from the Master Plan Update Project would be from motor vehicles as the Project is not expected to result in changes in on- site stationary emissions. As addressed in Section 3.1, Transportation and Circulation, implementation of both the existing Master Plan and proposed Master Plan Update Project would increase traffic volumes when compared to existing traffic volumes in the traffic study area. However, when vehicular trips for the existing Master Plan are compared to the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the proposed Project could generate less traffic. This would occur because of the transfer of allowable development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus, as well as the fact that inpatient uses on the Upper Campus generate less traffic than outpatient uses on the Lower Campus. While the proposed Master Plan Update Project is projected to result in fewer vehicle trips than the currently approved Master Plan, the proposed Project will change traffic distribution patterns which will increase traffic volumes at some intersections when compared with existing conditions. Increased traffic volumes on a roadway can cause pollutant levels to exceed ambient air quality standards. Carbon monoxide (CO) is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. For this reason, carbon monoxide concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network, and are used as an indicator of its impacts on local air quality. CO concentrations are highest near intersections where queuing increases emissions. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future CO levels with State and federal CO standards and by comparing future CO concentrations with and without a project to determine if a project's contribution is significant. Compared to future conditions with the existing Master Plan, the proposed Master Plan Update Project is projected to increase total traffic volumes during peak hours at four intersections: 1. Superior Avenue at Hospital Road 2. Hoag Drive/Placentia Avenue at Hospital Road 3. Superior Avenue at le Street/Industrial Way 4. Superior Avenue at 17th Street According to the Traffic Impact Study, each of these intersections is projected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) C or better with the proposed Master Plan Update Project for the peak period where the proposed Master Plan Update Project is projected to increase the volume. Superior Avenue at 17`h Street is shown to have an AM Peak hour LOS E for Existing and 2015 conditions with and without the proposed Master Plan Update Project and LOS D for 2025 conditions with and without the proposed Master Plan Update Project. The proposed project would not affect the AM peak hour traffic volume at this intersection. The proposed Master Plan Update Project is not projected to affect the level of service at these intersections compared to the existing Master Plan. Peak hour traffic volume increases due to the proposed Master Plan Update Project are less than five percent for all four intersections and would not be expected to alter CO concentrations significantly. Impact 3.3 -2: Less Than Significant. Based on the modeling from the AOMP and the fact that the proposed Master Plan Update project would not substantially affect intersection operation, in terms of CO generation, R: \Pro)Ws \NewpQrWD00 \Dr0 EIR3.3 ArOuafiy -wl OM.dm 3.3 -20 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memonal Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR all intersections in the vicinity would not be expected to experience CO concentrations in excess of the State standards. The Master Plan Update Project would not result in any changes in air pollutant emissions from stationary on -site sources that could affect local air quality in the vicinity of Hoag. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant local air quality impact. Regional Air Qualitv Impacts The primary source of regional operational emissions generated by Hoag operations would be motor vehicles. Other emissions are generated from the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating and by the on -site generation of electricity at the cogeneration facility. Emissions were calculated using the guidance presented in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and information presented on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook website (SCAQMD 2003). The emissions estimates presented below were calculated for the earliest expected buildout year of the Master Plan Update Project in 2015. Vehicular emissions are projected to decline in future years because a larger number of vehicles will comply with the more stringent (future) air pollution emission standards. Therefore, consideration of the earliest buildout year of the project results in the highest emissions generation by the project, and therefore provides a conservative or worst -case estimate of future project - related emissions. PM2.5 emissions due to natural gas combustion were calculated using the methodology presented in SCAQMD's "Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds" (2006a). The PM10 emissions were calculated using the above methodologies and then multiplying the PM10 emissions by the applicable PM2.5 fraction derived from emission source, using particulate matter profiles in the California Emission Inventory Data and Reporting System (CEIDRS) developed by CARB. This data indicates that PM2.5 emissions are 0.990 times PM10 emissions. Year 2015: No Additional Development In 2015, if no additional development occurs and Hoag remains at 886,270 sf of building space, air pollutant emissions from the existing Hoag facilities would be lower than existing conditions (2007) (see Table 3.3 -5) because of projected reductions in vehicular emissions associated with the more stringent (future) air pollution emission standards. Emissions related to natural gas consumption and electrical generation are not projected to change. The effect of the proposed project is measured against the change in emissions resulting from the implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Therefore, the emissions from the existing facilities are subtracted from the total facility emissions with the Master Plan Update Project to determine the change caused by the Project. An estimate of emissions under these conditions is presented in Table 3.3 -10. The table shows that emissions with existing land uses would continue to exceed SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for CO, VOC, and NOx. R1Prolens\NewponW008\DraB EIR \33 ArQuahty -0gl807 doc 3.3-21 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.3 -10 YEAR 2015 HOAG EMISSIONS: NO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ' Sauce 1,568.5 Roilutard £missions (tl�rday}a 296.7 1 27.6 Cfl voc NQx`? .'PpA1D,', PM25.' 25.4 0.0 Vehicular Trips 808.1 90.3 152.9 14.2 9.8 1.5 Natural Gas Consumption 2.8 0.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 On -Site Electrical Generation 73.2 49.5 49.5 14.9 14.7 0.0 Total Emissions 884.1 140.6 219.1 29.1 24.5 1.5 SCAQMD Thresholds 1 550 55 55 150 55 150 Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds? I Yes Yes Yes No No No a Year 2015 vehicular emissions are assumed to be lower than Year 2005 vehicular emissions due to the tact that higher emission vehicles would be phased out. Note: Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007, Year 2015 Without Project (Existing Master Plan) In 2015, the approved 1992 Master Plan for Hoag would allow for 1,343,238 sf of building space and would generate 27,153 daily vehicle trips (244,377 daily vehicle miles). Additionally, Hoag has identified that three additional generator units would be operational at the cogeneration facility. Table 3.3 -11 presents Year 2015 Hoag emissions with implementation of the development pattern and intensity assumed in Final EIR No. 142. Changes proposed as a part of the Master Plan Update Project are not assumed under this scenario TABLE 3.3 -11 YEAR 2015 HOAG EMISSIONS WITH EXISTING MASTER PLAN APPROVED LAND USES (FINAL EIR NO. 142) Vehicular Trips 1,568.5 175.3 296.7 1 27.6 1 19.0 2.8 Natural Gas Consumption 4.2 1.1 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 On -Site Electrical Generation 146.5 99.1 99.1 29.7 29.4 0.0 Total Future Emissions With Existing Master Plan 7192 275.5 421.2 57.4 48.5 2.8 Note: Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Table 3.3 -12 compares emissions with existing development in 2015 (Table 3.3 -10) with buildout of the existing Master Plan. As identified in the table, Year 2015 Hoag emissions would exceed SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for CO, VOC, and NOx with the development patterns and intensity assumed in Final EIR No. 142. Therefore, implementation of the existing Master Plan would result in a significant air quality impact. a:w�o�nsu�woonuooe\oran UR3.3 arouetiry- o5ieoTdoc 3.3 -22 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.3 -12 YEAR 2015 HOAG EMISSIONS INCREASE WITH EXISTING MASTER PLAN APPROVED LAND USES (FINAL EIR NO. 142) ': 5eo pnitutaMErtiissions(ibslday) i _ ! x PM1a Existing Uses in 2015 884.1 140.6 219.1 291 1 24.5 1.5 Existing Master Plan Buildout 1,719.2 275.5 421.2 57.3 48.5 2.8 Change In Emissions 835.1 134.9 202.0 28.2 24.0 1.4 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds? Yes Yes Yes No No N0 Note: Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. It should be noted that at the time Final EIR No. 142 for the Master Plan was prepared, the SCAQMD had not published its thresholds of significance. Final EIR No. 142 determined the project would not have a significant project - specific regional air quality impact. The finding was based on a comparison of Hoag Master Plan emissions to regional emissions for the basin and SRA 18. The previous analysis concluded that since the project represented such a small portion of regional emissions, it would not result in a significant impact. However, the emissions of CO, VOC, and NOx were projected to be greater than the subsequently published SCAQMD thresholds. Additionally, pollutant emissions identified for Hoag in Final EIR No. 142 are different than those presented in Table 3.3 -11 for all pollutants except VOC, CO, and NOx. Emissions of CO and NOx are projected to be 3 to 7 percent lower and VOC emissions are projected to be 92 percent higher. These differences are due to multiple factors. Vehicular emissions factors and emission factors due to on -site natural gas combustion have been updated since 1991. The cogeneration facility's emissions included in the emission estimate were not discussed specifically in Final EIR No. 142. Vehicular trip generation and trip length estimates for Hoag in 1991 are different from the estimates used to estimate emissions in Table 3.3 -11. The current trip length values are derived from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook which was published in 1993 subsequent to Final EIR No. 142 and trip generation rates have undergone several refinements since that time. Implementation of the existing Master Plan would results in a significant air quality impact when compared to the SCAQMD significance thresholds, including potential human health implications associated with each of the subject pollutants. As previously stated, Final EIR No. 142 included mitigation measures to reduce project - related emissions. These measures are presented in the Mitigation Program section. Year 2015 With Proposed Master Plan Update Proiect As proposed, in 2015, Hoag would have 1,373,045 sf of building space (same as the existing Master Plan) and would generate 23,782 daily vehicle trips and 205,209 daily vehicle miles traveled. This represents a 16 percent reduction in trips and vehicle miles traveled with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. This level of reduction would only be experienced if the full 225,000 sf is reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. The Proposed Master Plan Update Project - related emissions, assuming the full reallocation of 225,000 sf from the Lower to the Upper Campus, are presented in Table 3.3 -13. Emissions from on -site stationary sources are projected to be the same with either buildout of Hoag under the existing R:\ Projects \NewportUW9\Drafl EIR\3.3 Airnuahty -091807.doc 3.3 -23 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental OR Master Plan or with the reallocation of square footage assumed as a part of the Master Plan Update Project. The Project's emissions would exceed SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for CO, VOC, and NOx. TABLE 3.3 -13 YEAR 2015 HOAG EMISSIONS WITH THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT $Ct1PGe:' 'PoUutantElnlssfons ( tbstaatq CO UOC `:' Npx ? PM70 °:! PM2b`..: Sflx, Vehicular Trips 1,317.2 147.2 1 249.2 23.2 16.0 2.4 Natural Gas Consumption 42 1.1 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 On -site Electrical Generation 146.5 99.1 99.1 29.7 29.4 0.0 Total Future Emissions with the Proposed Master Plan Update Project 1,467.9 247.4 373.6 53.0 45.4 2.4 Notes: Assumes the full reallocation of 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Table 3.3 -14 identifies the net change in emissions that would occur at Hoag in 2015 with implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update Project (as compared to Table 3.3 -10). The SCAQMD thresholds are also presented. The Project would result in significant 'air impacts related to CO, VOC, and NOx, including potential human health implications associated with each of these pollutants. TABLE 3.3 -14 YEAR 2015 HOAG EMISSIONS INCREASE WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT S/xnarro CL? - .: Y13C . = NiSx ?:.:: PMiD .. '; Pttli2 Existing Conditions' 884.1 140.6 219.1 29.1 24.5 1 1.5 Proposed Master Plan Update Project 1,467.9 247.4 373.7 52.9 45.4 2.4 Change in Emissions 583.8 106.8 154.5 23.8 20.9 0.9 SCAOMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 Exceed SCAOMD Thresholds? Yes Yes Yes No No No a Year 2015 vehicular emissions are assumed to be lower than Year 2005 vehicular emissions due to the fact that higher emission vehicles would be phased out. Notes: Assumes the total reallocation of 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Table 3.3 -15 identifies the change in emissions associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project compared to future conditions with currently approved (but not yet developed) square footage at Hoag. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in lower 2015 emissions than the currently approved (Final EIR No. 142) land uses. This difference is due primarily to a reduction in projected vehicle trips. However, the maximum reductions would only occur with the reallocation of all 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. R.W,ojega \NewponV00B�ah EIRl3.3 A1TWa1iry- 091007.tlac 3.3 -24 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Lower reductions would occur with less reallocation. Transferring 225,000 sf to the Upper Campus would reduce the projected CO, VOC and NOx emission increases over the existing Master Plan by approximately 6 to 15 percent. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan Update Project, when considered by itself, does not result in a significant impact. Although implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in lower emissions than the approved development, overall development of the Hospital Master Plan, even as modified by the proposed Master Plan Update Project, would result in significant air quality impacts due to the exceedance of the SCAQMD thresholds. TABLE 3.3 -15 FUTURE EMISSIONS EXISTING MASTER PLAN COMPARED TO PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT +GorirHNon '' Pollutant Emissloris {ibslda ) Co;' tf0C Nox` PM10 _.. Pt112:5 S01c .. Year 2015 with Approved Land Use (Final EIR No. 142) 1,719.2 275.5 421.2 57.3 48.4 2.8 Year 2015 with Proposed Master Plan Update Project 1,467.9 247.4 373.7 52.9 45.4 2.4 Difference -251.4 -28.1 -47.6 -4.4 -3.0 -0.5 Lower Emission with Proposed Master Plan Update Project? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SCAOMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 Exceed SCAOMD Thresholds? Yes Yes Yes No No No Notes: Assumes the total reallocation of 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Impact 3.3 -3: Significant Unavoidable Impact. Although the proposed Master Plan update Project would not result in a significant impact when compared to the air quality impacts identified for the existing Master Plan in Final EIR No. 142, implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in an exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for three criteria pollutants: CO, VOC, and NOx. These impacts would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3 -4 and 3.3 -5, but not to a level considered less than significant. Threshold 3.3 -4: Would the project exceed SCAOMO's thresholds of significance for assessing project - related health risk impacts? (A project with impacts below these thresholds is considered to have a less than significant impact on long -term human health.) The potential health impacts were evaluated for cancer, chronic non - cancer, and acute risks using the HARP model. Table 3.3 -16 presents the risk values on a project and cumulative basis. The project refers to the three natural gas internal combustion engines that would be installed at the existing cogeneration facility to serve the buildout energy needs of Hoag.2 Cumulative is all existing and future equipment at both the utility plant and the cogeneration facility. The 2 The three additional engines are proposed for installation with Master Plan buildout, are not contingent on or necessitated by the proposed Master Plan Update Project. As such, they are not considered a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. R: \Project ewpoaWWDra1t EIR\3.3 AirQuality- 091807.doc 3.3 -25 - . Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR applicable rules are SCAQMD Rule 1401 and 1402 for toxic air emissions during the operations of the cogeneration facility. Rules 1401 and 1402 require that for existing facilities, the cumulative cancer risks should not exceed 25 per million, and the cumulative hazard index for chronic non - cancer and acute risks should not exceed 3.0 for any target organ. The incremental project cancer risks should not exceed 10 per million, and the incremental hazard index for chronic non - cancer and acute risks should not exceed 1.0 for any target organ. In addition, the cancer burden should not exceed 0.5 if the individual cancer risks exceed 1 per million. TABLE 3.3 -16 HEALTH RISK SUMMARY ' StkAQAMM 7lrresla c+ftl t ;;..Y ' , Project: SFgrlificanf? Rtslcly{fs ►altWaiive I�cremefttal" 'Risks'" t umulaHve$ is _. _.. ... ` Risks ; ." ' fumulative IelCreinenf' Maximum Individual Cancer Risk 25 10 20.6 5.70 No No (per million individuals) Hazard Index - Chronic (chronic 3.0 1.0 0.16 0.07 No No non cancer risk) Hazard Index — Acute (acute risk) 3.0 1 1.0 0.31 0.2 No No a Cumulative Hoag health risks are compared to SCAQMD Rile 1402 for facility -wide toxic air contaminant emissions (SCAQMD 2006b). Note: Per million refers to per million persons exposed to the toxic air contaminants being analyzed. Source: CDM 2007. As identified in the Table 3.3 -16, the peak residential cancer risk was calculated to be 5.7 per million, which is below the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of 10 per million. The peak cumulative cancer risk was calculated to be 20.6 per million; both occur at the closest residential units north of the cogeneration facility. The cumulative is also below the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of 25 per million. The Cumulative health indexes for both chronic non - cancer and acute risks were also modeled and are below the thresholds at all receptor locations. The cancer burden was evaluated as required by Rule 1401 if the incremental cancer risks exceed 1 per million. The highest cancer burden was determined to be 0.005 which is well below the SCAQMD threshold of 0.5. The breakdown of risk contributions by each chemical are provided in Appendix E, Health Risk Assessment on Cogeneration Plant Operations at Hoag Memorial Hospital (CDM 2007). Impact 3.3 -4:. Less than Significant Impact. Ongoing operation of the cogeneration facility would have a less than significant impact health risk impact based on the criteria set forth by the SCAQMD. Threshold 3.3 -6: Will the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Consistency with Air Quality Plan As set forth in the CEQA Guidelines §15125, an EIR must discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed Master Plan Update Project and applicable general and regional plans. Regional plans that apply to the proposed Master Plan Update Project include the AQMP. In this regard, this section discusses any inconsistencies between the proposed Master Plan Update.Project R'. \PrgectsV/ewpodWWB \Draft ElR\3.3 NrQa1ry- W8W.dx 3.346 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update and the federally approved 2003 AQMP. The purpose of the consistency discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed Master Plan Update Project would interfere with the region's ability to comply with federal and State air quality standards. If the project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP [General Plan] Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A project is consistent with the plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Handbook identifies two key criteria for consistency: 1. Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots). 2. Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Criterion 1: Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations. Based on the air quality analysis conducted by Mestre Greve Associates, implementation of the existing Master Plan and the proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in significant short-term construction and long -term operational impacts. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities may be greater than the SCAQMD thresholds, and air pollutant emissions associated with the operation of Hoag would increase over the SCAQMD thresholds with either the existing Master Plan or the proposed Master Plan Update Project. However, as discussed previously, emissions greater than the SCAQMD thresholds do not necessarily result in air pollutant concentrations greater than the AAQS. As identified in Table 3.3 -17, Hoag emissions are projected to be only a small fraction of the basinwide emissions. It is unlikely that emissions increases due to the project would considerably affect monitored air pollutant concentrations at the nearest ambient air monitoring stations where violations of the AAQS would be recorded. TABLE 3.3 -17 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE.PROJECT EMISSIONS COMPARED TO REGIONAL EMISSIONS Scenario,Cp Polluti�rii;fr+niasioft (tonsJday) Vi$C NOz PM10 PN12.5 `: Sox Proposed Master Plan Update Project 0.734 0.124 0.187 0.026 0.023 0.001 2020 SCAB 2,414 584 532 318 — 76 Project as % of SCAB 0.0304% 0.0212% 0.0352% 0.00820/6 — 0.0013% Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. The analysis for long -term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations are not projected to exceed any of the AAQS. The analysis for short-term construction impacts concluded that it is possible that construction activities could result in local pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the construction activities exceeding the AAQS. However, this exceedance would be localized to the area immediately surrounding the construction area and would not translate to a violation of the AAQS measured at nearby air RAProledS NMw 0W008\Drak EIM3.3 AirQualitO91807.d. 3.3 -27 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR monitoring stations. The Proposed Master Plan Update Project is not projected to increase the frequency or severity of violations of the AAQS. Therefore, the project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. Criterion 2: Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP. Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by comparing the project's population, housing, and employment growth with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the project's growth and associated emissions do not exceed those assumed as a basis for the AQMP. AQMP growth assumptions are based upon the general plans for cities in the SCAB. In addition, the currently approved AQMP's growth assumptions are based upon the City of Newport Beach General Plan, which includes the currently approved Hospital Development Plan (Final EIR No. 142). Land use assumptions from the City's General Plan were assumed in the 2003 South Coast AQMP. Emissions with the proposed Master Plan Update Project would be lower than with the development of the currently approved project (Final EIR No. 142), primarily due to a reduction in project vehicle trips. Since the AQMP predictions are based on the General Plan and the project would result in emissions reductions for all pollutants, the proposed Master Plan Update Project is consistent with the AQMP assumptions. General Plan Policies Table 3.3 -18 evaluates the consistency of the proposed Master Plan Update Project with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. TABLE 3.3 -18 CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT WITH AIR QUALITY- RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES oats and.P011ckes ';crnsdetencyrviaifioit .: . Goal NR 6: Reduce mobile source emissions. NR 6.4: Implement the Transportation Demand As set forth in Final EIR No. 142, the current Hoag Master Management Ordinance which promotes and Plan Project is required to comply with all applicable encourages the use of alternative transportation SCAQMD regulations that pertain to trip reductions. The modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle Project must also comply with the City's Transportation lanes that support such alternative modes. (Imp 7.3, Demand Management Ordinance. Further, Hoag is required 16.8, 16.11) to provide new employees with information regarding NR 6.5: Collaborate with local transit agencies to: ridesharing services and programs. The Mitigation Program develop programs and educate employers about also requires that each phase of Master Plan development employee rideshare and, transit; establish mass include carpool parking; bicycle racks; showers and lockers; transit mechanisms for the reduction of work - related a ridesharing vehicle loading area; vanpool parking; and and non - work- related vehicle trips; promote mass bus stop improvements. The. exact number of facilities will transit ridership through careful planning of routes, be determined by the City based on the project - specific headways, origins and destinations, and types of land use at Hoag. The proposed Master Plan Update vehicles; and develop bus shelters, bicycle lanes, and Project would be required to continue to comply with these other bicycle facilities. (Imp 14.4, 14.9, 16.8, 29.1) requirements. NR 6.9: Provide education to the public on mobile source emission reduction techniques such as using alternative modes of transportation. (Imp 29.1) Goal NR 7: Reduced air pollutant emissions from stationary sources. NR 7.2: Require the use of best Management The Mitigation Program adopted in .Final EIR No. 142 Practices (BMPs) to minimize pollution and to reduce includes measures to minimize stationary source emissions source emissions. (Imp 7.1) including those related to energy efficiency and regulated stationary equipment that requires permits from the SCAQMD. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would R'APm1e Mlewpor% W8M,.k OR 13.3 AoGuaMy-091607.d. 3.3 -26 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.3 -18 (Continued) CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT WITH AIR QUALITY- RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES Qoafs arrd Policies' Consistency EvaluaUcn be required to continue to comply with these measures. As such, the proposed Master Plan Update Project is consistent with Policy NR 7.2. Goal NR 8: Reduced air pollutant emissions from construction activities. NR 8.1: Require developers to use and operate Compliance with Policy NR 8.1 is required by the SCAClMD construction equipment, use building materials and for the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Mitigation paints, and control dust created by construction Measure 3.3 -1 in this SEIR requires compliance with activities to minimize air pollutants. (Imp 7.1) SCAOMD'S Rule 403 which states, `No person shall conduct active operations without utilizing the best available control measures included in Table 1 of this Rule to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type within the active operation." This SEIR requires that all applicable Rule 403 measures be applied to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. As such, the proposed Master Plan Update Project is consistent with Policy NR 7.2. Impact 3.3 -5: Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the relevant goals and policies related to air quality. 3.3.7 MITIGATION PROGRAM The measures discussed below were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Update. Mitigation measure numbering reflects that provided in Resolution No. 92 -43 for certification of Final EIR No. 142. Minor modifications to the mitigation measures are proposed to reflect the current status of the Master Plan Update Project; some of the mitigation measures in Final EIR No. 142 have been implemented and are no longer applicable. Str+keewtext is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. No additional mitigation is required as a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Protect Design Features No project design features are proposed related to air quality and human health risk. Standard Conditions and Requirements The City's applicable standard conditions and requirements related to air quality and human health risk are incorporated into the Mitigation Program adopted as a part of Final EIR No 142. Mitigation Measures Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Final EIR No. 142 included several mitigation measures related to air quality. The adopted measures are presented below in three categories: (1) Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward; (2) Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision; and (3) Mitigation Measures No Longer Required. A rationale is provided for each measure in categories 2 and 3. Three new mitigation measures are provided to further reduce significant air quality impacts. R:�mletls \Newp nW0080rafl EIR13.3 AirQualfty- 091907.dm 3.3 -29 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward Short -term Construction Emissions 82 s Before the issuance of building permits, Building Department, City of Newport applicable District Rules, including Rule Nuisance. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Beach demonstrating compliance with all 401and Visible Emissions, Rule 402, Public 89. The Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that methods and materials which minimize VOC emissions have been employed where practical, available and where value engineering allows it to be feasible. 106. Project Sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall be performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance, which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, erosion and siltation control, noise, and other grading related activities. 110. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that low emission mobile and stationary equipment is utilized during construction, and low sulfur fuel is utilized in stationary equipment, when available. Evidence of this fact shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any grading or building permit. Long -term Operational., Energy Efficiency 37. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of development, the project proponent shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that energy efficient lighting has been incorporated into the project design. 88. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase of development, verifying that energy efficiency will be achieved by incorporating appropriate technologies and systems into future structures, which may include: • High efficiency cooling /absorption units • Thermal storage and ceramic cooling towers • Cogeneration capabilities • High efficiency water heaters • Energy efficient glazing systems • Appropriate off -hour heating /cooling /lighting controls • Time clocks and photovoltaic cells for lighting controls • Efficient insulation systems • Light colored roof and building exteriors • PL lighting and fluorescent lighting systems • Motion detector lighting controls • Natural interior lighting — skylights, clerestories • Solar orientation, earth berming and landscaping 3 Measure 82 also serves as an energy efficiency mitigation measure. R9ProjeasWewP0MJWBADMfi EIR3.3 ArDualy- oiiSW.tloc 3.3 -30 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Oran Supplemental EIR 96. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that the thermal integrity of new buildings is improved with automated time clocks or occupant sensors to reduce the thermal load. 97. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods have been incorporated into building designs. 98. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate that building designs incorporate efficient heating units and other appliances, such as water heater, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. 99. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate into building designs, where feasible, passive solar designs and solar heaters. Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision Long -term Operational 36. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment incorporated within each phase. An air quality analysis shall be conducted prior to each phase of development for the proposed mechanical equipment contained within that phase that identifies additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment to be installed in the phase. it the new emis6ians, Rationale: Mitigation Measure 36 requires verification of necessary permits from the SCAQMD for regulated equipment. It further states that if the new emissions result in impacts not previously considered or that will significantly change the land use impact, appropriate CEQA documentation shall be prepared prior to issuance of any permits for that phase of development. This mitigation measure is combining two processes. The SCAQMD would review the data pertaining to the use of regulated equipment. In order for the Applicant to receive the required permit, the project would need to meet the SCAQMD- established standards. The issue pertaining to new significant impacts associated with emissions or land use impacts would not be within SCAQMD's jurisdiction, so to avoid confusion this portion of the mitigation measure is recommended for deletion. The City of Newport Beach would continue to be responsible for ensuring that appropriate CEQA documentation is prepared. The recommended changes are shown below. Strikes is used to show deleted wording. This measure would continue to apply to the proposed Hoag Hospital Master Update Project. 38. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of Master Plan development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorporate the site development requirements of Ordinance No. 91 -16, as appropriate, to the Traffic Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and Planning Commission approval. Requirements outlined in the Ordinance include: RAPrgec \NemW\J008Tmfl EIRl3.3 ArQUaRy- 091 807AM 3.3-31 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR a. A minimum of five percent of the provided parking at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These parking spaces shall be located near the employee entrance or at other preferred locations. b. A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employees shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided at such time as demands warrants. c. A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. d. Information of transportation alternatives shall be provided to all employees. e. A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated in the parking area. f. The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. g. Bus stop improvements shall be coordinated with the Orange County Transportation Authority, consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 30 required —fG fieyelepmet#s- -Ivied all ,..Haas wheFe ti!:= .ansd' G,...,. 9F is ntiG ated We Ye 5'9aFG. The exact number of each of the above facilities within each phase of the Master Plan shall be determined by the City during review of grading and building permit applications for each phase. The types and numbers of facilities required of each phase will reflect the content of the Ordinance at the time that a permit application is deemed complete by the Planning Department. Rationale: For Mitigation Measure 38, a revision to item "g" is proposed to cross - reference Mitigation Measure 30, which pertains to bus turnouts. The location and design of bus turnouts is within jurisdiction of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The recommended changes are shown below. Strikeeattext is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. Mitigation Measures No Longer Required Short-term Construction Emissions 87. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department verifying that all roadways associated with the development of the Master Plan will be paved early in the project, as a part of Phase I Master Plan development construction activities. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 87 was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented; all roads are paved. 105. The project sponsor shall ensure that all trucks used for hauling material shall be covered to minimize material loss during transit. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 105 is covered by the California Vehicle Code, which requires covering or adequate freeboard (i.e., the height of the side wall above the load) to minimize material loss. R'. \P,0jeds \Newp0rN008\ a E1R\3.3 A10.a ly- W1807AM 3.332 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 106. Project sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall be performed with the Newport Beach Grading Ordinance which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, erosion and siltation control, noise, and other grading related activities. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 106 addresses compliance with the City's Grading Ordinance, which is required of all grading activity in the City. 107. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during earth moving operations. To further reduce dust generation, grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour (MPH), and soil binders should be spread on construction sites or unpaved areas. Additional measures to control fugitive dust include street sweeping of roads used by construction vehicles and wheel washing before construction vehicles leave the site. Rationale: SCAQMD's Rule 403 has been amended since adoption of Final EIR No. 142. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -1, below, reflects current requirements and is recommended to replace Mitigation Measure 107. 109. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each phase of construction the Project Sponsor shall submit an analysis to the City Building Department that documents the criteria emissions factors for all stationary equipment to be used during that phase of construction. The analysis shall utilize emission factors contained in the applicable SCAQMD Handbook. The analysis shall also be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review and approval. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 109 is proposed for deletion because it is vague. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2, below, would achieve the same results (or better) and provides a greater level of specificity. 121. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each individual phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a CO hot spot analysis for the subject phase of development. This analysis shall utilize the EMFAC7EP emission factor program for the buildout year of the subject phase of development and the CALINE4 CO hot spot model or the model recommended for such analysis at that time. The results of this analysis shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review. City staff will verify consistency with the results of the project buildout CO analysis. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 121 is proposed for deletion because the analysis shows that the Project is not projected to result in a CO hot spot at any intersections affected by the project. Further, the SCAB is technically in attainment of the CO ambient air quality standards and the AQMP contains a CO attainment demonstration that shows that CO concentrations do not exceed the ambient air quality standard even at the four worst intersections in the basin. RAProjens \Ne WnM008 \Draft EIR\3.3 P Qua ity- 091807.dw 3.3 -33 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental EIR Additional Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts of the Proposed Master Plan Update Project Short-term Construction Emissions Particulate Emissions MM 3.3 -1 During construction of the Project, the Applicant and its Contractors shall be required to comply with regional rules, which assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with 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. Two options are presented in Rule 403: monitoring of particulate concentrations or active control. Monitoring involves a sampling network around the project with no additional control measures unless specified concentrations are exceeded. The active control option does not require any monitoring, but requires that a list of measures be implemented starting with the first day of construction. Rule 403 requires that "No person shall conduct active operations without utilizing the best available control measures included in Table 1 of this Rule to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type within the active operation." The measures from Table 1 of Rule 403 are presented in this SEIR as Table A. It is required that all applicable and feasible measures in Table A are implemented. At this time, specific construction projects are not specified so it is unknown which measures will be applicable and feasible. All applicable and feasible control measures for each source category used during construction shall be implemented. Prior to permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a list of applicable measures that will be implemented along with a list of inapplicable and infeasible measures that will not be implemented for the specific construction project. Rule 403 requires that "Large Projects" implement additional measures. A Large Project is defined as "any active operations on property which contains 50 or more acres of disturbed surface area, or any earthmoving operation with a daily earthmoving or throughput volume of 5,000 cubic yards for more than three times during the most recent 365 day period." Grading of the project is not considered a Large Project under Rule 403. However, the project shall implement all applicable and feasible measures specified in Table 2 (presented in this SEIR as Table B) to the greatest extent possible. This results in a higher reduction of fugitive dust emissions than would be achieved through complying solely with Table A. At this time, specific construction projects are not specified so it is unknown which measures will be applicable and feasible. Prior to permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a list of applicable measures that will be implemented for the specific construction project along with justification for the infeasibility finding. Rule 403 also requires that the construction activities "shall not cause or allow PM10 levels to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter [pg /m3] when determined by simultaneous sampling, as the difference between upwind and downwind sample" Projects that cannot meet this performance standard are required to R.Tr jwsWewpoTt4OWDr EIR\3.3 Nrpuali"180 .doc 3.3 -34 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR implement the applicable actions specified in Table 3 of Rule 403 (presented in this SEIR as Table C). Rule 403 requires that that the Project shall not "allow track -out to extend 25 feet or more in cumulative length from the point of origin from an active operation." All track -out from an active operation is required to be removed at the conclusion of each workday or evening shift. Any active operation with a disturbed surface area of five or more acres or with a daily import or export of 100 cubic yards or more of bulk materials must use at least one of the measures listed in Table D at each vehicle egress from the site to a paved public road. Construction Equipment Emissions MM 3.3 -2 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the Applicant shall include the following notes on the Contractor Specifications submitted for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Department of Public Works: To reduce construction equipment emissions, the following measures shall be implemented: • Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. • Use existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when available. This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators. • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Minimize obstruction of through- traffic lanes. Construction shall be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum. • Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off -peak hours when possible. • Develop a Traffic Plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service). MM 3.3 -3 Prior to issuance of each building permit for the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the Applicant shall include the following notes on the Contractor Specifications submitted for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Department: • Minimize the amount of paint used by using pre- coated, pre - colored, and naturally colored building materials. • Use high- transfer efficiency painting methods such as HVLP (High Volume Low Pressure) sprayers and brushes /rollers were possible. R:PwjecY Iewpool OOB%Dre EIR\3.3 Nrouality- MW7.doc 3.3 -35 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE A REQUIRED BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (RULE 403 TABLE 1) Backfflling 01 -1 Stabilize backfill material when not actively handling; and 01.2 Stabilize backfill material during handling; and 01 -3 Stabilize soil at completion of activity. Clearing and Grubbing 02 -1 Maintain stability of soil through pre- watering of site prior to clearing and grubbing; and 02.2 Stabilize soil during clearing and grubbing activities; and 02 -3 Stabilize soil immediately after clearing and grubbing activities. ring Forms 03.1 Use water spray to clear forms; or 03 -2 Use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; or 03.3 Use vacuum system to clear forms. 04 -1 Stabilize surface soils prior to operation of support equipment; and 04 -2 Stabilize material after crushing. Cut and Fill 05.1 Pre -water soils prior to cut and fill activities; and 05 -2 Stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities. Demolition — Mechanical/Manual 06 -1 Stabilize wind erodible surfaces to reduce dust; and 06 -2 Stabilize surface soil where support equipment and vehicles will operate; and 06 -3 Stabilize loose soil and demolition debris; and O6 -4 Comply with AQMD Rule 403. Disturbed Soil 07 -1 Stabilize disturbed soil throughout the construction site; and 07 -2 Stabilize disturbed soil between structures • Mix backfill soil with water prior to moving • Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to backfilling equipment • Empty loader bucket slowly so that no dust plumes are generated • Minimize drop height from loader bucket • Maintain live perennial vegetation where possible • Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes • Use of high pressure air to clear forms may cause exceedance of Rule requirements • Follow permit conditions for crushing equipment • Pre-water material prior to loading into crusher • Monitor crusher emissions opacity • Apply water to crushed material to prevent dust • For large sites, pre -water with sprinklers or water trucks and allow time for penetration • Use water trucks /pulls to water soils to depth of cut prior to subsequent cuts • Apply water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes • Limit vehicular traffic and disturbances on soils where possible • If interior block walls are planned, install as early as possible • Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust FOProjed \Newpoq WMDrall ElR\3.3 ArOualiiy- IW7.dM 3.3 -36 Section 3.3 Air Qua* and Human Health Risk 08-1 08 -2 08 -3 09 -1 09 -2 09 -3 09 -4 09 -5 10 -1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SuDDlemental E1R TABLE A (Continued) REQUIRED BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (RULE 403 TABLE 1) Source Category d .... Col Measure.- Guidonce Activities Pre -apply water to depth of proposed cuts; and Re -apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and Stabilize soils once earth - moving activities are of Bulk Materials Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and Maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and Stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and Stabilize material while unloading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and ComDIV with Vehicle Code Section 23114. Stabilize soils, materials, slopes • Grade each project phase separately, timed to coincide with construction phase • Upwind fencing can prevent material movement on site • Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes • Use tarps or other suitable enclosures on haul trucks • Check belly -dump truck seals regularly and remove any trapped rocks to prevent spillage • Comply with track -out prevention /mitigation requirements • Provide water while loading and unloading to reduce visible dust plumes • Apply water to materials to stabilize and maintain materials in a crusted condition • Maintain effective cover over materials • Stabilize sloping surfaces using soil binders until vegetation or ground cover can effectively stabilize the slopes • Hvdroseed Prior to rain season II Road Shoulder Maintenance 0 11 -1 Apply water to unpaved shoulders prior to clearing; and 11 -2 Apply chemical dust suppressants and/or washed gravel to maintain a stabilized surface after completing road shoulder maintenance. Screening 12 -1 Pre -water material prior to screening; and 12 -2 Limit fugitive dust emissions to opacity and plume length standards; and 12 -3 Stabilize material immediately after screening. Anus 13 -1 Stabilize staging areas during use; and 13 -2 Stabilize staging area soils at project completion. kpilest Bulk Material Handling 14 -1 Stabilize stockpiled materials. 14 -2 Stockpiles within 100 yards of off -site occupied buildings must not be greater than eight feet in height; or must have a road bladed to the top to allow water truck access or must have an R:\ Projects \NewpodW008\Drefi EIR \3.3 AirQu ity- 091 807.doc 3.3 -37 • Installation of curbing and /or paving of road shoulders can reduce retuning maintenance costs • Use of chemical dust suppressants can inhibit vegetation growth and reduce future road shoulder maintenance costs • Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to screening operation • Drop material through the screen slowly and minimize drop height • Install wind barrier with a porosity of no more than 50% upwind of screen to the height of the drop point • Limit size of staging area • Limit vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour • Limit number and size of staging area entrances /exists • Add or remove material from the downwind portion of the storage pile • Maintain storage piles to avoid steep sides or faces Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental OR TABLE A (Continued) REQUIRED BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (RULE 403 TABLE 1) Source cstegorg ; Contr6f measure operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. Traffic Areas for Construction Activities 15 -1 Stabilize all off -road traffic and parking areas; . Apply gravel /paving to all haul routes as soon as and possible to all future roadway areas 15 -2 Stabilize all haul routes; and . Barriers can be used to ensure vehicles are only 15 -3 Direct construction traffic over established haul used on established parking areas /haul routes routes. Trenching 16 -1 Stabilize surface soils where trencher or . Pre - watering of soils prior to trenching is an excavator and support equipment will operate; effective preventive measure. and . For deep trenching activities, pre- trench to 18 16.2 Stabilize soils at the completion of trenching inches, soak soils via the pre- trench, and resume activities. trenching • Washing mud and soils from equipment at the conclusion of trenching activities can prevent crusting and drying of soil on equipment Truck Loading 17 -1 Pre-water material prior to loading; and * Empty loader bucket such that no visible dust 17.2 Ensure that freeboard exceeds six inches plumes are created (CVC 23114) . Ensure that the loader bucket is close to the truck to minimize drop height while loading Turf Overseeding 18 -1 Apply sufficient water immediately prior to • Haul waste material immediately off -site conducting turf vacuuming activities to meet opacity and plume length standards; and 18 -2 Cover haul vehicles prior to exRing the site. Unpaved Roads/Parking Lots 19 -1 Stabilize soils to meet the applicable Restricting vehicular access to established performance standards; and unpaved travel paths and parking lots can reduce 19 -2 Limit vehicular travel to established unpaved stabilization requirements roads (haul routes) and unpaved parking lots. Vacant Land 20 -1 In instances where vacant lots are 0.10 acre or larger and have a cumulative area of 500 square feet or more that are driven over and/or used by motor vehicles and /or off -road vehicles, prevent motor vehicle and /or off -road vehicle trespassing, parking and/or access by „ installing barriers, curbs, fences, gates, posts, signs, shrubs, trees or other effective control measures. Source: SCAQMD 2DD5. R9Pru)e0slNewpor61 WDrah EIRV3.3 NrOuallty -091807.dw 3.3.38 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE B DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS (RULE 403 TABLE 2) R.Wroje S \NewportW0 \Drah EIR\3.3 Nr4ualUy -0918N,do 3.3 -39 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Pugttide busf Source Category i"onftrol Aatwns.;, ; Earth - moving (except construction cutting and filling areas, and mining operations) (1 a) Maintain sal moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations each subsequent four -hour period of active operations; OR (1a -1) For any earth - moving which is more than 100 feet from all property lines, conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in length in any direction" Earth - moving: Construction fill areas: (1b) Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. For areas which have an optimum moisture content for compaction of less than 12 percent, as determined by ASTM Method 1557 or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer and the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. EPA, complete the compaction process as expeditiously as possible after achieving at least 70 percent of the optimum soil moisture content. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations during each subsequent four -hour period of active operations. Earth - moving: Construction cut areas and mining operations: 0c) Conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible emissions from extending more than 100 feet beyond the active cut or mining area unless the area is inaccessible to watering vehicles due to slope conditions or other safety factors. Disturbed surface areas (except completed grading areas) (2alb) Apply dust suppression in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. Any areas which cannot be stabilized, as evidenced by wind driven fugitive dust must have an application of water at least twice per day to at least 80 percent of the unstabilized area. Disturbed surface areas: Completed grading areas (2c) Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion; OR (2d) Take actions (3a) or (3c) specified for inactive disturbed surface areas. Inactive disturbed surface areas (3a) Apply water to at least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed surface areas on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, excluding any areas which are inaccessible to watering vehicles due to excessive slope or other safety conditions; OR (3b) Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface; OR (3c) Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. Ground cover must be of sufficient density to expose less than 30 percent of unstabilized ground within 90 days of planting, and at all times thereafter; OR (3d) Utilize any combination of control actions (3a), (3b), and (3c) such that, in total, these actions apply to all inactive disturbed surface areas. Unpaved Roads (4a) Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic at least once per every two hours of active operations [3 times per normal 8 hour work day]; OR (4b) Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic once daily and restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour; OR (4c) Apply a chemical stabilizer to all unpaved road surfaces in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. R.Wroje S \NewportW0 \Drah EIR\3.3 Nr4ualUy -0918N,do 3.3 -39 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE B (Continued) DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS (RULE 403 TABLE 2) FttgiFnt lt3us# Source tW gory Cptttrol AiCilDits'. - , .; Open storage piles (5a) Apply chemical stabilizers; OR (5b) Apply water to at least 80 percent of the surface area of all open storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust; OR (5c) Install temporary coverings; OR (5d) Install a three-sided enclosure with walls with no more than 50 percent porosity which extend, at a minimum, to the top of the pile. This option may only be used at aggregate - related plants or at cement manufacturing facilities. All Categories (6a) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified in Table 2 may be used. Source: SCAQMD 2005. TABLE C CONTINGENCY CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS (RULE 403 TABLE 3) RlPMpds\NWp\3006�e EI9\3.3 XrQua5iy- W$07.doc 3.3-40 Section 3.3 Air Qualify and Human Health Risk F ugrtFVe the ISO urow Category; Cotrtrol Actione Earth- moving (1A) Cease all active operations; OR (2A) Apply water to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving such soil. Disturbed surface areas (0121) On the last day of active operations prior to a weekend, holiday, or any other period when active operations will not occur for not more than four consecutive days: apply water with a mixture of chemical stabilizer diluted to not less than 1/20 of the concentration required to maintain a stabilized surface for a period of six months; OR (1 B) Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; OR (2121) Apply water to all unstabilized disturbed areas 3 times per day. If there is any evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, watering frequency is increased to a minimum of four times per day; OR (3121) Take the actions specified in Table 2, Item (3c); OR (4121) Utilize any combination of control actions (1 B), (2121), and (3121) such that, in total, these actions apply to all disturbed surface areas. Unpaved Roads (1 C) Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; OR (2C) Apply water twice per hour during active operation; OR (3C) Stop all vehicular traffic. RlPMpds\NWp\3006�e EI9\3.3 XrQua5iy- W$07.doc 3.3-40 Section 3.3 Air Qualify and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE C (Continued) CONTINGENCY CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS (RULE 403 TABLE 3) TABLE D TRACK -OUT CONTROL OPTIONS 3.3.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Short-term Construction Impacts Consistent with the findings of Final EIR No. 142 for the existing Hoag Master Plan Project, the proposed Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Project would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD's construction thresholds. The proposed mitigation program would reduce construction - related emissions, but not to a level considered less than significant. Therefore, short-term construction air quality impacts, including potential human health implications, would be significant even with mitigation incorporated resulting in a significant unavoidable adverse impact. Long -term Operational Impacts The proposed Master Plan Update Project could generate fewer pollutant emissions than would occur with the already- approved Master Plan because of trip reductions associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. The amount of reduction would be dependent on the fl;lProletlSWewpotlW0081Q2fl EIW3.3 ArQUWftY-H180i.WC 3.3 -41 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Control (A) Install a pad consisting of washed gravel (minimum -size: one inch) maintained in a clean condition to a depth of at least six inches and extending at least 20 feet wide and 50 feet long. (B) Pave the surface extending at least 100 feet and a width of at least 20 feet wide. (C) Utilize a wheel shaker /wheel spreading device consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipe, or grates) at least 24 feet long and 10 feet wide to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle under carriages before vehicles exit the site. (D) Install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. (E) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified items (A) through (D) above. Source: SCAQMD 2005. 3.3.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Short-term Construction Impacts Consistent with the findings of Final EIR No. 142 for the existing Hoag Master Plan Project, the proposed Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Project would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD's construction thresholds. The proposed mitigation program would reduce construction - related emissions, but not to a level considered less than significant. Therefore, short-term construction air quality impacts, including potential human health implications, would be significant even with mitigation incorporated resulting in a significant unavoidable adverse impact. Long -term Operational Impacts The proposed Master Plan Update Project could generate fewer pollutant emissions than would occur with the already- approved Master Plan because of trip reductions associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. The amount of reduction would be dependent on the fl;lProletlSWewpotlW0081Q2fl EIW3.3 ArQUWftY-H180i.WC 3.3 -41 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental EIR amount of square feet reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Therefore, compared to the long -term air quality impacts associated with the existing Master Plan, the proposed Master Plan Update Project's impacts could be reduced and would, therefore, be less than significant, However, consistent with the findings of Final EIR No. 142 for the existing Hoag Master Plan Project, the proposed Master Plan Update Project's operations would result in emissions of CO, VOC, and NOx, which would exceed the SCAOMD- established operational phase thresholds. The proposed mitigation measures would reduce these impacts, but not to a level considered less than significant. Consequently, implementation of the proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in unavoidable, significant long -term regional air quality impacts, including.potential human health implications. R'. \PrgeMt ewWo OC®\D EIR\3.3 Arpnallty.WW7.Eoc 3.3 -42 Section 3.3 Air Quality and Human Health Risk Hoag Memorial Hospital Prasbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4 NOISE Mestre Greve Associates prepared a noise assessment in August 2007 for the proposed Hoag Master Plan Update project. The noise assessment is summarized in this section of the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) and is included in its entirety in Appendix F. 3.4.1 BACKGROUND The previous Final EIR No 142 (1991) found that the project would not result in any significant traffic noise impacts but would contribute to existing noise level exceedances along five road segments: West Coast Highway from Superior Avenue to east of Bayside; Balboa Boulevard southeast of Newport Boulevard; Superior Avenue between 15`h Street and Placentia; Newport Boulevard between Balboa Boulevard and north of Hospital Road; and Dover Drive north of West Coast Highway. Final EIR No. 142 identified that the project's incremental addition to cumulative traffic noise impacts was a significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impact (page 5 -8). Final EIR No. 142 found that an exhaust fan was generating excessive noise levels resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was identified, but the fan is currently generating noise levels in excess of the mitigation requirements. Loading dock noise was not identified in Final EIR No. 142. However, the noise measurements performed for the exhaust fan analysis were in the general location of the loading dock. Grease traps were not in use at Hoag in 1991 and have only recently been implemented to comply with water quality regulations. Therefore, noise generated by the grease trap cleaning was not analyzed in the previous EIR. - Final EIR No. 142 also assessed impacts on the project from traffic noise. As a Master Plan, specific projects were not defined. The EIR concluded that patios and buildings located within the 65 CNEL roadway contours could be significantly impacted. Mitigation was identified. As addressed in Section 3.1 of this SEIR, Final EIR No. 142 found that the intensification of development on the Upper Campus would result in a significant unavoidable land use impact to residential units to the west when the combination with visual (shade and shadow) and noise impacts was considered. 3.4.2 NOISE CRITERIA BACKGROUND Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) and the frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound that is 10 dB higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; and 20 dB higher is judged as four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency - dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Exhibit 3.4 -1 provides examples of various noises and their typical A- weighted noise level. R9PM1a WewporN0080rek EIR134 Na 091807_a 3.4-1 Section 39 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIP Sound levels decrease as a function of distance from the source because of wave divergence, atmospheric absorption, and ground attenuation. As the sound wave form travels away from the source, the sound energy is dispersed over a greater area, thereby dispersing the sound power of the wave. Atmospheric absorption also influences the levels that are received by the observer. The greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence and the resultant fluctuations of the sound wave. The degree of absorption is a function of the frequency of the sound as well as the humidity and temperature of the air. Turbulence and gradients of wind, temperature, and humidity also play a significant role in determining the degree of attenuation. Intervening topography can also have a substantial effect on the perceived noise levels. Noise has been defined as unwanted sound, and it is known to have several adverse effects on people. From these known effects of noise, criteria have been established to help protect the public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. These criteria are based on such known impacts of noise on people as hearing loss, speech interference, sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Each of these potential noise effects on people is briefly discussed in the following narratives. Hearing loss is not a concern in community noise situations of this type. The potential for noise - induced hearing loss is more commonly associated with occupational noise exposures in heavy industry or very noisy work environments. Typical neighborhood noise levels, including very noisy airport environs, are not sufficiently loud to cause hearing loss. Speech interference is one of the primary concerns in environmental noise problems. Normal conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 65 dBA and any noise in this range or louder may interfere with speech. There are specific methods of describing speech interference as a function of distance between speaker and listener and voice level. Sleep interference is a major noise concern for traffic noise. Sleep disturbance studies have identified interior noise levels that have the potential to cause sleep disturbance. Sleep disturbance does not necessarily mean awakening from sleep, but can refer to altering the pattern and stages of sleep. Physiological responses are those measurable effects of noise on people that are realized as physical changes in the body (e.g., changes in pulse rate, blood. pressure). While such effects can be induced and observed, the extent to which these physiological responses cause harm or are a sign of harm is not known. Annoyance is the most difficult of all noise responses to describe. Annoyance is a very individual characteristic and can vary widely from person to person. What one person considers tolerable can be quite unbearable to another of equal hearing capability. Noise Assessment Metrics The description, analysis, and reporting of community noise levels around communities is made difficult by the complexity of human response to noise and the myriad of noise metrics that have been developed for describing noise impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify noise levels with respect to community response. Most of the metrics use the A- Weighted noise level to quantify noise impacts on humans. As previously identified, A- Weighting is a frequency weighting that accounts for human sensitivity to different frequencies. Noise metrics can be divided into two categories: single -event and cumulative. Single -event metrics describe the noise levels from an individual event such as an aircraft flyover or perhaps 94LtgecS \Ne PO 093\DMft EIM3.4 N018e091W0 We 3.42 .Section 3.4 Noise SOUND LEVELS AND LOUDNESS Of ILLUSTRATIVE NOISES IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS Numbers In Powdheses are the A -Scale weighed Sound Levelst for that Noise Event t URM cauUNITY Hommoasrnr LouoN ea crov PAMW ORfrem Sgad La.eb 130 MfOeryJmAYaaeTa6e-0RYMgA1r- eunrFro FYaaO Caner f 50 R. P301 oyga Tae1 nRq ,29a3Waztamm�a6 MO UNCOLOURfFRLY an'WW1 Sew. Cmm dTawe PW �Y crow on shouww mq 110d9W76TMmmlaW 110 Led8lewrn,04 ■odb-wR BMW M84M 100 W*s 7p -2m T~ fiW and" a arw m load Pew9r Mewerp6l 90 L p C.C- 1050Tak"(961. NenrLpepr Peass 90 dBW I R4mr m laud 6bfaa5de an a (90 4mlded Carnrwllm (9q Co Wmba WK189) Fwd 81rdr e0 am" 72Tw /"U~ Takeoff t961° Otmd 0 Glfsg fMd3e a6) sv aeWYTemmLad roh 5MPH 0100 R. 03) Olad TmK 63 AN11 @100 R. 0d1 0rbage Obpmm(SM 711 Y LAY MO." '0 Roan ManlewlV(W75j RmwoY@ so w hdn up 70 d/W 8*ft7m7TdW*(F6r vmum Cemm05 -M R9WRr Nryla»Take0f67r S-NIM M-Od.om 60 Fir Cadkafig Ur* 6100 R. 16N mNwadnr051701 Normal Cmxmaoom 00.0 60 deW V2 m LOW so faIRT lap Trandrnwof W0R.t5q P- Waeraw1w 50 OW Vl m lad 60 Nd W4 N6) Q.W Rrwraiol Fne NW b d8W us m Law 30 20 A Fu0@ic Dena Nwd YlrmpakV&5fw,l2q Rmov ef lwwat2R FwT= 1 i t�e aaarax„me 'AkaaRMiwA eeNnwapne66.VQ *asflanbynF@dMwOmR SOURM: Iwoaw6rale /bddflrarAa. www. M.ay HadawRaNa. cearal ld6M6YL:w6 O,a+k ip» N�l9l.l4d Vdeeen caad. tee L Lirauk. 19T F6 W 1 t..m hw1 fAF Fd+be1Y L Fca6ao Nemu.nr6e sy FMae aew Fwtlam Typical A- Weighted Noise Levels Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007 Exhibit 3.4 -1 �/ 07_ / c O N 5 N L T I N G Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft supplemental E1R a heavy equipment pass -by. Cumulative metrics average the total noise over a specific time period, which is typically 1 hour or 24 hours for community noise problems. Several rating scales have been developed to measure community noise. These account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man; (2) the variety of noises found in the environment; (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment; and (4) noise variations associated with the time of day. The rating scales are designed to account for the known health effects of noise on people described previously. Based on these effects, the observation has been made that the potential for a noise to impact people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. A number of noise scales have been developed to account for this observation. Two primary noise scales are the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). These scales are described in the following paragraphs along with the LDN and L( %) scales that are also used for community noise assessment. LEQ is the sound level corresponding to a steady -state sound level containing the same total energy as a time - varying signal over a given sample period. LEQ is the "energy" average noise level during the time period of the sample. LEQ can be measured for any time period, but is typically measured for one hour. This one -hour noise level can also be referred to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL); it is the energy sum of all the events and background noise levels that occur during that time period. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is the predominant rating scale used in California for land use compatibility assessment. The CNEL scale represents a time - weighted 24 -hour average noise level based on the A- weighted decibel. 'Time - weighted" refers to the fact that noise which occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 PM to 10 PM) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a "CNEL of 60 dBA," "60 dBA CNEL," or simply "60 CNEL." Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale for different types of communities are presented in Exhibit 3.4 -2. Ldn, the day -night .scale is similar to the CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. It is a measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day. In the Ldn scale, those noise levels that occur during the night (10 PM to 7 AM) are penalized by 10 dB. This penalty was selected in an attempt to account for increased human sensitivity to noise during the quieter period of a day, when resting and sleep are the most probable activities. L( %J is a statistical . method of describing noise which accounts for variance in noise levels throughout a given measurement period. L( %) is a way of expressing the noise level exceeded for a percentage of time in a given measurement period. For example, since 5 minutes is 25 percent of 20 minutes, L(25) is the noise level that is equal to or exceeded for 5 minutes in a 20- minute measurement period. The L(50) noise level is the median noise level. For half of the measurement period, the noise level exceeds the L(50) and half the noise level is less than the L(50). The L(90) is considered the background noise level and is the level exceeded 90 percent of the time. Noise Criteria The City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance and General Plan Noise Elementcontain the City's policies on noise. The City's Noise Ordinance applies to noise generated on one property as it RRrgedslNewpa&JK81DraB EIR13.4 Noise-0e18W.doc 3.4 -3 section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR affects a neighboring property. Typically, it sets limits on noise levels that can be experienced at the neighboring property. The Noise Ordinance is part of the City's Municipal Code and is enforceable throughout the city. The General Plan Noise Element identifies limits on noise levels from transportation noise sources, vehicles on public roadways, railroads, and aircraft. These limits are imposed on new development. New development must incorporate the measures to ensure that the limits are not exceeded. Components of the City's Noise Ordinance, Noise Element, and the PC Text are applicable to Hoag. City of Newport Beach Noise Element The General Plan Noise Element specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land uses impacted by transportation noise sources. The noise limits specified in the City's Noise Element are in terms of CNEL. The standard states that the exterior noise exposure level shall not exceed 65 CNEL and the interior noise exposure level shall not exceed 45 CNEL for residential and hospital land uses. City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance The Newport Beach Noise Ordinance is presented in three sections of the Municipal Code: Sections 10.26, 10.28, and 10.32. Section 10.28 "Loud and Unreasonable Noise" is what is often referred to as a "Nuisance Ordinance" because it does not contain any specific noise level limits. It prohibits 'the making, allowing, creation or maintenance of loud and unreasonable, unnecessary, or unusual noises which are prolonged, unusual, annoying, disturbing and /or unreasonable in their time, place and use are a detriment to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, general welfare and the peace and quiet of the City and its inhabitants." The specific provisions of Section 10.28 were revised substantially by the City in 2001, but the concept of the section was unchanged. Sections 10.28.040 and 10.28.045 are relevant to Hoag because they regulate construction noise and property maintenance noise. These Noise Ordinance sections limit the hours of these activities to daytime hours. Section 10.32 "Sound Amplifying Equipment" regulates the use of sound amplification equipment and provides for permitting of sound amplification equipment. Section 10.26 is the most relevant to Hoag because it presents specific standards for noise generated on one property so that it does not significantly impact adjacent properties. This section is summarized and the specific noise standards from the Noise Ordinance are presented below. Section 10.26 was adopted in 1995. Prior to that time (e.g., when Final EIR No. 142 was certified by the City of Newport Beach), the City had not established specific sound level limits. Table 3.4 -1 presents the Noise Ordinance standards identified in Section 10,26 of the City's Municipal Code. The Noise Ordinance is applicable to noise generated from sources such as parking lots, loading docks, and mechanical equipment. The Noise Ordinance requirements cannot be applied to mobile noise sources such as heavy trucks when traveling on public roadways. Federal and State laws preempt control of the mobile noise sources on public roads. However, the requirements can be applied to vehicles traveling on private property. R'. \P,ojegslNe pWWMW,N,afl EIRGA NdsEMaW.d.0 3.4 -4 Section 3.4 Noise CNEL Outdoor Location —90— Apartment Next to Freeway 3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport -80— Downtown With Some Construction Activity Urban High Density Apartment —70— -Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue �::z Old Urban Residential Area 1::: Wooded Residential I,.(--Agriculkwal Crop Land �4Q Rural Residential Wilderness Ambient —30— Searoz U.&&"wp "ka*ckn AgMSy V"dcW=WIZWM of Nose Indadina kWkWI=al WNW** and Adkvkq lwok Of[ W uMw NOW ear - MRaAWr 73.4, wn. cal Outdoor Noise Levels Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR Source : Mestre Greve Associates 2007 Exhibit 3.4 -2 C O N S U L T I N G Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Sunnlemental EIR TABLE 3.4 -1 CITY OF NEWPORT EACH NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS I ._ �I91'i g 1� ti t, I X a�a+ ao�pxA}rut Exterior Noise Standards I Residential: Single- family, two - Leq (15 min) 55 dBA 50 dBA or multiple - family Lmax 75 dBA 70 dBA II Commercial Leq (15 min) 65 dBA 60 dBA Lmax 85 dBA 60 dBA III Residential Portions of Mixed- Leq (15 min) 60 dBA 50 dBA Use Propertiesa Lmax 80 dBA 70 dBA IV Industrial and Manufacturing Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 70 dBA Lmax 90 dBA 90 dBA Interior Noise Standards - I Residential Leq (15 min) 45 dBA 40 dBA Lmax 65 dBA 60 dBA III Residential Portions of Mixed- Leq (15 min) 45 dBA 45 dBA Use Propertiesa Lmax 65 dBA 65 dBA ' Residential uses within 100 feet of a commercial property where noise is from said commercial property. The City of Newport Beach exterior and interior noise criteria is given in terms of 15 minute Leq and Lmax noise levels. The noise levels specified are those that are not to be exceeded at a property from noise generated at a neighboring property. Noise levels are to be measured with A- weighting and a slow time response. Greater noise levels are permitted during the day (7 AM to 10 PM) than during the nighttime period (10 PM to 7 AM). Section 10.26.055, "Noise Level Measurement," defines the locations where measurements can be made to determine compliance with the noise standards; it effectively defines where the Noise Ordinance standards are applicable. For residential areas, the exterior standard is applicable to any part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity. The standards are not applicable to non -human activity areas such as trash container storage areas, planter beds, above or contacting a property line fence, or other areas not normally used as part of the yard, patio, deck, or balcony. Interior noise standards are applicable anywhere inside the room at least four feet from the walls, or within the frame of an open window. Section 10.26.045 sets different noise standards for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. HVAC equipment "in or adjacent to residential areas" cannot generate a noise level in excess of 50 dBA unless it includes a timing device that will deactivate the equipment between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM in which the standard is 55 dBA. Section 10.26.35, "Exemptions," presents noise sources that are exempt from the provisions of the Noise Ordinance. Item L directly relates to the Hoag operations. Item L reads, "Any noise sources specifically identified and mitigated under the provisions of a use permit, modification permit, development agreement or planned community district development plan adopted prior to the date of adoption of this chapter.' The Development Agreement between the City and RAProjeclsWewportV00ffiDraB EIR \3.4 Noise 091807.doc 3.4 -5 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental ElR Hoag, which was adopted prior to the Noise Ordinance, as it affects allowable noise generation, is discussed below. Item G of Section 10.26.035 exempts noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property and instead requires that they be subject to Chapter 10.28 of the Municipal Code. Section 10.28.45 sets limits on the times of day that any 'tool, equipment or machine" can be operated "in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity." Specifically, the code section restricts these activities to between 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday. These activities are prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Hoag Hospital Development Agreement Item 3.5 of the Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Approved February 14, 1994, Ordinance No. 94 -8) reads as follows: Compliance with General Regulations. Hoag is required to comply with the Existing General Regulations. As to those Existing General Regulations which require the payment of fees, costs, and expenses, Hoag shall pay the fee, cost or expense required as of the data on which Hoag submits the application for Project Specific Approval. Hoag shall also comply with any Future General Regulations that do not impair Hoag's ability to develop the Property in accordance with the density, intensity, height and location of development specified in the Master Plan. Hoag shall also comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code, whether adopted before or after the Project Specific Approvals are submitted. Hoag shall also comply with the Coastal Act and the City's certified Local Coastal Program. Items 2.17, 2.18, and 2.19 define "Existing General Regulations," "Future General Regulations," and "General Regulations" as follows: 2.17 `Existing General Regulations" means those General Regulations approved by the City on or before the Approval Date (irrespective of their effective date) and not rescinded or superseded by City Action taken on or before the Approval Date 2.18 'Future General Regulations' means those General Regulations (see Section 2.19 below) adopted by the City after the Approval date. 2.19 "General Regulations" means those ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines of the City, which are generally applicable to the use of land and /or construction within the City and include, the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, Uniform Building Codes and water and sewer connection and fee ordinances. Item 3.5 of the Development Agreement exempts Hoag from the Noise Ordinance (Section 10.26 of the Municipal Code, a Future General Regulation) where the application of the Noise Ordinance would "impair Hoag's ability to develop the Property in accordance with the density, intensity, height and location of development specified in the Master Plan." In most cases, noise generated by activities at Hoag should be able to be mitigated to below the Noise Ordinance limits without impairing the development of the property, and the Noise Ordinance would apply to these cases. There could be some cases where enforcement of the Noise Ordinance would impair the development of the property and would not be applicable in these cases. R. \PrpjeRSVJewpon0008\DrOit EIR�3.4 Nose 09190T.dm 3.4-6 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Section II "General Notes" item 7 of the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (Adopted by the City Council, City of Newport Beach, Ordinance No 92 -3 May 26, 1992) reads: New mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops and utility vaults, excluding communications devices, on the upper campus shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with building materials. Rooftop mechanical appurtenances or utility vaults shall be screened on the lower campus. Noise shall not exceed 55 dt3A at all property lines. No new mechanical appurtenances may exceed the building height limitations as defined in these district regulations. This item preempts the HVAC regulations presented in Section 10.26.045 of the Noise Ordinance. Therefore, mechanical equipment at Hoag cannot exceed 55 dBA at the property line under the existing Development Agreement. Vibration Vibration is a unique form of noise that is carried through structures and the earth; most noise forms are carried through the air. Therefore, vibration is generally felt and heard. Some vibration effects are caused by noise; for example, the rattling of windows can be caused by truck pass - bys. This phenomenon is related to the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by man -made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Vibration can be caused by construction equipment working at or below ground level. Certain uses, such as residences and specific hospital uses, are considered vibration- sensitive because vibrations received by these receptors can be annoying or disruptive to sensitive activities. 3.4.3 METHODOLOGY The project study area is defined as the Hoag site and the immediately contiguous properties. Noise measurements were taken on Monday, November 21, 2005, between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM at three locations to determine ambient noise conditions. The locations of the noise measurement sites are depicted in Exhibit 3.4 -3. The purpose of the general ambient measurements is to document typical existing daytime noise levels in the Project study area and to determine if there are any additional unusual noise sources in the Project area that need to be addressed. The results of the noise measurements presented are not used in the determination of impacts. For traffic noise impacts, modeled traffic noise levels are used to determine impacts. For impacts from other noise sources, source - specific data is used. For the noise measurement survey prepared for this SEIR to determine existing noise levels a Bruel & Kjwr 2236 and 2238 automated digital noise data acquisition system were used. These instruments automatically calculate both the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and Percent Noise Level (L %) for any specific time period. The noise monitors were equipped with a Briiel & Kjwr Type 2260 Sound Level Meter (Serial #1772179) with a Bruel & Kjaer Type 4189 1/2" electret condenser microphone (Serial #2143233). The measurement system was calibrated before and after the measurements with a Bruel & Kjmr Type 4231 sound level calibrator, with current calibration traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Calibration for the instruments is performed annually and is certified through the duration of the measurements. This measurement system satisfies the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Standards 1.4 for Type 1 precision noise measurement instrumentation. K: rgeds\NewpodWDWOraft EIN13.4 Ndse091807.dm 3.4-7 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E1R Projected highway noise levels were calculated using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration (1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these equivalent noise levels and adding them gives the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. 3.4.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS Ambient noise measurement results are presented in Table 3.4 -2 in terms of average noise levels (LEQ), maximum noise levels (1-max), minimum noise levels (1-min), and percentile noise levels (L[ %]) during each measurement period. The L( %) value is the noise level that was exceeded for a percentage of the measurement period. For example, the L(50) percentile level represents that the noise levels were exceeded 50 percent of the time, and represents the median ambient noise level. The L(90) noise levels represent the background noise levels that are exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level. TABLE 3.4-2 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Noise levels at the three measurement sites were dominated by traffic noise. Site 1 is located on the eastern side of Superior Avenue in the condominium development just north of Sunset View Park. Traffic on Superior Avenue and, to a lesser extent, West Coast Highway were the dominant sources of noise. A large truck passing by on Superior Avenue resulted in the maximum noise level measured. Activities of persons in Sunset View Park, generally walking and talking, also contributed to the noise environment along with insects. Site 2 is located on the eastern side of Sunset View Park, just west of Hoag Road. Distant traffic on Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway was the dominant source of noise at the site. Activities of persons in the park, generally walking and talking, also contributed to the noise environment. A person talking relatively close to the sound level meter caused the maximum measured noise level. Site 3 is located to the east of Hoag across Newport Boulevard, along Old Newport Boulevard near the corner of Catalina Drive. Traffic on Newport Boulevard was the dominant source of noise with intermittent traffic on Old Newport Boulevard also generating considerable levels of noise. A bus passing on Old Newport Boulevard generated the maximum measured noise level. Existing Roadway Noise Levels The distances to the existing CNEL contours for the roadways affected by Hoag are identified in Table 3.4 -3. Only roadways projected to experience a 0.5 dB or greater traffic noise CNEL change are identified on the table. The noise levels presented in the table were calculated using the existing traffic volumes presented in the Traffic Study (LLG 2007) and posted speed limits. Existing traffic noise levels along all roadways analyzed for the project are presented in Table A -5 of Appendix F of this SEIR. The contours presented in Table 3.4 -3 represent the R1Pro*e \New r&J0081Dra1[ EIR.9.4 Ni. 91807.dm 3.4.8 Seddon 3.4 Noise Measure ltrnse Legit (c/6} She i Ttene t eq t {Ys lc) L(ttfj t {5t1�' Vii) i(mn) 1 4:16 PM 68.0 79.9 71.0 66.5 60.5 54.8 2 4:56 PM 62.9 76.0 65.0 61.0 57.5 55.2 3 5:44 PM 53.6 66.3 55.5 52.5 50.5 49.4 Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Noise levels at the three measurement sites were dominated by traffic noise. Site 1 is located on the eastern side of Superior Avenue in the condominium development just north of Sunset View Park. Traffic on Superior Avenue and, to a lesser extent, West Coast Highway were the dominant sources of noise. A large truck passing by on Superior Avenue resulted in the maximum noise level measured. Activities of persons in Sunset View Park, generally walking and talking, also contributed to the noise environment along with insects. Site 2 is located on the eastern side of Sunset View Park, just west of Hoag Road. Distant traffic on Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway was the dominant source of noise at the site. Activities of persons in the park, generally walking and talking, also contributed to the noise environment. A person talking relatively close to the sound level meter caused the maximum measured noise level. Site 3 is located to the east of Hoag across Newport Boulevard, along Old Newport Boulevard near the corner of Catalina Drive. Traffic on Newport Boulevard was the dominant source of noise with intermittent traffic on Old Newport Boulevard also generating considerable levels of noise. A bus passing on Old Newport Boulevard generated the maximum measured noise level. Existing Roadway Noise Levels The distances to the existing CNEL contours for the roadways affected by Hoag are identified in Table 3.4 -3. Only roadways projected to experience a 0.5 dB or greater traffic noise CNEL change are identified on the table. The noise levels presented in the table were calculated using the existing traffic volumes presented in the Traffic Study (LLG 2007) and posted speed limits. Existing traffic noise levels along all roadways analyzed for the project are presented in Table A -5 of Appendix F of this SEIR. The contours presented in Table 3.4 -3 represent the R1Pro*e \New r&J0081Dra1[ EIR.9.4 Ni. 91807.dm 3.4.8 Seddon 3.4 Noise * Noise Measurement Site Ambient Noise Measurement Locations Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007 Exhibit 3.4 -3 YC�1� C O N 5 U l T I N G iWs 3.4.3 NMI 082207 of Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR distance from the centerline of the roadway to the contour value shown. The values do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect traffic noise levels. TABLE 3.4 -3 EXISTING ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS West Coast Highway West of Orange Street 68.5 80 172 370 East of Orange Street 68.6 80 173 372 East of Hoag Drive 63.9 39 84 181 West of Newport Blvd. southbound Off-Ramp 64.1 40 87 187 West of Riverside Avenue 66.7 60 129 278 East of Riverside Avenue 66.0 54 116 251 Via Lido East of Newport Boulevard 57.9 RW 34 72 R:I roj c S\Ne OMQ0080rafl EIRl A Ndse09180T. JA-9 OUG"U" 0.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.4 -3 (Continued) EXISTING ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS CNEL at Roadway Segment I tOD ft ° Distance to CNEL Contow° (feet) 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Hoag Drive South of Hospital Road 53.0 RW RW 34 North of West Coast Highway 51.8 RW RW RW Riverside Avenue North of West Coast Highway 58.3 RW 36 77 Tustin Avenue North of West Coast Highway 49.3 RW RW RW Bay Shore Drive South of West Coast Highway 52.3 RW RW 31 Bayside Drive North of East Coast Highway 48.6 RW RW RW ' From roadway centerline RW: Noise contour fall within roadway right -of -way Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Table 3.4 -3 shows that noise levels along 16`h Street, Industrial Way, Orange Street, Prospect Street, Hoag Drive, Tustin Avenue, Bayshore Drive, and Bayside Drive are minor; the 65 CNEL contour does not extend beyond the right -of -way along these roads. Traffic noise levels along 17`h Street, Hospital Road, Via Lido, Placentia Avenue, Balboa Boulevard, and Riverside Avenue are moderate; noise levels directly adjacent to these roadways exceed 65 CNEL but do not substantially exceed 70 CNEL. Noise Levels along West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, and Newport Boulevard are substantial, exceeding 70 CNEL along the edge of the roadway. On -Site Use - Specific Noise Levels Noise measurements were performed to assess the noise levels associated with Hoag loading dock activities, cleaning of a grease pit, mechanical equipment, and the cogeneration facility. Condominium units are located along the eastern boundary of the Upper Campus close to the loading dock area. Noise measurements were performed on Saturday, August 13, 2005, between 8:00 AM and 12:00 PM to measure the levels generated by the grease pit cleaning and Wednesday, August 17, 2005, between 8:30 AM and 1:30 PM to measure the noise levels generated by general loading dock activities. Exhibit 3.4 -4 shows the location of the loading docks, grease pit cleaning area, and noise measurement sites. Noise levels were measured at Sites 1 and 2 on August 13, 2005, for the grease pit cleaning and at Sites 1 and 3 on August 17, 2005, for the loading dock activities. These sites were selected based on proximity between Hoag and off -site residential uses. Measurement Site 1 is located on the third floor condominium balcony at 260 Cagney Lane, Unit 304 (top floor of the condominium building). Site 2 is located at the northeastern corner of the 260 Cagney Lane building and is representative, of noise levels experienced at the first floor balconies of the building. Site 3 is located at the northeastern corner of the 280 Cagney Lane building. Two monitors were located at Site 3, one at 5 feet above ground level to represent noise levels experienced at first floor residential units and one at 15 feet above ground level to represent noise levels at second floor units. R:\PrgedsWeno"WOOMDraB EIR\74 Npse091807.dm 3.4-10 SeCtlon 3.4 Noise V ;Gat 9 prc`d�,�g pital Gceasen9 R °tip ��•� V 11 l f Ga9peY k � I �o _ t E: 7jt Noise Measurement Location Existing Noise Source Measurement Locations Exhibit 3.4 -4 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR $O/t� Gj Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007 R/ProocWN"po J0 W8 aphlc9 ExJ.4 -4 NSML 092207.pdt Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SuDDlemental EIR With respect to the cogeneration facility, the site was visited on October 3, 2006, to measure the noise levels from the chiller vents on top of the cogeneration facility building. The generator engines were not yet in operation at the time of the measurements. Noise measurement results were repeated on November 20, 2006, and July 2, 2007. On July 2, 2007, the cogeneration facility was in full operation including the generator engines that are enclosed in the building. Measurements were performed at the edge of Sunset View Park just north of the cogeneration facility, and just outside the balconies at the southern edge of the condominium building nearest to the cogeneration facility building, as depicted on Exhibit 3.4 -5. Near the balconies, measurements were performed at 5 feet above the ground and at 20 feet aboveground, the latter to represent noise levels at third floor units. For the July 2, 2007 measurements, two additional sites were measured. These sites were measured at the request of the residents with concurrence from City staff. The measurements were made along the western edge of the property very near the Hoag property line. (The measurements may actually be slightly inside the property line.) All measurements at the cogeneration facility were taken after 11:00 PM; noise measurements could not be made earlier because of traffic noise from Coast Highway. Grease Pit Cleaning With respect to the pumping of materials from the underground tank (grease pit), the grease pit is cleaned once a month on the second Saturday between 8:00 AM and 11:00 AM. The monthly cleaning of a grease pit separates grease from other materials to prevent it from entering the sewer system. During noise monitoring on Saturday, August 13, 2005, the grease pit cleaning crew arrived at the site at approximately 9:20 AM. The crew consisted of a van with a small trailer of equipment and a large diesel semi - trailer tanker truck. The tanker truck engine was left idling as the crew set up. The tanker truck engine generated a Leq noise level of approximately 65 to 66 dBA at Site 1 and 59 dBA at Site 2. The tanker truck engine idled for approximately 25 minutes as preparations were made for cleaning the grease pits. During this time, a manhole cover was removed and a small tent placed over it. The van was parked so that the trailer could back up to the tent. A fan with a water misting system was mounted on the back of the trailer and was pointed towards the tent; the tent and the fan are used for odor control. There were no unusual odors observed during the cleaning. At approximately 9:45 AM, the fan was turned on and ran for about 15 minutes as preparations continued. During this period, the combined idling diesel of the tanker truck engine and fan generated a Leq noise level of approximately 66 dBA at Site 1 and 61 dBA at Site 2. At approximately 10:02 AM, the cleaning of the grease pit began. The grease trap is cleaned by placing a hose down a manhole, and a pump (powered by the tanker truck's diesel engine) pumps material from the grease pit into the tanker truck. The diesel engine of the tanker truck is run above idling levels to power the pump. This generated Leq noise levels between 76 and 78 dBA at Site 1 and between 70 and 73 dBA at Site 2. The pumping continued for approximately 70 minutes with short breaks to move the hose between the 3 manholes, which required relocation of the van and the tanker truck. Typically, relocation took two to four minutes. For a continuous 70 minute period (with 3 breaks), the noise level at Site 1 was approximately 77 dBA (17 dB above the 60 dBA Noise Ordinance limit) and the noise level at Site 2 was approximately 72 dBA (12 dBA above the Noise Ordinance limit). A 10 dB difference is perceived as a doubling or halving of the noise level. Therefore, the noise level at Site 1 during the pumping operations is almost four times greater, and the noise level at Site 2 was more than two times greater than permitted by the Noise Ordinance limit. During grease pit cleaning, the 80 dBA Lmax limit was exceeded 3 times at both monitoring sites. In all cases, R'.T,.,�Wwyonl10081DrM El" 4 NasBWIWT. 3.411 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR these were instantaneous exceedances due to an impact noise such as dropping a tool or other large object or the release of air pressure in the diesel truck brake system. The City considers grease trap cleaning a property maintenance activity. Property maintenance occurring between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Friday, or between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday is exempted from the Noise Ordinance criteria. Therefore, the grease trap cleaning is exempt from the Noise Ordinance limits as long as it occurs during these hours. Property maintenance activities are prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Loading Dock Activities The primary source of noise at the loading dock is the arrival and departure of trucks. Additional noise sources include a box crusher, trash compactor, and sterilizer. Hoag limits the hours of access to the loading dock and West Hoag Drive (the road that runs along the western side of the Upper Campus). These gates are closed at 8:00 PM and open at 7:00 AM. This restriction limits the loading dock noise to the hours when persons are generally considered less sensitive to noise. During the measurements, noise generated by equipment was not audible. The box crusher was observed to be in operation without generating a distinctly audible noise. Residents have noted that the sterilizer does not typically generate noise. However, under certain operating conditions a pressure relief valve will vent pressurized air to the atmosphere and generate considerable noise levels. However, this activity was not observed. According to Hoag, the sterilizer is run once every two hours, the trash compactor is operated twice an hour, and the box crusher is operated twice an hour. On average, three trucks arrived and then departed the loading dock in an hour with six occurring during the busiest hour (8:30 AM to 9:30 AM). In addition to trucks arriving and departing the loading dock, general activity in the loading dock area also generates noise. This includes handling of materials being delivered, backup beepers, and speech communication. General traffic (i.e., non - delivery traffic) traveling on West Hoag Drive also contributes substantially to the noise environment. The most significant noise event is trash removal. A truck arrives at the loading dock, backs up to the trash compactor, and then pulls the compactor unit onto the back of the truck (similar to the removal of a large trash dumpster), and drives away. The empty trash compactor was returned to the site some time later. Hoag has indicated that this occurs every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. At Site 1, the 60 dBA Leq was exceeded every 15- minute period from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Because the gates to West Hoag Drive providing access to the loading docks do not open before 7:00 AM, noise monitoring reflected little or no activity before this time period. Upon opening of the gates, the noise levels immediately increased with the increased activity. The loudest 15- minute Leq was 64 dBA. Much of the time, the 15- minute Leqs were less than 62 dBA. The 80 dBA Lmax criterion was exceeded 5 times between 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM. The exceedances were very short term (in the one to two second range). Hoag's mechanical equipment noise experienced at Site 1 considerably contributes to the Leq standard exceedances. Because the mechanical equipment has a relatively high noise level, there does not need to be much additional noise to exceed the 60 dBA Leq. At Site 3, the 60 dBA Leq was exceeded for six 15- minute periods at the second floor monitor and for three 15- minute periods at the first floor monitor during five hours of monitoring. The highest 15- minute Leq was 68 dBA at the second floor monitor and 64 dBA at the first floor monitor. These levels occurred during the period where the trash compactor was removed from the loading dock area. The 80 dBA Lmax threshold was not exceeded at the first floor monitor at R:WiojodeWawponW008TDralt EIR18.4 Ndss091807,dw 3.4 -12 Section 3.4 Noise Measurement Locations Approximate Property Line Cogeneration Facility Measurement Locations Exhibit 3.4 -5 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR C 0 H s u. r i N 0 Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supolemental EIR Site 3 and was exceeded four times at the second floor monitor. These exceedances were instantaneous exceedances during an air pressure release on a truck air break system or during an engine start. The highest Lmax at the second floor monitor was 86 dBA. Noise measurements were performed for the 1991 Hospital Expansion EIR near measurement Site 3. These measurements showed similar daytime noise levels to those measured for the current EIR noise analysis. This would indicate that loading dock activities and noise levels in the vicinity of the loading dock have not substantially increased since 1991. Mechanical Equipment Noise monitoring was conducted to record overnight noise levels. At Site 1, the dominant noise source on the balcony observed during the set up /tear down of the monitor was mechanical equipment at Hoag. The noise level from mechanical equipment was measured to be approximately 58 dBA with small fluctuations. Nighttime noise levels were never below 57 dBA with the 15- minute Leq noise levels of 58 dBA; some noise events resulted in slightly higher Leq levels. At Site 1, operation of mechanical equipment at Hoag results in a noise level of 58 dBA. This is 3 dB higher than the 55 dBA District Regulations applicable to the project and 8 dB higher than permitted by the current Noise Ordinance. The noise level at Site 1 was constant until 7:00 AM when the gates to West Hoag Drive were opened. During the Saturday measurements, the 15- minute Leq noise levels generally remained below 60 dBA when the grease trap cleaning was not being performed. However, the noise levels were just below the 60 dBA Leq level. On the Wednesday measurements, the 15- minute Leq noise levels immediately jumped above 60 dBA at 7:00 AM and remained above 60 dBA until the monitoring was stopped at 4:00 PM. The 15- minute Leq levels were generally between 60 and 62 dBA with the highest being 65 dBA. It appears that the mechanical equipment causing this noise is the same exhaust fan examined in the Final EIR No. 142. Cogeneration Plant The Hoag cogeneration facility is located near the northeastern corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. This facility generates electricity for Hoag by extracting natural gas from the ground and burning it off. The waste heat from the generators is then used to generate hot and chilled water for Hoag's heating and cooling. As previously noted, noise measurements were taken on October 3, 2006, November 20, 2006, and July 2, 2007, and are provided in Table 3.4 -4. The cogeneration facility was in full operation on July 2, including the generator engines that are enclosed in the building. The noise levels from the cogeneration facility were steady. Traffic noise was still a significant noise source (after 11 PM) and the noise measurements of the cogeneration facility were made during lulls in the traffic. The noise levels listed below represent the steady noise levels of the cooling fans and exhaust vents of the cogeneration facility. R:1Prgetl51NMPWU00 0rafl EIR':3.4 Noise-091 BOr.doc 3.4 -13 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.4 -4 COGENERATION FACILITY NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DBA) The Noise Ordinance regulations apply to the cogeneration plant because this facility is not being considered a mechanical equipment operation that would be regulated by the current Development Agreement. The particular paragraph in the Development Agreement refers to "new mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops and utility vaults" and the cogeneration facility is not consistent with this description. Additionally, the residential areas (Sites 2 and 3) are within 100 feet of the Hoag property line and therefore, would be protected by the Zone 3— Mixed Use Residential criteria. The noise criterion for Zone 3 is 50 dBA (Leq) during the night and 60 dBA during the day. The noise levels for the cogeneration facility are below the nighttime criteria of 50 dBA contained in the Noise Ordinance. With the current equipment in operation, the noise levels generated by the cogeneration facility are in compliance with the Noise Ordinance at locations 2 and 3. Sites 1, 4, and 5 are probably best characterized as undeveloped park land (Sunset View Park). As such, these sites would not be subject to any Noise Ordinance limits. The cogeneration noise levels at Sites 4 and 5 were measured at 61.9 and 69.8 dBA, respectively. If the Development Agreement were the applicable noise controlling standard at these sites, the noise level would exceed the 55 dBA requirement by almost 15 dBA. However, for reasons stated in the previous paragraph, the Development Agreement is not the controlling document for noise from the cogeneration facility. It should also be noted that traffic noise and other noise sources were higher than the cogeneration facility at these sites, although at Site 5 the cogeneration plant was the dominant noise source most of the time. According to Hoag, within the next year, an additional cooling tower with its associated pumps will be added in the exterior cooling tower yard located along West Coast Highway. The cogeneration facility also has space for the following future equipment: three generators, one absorption chiller, and one electric chiller; all (if added) would be placed inside the building. Because the cogeneration facility is in compliance with the Noise Ordinance, the addition of future equipment is a future noise compliance issue. The City could require additional noise measurements when the facility is in full operation to ensure that it remains in compliance. The cogeneration facility is completely permitted at this time. The City would have the right to require noise mitigation of the facility only if the cogeneration facility is shown to not be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Vibration Environment Aside from seismic events, the primary source of existing groundborne vibration in the vicinity of Hoag is from roadway traffic. Vibration generated by individual heavy truck pass -bys tend to have minor effects on nearby land uses, except for those uses that house extremely vibration - sensitive equipment. Roadway traffic occurs along the major roadways and highway near the R: \P,geds \Newpad00 \D,afi EIR\3.4 Naise-091e07.dm 3.4-14 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR site, including West Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard. Vehicular movement on the site, including within the parking structures, can be a source of vibration. General Plan Policies The City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element identifies noise sensitive land uses and noise sources, and defines areas of noise impact. The goals and policies of the Noise Element provide a framework to ensure that Newport Beach residents are protected from excessive noise intrusion. Applicable objectives and policies of the Noise Element to the proposed project with a consistency analysis are provided in Table 3.4-9. 3.4.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The criteria used to determine the significance of potential project - related noise impacts are based on the City's Initial Study checklist. The project would result in a significant impact related to noise if it would: Threshold 3.4.1 Expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (Applicable standards are discussed below). Threshold 3.4.2 Expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Threshold 3.4.3 Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Threshold 3.4.4 Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Threshold 3.4.5 Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Long -term Off -Site Impacts from Traffic Noise Long -term off -site impacts from project - generated traffic noise are measured against two criteria. Both criteria must be met for a significant impact to be identified. Project - Specific Impact The project traffic results in a substantial adjacent to a noise sensitive land use (e.g. is defined as an increase of 1 dB or more); noise level increase on a roadway segment residential use) (a substantial noise increase and • The resulting "future with Master Plan Update Project" noise level exceeds the criteria for the noise- sensitive land use. The following exterior noise standards apply to the R: \Project \NewpoftU 0 \Draft EIR13.4 Ndsa091807.0m 3.4-15 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental EIR proposed project: 65 CNEL residential exterior noise levels, 45 CNEL for interior, and 65 CNEL exterior noise levels. Cumulative Impact Long -term cumulative off -site impacts from traffic noise are measured against two criteria. Both of the following criteria must be met for a significant cumulative impact to be identified. The "cumulative with Master Plan Update Project" traffic results in a substantial noise level increase on a roadway segment adjacent to a noise sensitive land use (e.g., residential use) (a substantial noise increase is defined as an increase of 3 dB or more); and The resulting "cumulative with Master Plan Update Project' noise level exceeds the criteria for the noise sensitive land use, as identified above, for the City of Newport Beach. The following noise standards apply to the proposed project: 45 CNEL for interior and 65 CNEL exterior noise levels. On -Site Impacts On -site noise sources are measured against different standards based on the noise source. The following existing and proposed on -site activities standards apply to Hoag: 3.4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS As addressed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the existing PC Text provides that mechanical equipment noise generated from Hoag not exceed 55 decibels (dB) at all Hoag property lines. This noise restriction, which was established prior to the creation of the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance, is proposed to be eliminated. Instead, noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 below. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag property line adjacent to the loading docks shall be as follows (see Exhibit 2 -5 of Section 2.0, Project Description): 7AM -10PM Daytime Pfd Gmilit" " Noise Sotxce : Current Llmit (dBA) .., 58 dBA Mechanical Equipment at West 55 Leqa 70 Leq (Day) /58 Leq Tower & Ancillary Building (Night) Loading Dock (delivery vehicles 60 Leq Exempt and the loading /unloading ops.) 80 Lmax' Loading Dock (non - delivery 60 Leq 70 Leq (Day) /58 Leq operations) 80 Lmax° (Night) Grease Trap Exempt Exempt Cogeneration Plant (nearest 60 Leq (Day) /50 Leq' 60 Leq (Day) /50 Leq residence) (Night) (Night) a Existing Development Agreement ° Based on Mixed Use Residential standard contained In Noise Ordinance 3.4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS As addressed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the existing PC Text provides that mechanical equipment noise generated from Hoag not exceed 55 decibels (dB) at all Hoag property lines. This noise restriction, which was established prior to the creation of the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance, is proposed to be eliminated. Instead, noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 below. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag property line adjacent to the loading docks shall be as follows (see Exhibit 2 -5 of Section 2.0, Project Description): R: \P,gactsWewponlJ008 \Draft E FMA N6seniBOTdnc 3.4 -16 Section 3.4 Noise 7AM -10PM Daytime ioPM 7AM: Nighttime Leq (75 min) 70 dBA 58 dBA R: \P,gactsWewponlJ008 \Draft E FMA N6seniBOTdnc 3.4 -16 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. In addition, the grease pit cleaning, which is exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance because it is a maintenance activity, would occur on a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Impact Anaiysis Threshold 3.4.1: Would the project expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Threshold 3.4.4: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Construction Activities 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 a project and those impacts that occur at the site. Potential traffic noise impacts on a project are also assessed. Generally, construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment (including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators) and construction activities can reach high levels. The greatest construction noise levels are typically generated by heavy construction equipment. Worst -case examples of construction equipment noise at 50 feet are presented in Exhibit 3.4 -6. Peak noise levels for most of the equipment that would be used during the construction is 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. At 200 feet, the peak construction noise levels range from 58 to 83 dBA. At 400 feet, peak noise levels range from 52 to 77 dBA. Typically, noise levels near the site would be less. Noise measurements made by Mestre Greve Associates for other projects show that the noise levels generated by commonly used grading equipment (i.e., loaders, graders, and trucks) generate noise levels that typically do not exceed the middle of the range shown in the exhibit. The proposed Master Plan Update Project does not propose any specific construction projects. Therefore, a site - specific development project noise analysis is not included in this SEIR. Construction occurring within 500 feet of residential areas has the potential to exceed the City's Noise Ordinance noise level limits. However, the Noise Ordinance exempts construction activities from the noise level limits during specific hours of the day. Noise - generating construction activities are permitted during the hours between 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays or federal holidays. Construction activities are not proposed outside these hours. Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance is considered to result in no significant short-term noise impacts. Impact 3.4-1: No Impact. Construction noise represents a short-term effect on ambient noise levels. Construction activities conducted consistent with the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance are not considered to result in a significant impact. R; \Pro1e0SWewportW0081Dralt EIR13,4 Noise- 091 807.tloc 3.4 -17 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental On Threshold 3.4 -2: Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? Vibration The are no federal, State, or local standards for vibration impacts on persons. According to the FHWA, typical construction vibrations pose no threat to buildings and structures; annoyance to people is not considered any worse than other discomforts experienced from noise generated by construction. Pile driving can generate substantial vibration levels. A substantial amount of research has been completed to compare vibrations from single events such as dynamite blasts with architectural and structural damage. The U.S. Bureau of Mines has set a safe limit of 0.5 inch per second peak particle velocity to avoid structure damage in residential structures (U.S. Bureau of Mines 1980). Below this level, there is virtually no risk of building damage. Operation of heavy construction equipment can generate noticeable vibration in the immediate vicinity of the equipment. Vibration levels from most heavy construction equipment are typically not perceived as severe or annoying and drop off rapidly to an undetectable level over a short distance (approximately 10 to 20 feet). Pile driving may be used during construction. Pile driving can generate considerable vibration levels that could be perceptible 300 feet or more away from the pile driving depending on the type of pile driver used and local soil conditions. Pile driving near existing buildings can result in damage to the buildings. While groundbome vibration effects are typically attenuated over short distances, the future demolition of on -site buildings associated with buildout of Hoag could generate perceptible vibrations at adjacent on -site buildings. Many adjacent on -site buildings would remain operational during demolition and construction activities and could contain equipment whose operation could be disturbed by vibration. Therefore, potential vibration impacts would be considered a significant impact. The proposed Master Plan Update Project does not propose any specific construction or demolition projects; therefore, a site - specific vibration noise analysis is not included in this SEIR. Because the Project involves the transfer of square footage allocation between the Upper and Lower Campuses at Hoag, vibration noise is not expected to be substantially greater than that which would be expected with the buildout of the existing Master Plan, with the exception that implementation of the Project could lead to more construction on the Upper Campus than would have otherwise occurred with buildout of the already approved Master Plan. Impact 3.4 -2: Significant Impact. Project demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project would generate vibration although not at levels substantially greater than that which would occur with buildout under the existing Master Plan. This impact is considered significant. Threshold 3.4. is Would the project expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Threshold 3.4.3: Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? RiT(geMWeweorW00810raR EIR13.4"Ss O1907.d= ;7.4 -18 aecnon J.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Project Traffic Noise Impacts from increases in traffic noise levels due to the proposed Master Plan Update Project were estimated using the traffic projections presented in the in the Linscott, Law & Greenspan traffic study (see Appendix C). By comparing the traffic volumes for different scenarios, the changes in noise levels along roadways in the vicinity of Hoag were estimated. To estimate noise level changes due to the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the "with Project' traffic volumes are compared to the "without Projecf' traffic volumes. This analysis is performed below for two scenarios: Year 2015 and Year 2025. Traffic CNEL changes with the proposed Master Plan Update Project are identified in Table 3.4 -5. Projected changes in traffic noise levels over existing conditions are presented along with the changes resulting from the implementation of the Project for the two analysis years: 2015 and 2025. Only roadway segments projected to experience noise level increases of 0.5 dB or greater associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project are presented in the table. Increases due to the project for all roadway segments analyzed the traffic study are presented in Table A -6 of Appendix F of this SEIR. Traffic noise level increases due to the Project of 1 dB or more, and over existing conditions of 3 dB or more, are shown in bold italics. TABLE 3.4 -5 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CHANGES RuadwagSegald tl taergein2Fl�s ,. Change 1t1_02b Over Due to Ex+siip Preyed Over , t xiating` Duets rolect 171h Street West of Superior Avenue 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.0 East of Superior Avenue 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 16'h Street West of Superior Avenue 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.0 Industrial Way East of Superior Avenue 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.0 Hospital Road East of Superior Avenue 0.1 0.8 1.7 0.0 West of Hoag Drive -0.3 0.6 1.3 0.0 East of Hoag Drive -1.0 -0.6 -0.1 0.3 West of Newport Boulevard -1.3 -0.8 -02 0.3 West Coast Highway West of Orange Street 0.4 -0.5 0.5 0.0 East of Orange Street 0.3 -0.5 0.5 0.0 East of Hoag Drive 1.6 0.8 2.0 -0.5 West of Newport Boulevard southbound Off -Ramp 1.6 1.0 2.1 -0.3 West of Riverside Avenue -0.2 -0.7 0.4 -0.1 East of Riverside Avenue 1 0.0 1 -0.5 0.6 -0.1 Via Lido East of Newport Boulevard 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.0 Orange Street South of West Coast Highway -0.9 -2.4 -1.4 0.0 RAPr0JecLSWewp0rN00Mrah EIR3.4 Noise-091807.dm 3.4-19 beCaon d.4 Noise Hoag Memonal Hospital Presbytenan Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.4-5 (Continued) PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CHANGES R0 '1#tlway Sa9ment Charge m 2075 Over .:: Exerting. Due to' Over : ihteMO ' "' Pro" .. E><stm Prospect Street North of West Coast Highway -2.3 -1.3 -0.9 0.0 South of West Coast Highway 0.5 -1.3 1.3 0.0 Placentia Avenue North of Hospital Road 0.7 0.8 1.8 0.0 Superior Avenue North of 17 h Street 0.7 0.8 1.9 0.0 South of W Street 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.0 North of 16'h Street/Industrial Way 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.0 South of 16" StreeUlndustrial Way 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.0 North of Placentia Avenue 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 North of West Coast Highway -0.6 -1.1 -2.2 0.0 Balboa Boulevard South of West Coast Highway 0.0 -1.1 -0.5 0.0 Hoag Drive South of Hospital Road 4.2 3.8 5.8 0.5 North of West Coast Highway 0.9 -2.2 3.0 -1.5 Newport Boulevard South of Hospital Road -0.7 -0.7 0.1 -0.1 North of Via Lido - -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 South of Via Lido -1.2 -0.7 -0.3 0.0 Riverside Avenue North of West Coast Highway -1.2 -1.0 -0.2 0.0 Tustin Avenue North of West Coast Highway 3.4 1.6 3.5 0.0 Bay Shore Drive South of West Coast Highway -2.0 -2.1 -5.9 0.0 Bayside Drive North of East Coast Highway 4.8 1.0 5.6 0.0 Notes: Numbers in bold italics denote at least a 1.0 dB increase due to the projector at least a 3.0 dB increase over existing conditions. Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. The distances to the future 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours with the Project are presented in Table 3.4 -6. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. The CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline is also presented. These are worst - case noise levels; the highest traffic volume projected for years 2015 and 2025 (see Table 3.4 -5) were used to estimate the future noise level. The contours do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. Table A -5 of Appendix F presents traffic noise levels with the project for all roadways analyzed. R.Vrole NewporVJ008\Drak EIR0.4 Noise- 091807.do 3.4-20 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Table 3.4 -5 identifies that noise levels are expected to increase by 1 dB or more along 5 roadway segments: West Coast Highway west of the Newport Boulevard southbound off - ramp; Via Lido east of Newport Boulevard; Hoag Drive south of Hospital Road; Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Highway; and Bayside Drive north of East Coast Highway. Discussed below are conditions along each of these road segments to determine if the City's applicable noise thresholds of significance would be exceeded at any sensitive receptors are discussed below. TABLE 3.4 -6 FUTURE NOISE LEVELS WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT e qtr tar3ut i tai I , �a Y meat 4 Ja '- il l l 17'" Street West of Superior Avenue 61.9 RW 62 135 East of Superior Avenue 64.4 42 91 196 16rh Street West of Superior Avenue 56.3 RW RW 57 Industrial Way East of Superior Avenue 55.4 RW RW 49 Hospital Road East of Superior Avenue 58.9 RW 39 85 West of Hoag Drive 58.1 RW 35 75 East of Hoag Drive 59.9 RW 46 98 West of Newport Boulevard 59.9 RW 46 98 West Coast Highway West of Orange Street 69.0 86 186 400 East of Orange Street 69.0 86 186 400 East of Hoag Drive 65.9 53 114 247 West of Newport Blvd. southbound off -ramp 66.2 55 119 257 West of Riverside Avenue 67.1 64 137 295 East of Riverside Avenue 66.6 59 128 275 Via Lido East of Newport Boulevard 59.3 RW 41 89 Orange Street South of West Coast Highway 47.0 RW RW RW Prospect Street North of West Coast Highway 49.4 RW RW RW South of West Coast Highway 46.2 RW RW RW Placentia Avenue North of Hospital Road 63.1 34 74 160 Superior Avenue North of 17'" Street 60.0 RW 47 101 South of 17'" Street 64.6 44 94 202 North of 16'" Street/Industrial Way 64.1 40 86 186 South of 16th Street/Industrial Way 64.0 40 86 185 North of Placentia Avenue 64.0 40 86 185 North of West Coast Highway 63.8 39 83 179 R: \Projects \NmpoM\,W80ra" EIM3.4 Naise091807.d 3.4-21 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental EfR TABLE 3.4 -6 (Continued) FUTURE NOISE LEVELS WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT rrCe 4# NEt 616hil6w led Balboa Boulevard South of West Coast Highway 60.0 RW 47 101 Hoag Drive South of Hospital Road 58.7 RW 38 82 North of West Coast Highway 54.9 RW RW 46 Newport Boulevard South of Hospital Road 68,9 85 183 395 North of Via Lido 65.2 48 103 222 South of Via Lido 64.1 41 88 189 Riverside Avenue North of West Coast Highway 58.1 RW 35 75 Tustin Avenue North of West Coast Highway 52.9 RW RW 34 Bay Shore Drive South of West Coast Highway 50.3 RW RW RW Bayside Drive North of East Coast Highway 54.2 RW RW 41 ' From centerline. RW: Contour falls within right-of-way- Source! Mestre Greve Associates 2007- West Coast Highway west of the Newport Boulevard southbound off -ramp. Hoag is located north of this road segment. The future 65 CNEL noise Contour along this road segment is projected to extend 119 feet from the centerline. There are residences located on the southern side of West Coast Highway approximately 120 feet from the centerline; a 10- foot -high block wall separates residences from West Coast Highway and provides approximately 9 dB of noise reduction. Therefore, traffic noise levels at the residences would not exceed the City's 65 CNEL outdoor noise standard. Based on the thresholds of significance set forth in this SEIR, the Project's Contribution to Changes in traffic noise levels along this road segment is less than significant. Via Lido east of Newport Boulevard. The future 65 CNEL noise Contour along this road segment is projected to extend 41 feet from the centerline. There are only commercial uses along this segment of Via Lido. Based on the distance of commercial buildings from the centerline, all buildings along this segment would be expected to provide adequate outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction so that interior noise levels due to traffic on this road segment would not exceed the applicable standards. Based on the thresholds of significance set forth in this SEIR, the Project's Contribution to Changes in traffic noise levels along this road segment is less than significant. Hoag Drive south of Hospital Road. This road segment is located within the property boundaries of Hoag. The future 65 CNEL noise Contour along this road segment is projected to extend 38 feet from the centerline. There are no noise - sensitive outdoor. areas located within this distance of the centerline. Based on their distance from the centerline, all buildings along RBRr0jMSNMP00U0MDraft E6n3.4 Ndse091607.d= 3,4 -22 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR this segment are expected to provide adequate outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction so that interior noise levels due to traffic on this road segment would not exceed the applicable standards. Based on the thresholds of significance set forth in this SEIR, the Project's contribution to changes in traffic noise levels along this road segment is less than significant. Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Highway. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this segment of Tustin Avenue is not projected to extend beyond the right -of -way. There are only commercial uses along Tustin Avenue just north of West'Cost Highway with homes located along Tustin Avenue approximately 350 feet north of West Coast Highway. These residences front onto Tustin Avenue. Because the 65 CNEL contour is not projected to extend beyond the right -of -way, no exceedances of the applicable noise standards is anticipated. Based on the thresholds of significance set forth in this SEIR; the Project's contribution to changes in traffic noise levels along this road segment is less than significant. Bayside Drive north of West Coast Highway. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along Bayside Drive is not projected to extend beyond the right -of -way. There are mobile home residences located along both sides of this segment of Bayside Drive. These residences are set back approximately 40 feet from the roadway centerline. Because the 65 CNEL contour is not projected to extend beyond the right -of -way, no exceedances of the applicable noise standards is expected. Based on the thresholds of significance set forth in this SEIR, the Project's contribution to changes in traffic noise levels along this road segment is less than significant. Cumulative Traffic Noise Cumulative traffic noise impacts are assessed by comparing traffic noise CNEL increases to existing conditions. This provides the forecasted traffic noise level increases due to the proposed Master Plan Update Project in addition to other projects and general growth anticipated for the area. Final EIR No. 142 identified that buildout of Hoag would not result in any significant traffic noise impacts but would contribute to existing noise level exceedances along five road segments; this incremental addition to cumulative traffic noise impacts was considered a significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impact (page 5 -8). The five road segments were: Coast Highway from Superior Avenue to east of Bayside Drive; Balboa Boulevard southeast of Newport Boulevard; Superior Avenue between 15th Street and Placentia; Newport Boulevard between Balboa Boulevard and north of Hospital Road; and Dover Drive north of Coast Highway. The proposed Master Plan Update Project will not increase noise levels along these roadways by more than 0.1 dB and in many cases results in a slight reduction in projected noise levels for the roadways analyzed. As previously identified on Table 3.4 -5, 4 roadway segments are projected to have traffic noise level increases of 3 dB or more when compared to existing conditions. These segments are: Hoag Drive south of Hospital Road; Hoag Drive north of West Coast Highway; Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Highway; and Bayside Drive north of East Coast Highway. The proposed Master Plan Update Project is expected to result in a 1 dB or greater increase along all of.these segments except Hoag Drive north of West Coast Highway (no contribution). Because the noise standards would not be exceeded, the Project's contribution would not result in a significant cumulative impact along these road segments. Impact 3.4 -3: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not result in a project- specific or contribute to a cumulative traffic noise increase along a roadway segment that adjacent to a noise sensitive land use. R: PmjeOMew0odLJ0 \Oraft EIR \3.4 NW 091807AM 3.4 -23 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memonat Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft supplemental EIR Threshold 3.4.1: Would the project expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Threshold 3.4.3: Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? On-site Activities and Land Uses Noise from activities on one property impacting another typically occurs only where non - residential land uses (e.g., commercial, manufacturing) abuts sensitive land uses (e.g., residential uses). Typical sources of noise from uses adjacent to residential uses that have the potential to impact residential uses include mechanical equipment and delivery trucks /loading docks. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for the reallocation of up to 225,000 sf of development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. However, no specific projects are proposed at this time. Therefore, a detailed analysis of impacts from future on -site activities is not included in this SEIR. However, four existing on -site noise sources are assessed: grease pit cleaning, loading dock activities, mechanical equipment, and the cogeneration facility. Grease Pit Cleaning As previously addressed, the City considers grease pit cleaning to be a property maintenance activity. Property maintenance activities are exempt from the Noise Ordinance standards if they occur between 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Friday and between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday; such activities are not permitted on Sunday or federal holidays. The grease pit cleaning generates very high levels of noise during the time the activity occurs. Noise levels at the nearest residences were approximately 77 dBA for over 1 hour, which is 17 dB higher (perceptually almost 4 times as loud) as the City's 60 dBA Leq Noise Ordinance limit for residential uses located within 100 feet of a commercial use. Interior noise levels would be approximately 20 dB lower than outdoor levels, or approximately 57 dBA, which is 12 dB greater (perceptually more than twice as loud) as the interior Noise Ordinance standard. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for the reallocation of up to 225,000 sf of allowable development to the Upper Campus. This action could result in an increase in the use of cafeteria facilities because of increased inpatient uses on the Upper Campus. Increased cafeteria use would result in a corresponding increase in grease trapped in the grease pit. This would result in more frequent cleaning of the grease pit and /or a longer duration of time to clean the grease pit. The Applicant has identified the time of grease pit cleaning would be limited to a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Because this property maintenance activity is exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance, no significant noise impact would occur provided adherence to the Noise Ordinance's hours restrictions are maintained. Mechanical Equipment Buildout of the Hoag Master Plan under either the existing Master Plan assumptions or the proposed Master Plan Update assumptions may require additional HVAC equipment which R: Pr j.d. Newpon4100 Tratt EIM3.4 Ndsn0 1807.doc 3.4 -24 section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR could include roof - mounted equipment. At the time Final EIR No. 142 was certified, the City had not adopted a Noise Ordinance with specific noise level limits. Therefore, the City used the County of Orange Noise Ordinance as guidance; Final EIR No. 142 set a noise level limit for mechanical equipment of 55 dBA. This noise level limit for mechanical equipment is included in the Development Agreement between the City and Hoag. This limit is being exceeded for the existing mechanical equipment. The noise level at the condominium was measured at 58 dBA; this exceeds the Development Agreement limits by 3 dBA. The sources of this noise exceedance are both the rooftop equipment mounted on the Ancillary Building and the HVAC equipment located on the third floor of the West Tower. This condition should be corrected prior to issuance of any additional building permits for projects on the Upper Campus. New mechanical equipment would be required to comply with proposed modifications to the Development Agreement which would effectuate a change from the current 55 dBA level to 70 dBA (daytime) and 58 dBA (nighttime) when measured at the property line adjacent to the loading dock area. Hoag has initiated plans to revamp the HVAC system for the Ancillary Building. The following is a discussion of the proposed changes and possible measures to reduce the noise to acceptable levels as summarized from Strategies for Mitigation of Noise Generating Mechanical Ventilation Equipment (Fundament and Associates 2007). Kitchen Exhaust Fans. The existing kitchen exhaust fans come through a "doghouse" in the center of the roof of the Ancillary Building. These fans would be replaced with new ducting and new fans. The new fans would operate at a lower speed and be selected for their low noise generation. Because the new fans have not been selected, the resulting noise level changes at nearby residents or at the property line cannot be calculated. However, the new fans would operate at a much slower speed and have an aerodynamic fan blade. It is very possible that the new fans would result in noise levels that comply with the Noise Ordinance. However, the kitchen exhaust fans may be difficult to mitigate if additional mitigation is necessary beyond these identified changes. Sound traps are commonly used to reduce the noise coming through the exhaust outlet. However, due to the grease loading of kitchen fans, sound traps are not viable. Other options could include reorientation of all of the kitchen exhausts away from the condominiums and augmenting the construction of the doghouse on the sides facing the residences. The doghouse is expected to be replaced with a 10- foot -high sound wall. In summary, the new kitchen exhaust fans are anticipated to result in a significant improvement in noise levels. To ensure that a significant noise reduction is achieved, a noise study would be required to demonstrate that the new fans, in combination with the other mechanical equipment, meets the proposed revised noise limits of 70 dBA and 58 dBA (daytime and nighttime, respectively) at the property line. Mitigation options appear to be available, if needed, that would ensure that the new fans could comply with these requirements. Roof Top Exhaust Fans. In addition to the new kitchen exhaust fans, 22 new exhaust fans would be located on the roof of the Ancillary Building (Fundament and Associates 2007). These small fans would be scattered across the roof. They have been selected for quiet operation. Additionally, a seven - foot -high architectural screen wall is proposed to be added to the west and to portions of the northern and southern edges of the Ancillary Building. This solid screen wall would act as noise barrier for the small exhaust fans that are located along the western portion of the building. A gap of a few inches may be needed along the bottom of the parapet wall for drainage, but would be fitted with a skirt to cover the gap as viewed from the residential area. R?Projeds \NewPoRW009Mra@ EIR\0.4 Noise091807.dw 3.4-25 tieCtton 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R Until the specific fans are selected, noise levels at the residences at the property line cannot be determined. The modeled noise level at the upper floor of the nearest condominium was calculated including the effect of the seven - foot -high screen wall. The projected noise level is 42.1 dBA at the property line; this is below the criteria for the current Development Agreement (55 dBA), the City's Noise Ordinance (50 dBA), and the revised nighttime noise limit (58 dBA). Even when combined with the other fans in the area of Hoag, these new fans would not significantly add to the total noise level. In summary, the addition of the 22 fans on the Ancillary Building, when combined with the construction of the 7- foot -high screen wall, would not generate significant noise levels or exceed the revised noise standards. Air Handlers. The air handlers on the third floor of the western face of the West Tower would need to be reduced by 3 dBA to comply with the current Development Agreement. There are large air handler units in the third floor of the West Tower that exhaust or intake air for the building. Six fans (i.e., EF -8, FC -4, SF -1, EF -12, EF -9, and EF -10) were identified in the West Tower. Acoustic lowers will be used to mitigate four of the fans (i.e., EF -8, EF -9, EF -10, and SF -1). FC -4 will remain; acoustic lowers could be used to mitigate the noise at this fan location. Due to the open nature of this building floor, acoustic louvers would be used around the perimeter of this floor. EF -12 protrudes through the side of the building; it is one of the louder fans. It is possible to fit a sound trap on EF -12 without the ducting protruding through the side of the building. Acoustic louvers are planned for the outside perimeter of this floor as depicted on Exhibit 3.4 -7. Hoag has identified feasible options to control the mechanical equipment noise located in the West Tower. The air handlers can be controlled with the use of appropriately rated acoustic louvers. Exhaust fan EF -12 needs to incorporate a sound trap and the exhaust duct needs to be shortened so that it would not extend past the acoustic louvers. These measures are projected to bring the mechanical equipment noise into compliance with the current 55 dBA Development Agreement noise limit and the proposed revised 58 dBA nighttime property line noise limit. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for the reallocation of up to 225,000 sf of approved but not constructed development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus; no specific projects are proposed. Because of this fact, it is not known what new HVAC equipment, if any, may be required and an analysis of the potential noise impacts from this equipment is precluded. With proper equipment selection, location and potential incorporation of noise reduction features, it is expected that new HVAC equipment would meet the revised noise level standards proposed as a part of the Master Plan Update Project. However, until actual equipment can be tested, it must be presumed that any new HVAC equipment could generate noise levels in excess of the revised noise levels. This would be considered a significant impact. Loading Dock Area Activities Existing noise levels generated by loading dock activities were presented earlier in this SEIR section. Existing loading dock activities exceed the Noise Ordinance limits on a regular basis. By increasing the development at the Upper Campus, the Project could result in an additional increase in activity at the loading dock. Although a substantial increase due to the Project is not expected when compared to buildout of Hoag consistent with the existing Master Plan. The primary source of noise at the dock is from delivery trucks. While more delivery truck visits to the loading dock could occur with the buildout of the Master Plan, it is likely that increased deliveries would be accommodated through larger loads in a similar number of trucks. An increase in the number of trucks is not expected to result in an increase in noise levels generated by the loading dock but would instead increase the frequency of high noise levels R:\PwieMMO.MMJOWDraft EIR \3.4 N65r091807AOC 3.4 -26 SP..ntion 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR generated by.truck activity. As previously noted, noise levels near the loading dock have not changed substantially from what was measured for Final EIR No. 142. Hoag has limited the hours of access to the loading dock and West Hoag Drive, the roadway that runs along the western side of the Upper Campus. Gates are closed at 8:00 PM and open at 7:00 AM. This action limits the loading dock noise to the hours when persons are generally considered less sensitive to noise. Because of the topography of the area and the fact that the adjacent residential uses are three stories, it is not feasible to construct noise barriers on Hoag's property that would provide additional noise reduction for the residents in the vicinity of the loading dock, beyond enclosing the entire loading dock area and road adjacent to the residential uses (which is not considered feasible). A noise barrier is only effective when it breaks the line of site between the noise source and the receiver. Noise generated by the loading dock has not changed substantially from the noise levels measured in 1991. The proposed Master Plan Update Project is not expected to substantially increase loading dock activities; therefore, noise levels due to the Project would not result in a significant noise impact. However, activities in the loading dock area currently and will continue to exceed the noise limits contained in the Noise Ordinance. The proposed Master Plan Update Project contains exemption language to address this issue. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles would be exempt from any applicable noise standards and other loading dock area noise would be subject to limits of 70 dB (daytime) and 58 dB (nighttime). Cogeneration Facility The measured noise levels from the cogeneration facility equipment are in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, and have ranged from 46.1 dBA to 49.8 dBA at the upper floor of the nearest residence. A fourth cooling tower is being installed at the facility. The addition of this cooling tower is expected to increase the cooling tower portion of the noise levels by approximately 1.2 dB. However, the cogeneration - related noise at the nearest residence is not from just the cooling tower; it is a combination of noise from the cogeneration facility's generator exhaust stacks and the cooling towers. A series of noise measurements was conducted on August 1 and 2, 2007, to determine the relative contribution of the exhaust stacks and cooling towers at the nearest residence. The noise measurements were conducted at several locations at two microphone heights. The data indicate that, at the upper floors of the residences of concern, the rooftop exhaust stacks are the major contributor, accounting for approximately 60 percent of the noise from the cogeneration facility. The cooling towers account for approximately 40 percent of the noise. Previous measurements at the residences of concern have ranged between 46.1 dBA and 49.8 dBA. These levels are below the City's Noise Ordinance limit of 50 dBA for nighttime levels at sensitive receptors. The addition of the fourth cooling tower is expected to raise the overall noise level to between 46.7 and 50.4 dBA. The operation of a fourth cooling tower is not part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project because the cogeneration facility is already permitted and no further approvals from the City are required for this facility to operate. Therefore, the operation of the cogeneration plant becomes a Noise Ordinance compliance issue. That is, the City would need to take measurements once the fourth cooling tower is operational and determine if it is in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Should the City determine the cogeneration facility is not in compliance, Hoag would need to correct the situation to maintain compliance with the Noise Ordinance limits. Further, it would become a Development Agreement issue because the Development Agreement incorporates the Noise Ordinance. The R. ProjedslNewponUDMDraft EIRl A Noise-091 90rdm 3.4-27 Section 3.4 - Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR City's Development Agreement with Hoag requires Hoag to provide an annual report to the City stating whether it is compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement. Finally, there is the issue of whether the cogeneration facility will remain in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The cogeneration facility- related noise is close to the Noise Ordinance limits for the nearest residences (i.e., 49.8 dBA). An increase of 0.6 dB for the cooling tower would result in an exceedance of the nighttime Noise Ordinance limits. This presumes that the ambient noise levels drop even lower, on occasion, than has been observed to date. The Noise Ordinance does not require that noise source levels be lower than the ambient levels caused by traffic, waves, crickets, etc.; to date, observed ambient noise levels have not been lower than 50 dBA at the residential site. Impact 3.4 -4: Significant Impact. Long -term noise impacts from the grease trap cleaning operation and the cogeneration facility are not expected to be significant due to application of the City's Noise Ordinance. Noise generated from other activities in the loading dock and in the vicinity of the loading dock are considered significant, as the proposed Master Plan Update Project will modify the applicable noise standards such that limitations under the Noise Ordinance will be allowed to be exceeded. Mitigation is proposed for these impacts; however, with mitigation impacts are expected to remain significant. Threshold 3.4.1: Would the project expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Threshold 3.4.3: Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Traffic Noise Impacts on On -site Land Uses The highest future traffic noise levels affecting Hoag are identified in Table 3.4 -7. Noise contours do not include barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels; they are intended to identify areas that require subsequent analysis as a part of site plan review by the City. As discussed previously, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would only allow for the reallocation of approved development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus; no specific projects are proposed. Therefore a detailed analysis of the potential noise impacts on the uses developed under the Project is precluded. Specific projects associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project would be required to comply with the City's General Plan Noise Standards. The standards applicable to Hoag are the outdoor standard of 65 CNEL, the interior 45 CNEL standard for hospital uses (e.g., patient rooms), and 50 CNEL for office uses. The outdoor 65 CNEL standard is only applicable to outdoor patio areas where persons would be expected to congregate for extended periods of time. Any patio areas proposed to be located closer to the roadways than the 65 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 3.4-7 would be significantly impacted by traffic noise. R ?ProjeclslNewporlW008�Dralt EIM3A Ndsr091807.da 3.4 -28 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.4 -7 FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IMPACTING HOAG Road nray Segment t NEL at_ t00 ft. ` Clistarim To CNE1L'GpMoue {ta8i}a !t0'GNEL . 65 CNEL:: :60 MEL , : Hospital Road West of Hoag Drive 58.1 RW 35 75 East of Hoag Drive 59.9 RW 46 98 West of Newport Boulevard 59.9 RW 46 98 West Coast Highway East of Balboa Boulevard /Superior Avenue 68.6 80 173 373 West of Hoag Drive 68.9 84 182 392 East of Hoag Drive 65.9 53 114 247 West of Newport Blvd. southbound off -ramp 66.2 55 119 257 Superior Avenue North of West Coast Highway 63.8 39 83 179 Hoag Drive South of Hospital Road 58.7 RW 38 82 North of West Coast Highway 54.9 RW RW 46 Newport Boulevard South of Hospital Road 68.9 85 183 395 Notes: a From centerline RW— Contour falls within right -of -way Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Typical commercial construction includes mechanical ventilation that allows windows to remain closed. With closed windows, typical construction provides at least 20 dB of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction. Therefore, hospital buildings exposed to noise levels of 65 CNEL or less would experience indoor noise levels of 45 CNEL or less. Buildings at Hoag proposed to be located closer to roadways than the 65 CNEL contour distance (Table 3.4 -7) could be significantly impacted by traffic noise. Office buildings exposed to noise levels of 70 CNEL or less would experience indoor noise levels of 50 CNEL or less. Office buildings proposed to be located closer to roadways than the 70 CNEL contour distance (Table 3.4 -7) could be significantly impacted by traffic noise. Impact 3.4-5: Significant Impact. Prior to mitigation, future on -site land uses could be impacted from traffic noise. Threshold 3.4.5: Would the project conflict with applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? Table 3.4-8 provides a summary of the project's consistency With applicable goals and policies from the City of Newport Beach General Plan. R9Rrojed \Newp 0 00B1 Mft EIM3.4 Noise-091807.doc 3.4-29 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.4-8 CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH NOISE - RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES ' Goals snid Policies ., lonSiStency Analysis N 1: Minimize land use conflicts between various noise sources and other human activities. N 1.1: Require that all proposed projects are The noise analysis contained in this SEIR addresses the compatible with the noise environment through the use of proposed Master Plan Update Project's noise Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise compatibility with the City's Noise Ordinance, General standards shown in Table N3. (Imp 2.1) Plan Noise Element, existing Development Agreement and PC Text, and modifications to the noise standards N 1.2. Applicants for proposed projects that require proposed as a part of the project as well as the PC Text environmental review and are located in areas shown in Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment. Figure N4, Figure N5, and Figure N6 may conduct a field This SEIR noise analysis notes that no development survey, noise measurements or other modeling in a projects are proposed as a part of the Project, and would manner acceptable to the City to provide evidence that be subject to noise analysis as site - specific projects are the depicted noise contours do not adequately account proposed at Hoag. Noise generated at Hoag would be for conditions. (Imp 2.1) governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except adjacent to the loading dock area where modifications to the daytime and nighttime standards are requested, and within the loading dock area, where delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles would be exempt from any applicable noise standards. N4: Minimize non - transportation - related noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. N 4.1: Enforce interior and exterior noise standards As addressed above, noise generated at Hoag would be outlined in Table N3, and in the City's Municipal Code to governed by the Noise Ordinance with two exceptions: ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to (1) noise limits adjacent to the loading dock area would excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, be increased; (2) delivery vehicles and the loading and such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning unloading of delivery vehicles would be exempt from equipment. (Imp 7.1) noise standards. Mitigation is required to minimize noise from stationary noise sources. N 4.6: Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits and The Project would comply with the Noise Ordinance limits limits on hours of maintenance or construction activity in on construction and property maintenance activities. or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work related activities. (Imp 7.1, 8.1) N 5: Minimize excessive construction- related noise. N 5.1: Enforce the limits on hours of construction The Project would comply with the Noise Ordinance limits activity. (Imp 8.1) on construction and property maintenance activities. Impact 3.4 -6: No Impact. As identified, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would be considered consistent with the relevant goals and polices related to noise. 3.4.7 MITIGATION PROGRAM The measures discussed below were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Update. Mitigation measure numbering reflects that provided in Resolution No. 92 -43 for certification of Final EIR No. 142. Minor modifications to the mitigation measures are proposed to reflect the current status of the Master Plan Update Project; some mitigation measures in Final EIR No. 142 have already been implemented and are therefore no longer applicable. S'•Itpx is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. Additional mitigation required as a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project is also noted. R9ProjWS\NewpWW003\Drafl EIR \3.4 Ndse 091802dm 3.4 -30 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Project Design Features No project design features have been identified. Standard Conditions and Requirements All applicable standard conditions and requirements are incorporated into the adopted Mitigation Program for Final EIR No. 142. Construction Activities SC 3.4 -1 During construction, the Applicant shall ensure that all noise - generating activities be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays. No noise - generating activities shall occur on Sundays or national holidays in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Mitigation Measures Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures to Carty Forward Construction Activities 111. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all internal combustion engines associated with construction activities shall be fitted with properly maintained mufflers and kept in proper tune. Operational Activities: Emergency Vehicles 42. The City of Newport Beach shall send a letter to each emergency vehicle company that delivers patients to Hoag Hospital requesting that, upon entrance to either the Upper or Lower Campus, emergency vehicles turn off their sirens to help minimize noise impacts to adjacent residents. Hoag Hospital will provide the City with a list of all emergency vehicle companies that deliver to Hoag Hospital. Operational Activities: Loading Dock Activities 119. Non - vehicular activities, such as the operation of the trash compactor, which occur in the vicinity of the service /access road shall be operated only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM daily. MitiQation Measures Proposed for Revision 117. Use of the heliport/helipad shall be limited to emergency medical purposes or the transportation of critically ill patients in immediate need of medical care not available at to and from Hoag Hospital. Helicopters shall, to the extent feasible, arrive at, and depart from the helipad, from the northeast, to mitigate noise impacts on residential units to the west and south. Rationale: The helipad is used for transport in and out of Hoag. Patients are brought also brought to Hoag via helicopter for emergency or specialized care. This change clarifies current operations at Hoag. R:\PmjWSWl .p.eW008Mratl EIR\3.4 Nafsr091807,d.c 3.431 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Mitigation Measures No Longer Required 39. If noise levels in on -site outdoor noise sensitive use areas exceed 65 CNEL, the Project Sponsor shall develop measures that will attenuate the noise to acceptable levels for proposed hospital facilities. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, of combination wall /berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 3.4 -10 is proposed that would supersede Mitigation Measure 39. 40. Prior to occupancy of Master Plan facilities, interior noise levels shall be monitored to ensure that on -site interior noise levels are below 45 CNEL. If levels exceed 45 CNEL, mitigation such as window modifications shall be implemented to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 3.4 -11 is proposed that would supersede Mitigation Measure 40. 41. Prior to issuance of a grading and /or building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that existing noise levels associated with the on -site exhaust fan are mitigated to acceptable levels. Similarly, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Building Department that all noise levels generated by new mechanical equipment associated with the Master Plan are mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. Rationale: Mitigation Measures 3.4 -2 and 3.4 -3 are proposed that would supersede Mitigation Measure 41. 112. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noises that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 112 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. This measure has been superseded by the City's standard condition for hours of construction. 114. Rooftop mechanical equipment screening on the emergency room expansion shall not extend closer than fifteen feet from the west edge of the structure and no closer than ten feet from the edge of the structure on any other side. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 114 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented. 115. Noise from the emergency room expansion rooftop mechanical equipment shall not exceed 55 dBA at the property line. R:\Proi�s \WwponUJ(W Mfl EIROA Wse 091807.doc 3.4 -32 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Rationale: Mitigation Measure 115 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented. 120. Within one year from the date of final approval of the Planned Community District Regulations and development Plan by the California Coastal Commission, as an interim measure, the Project Sponsor shall implement an acoustical and /or landscape screen to provide a visual screen from and reduce noise to adjoining residences from the loading dock area. The design process for the Critical Care Surgery Addition shall include an architectural and acoustical study to ensure the inclusion of optimal acoustical screening of the loading dock area by that addition. Subsequent to the construction of the Critical Care Surgery Addition, an additional acoustical study shall be conducted to assess the sound attenuation achieved by that addition. If no significant sound attenuation is achieved, the hospital shall submit an architectural and acoustical study assessing the feasibility and sound attenuation implications of enclosing the loading dock area. If enclosure is determined to be physically feasible and effective in reducing noise impacts along the service access road, enclosure shall be required. Any enclosure required pursuant to this requirement may encroach into any required setback upon the review and approval of a Modification as set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 120 applied to the Critical Care /Surgery Center, which was not developed. Therefore, this measure would no longer be applicable. Additional Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts of the Proposed Master Plan Update Project Construction Activities MM 3.4 -1 Prior to the initiation of vibration - generating demolition and construction activities, the Hoag Construction Project Manager shall notify building /department representatives that these activities are planned. This notification will allow for the relocation of vibration- sensitive equipment in portions of buildings that could be affected. The Hoag construction staff shall work with the Project Contractor to schedule demolition and construction activities that use heavy equipment and are located within 50 feet of buildings where vibration - sensitive medical procedures occur, such that demolition and construction activities are not scheduled concurrent with sensitive medical operations. A system of communications would be established between selected vibration - sensitive uses /areas and Construction Managers so that noise or vibration. which would affect patient care or research activities can be avoided. On -Site Activities The loading dock and existing mechanical equipment operation exceed current requirements, and therefore, result in a significant noise impact. Future mechanical equipment implemented as a result of Hoag buildout could result in a significant noise impact. Mitigation is discussed below. However, the proposed changes to the Development Agreement would allow higher noise levels R:TroledslNewpodWCGNDrO EIRQ.4 Noise091807.doc 3.4 -33 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R adjacent to the loading dock than that permitted by the City's Noise Ordinance. This modification to the noise limits would result in a significant impact despite the application of the mitigation measures described below. On -Site Activities: Mechanical Equipment MM 3.4 -2 The final plans for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment for the Ancillary Building and West Tower shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The plans shall be reviewed by an Acoustical Engineer to ensure that they will achieve 58 dBA (Leq) at the property line adjacent to the loading dock area. These plans need to be submitted within six months of the certification of the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Final Supplemental EIR (SEIR). If Hoag does not pursue the redesign of the HVAC systems for the Ancillary Building and West Tower, Hoag shall submit within six months of the certification of the Final SEIR a plan to the City that details how Hoag will bring the current equipment into compliance with the 58 dBA nighttime noise limit when measured at the property line adjacent to the loading dock area. MM 3.4 -3 Prior to issuance of building permits for any project that includes HVAC equipment, an acoustical study of the noise generated by the HVAC equipment shall be performed and a report that documents the results shall be submitted. This report shall present the noise levels generated by the equipment and the methodology used to estimate the noise levels at nearby residential uses or property boundary, as applicable; the report will also demonstrate that combined noise levels generated by all new HVAC equipment does not exceed the applicable Development Agreement limits. This study shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. After installation of the equipment, noise measurements shall be performed and provided to the City that demonstrates compliance with applicable noise level limits. On -Site Activities: Loading Dock Two options were considered for mitigating the loading dock noise impact: a soundwall at the property line and a cover over the loading dock area. Hoag has existing time restrictions for the loading dock operations. Truck deliveries can only occur during the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM. Non - vehicular activities in the loading dock area can only occur between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM (See Mitigation Measure 119). Currently the loading dock does not meet the levels established by the Noise Ordinance related to nearby residences that would fall within the Zone III — Mixed Use category (60 dBA [Leq] or 80 dBA [Lmax] during the daytime). A soundwall could be constructed along Hoag's westerly property line to reduce noise levels at the residences. However, the geometry in this area is not favorable for the construction of a soundwall. Hoag's property is lower than the residential property and therefore, the soundwall would, in effect, be constructed in a hole. The wall would need to be exceptionally high to provide the appropriate level of noise reduction for the residents on the top floor. It has been calculated that the soundwall would need to be 25.5 feet high to provide the 8 dB noise reduction to bring the loading dock noise into compliance with the Noise Ordinance. A 25.5 foot soundwall is not feasible. Caltrans, for example, limits soundwalls along freeways to 16 feet. In addition to being very costly, residents may not support a soundwall this high and close to their homes as many balconies would look directly at a solid block wall. R9Pr01ects wP0r10008 \0raN EIR \3.4 N6se-091807.EOO 3.4 -34 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR A second option would be a cover over the loading dock area. The cover would incorporate a solid roof and the structure would be open on the sides. The cover would extend over the loading dock area and extend to the western property line. The covered area would be approximately 6,400 sf. Design issues would include roof material, provision of adequate lighting, and location of structural columns, among other issues. The loading dock cover would not provide the 8 dB noise reduction necessary to bring the loading dock operations into compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Some residents located to the west and south of the loading dock would experience an approximate 5 dB noise reduction. These residents would have a sight line through the side of the covered area so the noise reduction benefit to them would therefore be minimal. There are no feasible measures to bring the loading dock area into compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. However, there are several measures that would provide some improvement in the noise levels associated with the loading dock. In most cases, the noise level improvement with these additional measures would be minimal or cannot be quantified. However, because they are feasible and would provide some noise relief, they are recommended as mitigation measures. There are two measures that could be implemented at the residences that would reduce noise impacts, but would not bring the loading dock noise into compliance with the Noise Ordinance. These measures, which could be done either individually or in combination, consist of providing balcony barriers and window upgrades. Balcony barriers.would extend the balcony enclosure up to a height of six or seven feet. Typically, the balcony barrier extension is constructed of 3/3 -inch tempered (safety) glass or 5/8 -inch plexiglass. The balcony barrier would reduce the noise levels on the balcony by approximately 6 dB, but would not bring the balcony area into compliance (an 8 dB reduction is needed). A variation to the balcony barrier would be to completely enclose the balcony with glass, in effect making it a sun room. This measure would achieve more than the 8 dB reduction needed, but would be subject to homeowner and Homeowner Association approvals. A second measure would be to upgrade the windows in the residences. The amount of noise reduction is dependant on the quality of the existing windows and the quality of the retrofitted windows. A noise reduction would only be accomplished if the windows were in the closed position. It should be noted that the indoor Noise Ordinance criteria is applied with the windows in the open position, and no benefit would occur with the windows open. Measures that would modify the residences are not recommended because the acceptability of enclosing balcony areas or modifying windows to the residents and Homeowners Association is unknown and the feasibility is questionable. MM 3.4 -4 Truck deliveries to the loading dock area are restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. It is noted that special situations may arise that require delivery outside of these hours. MM 3.4 -5 Sound absorption panels on the east wall of the loading dock shall be installed. Approximately 450 square feet of absorptive panels shall be used to cover major portions of the back wall of the loading dock area. The Noise -Foil panels by Industrial Acoustics or a panel with an equivalent or better sound rating shall be used. MM 3.4 -6 The trash compactor shall be relocated within the loading dock. The trash compactor and baler shall be enclosed in a three -sided structure. The walls shall be concrete block or similar masonry construction. The roof shall be lightweight R: \Prge s \NewportW00MDraft EIR\36 Noise -091 e07.doc 3.4 -35 Section 3 -4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR concrete roof or a plywood surface with concrete tiles; a built -up roof with 5' 5" of insulation on the inside would be an acceptable alternative. The open side shall face away from the residents. Doors may be on the side of the enclosure facing the residents, but must be closed when the baler or compactor are operating. The compactor and baler should only be operated between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. MM 3.5 -7 "No Idling" signs shall be posted in the loading dock area and any area where the trucks might queue. On -Site Activities: Grease Trap The grease trap operation is exempt from noise regulations. However, residents have complained about the noise, so Hoag investigated their options to reduce the noise from this activity. Hoag has examined ways in which the grease trap operation would be less intrusive to residents. The traps are cleaned during the morning on a weekend day about once per month. The typical cleanout operation lasts for 2 to 2 1/2 hours. The operation involves 3 trucks: one 10,000 gallon tanker, one 7,500 gallon tanker, and one support van. All three trucks arrive concurrently to minimize down time, but each tanker must be filled separately due to limited access to the underground storage tanks (two tankers cannot physically occupy the available parking and street area adjacent to the access points for the underground tanks). Therefore, the option of bringing in more trucks to simultaneously pump out the grease traps and shorten the time of operation is not feasible. Moving the cleanout operation to a weekday may be less intrusive to the residences; Hoag investigated this option. The area necessary for access by the tankers requires that the trucks occupy the vehicular parking above the underground tanks, as well as one drive aisle on West Hoag Drive. On Saturdays, the approximately 20 parking stalls needed for this the grease removal can be reserved with limited impact on Hospital operations. During the weekdays, these parking stalls, located directly adjacent to the Ancillary Building and the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute outpatient facility, are important for safe and accessible parking. As noted above, the tankers also occupy one drive aisle during the cleaning operation which, while manageable on a Saturday morning or afternoon, would affect safe operations during the week; West Hoag Drive provides access for patients, staff, emergency vehicles, and service vehicles. Therefore, performing the grease trap cleanout on days other than a Saturday is not considered feasible. MM 3.5 -5 Grease trap cleaning operations shall be limited to Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. On -Site Activities: Cogeneration Facility The operation of the fourth cooling tower at the cogeneration facility could result in an exceedance of the Noise Ordinance. MM 3.5 -9 Upon installation of the fourth cooling tower at the cogeneration facility, additional noise measurements shall be performed to determine compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. The measurements shall be made and a report submitted to the City within three months of commencement of operations of the fourth cooling tower. If a violation is noted, the problem must be corrected and a second set of measurements submitted to the City showing compliance within one year of commencement of operations of the fourth cooling tower. AAProjenS%Ne.P01W008 \0rah EIB\0A Nei9c 091907.tloc 3.436 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R On -Site Land Uses MM 3.4 -10 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any Hoag patio use proposed to be located closer to the roadway then the 65 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 3.4 -7, a detailed acoustical analysis study shall be prepared by a qualified Acoustical Consultant and a report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The Acoustical Analysis Report shall describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the area and the measures required to meet the 65 CNEL exterior residential noise standard. The final building plans shall incorporate the noise barriers (wall, berm, or combination wall /berm) required by the analysis and Hoag shall install these barriers prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. MM 3.4 -11 Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed acoustical study using architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified Acoustical Consultant and a report shall be submitted to and approved by the City for Hoag buildings that are proposed to be located closer to the roadway than the 65 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 3.4 -7 and for office buildings that are proposed to be located closer to the roadway than the 70 CNEL contour distance (Table 3.4 -7). This report shall describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the building(s); the amount of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction provided by the design in the architectural plans; and any upgrades required to meet the City's interior noise standards (45 CNEL for hospital uses and 50 CNEL for office uses). The measures described in the report shall be incorporated into the architectural plans for the buildings and implemented with building construction. 3.4.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed changes to the Development Agreement could eventually result in higher noise levels at the nearby residences (compared to existing conditions). Mitigation measures are recommended and it has been determined that no other feasible mitigation exists that would reduce impacts from the loading dock area to below the limits contained in the City's Noise Ordinance. Modification of the Development Agreement, as proposed, will allow noise to exceed the Noise Ordinance criteria in the vicinity of the loading dock area, even after application of the feasible mitigation measures discussed above; therefore, the proposed changes must be identified as resulting in signif icant and unavoidable adverse impacts. RAProlWMNewpoMW008\Dreil E103.4 Nals,091807AM 3.4.37 Section 3.4 Noise Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 3.5 AESTHETICS The viewshed analysis in Final EIR No. 142 incorporated information from Final EIR No. 136 (prepared for the Patty & George Hoag Cancer Center on the Lower Campus and prepared by LSA), as well as information from visual analyses conducted by Vail Speck Taylor, Model Technics, and by an Ad Hoc Committee of the West Newport Beach Association. As a Supplemental EIR (SEIR), this section discusses potential changes in the viewshed since certification of Final EIR No. 142 or as a result of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Public and private viewsheds have been identified and the potential visibility of Hoag from these vantage points has been determined. The information in this SEIR section is based on field reconnaissance, review of the site and aerial photographs, as well as aesthetic and topographic information from Final EIR No. 142, which are incorporated by reference and summarized where applicable. 3.5.1 SUMMARY OF FINAL EIR NO. 142 Final EIR No. 142 provides a comprehensive evaluation of the potential aesthetic, topographic, and landform effects for the Master Plan Project proposed in 1992. The evaluation included viewpoint analyses from West Coast Highway; the residential development north of Hoag Hospital; land uses west of Newport Boulevard; public views along the area developed as the Sunset View linear park; and potential impact on ocean views. A summary of the findings of Final EIR No. 142 as related to aesthetics, topography, and landform is provided below. Landform and Topoaraphv The Master Plan project evaluated in Final EIR No. 142 determined that landform alteration would not result in significant visual impacts. Grading on the Upper Campus was not anticipated to be extensive and would not result in substantial landform alteration because previous grading activities had already altered the natural topography in this area. Final EIR No. 142 identified that, although grading would occur on the Lower Campus, the slope would visually retain a similar configuration to what existed at the time the EIR was certified in 1992. At that time, the Lower Campus had a relatively flat mesa top along the northern portion with a large downslope that led to a relatively flat expanse of property in the southern portion of Hoag that is adjacent to West Coast Highway. Final EIR No. 142 assessed the 1992 Master Plan Project, which proposed the grading of the Lower Campus to accommodate development in this location. Grading was to include cut slopes supported with crib walls and separated by an access road below the edge of the upper mesa. Final EIR No. 142 noted that off -site views of the slope would retain a similar configuration; however, these views would be shifted to the north and the mesa top would be slightly lowered. Final EIR No. 142 concluded that there would be no significant visual impacts as result of grading activities on the Lower Campus. Viewsheds Views of the Upper Campus consist of the developed Hoag site. The areas with the most direct views of the Upper Campus are land uses located east of Newport Boulevard, which include a mix of residential, commercial, and some industrial uses. Views from Newport Boulevard are largely obstructed by the intervening cut slope associated with the roadway. Views from West Coast Highway include views of the Lower Campus and the existing uses on the Upper Campus. Development approved for the Upper Campus allows for the demolition and reconstruction of existing structures, additions to existing buildings, and /or construction of new buildings. The Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final EIR No. 142 concluded that even though R,WrgeM \NewpMW008 \Draft EIR\0.5 P heti.- 091607.4. 3.6 -1 Section 3.5 Aesthetics Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental ER implementation of the Master Plan would alter existing viewsheds of the Upper Campus, the change would not have a significant visual impact because the visual perception of the Upper Campus would not be substantially altered. As set forth in Final EIR No. 142, development in the Lower Campus area may have a "perceived significant impact on those residents who live to the north of the Lower Campus." However, Final EIR No. 142 concludes, "...because this change is not out of character with the surrounding area (i.e., Upper Campus and the eastern portion of the Lower Campus) or inconsistent with City plans or policies, it does not represent a significant visual impact." Shade and Shadow Final EIR No. 142 identified that the development on the Upper Campus would cast shadows on adjacent land uses. The tallest structure at the time was the Hospital Tower (West Tower), at approximately 175 feet above grade level; structures up to 235 feet above mean sea level (msl) are permitted in the Tower Zone. Final EIR No. 142 noted that development on the Lower Campus would not cast shadows on other properties because it is at a lower elevation than the adjacent land uses. The Versailles and Villa Balboa residential developments (located west of the Upper Campus) were identified as the only sensitive land uses for shade and shadow. Final EIR No. 142 identified that Master Plan buildout would increase shadow effects to residential units west of Hoag. While this may be perceived as adverse by some of the residents, Final EIR No. 142 concluded that it would not be a significant impact because of the short daily duration of the effect. Shading would only affect a portion of condominiums during the early morning hours and it would not substantially limit solar energy access to the structures. However, Final EIR No. 142 identified that the combination of shade, shadow, and noise effects would contribute to significant unavoidable land use compatibility impacts to residences located west of the Upper Campus. 3.5.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS On -site Conditions Since the certification of Final EIR No. 142 and the approval of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan, there have been several construction projects at Hoag. Exhibit 3.1 -1 (see Section 3.1) provides an overview of the existing buildings at Hoag. As previously discussed in this SEIR, the Upper Campus has higher intensity uses which consist of multiple high -rise buildings, including the West Tower and the Women's Pavilion. These buildings are ten stories and seven stories, respectively, and are taller than surrounding on -site and off -site structures. This building height combined with the tight clustering of surrounding buildings helps to define the visual character of the site as that, of a regional medical center. Exhibits 3.5 -1a to 3.5 -1i provide photographs of Hoag from various adjacent vantage points. These viewpoints duplicate many of the viewpoints evaluated in Final EIR No. 142. Access from West Coast Highway onto the Lower Campus is from Hoag Drive. Development on the Lower Campus is predominately east of the West Coast Highway and Hoag Drive intersection. Existing facilities include the Cancer Center, Conference Center and parking, and the employee childcare center. On the southeastern edge of the Lower Campus is the cogeneration facility. Between the cogeneration facility and the other facilities are numerous construction trailers associated with ongoing construction projects at Hoag. The visual character of the Lower Campus is different from the Upper Campus because of the lower intensity of the RdProjedslNewponUJOWDrafl EIRQ.5 Aesthetics 09180].doc 3.5-2 Section 3.5 Aesthetics zot kv. WW W t t ,s P Upper f.'afopus Lower r.ampuE Photograph View Locations y r a I I y� la AL 0, o � 17 `s yr f AV Y � !: Exhibit 3.5 -1 a Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR e .oL w E C O N 5 fi i 7 1 N 0 R. rajecWNewpNJ00WGraphIWE %.3.5-te_PVL_09190] pdf a View 1:View from West Coast Highway. Site Photographs Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR Exhibit 3.5 -1 b C O N 5 U( 7 1 N G R:iPmjedWN"wWJ000/ phks/E..3.5.Ib 083007.pdf View 2 View from the North of Lower Campus. View 3: View from the North of Lower Campus. Site Photographs Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental E1R Exhibit 3.5 -1c C O N5 U l T I N RIIPrgecis We WJ008IGraphira lEx.3.8- 1c_D83DD7.q¢ �f - _ -tea -I& I, View 6: View from Sunset View Park. View 7: View from Sunset View Park. Site Photographs Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental E1R Exhibit 3.5-le ACZn� ?LB C O N 5 U! 7 1 N G R'fPro,KWNew .WJ00B /Gre hkstEx 3.5- 7e_083007.pm 6W vi¢w u vlcw mull, ounael view rant. View 9: View from Sunset View Park. Site Photographs Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR Exhibit 3.5 -1 f CO NS U(II N e y b .t 1 �I View 10: View from Hospital Road Looking South. �1 '.t Site Photograph Exhibit 3.5-19 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR �I1 CONS U(iING R. IP- melyNewporVJ00&GwhiWEw3.5.1g 083007pdf View 11: View from Old Newport Avenue North of Hospital Road. View 13: View from Holmwood Drive at Beacon Street. Site Photographs Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR View 12: View from Westminster Avenue West of Clay Street. View 14: View from Westminster Avenue East of Clay Street. Exhibit 3.5 -1 h C D N 5 U 1 7 I N G odf View 15: View from the South side of Arches on West Coast Highway. View 17: View from West Coast Highway. Site Photographs Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR view 16: View from Old Newport Avenue. Exhibit 3.5 -1 i .1�ort�_q C O N 5 U I T I N G .N.slEx.3.511 _083007.pdf Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR uses. Not only are the buildings low rise, there is substantially more open space and landscaping surrounding the buildings. The western portion of the Lower Campus (where the construction trailers are located) contains very limited landscaping immediately adjacent to West Coast Highway. There is no landscaping on this portion of the site other than some vegetation on the slope that separates the Lower Campus from the residential uses. Overall, the appearance of the western portion of the Lower Campus is that of a construction zone. Although they are temporary trailers used by the construction companies that are involved in the improvements at Hoag, they have been present for a number of years and would continue to be present because of the long -term nature of the implementation of the Master Plan. Off -site Views Hoag is at a visually prominent location northwest of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway. It is visible to motorists along each of the adjacent roadways and from the surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the site. Coastal views can be seen from Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue south of Hospital Road. No coastal views are afforded along the segment of West Coast Highway adjacent to Hoag because of changes in elevation and intervening development Originally part of the Lower Campus is Sunset View Park, a linear park that separates the Lower Campus from the residential development immediately north of Hoag. Hoag previously dedicated this area as "parkland." It currently has a bike path and offers ocean views. As a view park; its intended purpose is to provide scenic opportunities. However, it should be noted that the designation of the park was done in conjunction with the approval of the Hoag Master Plan in 1992. As such, it was understood that there would be development on the Lower Campus that would be visible from the park. Building height restrictions are identified, however, in the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (PC Text, which is in Appendix B of this SEIR) for the Lower Campus in order protect public views from this park. Residential development is generally more sensitive to changes in views and is located both north and south of the Lower Campus. The Versailles and Villa Balboa Condominiums north and west of Hoag have direct views across and over the Lower Campus. These views would be greatest for the first row of condominiums; however, units set further back would also have partial, obstructed views of Hoag. The easterly units in the Villa Balboa development would also have views of the western portion of the Upper Campus, including the existing parking structure. West Coast Highway separates residential development to the south from Hoag. Although this development would have views of Hoag, the general orientation of this development is to the south toward the ocean. Most of these residences are further separated from Hoag by local access streets with exterior areas that open directly onto the water. North of the Upper Campus and west of Newport Boulevard are office buildings and a residential care facility. These uses would have views of Hoag. As previously indicated, east of Newport Boulevard are a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Most of these uses back onto Newport Boulevard with views oriented toward the southeast. However, there are locations (primarily residential) that have views across Newport Boulevard toward Hoag. The Upper Campus is prominent in these viewsheds. WProje s!Newport )0 1Drah EIRO.5 Aesthetics- 09IW7,tl 3.53 .Section 3.5 Aesthetics Hoag Memorial Hospital PresWenan Master Plan Update Oran Supplemental E1P Master Plan Development Criteria The Master Plan contains development criteria that were addressed in Final EIR No. 142. Since the existing Master Plan does not propose specific buildings on the site, the visual analysis conducted in Final EIR No. 142 evaluated the potential impacts associated with development envelopes. Allowable building heights were assumed for the entire envelope to ensure that potential impacts were addressed regardless of the specific locations ultimately decided upon within Hoag. No changes are proposed to the development criteria (e.g., building heights, development envelopes, setbacks). The development criteria are depicted in Exhibit 3.5 -2. On the Upper Campus, the core area is identified as the Tower Zone, where heights are allowed up to 235 feet above msl. Surrounding the Tower Zone is the Midrise Zone where development up to 140 feet above msl is allowed. The Parking Zone on the southern portion of the Upper Campus has a height restriction of 80 feet above msl. Height above mean sea level is used as the standard rather than a building height in order to recognize the sloping nature of the site and to provide a development envelope above which building would not be allowed. The height restrictions for development on the Lower Campus vary (Exhibit 3.5 -2). General Plan Policies The Natural Resources and Land Use Elements of the General Plan identify objectives and policies pertaining to visual resources. These policies are identified in Table 3.5 -1 later in this section with a discussion of the consistency with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. 3.5.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following threshold criteria are from the Initial Study checklist contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in a significant impact related to aesthetics if it would: Threshold 3.5 -1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Threshold 3.5 -2 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Threshold 3.5 -3 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Threshold 3.5 -4 Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 3.5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for the reallocation of up to 225,000 square feet (sf) of previously approved (but not constructed) square footage between the Upper Campus and Lower Campus. Site- specific development is not proposed as a part of the Master Plan Update Project. No modifications to the development criteria adopted in conjunction with the 1992 Master Plan are proposed that would change building envelopes, heights, or setbacks. The proposed Master Plan Update Project does not provide for the R:\Pr*OS\NeapodVMMTafl EIR\3.5 Aealh6m- Wi8M.dm 3.5 -4 Sechon 3.5 Aesthetics Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!F approval of any specific development project. Therefore, there are no specific building designs, locations, or features that can be evaluated. Consistent with Final EIR No. 142, this SEIR assesses future development consistent with existing building restrictions. Building restrictions would not be modified as a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Impact Analysis Threshold 3.5 -Y: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Threshold 3.5 -2: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Visual impacts are relative to the visual environment in which they occur. An important consideration when determining if the Project would significantly affect visual resources is how strongly the proposed Master Plan Update Project would contrast with the visual quality of the existing setting. If the proposed Master Plan Update Project would differ greatly from the existing uses, it has greater potential to have significant visual impacts because of the change in the visual character of the site and to the surrounding area. Another factor is the identification of the viewers, their sensitivity to the visual elements, and the duration of their view. For instance, there would be a large number of Hoag viewers on the local roadways; however, the duration of their views would be very short and their sensitivity to the views would only be moderate. A homeowner would have views of longer duration and would be more sensitive to changes in the viewshed. Views from On the Site As previously discussed, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow greater intensity of development on the Upper Campus. This would allow intensification of uses for the Upper Campus and a commensurate reduction in intensity on the Lower Campus. This would not result in significant visual impacts to views from Hoag. There are locations (such as the upper stories of the West Tower or Women's Pavilion) that offer views. Without specific development plans, it is unknown exactly how these views would be altered. However, these are not public viewpoints and the views are not essential to the nature of the uses. Therefore, potential changes to views would not be considered a significant impact. Views from Off the Site Upper Campus The proposed Master Plan Update Project would intensify development on the.Upper Campus by allowing a transfer of up to 225,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Within the Upper Campus, the Tower Zone allows development up to 235 feet above msl. This height limitation would be retained but more and /or taller multi -story structures would be expected in this area. The original four -story hospital building is located within this zone. As envisioned in both the existing and proposed Master Plan projects, it is likely that this facility would be demolished and replaced with one or more multi -story structures consistent with the Tower Zone height limits. Although this change was anticipated in the original Master Plan, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow greater flexibility for increasing the size and /or number of the structure(s) within the Tower Zone because of increased square footage in the Upper Campus associated with the proposed transfer of allowable development from the RAProjeCe NmwnU008\nran EIR \3.5 A Mlrehm- 091907.doc 3.5 -5 Section 3.5 Aesthetics Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Lower Campus. Overall, this would not substantially change the character of this portion of Hoag. As previously indicated, the Upper Campus represents the high- intensity core of hospital operations. Residents would be the most sensitive to changes to the visual landscape because they have views for the longest duration and viewshed protection is generally an important issue for homeowners. The majority of the residential areas do not have immediate foreground views of the Upper Campus because of building placement and view orientation either outward toward the ocean or inward toward the common landscaped areas within the condominium development. There is also a heavily landscaped edge between the Upper Campus and the residential development to the west. However, residential units along the western edge of the Upper Campus, especially units on upper stories, do have views of the uses along West Hoag Drive and beyond, including the loading docks and service areas at Hoag. The views from these units would not substantially change as a result of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. The area immediately adjacent to these. uses is designated as the Midrise Zone. Should, as future projects are proposed and implemented, these areas be modified, the development criteria and mitigation measures adopted as part of the original Master Plan and Final EIR No. 142 would apply. This would include the need to ensure that all mechanical equipment and trash areas are screened from public streets, alleys, and adjoining properties. As previously indicated, Final EIR No. 142 addressed development of the site to the maximum allowable heights; therefore, the worst -case impacts were considered. Even with a transfer of square footage to the Upper Campus, impacts would not be greater than those addressed in Final EIR No. 142 because the development criteria would not be modified. Because of the building heights and associated height restrictions, the adjacent condominium development to the west would have midrange views of development within Hoag's Tower Zone. With the proposed Master Plan Update Project, development in the Tower Zone is expected to intensify. For example, if the original hospital building is demolished and a high -rise structure(s) is constructed in that location, it would likely be visible to some residents, especially to those units adjacent to Hoag's western boundary. However, the existing West Tower would block part of the new development view. Although this may alter residents' views, this change (intensification of development in the Upper Campus including the Tower Zone) was anticipated and would be consistent with the development concepts approved as part of the original Master Plan. Such development would be compatible with other uses within the Tower Zone (e.g., the West Tower and the Women's Pavilion). The overall visual character of the Upper Campus as an intensely developed urban area with high -rise structures would not be substantially altered. Future development associated with the transfer of square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus would not have a significant visual impact to the adjacent condominium units. As previously indicated, residential development south and east of the hospital (south of West Coast Highway and east of Newport Boulevard) would not be affected by the proposed Master Plan Update Project. These residences are physically separated from Hoag by major streets and their view orientation is generally toward the ocean or internal to their respective developments. Views of the Upper Campus would be midrange views. As with the development to the west of Hoag, the intensification of development in the Tower Zone would not substantially change the visual character of the site or obstruct their views. No significant impact to these residential uses is anticipated. The views from adjacent office and commercial uses would not be substantially altered because maximum building heights would not be modified and these locations already have views of the RAPfoj GS\Newpo UGMDraR EIR2.5 AestheticsMW7.tl 3.5-6 Section 3.5 Aesthetics Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E1R existing on -site multi -story buildings. Additionally, it should be noted that views are not an integral part of the operation for these uses. No significant impacts would be anticipated. Hoag would also be visible from the adjacent roadway. As previously addressed, viewers on the roadway would have less sensitivity to changes in the aesthetic environment and would experience views that are very short in duration. Although West Coast Highway is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway, it has never been officially designated as such (Caltrans 1996). As discussed below under the General Plan analysis, Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue are designated as "coastal view roads." The approved development criteria for the Upper Campus would not block ocean views from either of these roadways. Newport Boulevard is at a lower elevation as it passes adjacent to the Tower Zone. Intervening topography would block views of the ocean to the west along the roadway. From Superior Avenue, the intervening development to the east would block views of the ocean. Intensification of development on the Upper Campus would not substantially alter views from these roadways. Development on the Upper Campus would be visible from West Coast Highway. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in an intensification of these uses but, as from the other locations, it would not change the visual character from West Coast Highway. The existing Tower Zone provides a visual focus area as seen from West Coast Highway. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would be a continuation of the urban character that currently exists on the campus. Lower Campus The Lower Campus is immediately south of Sunset View Park and the Villa Balboa development. However, there is a substantial elevation difference between these uses. As discussed in Final EIR No. 142, development on the Lower Campus has greater potential for visual impacts because it is within the viewshed of the residences. Additionally, the park, which was dedicated as a condition of Master Plan approval, is identified as a view park. To address concerns associated with obstruction of views, the development criteria in the existing Master Plan provides that building heights on the Lower Campus be restricted so as not to exceed the height of the existing slope. Additionally, the Lower Campus is divided into eight zones, each with a specified building height (see Exhibit 3.1 -2 in Section 3.1). These zones specify typical building height above proposed grade and typical range of maximum building height above msl. By complying with these building height requirements, Hoag buildings would not intrude on the viewpoints within the park or from the residential units. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not change the development criteria. Additionally, the Lower Campus plans include a landscaped treatment wall to screen Lower Campus facilities along Coast Highway from Hoag's northerly property line to the Lower Campus entrance. This wall would provide a landscape buffer for both pedestrians and vehicles. With the transfer of square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus, there would be less overall development allowed on the Lower Campus. This, combined with compliance with the development criteria, would avoid or minimize potential visual impacts to the residents or park visitors. These height restrictions would also avoid impacts on views from Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard, which, as identified in the General Plan Natural Resources Element Policy NR 20.3, are designated as "public view corridors" As previously indicated, the residential development south of West Coast Highway is oriented toward the ocean. Views of Hoag would be midrange views from the local streets and entry areas of these residences. Overall, the visual character of the site would not be substantially different. No significant impacts on aesthetic resources are expected. R:1PrajectslNewpartW009?aatt EIRl3.5 Aestwi.- OM1807do 3.5 -7 Section 3.5 Aesthetics Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Shade and Shadow The analysis in Final EIR No. 142 noted that the existing Master Plan would result in greater morning shade and shadow on the adjacent condominium development because of continued development within the Tower and Midrise Zones. The analysis was conducted using a worst - case condition where both the Tower and Midrise Zones were built out to their maximum allowable height. Even with the proposed transfer of square footage from the Lower Campus, it is not reasonable to assume that the entire Upper Campus could be built out at maximum height, but this assumption allows the analysis to consider the impact regardless of the precise location of future buildings. The results of the previous analysis found that Master Plan buildout would increase shadow effects to the condominiums located west of Hoag. The amount of increased shade and number of units affected would vary depending on the time of the year. The buildings along Hoag's western boundary would be affected. For residential units that currently receive shade from Hoag structures, the duration would be increased. For residences that are not shaded, there would be a noticeable change. However, Final EIR No. 142 concluded that this would not be considered a significant impact of the Master Plan because of the short duration during the year; the fact that the shading effects only affect a portion of the structures during the early morning hours; and the fact that the increased shade would not substantially limit solar energy access to the structures. Since the proposed Master Plan Update would not alter the maximum allowable height buildings at Hoag, these potential impacts would not be different from what was previously addressed. Impacts 3.5 -1 Less Than Significant Impact. Final EIR No. 142 identified that the and 3.5 -2: Master Plan would not result in significant aesthetic or visual impacts. The Final EIR found that as an individual .project effect, shade and shadow impacts were considered less than significant. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not result in any significant visual impacts either prior to or after mitigation that were not previously identified in Final EIR No. 142. Impacts associated with the Project would be no greater than identified in Final EIR. 142. Threshold 3.5 -3: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Lighting With the increase in square footage, there is the potential for increased lighting on the Upper Campus. However, the incremental change would not be substantial because of the limited size of the Upper Campus and existing development. Continuous lighting on the site is required because it is a 24 -hour operation and because of arriving patients and visitors who may not be familiar with the site layout. Conditions already placed in the Master Plan require that the lighting system for all buildings and the window systems for buildings on the western side of the Upper Campus minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. Ongoing implementation measures would reduce the potential lighting impacts on adjacent uses. This would not be considered a significant lighting impact. Impact 3.5 -3: Less Than Significant Impact. As an existing 24 -hour land use, Hoag has existing night lighting. Ongoing development of Hoag would not result in significant new sources of lighting or glare. Threshold 3.5-4: Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, R:Tro1 is WWwpart)100ff,Dr& E1R13.5 P thefics- MW7.dac 3.5 -8 Section 3.5 Aesthetics Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? General Plan Policies Table 3.5 -1 evaluates the consistency of the proposed Master Plan Update Project with the applicable goals and policies of General Plan. TABLE 3.5 -1 CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT WITH AESTHETICS- RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES Goafsaiii! Polkas ': Gonsistertcy Analyses ,; Natural Resources Element Goal NR 20: Preservation of significant visual resources. NR 20.1: Protect, and, where feasible, The existing Hoag Hospital Master Plan provided for the protection enhance significant scenic and visual of ocean views, which would be considered a significant scenic resources that include open space, resource, by the dedication of the linear park along the northern mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and edge of the Lower Campus. The General Plan identifies multiple harbor from public vantage points, as shown public viewpoints within the park. With the implementation of the on Figure NR3. (Imp 2.1) approved development on the Lower Campus, views from the park would change, although ocean views would be protected because of height limitations on the Lower Campus. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would result in less development on the Lower Campus because square footage approved for the Lower Campus would be transferred to the Upper Campus. As previously noted, the park area was dedicated as a condition of the Master Plan. Therefore, it was understood that views would be altered. The Project is consistent with this policy. NR 20.2: Require new development to As discussed above for Policy NR 20.1, the Master Plan provided for restore and enhance the visual quality in the dedication of the view park, which provides for public views of visually degraded areas, where feasible, and the ocean. The development criteria for the Lower Campus provide provide view easements or corridors designed for protection of those views. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan to protect public views or to restore public Update Project would not conflict with this policy. views in developed areas, where appropriate. (Imp 20.3) NR 20.3: Protect and enhance public views The General Plan identifies 2 coastal view corridors: (1) Newport from identified roadway segments and other Boulevard from Hospital Road/Westminster Avenue to Via Lido and locations that may be identified in the future. (2) Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to West Coast Highway. (Imp 2.1, 20.3) There would be coastal views across the Lower Campus. The existing height restrictions in the development criteria would continue to preserve these views. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not conflict with this policy. NR 20.4: Design and site new development, The development criteria provide for a building setback from all including landscaping, on the edges of public public streets, and landscaping has been provided at* Hoag. The view corridors, including those down public landscaping helps to minimize visual impacts by softening the view streets, to frame, accent, and minimize of the development. Hoag maintains the landscaping on the site. impacts to public views. (Imp 2.1) Landscaping within public right -of -way, including berms and slopes, is maintained by the responsible jurisdiction (Caltrans is the responsible jurisdiction for West Coast Highway and the City of Newport Beach is the responsible agency for other local roads). NR 20.5: Provide public trails, recreation As discussed above, the Master Plan provided for the dedication of. areas, and viewing areas adjacent to public the Sunset view Park, which provides for public views of the ocean. view corridors, where feasible. (Imp 2. 1, The development criteria for the Lower Campus provides for 16.11, 23.2) protection of those views. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not conflict with this policy. R]Pm1Ws\NewponWM6 Draft El".5 Aesthe0a- 091807.doc 3.5 -9 Section 3.5 Aesthetics Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SuDDlemental EIR TABLE 3.5 -1 (Continued) CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT WITH AESTHETICS - RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES Goals and Policies Con "ststeney Ana! ysis Goal NR 22: Maintain the intensity of development around Newport Bay to be consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. NR 22.1: Continue to regulate the visual For the visual evaluation, a consideration was made regarding and physical mass of structures consistent whether the potential intensification of development on the Upper with the unique character and visual scale of Campus would be inconsistent with the visual character and scale of Newport Beach -(Imp 2.1) the site. Without specific development proposals, only a general analysis is possible. The current character of the Upper Campus is one of dense development providing an urban atmosphere to the site. Intensification of the development on the Upper Campus would not substantially change the character provided that the height limitations in the development criteria are adhered to. Therefore, when considering the thresholds of significance, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not result in -a significant visual impact and would be consistent with the character and visual scale of the site. The Project would be consistent with the intent of this policy. Land Use Element Goal LU 1: A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, business, and visitors through the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community. LU 1.6: Protect and, where feasible, As noted, the General Plan identifies 2 coastal view corridors: (1) enhance significant scenic and visual Newport Blvd. from Hospital RoacUWestminster Avenue to Via Lido resources that include open space, and (2) Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to West Coast mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and Highway. There would be coastal views across the Lower Campus. harbor from public vantage points. (imp 1.1) Existing building height restrictions would continue to preserve these views. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not conflict with this policy. The development criteria in the PC Text . also provide building envelopes, height restrictions, setbacks, and landscape requirements. Goal LU 5.5: Districts that provide (or the manufacturing of goods and research, and development that are attractive, compatible with adjoining non - industrial uses, and well maintained. LU 5.5.1: Require that buildings and The PC Text includes development standards pertaining to building properties be designed to ensure compatibility heights, setbacks, and building envelopes. Implementation of the within and as interfaces between proposed Master Plan Update Project would be consistent with the neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. (Imp PC Text and would not result in any significant aesthetic or visual 2.1) impacts on adjacent properties. Goal LU 5.6: Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City's environment. LU 5.6 -2: Require that new and renovated Any proposed structure that would deviate from the established buildings be designed to avoid the use of development standards of the PC Text are subject to site -plan styles, colors, and materials that unusually review. All other structures are deemed compatible with surrounding impact the design character and quality of development and are therefore permitted on Hoag, 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. (imp 2.1) LU 5.6.3: Require that outdoor lighting be The PC Text and the Mitigation Program for Final EIR No. 142 and located and designed to prevent spillover onto included in this SEIR requires lighting systems to be designed and adjoining properties or significantly increase maintained to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage the overall ambient illumination of their and glare to the adjacent residential uses. location. (Imp 2.1) R.\Prgetts \hlewportWW8U1rd1 EIRl35 AestheUCS- U91B�'l.doc 3.5-10 Jecr(on J.o Aesthetics Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 3.5 -1 (Continued) CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT WITH AESTHETICS - RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES Goals and Polii Curt lily Analysis LU 5.6.4: Require that sites be planned and As noted above, unless a proposed structure would deviate from the buildings designed in consideration of the established development standards of the PC Text, structures are property's topography, landforms, drainage deemed to be consistent with the this land use policy and compatible patterns, natural vegetation, and relationship with surrounding development. to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character that distinguishes Newport Beach. (Imp 2.1, 8.1) Impact 3.5 -4: No Impact. As identified in Table 3.5 -1, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not conflict with any goals or policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. 3.5.5 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS IMPACT ANALYSIS Final EIR No. 142 did not identify any significant cumulative aesthetics impacts associated with the adoption of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. It did identify, however, that the project would have a positive effect through the development of the linear and consolidated public view park along the northern perimeter of the Lower Campus. This provided the public with views of the ocean, Newport Bay, and Catalina Island which were not previously available. The findings of cumulative impacts have not changed since Final EIR No. 142. The proposed Master Plan Update Project is located in an urbanized area. The development is consistent with the development in the surrounding developed area. When evaluating cumulative aesthetic impacts, a number of factors must be considered. For a cumulative aesthetic impact to occur, the proposed elements of the cumulative projects would need to be seen together or in proximity to each other. If the projects were not proximate to each other, the viewer would not perceive them in the same viewshed. Therefore, even though the related projects may be identified as changing the visual character of their project areas, since they are not proximate to Hoag, they would not contribute to a cumulative aesthetic impact. There are no other projects in the local vicinity that would contribute to a change in the visual character of the area. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not contribute to a cumulative aesthetic impact. 3.5.6 MITIGATION PROGRAM The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Mitigation measure numbering reflects that provided in Resolution No. 92 -43 for certification of Final EIR No. 142. Minor modifications to the mitigation measures are proposed to reflect the current status of the Project; some mitigation measures in Final EIR No. 142 have been implemented and are no longer applicable. Rkikeewt -tex# is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. No additional mitigation is required as a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Project Design Features The Master Plan Update Project does not propose any project design features related to visual resources and aesthetics. R:\ Projects \NewpwW00BTrah EIM3,5 Aesthetics- 091807,doc 3.5-11 Section 3.5 Aesthetics Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Standard Conditions and Requirements SC 3.5 -1 Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 30 feet. SC 3.5 -2 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. SC 3.5 -3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Department. SC 3.5 -4 Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare. Mitigation Measures Final EIR No. 142 included several mitigation measures related to aesthetics. The adopted measures are presented below in two categories: (1) Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward and (2) Mitigation Measures No Longer Required. A rationale is provided for each measure in category 2. Final EIR No. 142 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward 43. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a landscape and irrigation plan is prepared for each building/improvement within the overall Master Plan. This plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. The plan shall be subject to review by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 45. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas will be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. 46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the rooftop of any structure on the Lower Campus. Rather, such buildings will have clean rooftops. Minor rooftop equipment necessary for operating purposes will comply with all building height criteria, and shall be concealed and screened to blend into the building roof using materials compatible with building materials. R Trojeols\NewpoGWOWDrafl EIR \3.5 Aesthetim- 091807.doo 3.5 -12 Section 3.5 Aesthetics Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 48. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any Lower Campus structure, the Project Sponsor shall prepare a study of each proposed building project to assure conformance with the EIR view impact analysis and the PCDP and District Regulations, to ensure that the visual impacts identified in the EIR are consistent with actual Master Plan development. This analysis shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planning Department. Mitigation Measures No Lonqer Required 44. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of plans from, the City Planning Department which detail the lighting system for all buildings and window systems for buildings on the western side of the Upper Campus. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, these requirements have been m et. Rationale: This mitigation measure would be replaced by standard conditions (identified above) used by the City of Newport Beach. These standard conditions supersede Mitigation Measure 44. 116. The Project Sponsor shall pay 75 percent of the cost of planting thirty 24 -inch ficus trees (or the equivalent) in the berm between the service road and Villa Balboa southerly of the tennis courts. Planting shall occur on Villa Balboa property. Rationale. This mitigation measure was adopted as part of the certification of Final EIR No. 142 and has already been implemented. Therefore, this measure would no longer need to be tracked through mitigation monitoring. 123. The design of the critical care /surgery addition shall incorporate screening devices for the windows which face the Villa Balboa area for the purpose of providing privacy for residents, so long as these screening devices can be designed to meet the Hospital Building Code requirements regarding the provision of natural light to the facility. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 123 required screening devices for the windows of critical care /surgery that faced the Villa Balboa area because it would have encroached into the minimum building setback. The critical care /surgery facility is not being implemented; therefore, this measure no longer applies. Should other uses be proposed in the location where the critical care /surgery facility would have been implemented, the site plan review process would identify the need for specific screening requirements. However, at the Master Plan level, this measure is no longer required. 3.5.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Final EIR No. 142 identified that the Master Plan Project would not result in significant aesthetic or visual impacts. The Final EIR found that shade and shadow effects would contribute to a significant unavoidable land use impact but that as an individual project effect, shade and shadow impacts were considered less than significant. This SEIR finds that the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not result in any significant visual impacts either prior to or after mitigation. R:1Pr01eM \Newp0KW008\Drah EIR13.5 Aesthetics- 091807.doc 3.5 -13 Section 3.5 Aesthetics Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental EIR SECTION 4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 INTRODUCTION As set forth in CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a), the purpose of the evaluation of alternatives to a proposed project is to: ...describe a range of reasonable alternatives to 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. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives, which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. Then: is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Final EIR No. 142 addressed eight alternatives to proposed Master Plan project that was ultimately approved by the City of Newport Beach in 1992 for Hoag. As previously addressed in this EIR, the approved Hoag Hospital Master Plan allows for up to 1,343,238 square feet (sf) of uses: 765,349 sf on Upper Campus and 577,889 sf on the Lower Campus. There is currently 890,005 sf of medical and medical - related uses at Hoag, of which 701,856 sf are inpatient, outpatient, and support uses on the Upper Campus and 188,149 sf of outpatient and support uses on the Lower Campus. Therefore, of the remaining 453,233 sf of approved but not constructed uses, 63,493 sf could be developed on the Upper Campus and 389,740 sf could be developed on the Lower Campus under the existing Master Plan. Of the remaining approved but not constructed uses, the Hoag Hospital Master Plan permits additional hospital beds and are a function of Hoag's square footage allocation. Final EIR No. 142 identfied the following as significant, unavoidable adverse impacts: • Land Use: The placement of hospital uses closer to residential units on the western side of the Upper Campus would result in significant impacts because of a combination of land use compatibility, shade and shadow, and noise impacts. Although the existing PC Text for the existing Master Plan provides for a greater setback than is required by the City Code, Final EIR No. 142 identified this as a significant unavoidable impact. Land Use:" The Project would contribute to a significant unavoidable impact because increased development on the Upper Campus would increase the use of internal roads on both the Upper and Lower Campuses and, in turn, contribute to noise and land use impacts on adjacent residential uses. Air Quality: The Project would result in significant cumulative air quality impacts associated with motor vehicle and stationary source pollutant emissions. The Project itself did not exceed thresholds, but when considered with all other present and future ' This significant impact was identified in both the Land Use and Transportation /Circulation sections of Final EIR No. 142. R:WroleM \Newpo01100810raR EIR\4.0 Ms- 091807.000 4 -1 bect/on 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR projects, a significant cumulative impact was identified because the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) continued to exceed State and federal air quality standards. • Noise: The Project would not result in significant project - specific exceedances of noise thresholds; however, it would contribute to significant unavoidable cumulative noise impacts. Roadway noise would exceed the 65 Community Noise Equivalency Level (CNEL) along roadways surrounding Hoag. • Construction, Air Quality: Air pollutants emitted by construction equipment, construction vehicles, and dust generated by grading and site preparation would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. Construction, Noise: Noise during construction would reach high levels and would create a short -term impact on ambient noise levels. Because the noise would occur intermittently over a 20 -year period, Final EIR No. 142 identified construction noise as a significant unavoidable impact. This Supplemental EIR (SEIR) has determined that the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those impacts identified in Final EIR No. 142 or that can now be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with the exception of noise in the loading dock area. As such, Final EIR No. 142 provided an adequate assessment of a reasonable range of alternatives and no further assessment of alternatives is required in this SEIR. CEQA Guidelines §15163(b) states, 'the supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised" and CEQA Guidelines §15163(d) states "a supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR." However, the Project Applicant has requested the consideration of one alternative for informational purposes. Analyzing a mid -range reallocation scenario allows for the assessment of impacts should less than the maximum square footage relocation occur as would be permitted with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. As such, this alternative has been included in this SEIR. 4.1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for the reallocation of up to 225,000 sf of the remaining approved but not constructed development on the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. As a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the Applicant is not requesting the approval of any project- specific land uses or development projects, only the ability to reallocate square footage. To accommodate the reallocated square footage, amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the Development Agreement, and the Hoag Hospital Planned Community and District Regulations (PC Text) are required. The existing PC Text provides that mechanical equipment noise generated from Hoag not exceed 55 decibels (dB) at all Hoag property lines. This noise restriction, which was established prior to the creation of the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance, is proposed to be eliminated. Instead, noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 below (Exhibit 2 -5.) R\Proleps\Ne orWOOMmk EIR \4.G NM-M1 aG].DOC 4 -2 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E1R The applicable noise standard at the Hoag property line adjacent to the loading docks shall be as follows: 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. 4.1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES CEQA Guidelines §15124(b) indicates that an EIR should include "a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project." The following are the objectives for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Project, as set forth by the Applicant, Hoag Hospital. • To provide the highest quality health care available. • To recognize that, as Orange County's population ages and expands, so grows the need for increased health care services. • To allow greater flexibility in the placement of land uses within the Hoag Hospital Master Plan in an effort to allow the hospital to respond to changes in the health care industry. • To allow the transfer of square footage between the Lower Campus and the Upper Campus while maintaining an overall development cap. 4.2 ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The analysis of the Reduced Transfer of Entitled Development Alternative assumes that all applicable components of the Mitigation Program associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project would be implemented. However, applicable measures may be scaled to reduce or avoid the potential impacts of the alternative under consideration, and may not precisely match those identified for the proposed Master Plan Update Project. The purpose of the Reduced Transfer to Entitled Development Alternative is to assess the potential impacts if only a portion of the proposed reallocation of square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus occurs as assumed with the Master Plan Update Project. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for the reallocation of up to 225,000 sq; however, the maximum transfer amount is not mandated. A description of the alternative and a comparative environmental evaluation to the identified impacts of the proposed Master Plan Update Project are provided below. 4.2.1 REDUCED TRANSFER OF ENTITLED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE Similar to the proposed Master Plan Update Project (Project), the Reduced Transfer of Entitled Development Alternative (Alternative) would allow greater flexibility in the placement of land uses at Hoag. The Alternative would allow less square footage to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. This alternative would allow for the reallocation of up to 150,000 sf of development that is currently approved for the Lower Campus to be transferred to the Upper Campus. Although less square footage is proposed for the reallocation under this Alternative, the same increase of inpatient beds (76 beds) is assumed for both the proposed Master Plan Update Project and the Alternative. RAPrgeats \Nswp nW008 \Draft EIRA.0 Ats-0n BG. DOC 4 -3 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7AM7QFt' Daytime I 'f4PM: -TAM Nighttime Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 1 58 dBA 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. 4.1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES CEQA Guidelines §15124(b) indicates that an EIR should include "a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project." The following are the objectives for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Project, as set forth by the Applicant, Hoag Hospital. • To provide the highest quality health care available. • To recognize that, as Orange County's population ages and expands, so grows the need for increased health care services. • To allow greater flexibility in the placement of land uses within the Hoag Hospital Master Plan in an effort to allow the hospital to respond to changes in the health care industry. • To allow the transfer of square footage between the Lower Campus and the Upper Campus while maintaining an overall development cap. 4.2 ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The analysis of the Reduced Transfer of Entitled Development Alternative assumes that all applicable components of the Mitigation Program associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project would be implemented. However, applicable measures may be scaled to reduce or avoid the potential impacts of the alternative under consideration, and may not precisely match those identified for the proposed Master Plan Update Project. The purpose of the Reduced Transfer to Entitled Development Alternative is to assess the potential impacts if only a portion of the proposed reallocation of square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus occurs as assumed with the Master Plan Update Project. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would allow for the reallocation of up to 225,000 sq; however, the maximum transfer amount is not mandated. A description of the alternative and a comparative environmental evaluation to the identified impacts of the proposed Master Plan Update Project are provided below. 4.2.1 REDUCED TRANSFER OF ENTITLED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE Similar to the proposed Master Plan Update Project (Project), the Reduced Transfer of Entitled Development Alternative (Alternative) would allow greater flexibility in the placement of land uses at Hoag. The Alternative would allow less square footage to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. This alternative would allow for the reallocation of up to 150,000 sf of development that is currently approved for the Lower Campus to be transferred to the Upper Campus. Although less square footage is proposed for the reallocation under this Alternative, the same increase of inpatient beds (76 beds) is assumed for both the proposed Master Plan Update Project and the Alternative. RAPrgeats \Nswp nW008 \Draft EIRA.0 Ats-0n BG. DOC 4 -3 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Table 4 -1 identifies the existing, currently permitted, and proposed square footage assumptions for the Alternative and the Project. As with the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the total square footage at Hoag associated with the Alternative would be 1,343,238 sf. TABLE 4 -1 REDUCED TRANSFER OF ENTITLED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE Land Use and Related Planning Programs As previously noted the project alternative does not provide for the approval of any specific development project As such, there are no specific building designs, locations, or features that can be evaluated. Similar to Final EIR No. 142, this EIR addresses potential effects associated with development consistent with existing development criteria for Hoag. As addressed for the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the Alternative would allow increased intensity of development through the proposed development reallocation to the Upper Campus. However, the Alternative would allow less square footage to be transferred to the Upper Campus (150,000 sf compared to 225,000 sf). This intensification of uses on the Upper Campus would have a commensurate reduction in development on the Lower Campus. Neither the Project nor the Alternative is anticipated to have significant land use impacts internal to Hoag. The potential displacement of existing structures internal to Hoag was previously assessed in Final EIR No. 142 and was not considered a significant land use impact. This EIR finds that conclusion to be accurate for this Alternative. Without specific development plans, it is unknown exactly how new development would be sited, but it would still occur within the same building envelope assumed in the existing Master Plan and PC Text. Increased development on both the Upper and Lower Campuses was anticipated in the previous EIR. R: Prgedss \NewpoMW0M0rafl EIRw.o Ms- 091807. DOC 4 -4 ' SBCrlon 4 -U Alternatives to the Proposed Project Rertliing After Remaining;; Proposed " f1 IOC8}lon F ocatton Approved (sf) ':Constructed (sf) %lpproved (st) 094 {sf)H Upper Campus 765,349 698,121 67,228 +150,0000 217,228 Lower Campus 577,889 188,149 389,740 — 150,000 239,740 Total Approved (at) 1,343,238 Total Constructed (sf) 886,270 Total Remaining Approved (sf) 456,968 Proposed Maximum Allowable (sf) Upper Campus: 915,3494 Lower Campus: 652,889 Total not to exceed:1,343,238° Assumes reallocation of 150,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Up to 150,000 sf can be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. ` The maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus would be 915,349 at (existing + currently approved but not developed + the reallocation of 150,000 sf from the Lower Campus), and a maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus would be 577,889 sf (existing +currently approved but not developed; assumes no reallocation of square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus). However, in no event could the combined total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. This means that if the Upper Campus develops at the maximum allowable building area, then the amount of development on the Lower Campus would; have to be reduced accordingly. Square footage is inclusive of inpatient hospital beds. d Demolition of some existing structures on the Upper Campus may be required to ensure maximum square feet would not exceed 1,343,238 sf. Source: City of Newport Beach 2007 (as amended). Land Use and Related Planning Programs As previously noted the project alternative does not provide for the approval of any specific development project As such, there are no specific building designs, locations, or features that can be evaluated. Similar to Final EIR No. 142, this EIR addresses potential effects associated with development consistent with existing development criteria for Hoag. As addressed for the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the Alternative would allow increased intensity of development through the proposed development reallocation to the Upper Campus. However, the Alternative would allow less square footage to be transferred to the Upper Campus (150,000 sf compared to 225,000 sf). This intensification of uses on the Upper Campus would have a commensurate reduction in development on the Lower Campus. Neither the Project nor the Alternative is anticipated to have significant land use impacts internal to Hoag. The potential displacement of existing structures internal to Hoag was previously assessed in Final EIR No. 142 and was not considered a significant land use impact. This EIR finds that conclusion to be accurate for this Alternative. Without specific development plans, it is unknown exactly how new development would be sited, but it would still occur within the same building envelope assumed in the existing Master Plan and PC Text. Increased development on both the Upper and Lower Campuses was anticipated in the previous EIR. R: Prgedss \NewpoMW0M0rafl EIRw.o Ms- 091807. DOC 4 -4 ' SBCrlon 4 -U Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Land use incompatibility can occur where differences between proximate uses result in differences in the physical scale of development, noise levels, traffic levels, and other factors that impact these uses such that indirect project - related significant unavoidable effects preclude use of the existing land uses as they were intended. With respect to land use impacts on residential uses located west of the Upper Campus, neither the proposed Master Plan Update Project nor the Alternative would result in project- specific impacts that would be greater than or differ from those identified in Final EIR No. 142 for the existing Master Plan. However, the Project and the Alternative would not alleviate the significant unavoidable land use impact found in Final EIR No. 142. Therefore, the land use incompatibility impact identified for the existing Master Plan project in Final EIR No. 142 would continue to exist with buildout of either the Project or the Alternative. This does not constitute a new impact. Although less development would be reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus as a part of this Alternative, neither scenario would reduce the unavoidable impact to a less than significant level. No significant land use compatibility impacts are anticipated associated with the Alternative with respect to the Lower Campus or land uses to the north, east, and south of the Upper Campus. As with the proposed Master Plan Update Project, this Alternative would require a General Plan Amendment, PC Text Amendment, and Development Agreement Amendment to establish a maximum allowable building area of 915,349 sf for the Upper Campus (if all 150,000 sf are reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus) and 577,889 sf (if no square footage is reallocated) for the Lower Campus. The Alternative is consistent with applicable policies identified in the General Plan Land Use Element and Local Coastal Program. Transportation and Circulation This discussion summarizes the findings of the traffic impact study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) (2007) to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the Alternative. The study is included in its entirety as Appendix C of this SEIR. Trip Generation Trip generation associated with the Alternative is provided in Table 4 -2. Inclusive of existing Hoag development, the Alternative would generate 25,365 daily trips: 1,995 AM peak hour trips and 1,959 PM peak hour trips. Table 4 -2 also identifies that the Alternative would result in a reduction in traffic generation for the Lower Campus, corresponding to 1,787 fewer daily trips, 227 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 235 fewer PM peak hour trips compared to buildout of Hoag under the existing Master Plan assumptions. Exhibits 4 -1 and 4 -2 identify the Alternative - generated traffic volumes at the 24 key intersections during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.The Alternative is projected to generate the same trips on the Upper Campus as the proposed Master Plan Update Project. This proposed reallocation would generate less traffic than development under the existing Master Plan. Outpatient uses typically generate more trips than inpatient uses. Therefore, the reallocation of up to 150,000 sf of the greater, trip - generating outpatient uses from the Lower Campus would cause a reduction in Lower Campus trips. Adding that same square footage to the Upper Campus as lesser, trip - generating inpatient use, some outpatient and support uses (the latter which does not generate additive trips) results in some increase in Upper Campus trips, but not as much as the reduction of Lower Campus trips. The net effect of having some increase in Upper Campus trips, and a major reduction in Lower Campus trips, is an overall decrease in trips for Hoag under the Alternative development scenario. When comparing traffic generation for the Alternative to the traffic generation of the existing Master Plan and the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the Alternative would not result in a significant traffic generation impact. R: \Pr0e0$\NewponU006,D2tl EIRW.0N15-091807.000 4 -5 JtlWIOn r.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank o� a 3 z L a y'g o,b \ 1I ir^P _s; p�b D ti \r ✓ .......- it r""�.. `T41 ..` ~^.` 1 \ r Ir 1(r-i I i ✓ •_, �. / ,5, !JI \ \n�/ ! -•-, op ti0\ /`l x s 1-Ai l��bM\ F < TT ?'p\ 4; "a `a 1 lr:9 `�1 Project Alternative AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 4 -1 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR N� A C /.�'✓lt;/�rw C N'1 1 CQM3 Jdnl.t ag « Source: Unseott Law & Greenspan Engineers R:IProjecLSlNe"oNJ008fG phicsrEx.9 -1 Alt_ AMPeak 083107.ptlf ; K"e �'. _ _ !iJ No .�a\ Ur k __ _" - �.,�r.J° `� •. `\ ST \p`1 `�. ..r W.J. �T '✓ �° �. \\ � P v 1 � d�d °\.rrr c{ � per. r %10 1 4 0 l Project Alternative PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 4 -2 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR I: coNsuirlNG : Source: Linscoll Law & Greenspan Engineers RYPm*a ?Ne oNJ00ffiGrephim?Ex.42 Ah PMPeak 083107.pdf Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SUDDlemental EIR TABLE 4 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES R \ProjectsWew nW"\Drall EIRW.O M&- M807 .DOC 4 -6 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Existing Existing + Existing Master Plan Existing + Alternative Alternative Generated Trips AM Peak Hr Trips PM Peak Hr Trips Size (GSF) AM Peak Hr Trips PM Peak Hr Trips Size (GSF) AM Pik Hr Trips PM Peak Hr Trips AM Peak Hr Trips PM Peak Hr Trips Existing Total Existing Total Size Daily Daily Daily Daily Description GSP gads Trips In Out Total In Out Total Addition +Addition Beds Trips In Out Total In Out Total Addition +Addition Beds Trips In Out Total In Out Total Trips In Out Total In Out Total Upper Campus Inpatient /Inpatient (South Building) 643,436 409 10,552 376 290 666 205 425 630 67,228 710,664 409 10,552 376 290 666 205 425 630 56,335` 699,771 485 12,513 446 344 790 243 504 747 1,961 70 54 124 38 79 117 Outpatient (Women's Pavilion) 15,392 - 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 - 15,392 - 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 - 15,392 - 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (James Irvine Expansion) 800 - 27 1 1 2 1 2 3 - 800 - 27 1 1 2 1 2 3 - 800 - 27 1 1 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Cardiac Serv. Bldg. 1995) 5,544 - 190 10 8 18 5 12 17 - 5,544 - 190 10 8 18 5 12 17 - 5,544 - 190 10 8 18 5 12 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (MRI Waiting) 500 - 17 1 1 2 0 1 1 - 500 - 17 1 1 2 0 1 1 - 500 - 17 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Women'sPaviiion)' 27,114 - - - - - - - - - 27,114 - - - - - - - - - 27,114 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Emergency Gen. Addition)' 5,335 - - - - - - - - - 5,335 - - - - - - - - - 5,335 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (South Building) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26,268 26,268 - 898 47 37 84 25 59 84 898 47 37 84 25 59 84 Support (South Building)' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 120,498 120,498 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Imaging /ECU Expansion) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14,127 14,127 - 483 25 20 45 14 32 46 483 25 20 45 14 32 46 Upper Campus Total: 698,121 - 11,312 416 322 738 226 475 701 67,228 765,349 409 11,312 416 322 738 226 475 701 217,228 915,349 485 14,654 558 433 991 303 645 948 3,342 142 111 253 77 170 247 Lower Campus Outpatient (Cancer Center) 65,000 - 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 - 65,000 - 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 - 65,000 - 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Conference Center) 13,270 - 454 24 19 43 13 30 43 - 13,270 - 454 24 19 43 13 30 43 - 13,270 - 454 24 19 43 13 30 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Conference Center)' 77,864 - - - - - - - - - 77,864 - - - - - - - - - 77.864 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Child Care Center)' 7,800 - - - - - - - - - 7,800 - - - - - - - - - 7,800 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Cogeneration Building)° 24,215 - - - - - - - - - 24,215 - - - - - - - - - 24,215 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient - - - - - - - - - 225,000 225,000 - 7,693 403 317 720 218 506 724 75,000 75,000 - 2,564 134 106 240 73 169 242 (5,129) (269) (211) (480) (145) (337) (482) Outpatient (Outpatient Building) - - - - - - - - - 110,000 110,000 - 3,761 197 155 352 107 248 355 110,000 110,000 - 31761 197 155 352 107 248 355 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Medical Office Building) - - - - - - - - - 50,027 50,027 - 1,710 90 71 161 49 113 162 50,027 50,027 - 1,710 90 71 161 49 113 162 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Support (Child Care Ctr. Expansion)' - - - - - - - - - 1 4,713 4,713 - - - - - - - - 4,713 4,713 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lower Campus Total: 188,149 - 2,676 140 111 251 76 176 252 389,740 577,889 - 15,840 830 654 1,484 450 1,043 1,493 239,740 1 427,889 - 110,7111 561 44311,00413051 706 1,011 (5,129) (269) (211) (480) 1 (145) (337) (482) Upper and Lower Campuses: 1886,2701409 113,9881 556 433 989 302 651 9531 456,968 1,343,2381 409 27,152 1,246 976 2,222 676 1,518 2,194 456,968 11,343,2381 485 125,36511,110 876 1 1,995 608 1,351 1,959 (1,787) (127) (100) (227) (68) (167) (235) Gross Square Feet ' The ancillary uses under the Support category are not expected to generate addltional trips. The entire project - related addition of 56,335 sf of inpatient square footage (inclusive of 76 new beds) is for the South Building. Source: Linscott, Law 8 Greenspan Engineers 2007. R \ProjectsWew nW"\Drall EIRW.O M&- M807 .DOC 4 -6 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Year 2015 Without Project Alternative (Existing Master Plan) The Year 2015 Without Project Alternative scenario assumes implementation of the existing Master Plan (no reallocation of square footage), as well as regional growth and related cumulative projects. Table 4 -3 identifies the traffic study area intersections' levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The six intersections would operate at a deficient level of service under the Year 2015 Without Project Alternative scenario (three intersections in Newport Beach and three intersections in Costa Mesa). TABLE 4 -3 YEAR 2015 WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Keytntersections Peak Period year'ltilb 'Existing Master an PrtneCt Itlternative ICU LOS tCU• dCU L05 .Cottt➢bWon StgnifueaFa 'impaeti City of Newport Beach 1. Orange StreetlWest Coast Highway AM 0.81 D 0.80 D -0.01 No PM 0.75 C 0.74 C -0.01 No 2. Prospect Street/West Coast Highway AM 0.87 D 0.87 D -0.01 No PM 0 -77 C 0.77 C 0.00 No 3. Balboa Boulevard- Superior Ave./West Coast Highway AM 0.89 D 0.88 D -0.02 No 77vi7 A6 _ 0.00 No 4. Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway AM 0.81 D 0.80 D -0.01 No PM 0.82 D 0.81 D -0.01 No 5. Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway AM 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.00 No PM 0.70 B 0 -70 B 0.00 No 6. Bay Shore Drive -Dover Drive/West Coast Highway AM 0.76 C 0.76 C 0.00 No PM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 No 7. BaysideDrive /East Coast Highway AM 0.84 D 0.85 D 0.01 No PM 0.75 C 0.75 C 0.00 No 8. Jamboree Road/East Coast Highway AM 0.72 C 0.71 C -0.01 No PM 0.72 C 0.72 C 0.00 No 9. Newport Boulevard/Via Lido AM 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 No PM 0.42 A 0.42 A 0.00 No 10. Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road AM 0 -69 B 0.65 B -0.04 No 994 £ t182 : _t -0.02 No 11. Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue AM 0.66 B 0.65 B -0.01 No PM 0.61 B 0.62 B 0.01 No 12. Newport Boulevard Southbound Off-Ramp/West Coast Highway ' -,'AM ;DW, E .` 0.88 D -0.10 No PM 0.84 D 0.80 C -0.04 No 13. Superior Avenue /Hospital Road AM 0.68 B 0.70 C 0.02 No PM 0.48 A 0.48 A 0.00 No 14. Hoag Drive - Placentia Avenue/Hospital Road AM 0.39 A 0.39 A 0.00 No PM 0.50 A 0.51 A 0.01 No 15. Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway AM 0.58 1 A 0.57 A -0.01 No PM 0.56 1 A 0 -53 A -0.03 No R9Trojeds \NeWpon000B \Draft EIRW.O Alts- 091 8W.DOC 4 -7 Section 32 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 4 -3 (Continued) YEAR 2015 WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE IGayl hers ®coons Peak r Ex�Eing tAaster Plan Project Alte"tive _ ICU . LiFB ICU: : 40S ECU Contribution SignifieanY Impact? City of Costa Mesa 16. Superior Avenue /16th Street- Industrial Way AM 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.00 No PM 0.45 A 0.46 A 0.01 No 17. Newport Boulevard /Industrial Way AM 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.00 No PM 0.59 A 0.59 A 0.00 No 18. Newport Boulevard /16th Street AM 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 No PM 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 No 19. Superior Avenue /17th Street .✓ �it#1)F :;E ,(99 ? =.,,= 0.00 No PM 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 No 20. Newport Boulevard /17th Street AM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 No PM 0.89 D 0.89 D 0.00 No 21. Newport Boulevard /18th Street- Rochester Street AM 0.79 C 0.78 C -0.01 No m -0.01 No 22. Newport Boulevard /Harbor Boulevard AM 0.71 C 0.70 B -0.01 No PM 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.00 No 23. Newport Boulevard /Broadway Boulevard AM 0.65 B 0.65 B 0.00 No PM 0.76 C 0.76 C 0.00 No 24. Newport Boulevard /19th Street ur!:.�Q FI4t it' to 0> i': 0.00 No Source: Llnscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers 2007. As noted on Table 4 -3, the following intersections are projected to be at a deficient level of service in 2015 under the existing Master Plan assumptions: City of Newport Beach 3. Balboa Boulevard- Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway - 0.96, (LOS E) PM peak 10. Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road - 0.94 (LOS E), PM peak 12. Newport Boulevard Southbound Off- Ramp/West Coast Highway - 0.98 (LOS E), AM peak City of Costa Mesa 19. Superior Avenue /17" Street - 0.97 (LOS E), AM peak 21. Newport Boulevard/181" Street - Rochester Avenue - 0.95 (LOS E), PM peak 24. Newport Boulevard /19"' Street - 0.90 (LOS E), AM peak period; 0.93 (LOS E), PM peak R:\Prq.= \Ne."n,JD08 \Drefl EIRW.0 NiS- 091807.DOC 4-8 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental E!R Year 2015 With Project Alternative Estimates of Alternative - generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2015 Without Project Alternative (Existing Master Plan) volumes to determine the potential for Alternative- specific impacts. This is an analysis of future traffic conditions in 2015 expected to result from regional growth, related projects, currently approved development at Hoag, and traffic generated by the Alternative. Exhibits 4 -3 and 4 -4 depict the AM and PM peak traffic volumes, respectively, in 2015 with the Alternative. Table 4 -3 shows that implementation of the Alternative would not change the LOS at five of the six intersections that are projected to operate at a deficient level of service in 2015 with the existing Master Plan. The sixth intersection, Newport Boulevard southbound off -ramp at West Coast Highway ( #12) would experience an improved ICU (from LOS E to LOS D in the AM peak period). This change would also occur with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. This improvement is associated with the reallocation of square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. When compared to the proposed. Master Plan Update Project, the Alternative would not improve the ICU at two additional deficient intersections. With the Project, Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road ( #10) and Newport Boulevard/18Ih Street — Rochester Street ( #21) would experience an improved ICU. The square footage reallocation proposed as a part of the Alternative would not result in a significant traffic impact in 2015 when compared to the existing Master Plan or the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Year 2025 Without Project Alternative (Existing Master Plan) This scenario projects future traffic conditions in 2025 (General Plan buildout) that could be expected to result from regional growth, related projects, and currently approved development for Hoag, but without the reallocation of up to 150,000 sf development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Table 4-4 identifies the traffic study area intersections levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. City of Newport Beach 4. Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway — 0.92 (LOS E), AM peak; 0.96 (LOS E), PM peak 6. Bay Shore Drive -Dover Drive/West Coast Highway — 0.92 (LOS E), PM peak 12. Newport Boulevard Southbound Off- Ramp/West Coast Highway — 1.15 (LOS F), AM peak City of Costa Mesa 20. Newport Boulevard /17'h Street — 0.97 (LOS E), AM peak period; 0.96 (LOS E), PM peak 21. Newport Boulevard /le Street — Rochester Avenue — 0.99 (LOS E), AM peak; 0.97 (LOS E), PM peak 24. Newport Boulevard/191h Street —1.06 (LOS F), AM peak; 1.03 (LOS F), PM peak R.Wrgec \Nex onW008\DMfl EIRW.O AIIS-091807.O0C 4 -9 oecuon o.z Transportation and Circulation This page intentionally left blank � r RAV 66ro1 � Y ` V � �pfiD�^1'..,. ,y{ I�QI � ' ! G ° ° �$ x3 '$ " " � -� \l �/,/.• r 1 60 � N a ,, _> ✓ v \ u ti � �x / / �\/..f P,* 100 4 .. . s ... ./� 11_ 30 / % �. r . o 1Pl g / ).. ".. 4150 I j J Qe0 Il na!4p 7mt\ J \ 1�r20 V! ., 0 �11 p {'affi{ Year 201 5 With Project Alternative AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 4 -3 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR ° SGUfCO1 LIRSCO4I Law $ (ifBBUSP20 ERJIRCCB RlPMJOCWN.w .WJ0081GmphiWEx.4 -3_M 2015AMPeak_083107.p& r 4 a a a L n 'o f ` rY ` J�PM1m N 41 go _sT' 1 N � rA� At d9f VP />,� 14 -C' ra a Year 2015 With Project Alternative PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 4 -4 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR j Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers CONSUiTONG R.iPm;actslNew DrUADBIGiaphics EN.4 4_AII_2015PMPnk_08310ZpM Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Year 2025 With Project Alternative Year 2025 With Project Alternative is an analysis of future traffic conditions in 2025 (General Plan buildout) which could be expected to result from regional growth, related projects, and buildout of Hoag under the Alternative development assumptions. The estimates of traffic generated by the Alternative were added to the Year 2025 Without Project Alternative (Existing Master Plan) volumes to develop traffic projections for this scenario. Exhibits 4 -5 and 4 -6 depict the AM and PM peak traffic volumes, respectively, in the 2025 With Alternative. TABLE 4 -4 YEAR 2025 WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE tntseet�ans -... Piocl Year L$25 Existing AAaster ICU .. Flan ; .. 185, Pooled, Alt�naitve 'ICU :r, .ICU LOS Contriturtion._.. Impact?: ! City of Newport Beach 1. Orange StreetM/est Coast Highway AM 0.76 C 0.75 C - -0.01 No PM 0.80 C 0.79 C -0.01 No 2. Prospect StreetM/est Coast Highway AM 0.89 D 0.89 D 0.00 No PM 0.76 C 0.75 C -0.01 No 3. Balboa Boulevard - Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway AM 0.84 D 0.83 D -0.01 No PM 0.78 C 0.76 C -0.02 No 4. Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway 0.00 No D.96 -0.01 No 5. Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway AM 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.00 No PM 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 No 6. Bay Shore Drive -Dover Drive/ West Coast Highway AM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 No -0.01 No 7. Bayside Drive /East Coast Highway AM 0.88 D 0.89 D 0.01 No PM 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.00 No 8. Jamboree Road/East Coast Highway AM 0.83 D 0.82 D -0.01 No PM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 No 9. Newport BoulevardNia Lido AM 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.00 No PM 0.52 A 0.52 A 0.00 No 10. Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road AM 0.77 C 0.70 C -0.07 No PM 0.86 D 0.85 D -0.01 No 11. Placentia Avenue /Superior Avenue AM 0.61 B 0.60 A -0.01 No PM 0.53 A 0.55 A 0.02 No 12. Newport Boulevard Southbound Off- Ramp/West Coast Highway . A10 1 j5 '! $5 F "- -0.10 No PM 0.75 C 0.71 C -0.04 No 13. Superior Avenue /Hospital Road AM 0.66 B 0.68 B 0.02 No PM 0.59 A 0.59 A 0.00 No 14. Hoag Drive - Placentia Avenue/ Hospital Road AM 0.47 A 0.48 A 0.01 No PM 0.77 B 0.78 C 0.01 No 15. Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway AM 0.58 A 0.57 A -0.01 No PM 0.58 A 0.55 A -0.03 No R:\PrgedsNe ponVOU6\Dran EiR\4.0 Nis -091 e07.00C 4 -10 section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 4 -4 (Continued) YEAR 2025 WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE The same six intersections (three intersections in Newport Beach and three intersections in Costa Mesa) that would operate at a deficient LOS E or LOS F with the existing Master Plan and proposed Master Plan Update project would be deficient with the Alternative. Of the deficient intersections, the LOS and ICU are very similar for nine of the ten intersections with both the proposed Master Plan Update and the Alternative. With respect to the Newport Boulevard southbound off -ramp at West Coast Highway, the reallocation of development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus has the most beneficial effect with the Project (1.00 [LOS F], AM Peak) compared to the existing Master Plan (1.15 [LOS F], AM Peak), and the Alternative (1.05 [LOS F], AM Peak). Based on the traffic significance criteria set forth in this EIR and identified in Table 4 -4, no significant traffic impacts are anticipated beyond that assumed in Final EIR No. 142. Site Access and Circulation LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA 2007) prepared an analysis to assess the traffic operations of Hoag's site access and on -site circulation for the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Because the Alternative would allow for less reallocation of approved development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus and is therefore a mid -point analysis between the existing Master Plan and the Project, the analysis is also applicable to this Alternative scenario. R: \Proie=\NewponV0D9 \Dretl EIR\9.0 Nts- 091807.00C 4-11 Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation n NI w c a S g 3 ti J1 (r 336 ST N T�V�WWI i .: °° ... -u.. MGTATM. FU t8 i t tQd✓ Ito Z.R/c 1, '6511" $b°a a' J � ( � X \•�. -t g1�ti� -,:. ,,., % \♦ 49 p,gi 1 ASS .1 � � t I~ \ P� \ /� \ \ � "`�•`-a /� r`'[a,. /nom �� � � ''` ! J (,"s / ) � sro I I l,-.m \I `� Pt,`; '�1 JI •,'eol �""� �' I 1 tQ� s.� { -, Year 2025 With Project Alternative AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 4 -5 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR ° Source: Linscott Law 8 Greenspan Engineers R: Pmje WINewporVJ8081 Graphicsl Ex .4- 5_AI(_202SAMPeak_88310].pol ppqq� NC / $ fox �a_ a 40 I'm \. \: ,� j``P /r a ',-.. ,�_ rte,• !M T —. _1l /f$nS �_ mm 1 15�'lT- l t � r* a�� Year 2025 With Project Alternative PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 4 -6 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR p CO NS U I PI N ' Source: Lihscott Law & Greenspan Engineers RlProlmc oNewporUJO08iGmphIcUExA�— All N25IPMPeek N3107.ptlf Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR On the site, vehicular traffic is distributed to parking lots and structures based on proximity to one's destination (e.g., James Irvine Surgery Center, Cancer Center). The analysis distributed on -site trips per land use based on the proximity to parking and the number of parking spaces in each location. The analysis found that existing turn pocket lengths at Hoag Drive /Hospital Road are sufficient to accommodate the forecasted inbound vehicle queues during the AM and PM peak hours. Although the forecasted northbound right -turn vehicle queue exceeds the length of the turn lane, vehicle stacking would occur on the site. Access and circulation would not be affected because vehicles entering the site via Hospital Road may access the emergency vehicle /drop -off driveway unobstructed. Queuing is not a concern on Hospital Road because the westbound left -turn queue at Hoag Drive/Hospital Road is not anticipated to exceed the length of the turn lane. Therefore, the westbound left -turn queue would not affect the through movement along Hospital Road. Because Hoag Drive /Hospital Road is forecasted to operate at LOS C or better during the peak hours, there is adequate capacity at the intersection for all vehicles in the turn pocket to make a westbound left turn during each cycle. The existing turn pocket lengths at Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway are sufficient to accommodate the inbound and outbound vehicle queues during both peak hours. To ensure that future site - specific projects do not affect the on -site circulation system, the LSA analysis proposes design criteria to evaluate applications for individual building projects. These criteria provide guidance on the minimum distance between on -site driveways, the minimum left -turn volume requiring a turn pocket, and a method for evaluating queuing at on -site parking garage entrances. These proposals would also be applicable to the Alternative (see Section 2.3 of this SEIR). As with the proposed Master Plan Update Project, mitigation has been provided to ensure that the Alternative would have no significant impacts with respect to on -site circulation. Parking All parking is required to be provided on the site. Parking requirements for specific sites are based upon the parking criteria identified in Table 3.2 -9 (see Section 3.2 of this SEIR). It is determined based upon building type and the area allotted to specific functions, as identified in the table. Any area that is calculated as part of the total floor area limitation is included in the gross floor area to determine the parking requirement. Neither the Project or the Alternative would have significant parking impacts. Air Quality Short -Term Construction impacts: Regional As with the proposed Master Plan Update Project, grading and demolition activities associated with the Alternative may result in significant short-term PM10 impacts and are expected to result in significant short-term NOx impacts. Sensitive receptors could be affected by these emissions increases. These short-term impacts would be reduced with proposed mitigation, but not to a level considered less than significant. Long -Term Operational Impacts In 2015, with the Alternative, Hoag is anticipated to have 1,343,238 sf of building space, the same as the Project. With the transfer to 150,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus, Hoag is projected to generate 25,365 daily vehicle trips resulting in 228,285 daily vehicle miles traveled. This represents a 6.6 percent reduction in trips and vehicle miles traveled with the Alternative when compared to the existing Master Plan; the proposed Master Plan Update Project would have a 16 percent reduction. If less development is reallocated, the R.\Project ewporlWO=DraN ERW.0 Alts- 0918N.00C 4.12 beCtlon 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed PrgWt Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR reduction in trips would also be less. Table 4 -5 identifies the estimate of emissions from Hoag in 2015 with Alternative. TABLE 4 -5 YEAR 2015 HOAG EMISSIONS WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Table 4 -6 identifies the net change in emissions that would occur at Hoag in 2015 with implementation of the Alternative. The SCAQMD thresholds are also presented. The Alternative would result in significant air impacts related to CO, VOC, and NOx, including potential human health implications associated with each of these pollutants. TABLE 4 -6 YEAR 2015 HOAG EMISSIONS INCREASE WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Scenario .; PgHUtant Emip47ns; Source ; " CQ CXOx „', ' F9ij10 PM25 Sax, Vehicular Trips 1,465.3 163.8 277.2 25.8 17.8 2.6 Natural Gas Consumption 4.2 1.1 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 On -site Electrical Generation 146.5 99.1 99.1 29.7 29.4 0.0 Total Future Emissions with 1,616.0 263.9 401.6 55.6 47.2 2.6 Project Altemative Yes Yes No No No e Year 2015 vehicular emissions are assumed lower than Year 2005 vehicular emissions because higher emission vehicles would be phased out. Notes: Assumes the reallocation of 150,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Notes: Assumes the full reallocation of 150,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Table 4 -6 identifies the net change in emissions that would occur at Hoag in 2015 with implementation of the Alternative. The SCAQMD thresholds are also presented. The Alternative would result in significant air impacts related to CO, VOC, and NOx, including potential human health implications associated with each of these pollutants. TABLE 4 -6 YEAR 2015 HOAG EMISSIONS INCREASE WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Scenario .; P0,11, shit 6lnissi0ns j1>as/day) CCJ YQC NCSx PM10: #M2:$ $Ox Existing Conditions (2015)' 884.1 140.6 219.1 29.1 24.5 1.5 Alternative 11616.0 263.9 401.6 55.6 47.2 2.6 Change in Emissions 731.9 123.4 182.5 26.4 22.7 1.2 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds? Yes Yes Yes No No No e Year 2015 vehicular emissions are assumed lower than Year 2005 vehicular emissions because higher emission vehicles would be phased out. Notes: Assumes the reallocation of 150,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Table 4 -7 identifies the change in emissions associated with the Alternative compared to future conditions with currently approved (but not developed) square footage at Hoag. The Alternative would result in lower 2015 emissions than the currently approved (Final EIR No. 142) land uses. This difference is due primarily to a reduction in projected vehicle trips. However, the reduction would only occur with the reallocation of 150,000 sf from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Lower reductions would occur with less reallocation. Transferring 150,000 sl to the Upper Campus would reduce the projected CO, VOC and NOx emission increases over the existing Master Plan by approximately 3 to 7 percent (compared to 6 to 15 percent for the proposed Master Plan Update Project). Therefore, the Alternative, when considered by itself, does not result in a significant impact. Although implementation of the Alternative would result in R:\Proje swew orrJW9\Draft EiRA.O Alts- 091e07. DOC 4 -13 .. Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project lower emissions than the approved development, Plan, even as modified by the Alternative, would the exceedance of the SCAQMD thresholds. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR overall development of the Hospital Master result in significant air quality impacts due to TABLE 4 -7 FUTURE EMISSIONS EXISTING MASTER PLAN COMPARED TO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE C idiitE�n' Po111; Emissions {lwday) Ctt „2 YOC FtOx' Pk1t0. PM2.5 sex Year 2015 with Approved Land Use (Final EIR No. 142) 1,719.2 275.5 421.2 57.3 48.4 2.8 Year 2015 with Alternative 1,616.0 263.9 401.6 55.6 47.2 2.6 Difference -103.2 -11.5 -19.5 -1.8 -1.3 -0.2 Lower Emission with Alternative? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds? Yes Yes I Yes No No No Notes: Assumes the reallocation of 150,000 at from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Consistency with AOMP Table 4 -8 compares Hoag emissions with Alternative to 2020 emissions projected for the South Coast Air Basin (basin). Emissions associated with this scenario are less than 38 thousandths of a percent of the basin's emissions. The increase in emissions associated with the Alternative compared to existing development is not projected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. As with the proposed Master Plan Update Project, this Alternative is consistent with the AQMP assumptions. TABLE 4 -8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS COMPARED TO REGIONAL EMISSIONS Scenari° Poit[Rant Errbssions (tonalday) Cf7` YQC tlOz PM10 . PM2.5 sot, Alternative 0.608 0.132 0.201 0.028 0.024 0.001 2020 SCAB 2,414 584 532 318 — 76 Project as % of SCAB 0.0335% 0.0226% 0.0377% 0.0087% — 0.0017% Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. The increase in emissions associated with buildout of Hoag under the proposed Master Plan Update Project scenario or the Alternative scenario when compared to existing development are projected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. This would also be the case for buildout of Hoag under the existing Master Plan. Note also that these thresholds are not necessarily an appropriate reference to determine the significance of project emissions. These thresholds are taken from the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook that states that the criteria "are consistent with the federal Clean Air Act definition of a significant source in an area classified as extreme for ozone.” While it is correct that the thresholds are consistent as such, the CEQA Air Quality Handbook does not acknowledge such criteria was developed initially by R:1PrgedSVmportW0W\DraN EIRA.0 Ate - 091807. DOC 4 -14 Seotion4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR the USEPA to be applied to point source emissions (such as an industrial smokestack). Comparisons between emissions from an extreme point source and emissions from Hoag are inappropriate in this context. Emissions from the Hoag are primarily from motor vehicles traveling in the area and do not resemble emissions from industrial sources. In spite of the original intent and application of SCAQMD's thresholds, the SCAQMD has recommended their application to emissions generated by a project, including vehicle emissions, and therefore, the change in emissions resulting from the Alternative is compared with them per the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Since the increase in daily emissions of CO, VOC, and NOx from the Alternative would exceed the significance thresholds presented in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the buildout of Hoag under the Alternative development scenario is considered to have significant long -term impacts, including potential human health implications. The Alternative would result in emissions reductions when compared with the existing Master Plan but would have fewer reductions than with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. The reduction in CO, VOC and NOx emissions with the Project are 2.4 times more than the reductions with the Alternative due to the greater reduction in vehicle trips. Table 4 -9 identifies the emissions from Hoag for the Project and the Alternative. The Alternative would result in CO, VOC, and NOx emissions between 4.2 percent and 6.0 percent higher than emissions With the proposed Master Plan Update Project. TABLE 4 -9 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS COMPARED TO PROPOSED - MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT Seetaar7o PollutantEmissions bald, , CO VOC Nt)x PM10 P11112.5 SUx Future With Proposed Master Plan Update Project 1,467.9 247.4 373.6 53.0 45.4 2.4 Future With Alternative 1,616.0 263.9 401.6 55.6 47.2 2.6 Increase With Alternative 148.1 16.5 28.0 2.6 1.8 0.2 Source: Mestre Greve.Associates 2007. Noise As addressed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the existing PC Text provide that mechanical equipment noise generated from Hoag not exceed 55 decibels (dB) at all Hoag property lines. As with the proposed Master Plan Update Project, this Alternative proposes the elimination of this noise restriction. Noise generated at Hoag would be governed by the City's Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 below. 1. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag property line adjacent to the loading docks shall be as follows: k 7-AM -10PM Daytime 10PM -7AM ` Nighttime L eq (15 min) 70 dBA 58 dBA A R:\PrG18M \N8wPa1W006\Drafl EIRW.0 P8s- 08180ZDOC 4 -15 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyledan Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. Construction Activities Generally, construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Neither this Alternative nor the Master Plan Update Project proposes any specific construction projects. The City's Noise Ordinance exempts construction activities from the noise level limits during specific hours of the day. Noise - generating construction activities are permitted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays or federal holidays. Construction activities are not proposed outside these hours. For both the Project and the Alternative, compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance is considered to result in no significant short-term noise impacts. Vibration Although no site - specific development projects are proposed as a part of this Alternative, this SEIR acknowledges that the future demolition of on -site buildings could generate perceptible vibrations at adjacent on -site buildings. Many adjacent on -site buildings would remain operational during demolition and construction activities and could contain equipment whose operation could be disturbed by vibration. As with the proposed Master Plan Update Project, potential vibration impacts associated with this Alternative would be considered a significant impact. Project Traffic Noise Impacts from increases in traffic noise levels due to the Alternative were estimated using the traffic projections presented in the in the Linscott, Law & Greenspan traffic study (see Appendix C). To estimate noise level changes due to the Alternative, the "with Alternative" traffic volumes are compared to the "without Alternative" traffic volumes. This analysis is performed below for two scenarios: Year 2015 and Year 2025. Traffic CNEL changes with the Alternative are Identified in Table 4 -10. Projected changes in traffic noise levels over existing conditions are presented along with the changes resulting from the implementation of the Project for the two analysis years. Only roadway segments projected to experience noise level increases of 0.5 dB or greater associated with the Alternative are presented in the table. Traffic noise level increases due to the Alternative of 1 dB or more, and over existing conditions of 3 dB or more, are shown in bold italics. The distances to the future 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours with the Alternative are presented in Table 4 -11. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. The CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline is also presented. These are worst - case noise levels; the highest traffic volume projected for years 2015 and 2025 were used to estimate the future noise level. The contours do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. R:\PmJe \NewPorh100&Drafl EIRAO AJf 081807AOC 4 -16 Secdon4.0 Aftematives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 4 -10 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CHANGES Roa meet Roe" 'L"Ir�1tg9 ir2g15 Gt�Inge in21)26 OuWer Ex±trng Duet? - <Aiternatirie.'- Ovet . . Fxistirtg ,. Due , to Attamative,,?; 17th Street West of Superior Avenue 0.6 0.6 1.1 -0.1 East of Superior Avenue 0.6 0.6 0.6 -0.1 161 Street West of Superior Avenue 0.6 0.6 0.2 -0.1 Industrial Way East of Superior Avenue 0.6 0.6 0.2 -0.1 Hospital Road East of Superior Avenue 0.1 0.7 1.7 0.0 West of Hoag Drive -0.3 0.5 13 0.0 East of Hoag Drive -1.0 -0.6 -0.1 0.3 West of Newport Boulevard -1.3 -0.8 -0.2 0.3 West Coast Highway West of Orange Street 0.4 -0.5 0.5 0.0 East of Orange Street 0.3 -0.5 0.5 0.0 East of Hoag Drive 1.8 1.1 2.4 -0.2 West of Newport Boulevard SB Offramp 1.6 1.0 2.2 -0.2 West of Riverside Avenue -0.2 -0.7 0.5 0.0 East of Riverside Avenue 0.1 -0.4 0.7 0.0 Via Lido East of Newport Boulevard 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.0 Orange Street South of West Coast Highway -0.9 -2.4 -1.4 0.0 Prospect Street North of West Coast Highway -2.3 -1.3 -0.9 0.0 South of West Coast Highway 0.5 -13 1.3 0.0 Placentia Avenue North of Hospital Road 0.7 0.8 1.8 0.0 Superior Avenue North of 171h Street 0.7 0.7 1.9 010 South of 17" Street 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.0 North of 16th Street/industrial Way 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.0 South of 16'h Street/industrial Way 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.0 North of Placentia Avenue 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 North of West Coast Highway -0.7 -1.2 -2.2 0.0 Balboa Boulevard South of West Coast Highway 0.0 -1.1 - -0.5 0.0 Hoag Drive South of Hospital Road 4.0 3.5 S. 0.5 North of West Coast Highway 07 -2.3 3.6 -1.0 R:1Pr0jeosWe part W810ra" EIRW.O Alts- 091807DOC 4 -17 - Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 4 -10 (Continued) PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CHANGES Roadway Segment C. 44660 2015. 'Change in 2025 -Owl Exising Bae to 9lternateve . Over Existing Due to Alternative Newport Boulevard South of Hospital Road -0.7 -0.7 0.1 -0.1 North of Via Lido -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 South of Via Lido -1.2 -0.7 -0.3 0.0 Riverside Avenue North of West Coast Highway -1.2 -1.0 -0.2 0.0 Tustin Avenue North of West Coast Highway 3.4 1.6 3.5 0.0 Bay Shore Drive South of West Coast Highway -2.0 -2.1 -5.9 0.0 Bayside Drive North of East Coast Highway 4.8 1.0 5.6. 0.0 Notes: Numbers in bold italics denote at least a 1.0 dB increase due to the project or at least a 3.0 dB increase over existing conditions. Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. TABLE 4 -11 FUTURE NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE RoedweySegmetrt. CNEL 100fL at ifistaried To CNEL Contour° (feet) . .10.CNEL 65CNEL.. '60CNEL: 1715 Street... West of Superior Avenue 61.9 RW 62 134 East of Superior Avenue 64.4 42 91 195 161" Street West of Superior Avenue 56.3 RW RW 56 Industrial Way East of Superior Avenue 55.4 RW RW 49 Hospital Road East of Superior Avenue 58.9 RW 39 85 West of Hoag Drive 58.1 RW 35 75 East of Hoag Drive 59.9 RW 46 98 West of Newport Boulevard 59.9 RW 46 98 West Coast Highway West of Orange Street 69.0 .86 186 400 East of Orange Street 69.0 86 186 400 East of Hoag Drive . 66.2 56 121 261 West of Newport Boulevard SIB Offramp 66.2 56 121 261 West of Riverside Avenue 67.1 64 139 299 East of Riverside Avenue 66.7 60 129 278 Via Lido East of Newport Boulevard 59.3 RW 41 89 RAProjWSflftWU008 \MaR EIRKA AM- 091807A0C 4 -18 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 4 -11 (Continued) FUTURE NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Roadway Segriient CNEI at tOD floe OiilTanoe7o'CNEL'Ccntou?(feet) 7U CNEL ' 65 CNEL . &Q CNEt Orange Street South of West Coast Highway 47.0 RW RW RW Prospect Street North of West Coast Highway 49.4 RW RW RW South of West Coast Highway 46.2 RW RW RW Placentia Avenue North of Hospital Road 63.1 34 74 160 Superior Avenue North of 17th Street 60.0 RW 47 100 South of 17th Street 64.6 43 93 201 North of 16th Street/industrial Way 64.0 40 86 186 South of 16th Street/industrial Way 64.0 40 86 185 North of Placentia Avenue 64.0 40 85 184 North of West Coast Highway 63.8 38 83 178 Balboa Boulevard South of West Coast Highway 60.1 RW 47 101 Hoag Drive South of Hospital Road 58.7 RW 38 82 North of West Coast Highway 55.5 RW RW 50 Newport Boulevard South of Hospital Road 68.9 85 183 395 North of Via Lido 652 48 103 222 South of Via Lido 64.1 41 88 189 Riverside Avenue North of West Coast Highway 58.1 RW 35 75 Tustin Avenue North of West Coast Highway 52.9 RW RW 34 Bay Shore Drive South of West Coast Highway 50.3 RW RW RW Bayside Drive North of East Coast Highway 54.2 RW RW 41 a From centerline. RW: Contour falls within right-of-way- Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Table 4 -10 identifies that noise levels are expected to increase by 1 dB or more along six roadway segments (one more than with the proposed Master Plan Update Project). They are West Coast Highway west of the Newport Boulevard southbound off -ramp; West Coast Highway east of Hoag Drive (not affected by the Project); Via Lido east of Newport Boulevard; Hoag Drive south of Hospital Road; Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Highway; and Bayside Drive north of East Coast Highway. Discussed below are conditions along each of these road segments to determine if the City's applicable noise thresholds of significance would be exceeded at any sensitive receptors are discussed below. RAProjeds \NewportVOOa \Draft EIRW.O AIts- WIW.D00 4 -19 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental Elf? West Coast Highway west of the Newport Boulevard southbound offramp. Hoag is located north of this road segment. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is projected to extend 121 feet (2 more feet than the Project) from the centerline. There are residences located on the southern side of West Coast Highway approximately 120 feet from the centerline; a 10- foot -high block wall separates residences from West Coast Highway and provides approximately 9 dB of noise reduction. Traffic noise levels at the residences would not exceed the City's 65 CNEL outdoor noise standard. Based on the thresholds of significance set forth in this SEIR, as with the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the Alternative's contribution to changes in traffic noise levels along this road segment is less than significant. West Coast Highway east of Hoag Drive. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not affect this roadway segment. As noted above, the future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is projected to extend 121 feet from the centerline. The existing 10- foot -high block wall provides approximately 9 dB of noise reduction to residences on the southern side of West Coast Highway. Traffic noise levels at the residences would not exceed the 65 CNEL outdoor noise standard. Commercial uses are located to the north and south of the road segment. Based on their distance from the centerline, all commercial buildings along this segment would be expected to provide adequate outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction so that interior noise levels due to traffic would not exceed the applicable standards. The Alternative's traffic would not result in a significant noise impact along this road segment. As with the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the Alternative would have a less than significant impact to the road segments identified below. There would be no change in noise contours. • Via Lido east of Newport Boulevard • Hoag Drive south of Hospital Road • Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Highway • Bayside Drive north of West Coast Highway Table 4 -12 summarizes the difference in changes in traffic noise CNEL levels between the proposed Master Plan Update Project and the Alternative. A positive number indicates that the Alternative would result in a higher noise level than the Project. A negative number indicates that the Project would result in a lower noise level than the Alternative. Data is presented for roadway segments with projected noise level difference of 0.1 dB or more. There is little difference in the projected traffic noise levels with the Project or Alternative. The greatest differences occur along Hoag Drive. This is primarily due to the low level of traffic on Hoag Drive. However, traffic noise levels along Hoag Drive would be less than 65 CNEL oust exceed 60 CNEL). The greatest difference in noise levels along Hoag Drive would be 0.6 dB in year 2025; this is an imperceptible difference. Traffic noise CNEL differences along all other roadway segments would 0.4 dB or less with the Project compared to the Alternative. R:4rajeos \Ne portW00MDraII EIRWo Ats-W180'I. DOC 4-20 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE 4 -12 COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS FOR THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE AND MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT (DB) Roadway Segment ' 2€115 ; 2tiL5 19th Street West of Newport Avenue Hospital Road East of Superior Avenue -0.1 0.0 West of Hoag Drive -0.1 0.0 East of Newport Boulevard -0.1 0.0 West Coast Highway East of Balboa Boulevard /Superior Avenue 0.1 0.1 West of Hoag Drive -0.2 -0.2 East of Hoag Drive 0.2 0.4 West of Newport Boulevard SB Off -Ramp 0.0 0.1 ' West of Riverside Avenue 0.0 0.1 East of Riverside Avenue 0.1 0.1 West of Bay Shore Drive /Dover Drive 0.1 0.1 East of Bay Shore Drive /Dover Drive 0.0 0.1 'West of Bayside Drive 0.0 0.1 West of Marine Drive /Jamboree Road 0.1 0.1 Placentia Avenue North of Superior Avenue -0.1 0.0 South of Superior Avenue -0.1 0.0 Hoag Drive South of Hospital Road -0.2 0.0 North of West Coast Highway -0.2 0.6 Source: Mestre Greve Associates 2007. Cumulative Traffic Noise Cumulative traffic noise impacts are assessed by comparing traffic noise CNEL increases to existing conditions. This provides the forecasted traffic noise level increases due to the Alternative in addition to other projects and general growth anticipated for the area. As previously identified on Table 4 -11, 4 roadway segments are projected to have traffic noise level increases of 3 dB or more when compared to existing conditions. They are the same segments affected by the proposed Master Plan Update Project. As with the Project, this Alternative is expected to result in a 1 dB or greater increase along all these segments except Hoag Drive north of West Coast Highway (no contribution). Because the noise standards would not be exceeded, the Alternative's contribution would not result in a significant cumulative impact along these road segments. RnPxieM \Newp0rl\J009\0refi EIRW.0 Nts- 091807DOC 4 -21 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R On -site Activities and Land Uses The Alternative would allow for the reallocation of up to 150,000 sf of development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. However, no specific projects are proposed at this time. Therefore, a detailed analysis of impacts from future on -site activities is not included in this SEIR. However, the SEIR has assessed four existing on -site noise sources: grease pit cleaning, loading dock activities, mechanical equipment, and the cogeneration facility. Grease Pit Cleaning As previously addressed, the City considers grease pit cleaning to be a property maintenance activity. Property maintenance activities are exempt from the Noise Ordinance standards if they occur between 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Friday and between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday; such activities are not permitted on Sunday or federal holidays. The Applicant has identified the time of grease pit cleaning would be limited to a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. However, because this property maintenance activity is exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance, no significant noise impact would occur for the Project or the Alternative. Mechanical Equipment Buildout of the Hoag Master Plan under either the project Alternative or the proposed Master Plan Update assumptions may require additional heating, ventilation, and air conditioning -- (HVAC) equipment that could include roof - mounted equipment. Final EIR No. 142 set a noise level limit f,or mechanical equipment of 55 dBA. This noise level limit for mechanical equipment is included in the Development Agreement between the City and Hoag. This limit is being exceeded for the existing mechanical equipment. As noted in Section 3.4 of this SEIR, Hoag has initiated plans to revamp the HVAC system. These modifications would be implemented for both the Alternative and the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Because no specific projects are proposed as a part of this Alternative, it is not known what new HVAC equipment, if any, may be required and an analysis of the potential noise impacts from this equipment is precluded. With proper equipment selection, location and potential incorporation of noise reduction features, it is expected that new HVAC equipment would meet the revised noise level standards proposed as a part of the Alternative and Master Plan Update Project scenarios. However, until actual equipment can be tested, new HVAC equipment could generate noise levels in excess of the revised noise levels. This would be considered a significant impact for both the Project and the Alternative. Loading Dock Area Activities Existing loading dock activities exceed the Noise Ordinance limits on a regular basis. By increasing the development at the Upper Campus, the Alternative could result in an additional increase in activity at the loading dock. However, this is not expected to be a substantial increase when compared to buildout of Hoag consistent with the existing Master Plan and the proposed Master Plan Update. Noise generated by the loading dock has not changed substantially from the noise levels measured in 1991. However, activities in the loading dock area Currently and will continue to exceed the noise limits contained in the Noise Ordinance. Both this Alternative and the proposed Master Plan Update Project propose an exemption to address this issue. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles would be exempt from any applicable noise standards. For both the Project and the Alternative, loading dock area activities are considered to be a significant unavoidable noise impact. A APr0jeds\Ne orN000mft EIRW.0 At-091 4 -22 Section4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental EIR Cocieneration Facili The measured noise levels from the cogeneration facility equipment comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, and have ranged from 46.1 dBA to 49.8 dBA at the upper floor of the nearest residence. These levels are below the City's Noise Ordinance limit of 50 dBA for nighttime levels at sensitive receptors. The addition of the fourth cooling tower is expected to raise the overall noise level to between 46.7 and 50.4 dBA. The operation of a fourth cooling tower is not part of the Alternative because the cogeneration facility is permitted and no further approvals from the City are required for this facility to operate. Therefore, the operation of the cogeneration plant becomes a Noise Ordinance compliance issue. That is, the City may need to take measurements once the fourth cooling tower is operational and determine if it complies with the Noise Ordinance. Should the City determine the cogeneration facility is not in compliance, Hoag would need to correct the situation to maintain compliance with the Noise Ordinance limits. Further, it would become a Development Agreement issue because the Development Agreement incorporates the Noise Ordinance. Under both the Project and Alternative scenarios, noise impacts related to the cogeneration facility would be less than signif icant. Traffic Noise Impacts on On -site Land Uses As discussed previously, the Alternative would only allow for the reallocation of approved development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus; no specific projects are proposed. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the potential noise impacts on the uses developed under the Alternative development scenario is precluded. Site - specific projects would be required to comply with the City's General Plan Noise Standards. The standards applicable to Hoag are the outdoor standard of 65 CNEL, the interior 45 CNEL standard for hospital uses (e.g., patient rooms), and 50 CNEL for office uses. The outdoor 65 CNEL standard is only applicable to outdoor patio areas where persons would be expected to congregate for extended periods. In summary, the proposed changes associated with this Alternative could eventually result in higher noise levels at the nearby residences (compared to existing conditions). Mitigation measures are recommended and it has been determined that no other feasible mitigation exists that would reduce impacts from the loading dock area to below the limits contained in the City's Noise Ordinance. This would be the case for both this Alternative and the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Modification of the Development Agreement, as proposed, would allow noise to exceed the Noise Ordinance criteria in the vicinity of the loading dock area, even after application of the feasible mitigation measures; therefore, the proposed changes must be identified as resulting in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. Aesthetics and Visual Resources The Alternative would retain more of the previously approved but not constructed square footage on the Lower Campus. As with the proposed Master Plan Update Project, site - specific development is not assumed as a part of this Alternative. As with the Project, no modifications to the development criteria adopted in conjunction with the 1992 Master Plan are proposed. Because no specific development is proposed, no specific building designs, locations, or features can be evaluated. Similar to the Project, this Alternative assumes the potential effects associated with development consistent building height restrictions. R:1Pr01WSsNmYNMW0081DMfl EIRAO NIS�091807.DOC 4 -23 Section 4.o Affematives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Views from On the Site As with the proposed Master Plan Update Project, this Alternative would have greater intensity of development on the Upper Campus but less than proposed by the Project. As noted for the Project, changes to views associated with the reallocation of development associated with this Alternative would not be considered a significant impact. Off -site Views of Development As with the Project, it likely that some Upper Campus facilities would be demolished to allow for intensification of this area. Overall, this would not substantially change the character of the site. As previously indicated, Final EIR No. 142 addressed development of Hoag to the maximum allowable heights; therefore, the worst -case impacts were considered. Even with a transfer of square footage to the Upper Campus, impacts would not be greater than those impacts addressed in Final EIR No. 142 because the development criteria would not be modif ied and the overall visual character of the Upper Campus would not be substantially altered. However, under the Alternative, less square footage would be reallocated from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus than the amount associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. As such, intensification of the Upper Campus would be less than associated with Project. No signif icant impacts would be anticipated. With respect to the Lower Campus, the existing Master Plan allows for more development on the Lower Campus than has been constructed. Under this Alternative, less square footage would be transferred to the Upper Campus. Because this Alternative would be required to comply with the existing development criteria, including height restrictions, new development would avoid or minimize potential visual impacts to adjacent residents or park visitors. Overall, the visual character of the site would not be substantially different. No significant impacts on aesthetic resources are expected with either the Project or the Alternative. Shade and Shadow and Lighting The analysis in Final EIR No. 142 noted that the Master Plan would result in greater morning shade and shadow on the adjacent condominium development because of the expansion of the Tower and Midrise Zones. The analysis was conducted using a worst -case condition where both the Tower and Midrise Zones were built out to their maximum allowable height. Final EIR No. 142 concluded that this would not be considered a significant impact of the Master Plan because of the short duration during the year, the shading effects only affect a portion of the structures during the early morning hours, and it would not substantially limit solar energy access to the structures. The Alternative would have similar and fewer shade and shadow effects when compared to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. However, since the Alternative would not alter the maximum allowable height of the buildings at Hoag, these potential impacts would not be different from what was previously addressed with the existing Master Plan and the proposed Master Plan Update Project. RBProle \NewWH\J ®Draft EIR\4.0 AII -MSO DOC 4 -24 Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR SECTION 5.0 GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 INTRODUCTION CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d) requires the evaluation of a proposed project's growth- inducing impacts. Growth inducement can be defined as the relationship between a proposed project and growth within the surrounding area. A project can also induce growth by lowering or removing barriers to growth, or by creating an amenity or facility that attracts new population or economic activity. This relationship is often difficult to establish with any degree of precision and cannot be measured on a numerical scale because there are many social, economic, and political factors associated with the rate and location of development. Accordingly, the CEQA Guidelines instruct that an EIR should focus on the ways growth might be induced. This relationship is sometimes looked at as either one of facilitating planned growth or inducing unplanned growth. Both types of growth, however, should be evaluated. Typically, growth- inducing impacts result from the provision of urban services and extension of infrastructure (including roadways, sewerage, or water service) into an undeveloped area. A project can remove infrastructure constraints, provide access, or eliminate other constraints on development, and thereby encourage growth that has already been approved and anticipated through the General Plan process. This planned growth would be reflected in land use plans that have been developed and approved with the underlying assumption that an adequate supporting infrastructure ultimately would be constructed. This can be described as accommodating or facilitating growth. A project can also remove infrastructure constraints, provide new access, or otherwise encourage growth which is not assumed as planned growth in the General Plans or growth projections for the affected local jurisdictions. This could include areas which are currently designated for open space, agricultural uses, or other similar non -urban land uses. In such a case, the removal of infrastructure constraints or provision of access can trigger consideration of a change in land use designation to allow development at a higher level of intensity than was originally anticipated. For this section, the term "inducing" will be used for both types of growth. There are many other factors that can affect the amount, location, and rate of growth in the region. These include the following: • Market demand for housing, employment, and commercial services. • Desirability of climate and living/working environment, as reflected by market demand. • Strength of the local employment and commercial economy. • Availability of other roadway improvements (e.g., new and /or expanded arterial or highway capacity). • Availability of other services /infrastructure (e.g., wastewater treatment, water, schools). • Land use and growth management policies of the counties and municipal jurisdictions. R: \Proleols \NewpoM\JW8 \Draft EIRs.0 Gmmh Inducing- 091807.4 n 5 -1 Section 5.0 Growth- Inducing Impacts Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 5.2 GROWTH PATTERNS AND TRENDS Hoag, by its nature, provides service to an area much greater than the City of Newport Beach. In 2005, Hoag treated approximately 26,000 people on an inpatient basis and more than 300,000 people on an outpatient basis (Hoag 2006). Approximately 15 percent of patients are from the City of Newport Beach, 90 to 94 percent are from elsewhere in Orange County, and the remaining 6 to 10 percent are from outside the County. To understand the context in which potential growth- inducing impacts of the proposed project may occur, it is helpful to review the historic and projected growth patterns of the City and the County of Orange. 5.2.1 HISTORICAL TRENDS Oranqe County Orange County has experienced significant growth in population over the past 50 years. Population in the county has increased from 216,200 in 1950 to 2,864,289 in 2000. Concurrent with these substantial increases in population, the economic character of Orange County has dramatically changed over the past 50 years. The predominately rural /agricultural and residential economy of the 1950s has changed to a well- diversified commercialAndustrial economy. Aviation /aerospace and other high technology industries; biomedical facilities; retail commercial; light manufacturing; administrative and financial services; and tourism have become major components of the economy. In 1965, the employment -to- population ratio was 22:100 (22 jobs per 100 people) in Orange County. By 1980, the ratio increased to 40:100. This has subsequently increased to approximately 54:100 in 1990. By 2000, the ratio had shifted to 53:100. Not only has the proportion of jobs to residents increased, but it is also based on a dramatically larger population. City of Newport Beach The City was incorporated in 1906 and has increased in population each decade. In 1950, the City's population was 12,120 and by 1960 had increased to 26,564. In 1970, the population was 49,442; it was 62,556 by 1980. In the 1990s, the City's population increased to 66,643. The City's population in 2006 was estimated to be 84,218 (source: State Department of Finance, 2007). Growth Protections Growth projections for Orange County are coordinated by the Center for Demographic Research and are developed in conjunction with the County and Cities. These projections, known a the Orange County Projections (OCP), have been developed through a cooperative process for over 20 years because it was recognized that there was a need to have consistent data that could be supported by all the local jurisdictions for long -range planning efforts. In addition, these numbers are also used by SCAG and the SCAQMD for regional planning programs, such as the Air Quality Management Plan, the Regional Transportation Plan, and Regional Growth Management Element. The most current OCP projections are OCP -2006, which have been approved by the local jurisdictions and adopted by the Orange County Council of Governments and SCAG as the official growth projections for the County. For these projections, the County of Orange is divided into 10 Regional Statistical Areas (RSA) and 70 Community Analysis Areas (CAA). The City is located wholly within in RSA F -39. As depicted in Exhibit 5 -1, this RSA includes the coastline from Costa Mesa, through Newport Beach and south into the San Joaquin Hills. The RSA R:Trge0slNewwrVW0WDraft EIR15.0 Growth Inducing- 091807.doc 5 -2 Section 5.0 Growth - Inducing Impacts 30 37 1 41 44 50 41 32 51 39 42 23 26 35 53 V 1 al lyc �.vui i q 45 46 Community Analysis Area Regional Statistical Area 39 55 52 56 \ 60, 0 65 y 75 1 7s / 77 l/ Regional Statistical Area /Community Analysis Areas Exhibit 5 -1 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental EIR N W�E CONSUlil h'G 5 R /Prof N Ow WJWWgMVW 5-1 m 070306" Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SuDDlemental EIR contains about 8 percent of the County's population and 14 percent of its jobs. Between 2000 and 2030, the population in this RSA is projected to grow by approximately 24 percent, which is fairly comparable to the 21 percent projected for the County overall. Table 5 -1 provides an overview of the population, employment, and housing projections for the city, RSA F -39, and the County as a whole. Projections for three timeframes are provided: the 2000 figures are provided as a baseline; the 2015 figures reflect when the 1992 Hoag Hospital Master Plan is projected to be built out; and the 2030 figures reflect the long -term growth projections. TABLE 5 -1 GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR RSA F -39 AND COUNTY OF ORANGE 5.3 GROWTH- INDUCING ANALYSIS The potential growth- inducing effects of a proposed project are typically evaluated in three ways: Would the project have an effect on undeveloped land that may not be designated on any general plan for urban development, but would nonetheless experience increased growth pressure due to the presence of the project? 2. Would the project have an effect by removing constraints, thereby facilitating the construction of previously approved projects? 3. Would the project influence redevelopment of areas at a higher intensity than currently exists? Final EIR No. 142 addressed growth- inducing impacts and found that the development of the Master Plan would not result in growth- inducing impacts. It acknowledged that there would be an increase in the number of jobs, although the increase would be consistent with the General Plan assumptions. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not provide an increase in infrastructure capacity sufficient to encourage substantial off -site growth. The area surrounding Hoag is urbanized. The Master Plan Update Project would not have any influence, either directly or indirectly, on development of land not designated for urban uses. Historically, Hoag has been a catalyst to encourage the reuse of surrounding uses to medical - related uses, some as higher intensity uses. The uses surrounding Hoag are primarily medical- RAP ojedSe ewponWOWa raft EIMS.0 Gro h InWdngogl8 .aoo 5 -3 Section 5.0 Growth- Inducing Impacts 2044 2415 2030 - Clty of Newport Beach Population 76,171 91.,321 96,892 Employment 72,289 77,940 78,824 Housing 40,020 44,837 47,073 RSA F -39 Population 231,452 288,408 305,820 Employment 217,531 249,610 267,448 Housing 97,177 114,932 120,149 County of Orange Population 2,864,289 3,451,757 3,629,540 Employment 1,514,611 1,837,771 1,960,633 Housing 972,527 1,106,607 - 1,144,314 Source: Center for Demographic Research 2007. 5.3 GROWTH- INDUCING ANALYSIS The potential growth- inducing effects of a proposed project are typically evaluated in three ways: Would the project have an effect on undeveloped land that may not be designated on any general plan for urban development, but would nonetheless experience increased growth pressure due to the presence of the project? 2. Would the project have an effect by removing constraints, thereby facilitating the construction of previously approved projects? 3. Would the project influence redevelopment of areas at a higher intensity than currently exists? Final EIR No. 142 addressed growth- inducing impacts and found that the development of the Master Plan would not result in growth- inducing impacts. It acknowledged that there would be an increase in the number of jobs, although the increase would be consistent with the General Plan assumptions. The proposed Master Plan Update Project would not provide an increase in infrastructure capacity sufficient to encourage substantial off -site growth. The area surrounding Hoag is urbanized. The Master Plan Update Project would not have any influence, either directly or indirectly, on development of land not designated for urban uses. Historically, Hoag has been a catalyst to encourage the reuse of surrounding uses to medical - related uses, some as higher intensity uses. The uses surrounding Hoag are primarily medical- RAP ojedSe ewponWOWa raft EIMS.0 Gro h InWdngogl8 .aoo 5 -3 Section 5.0 Growth- Inducing Impacts Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supolemental EIR related uses, residential, and retail uses. Although the reallocation of currently allowed (but not constructed) square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus is unlikely to directly result in the conversion of residential uses to medical - related facilities, the City has noted an increased trend for medical office space proximate to Hoag and within other office areas of the City. As previously indicated in this EIR, the proposed Master Plan Update Project would not increase the square footage over that which was approved in the 1992 Hoag Hospital Master Plan. Therefore, the Project would not have a growth- inducing impact on surrounding areas. Though the Master Plan Update Project would not have growth- inducing impacts on the surrounding area, there is a potential for growth- inducing on -site effects. The Project would allow for a redistribution of square footage. Reallocation of 225,000 square feet (sf) from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus would result approximately 44 percent less development on the Lower Campus than originally assumed with the 1992 Hoag Hospital Master Plan. This would potentially allow additional area for development over the 1,343,238 sf provided for as part of this Project. Any development beyond that currently permitted is considered speculative because no additional square footage has been requested as a part of the proposed Master Plan Update Project or is currently contemplated by the Applicant. Any future changes to the Master Plan would be subject to evaluation by the City to address any potential environmental impacts. Any additional growth, if were to occur, would be reactive to the medical needs associated growth in the area. A review of the adopted growth projections indicates that there will be an approximately 21 to 24 percent increase in population for the City of Newport Beach, RSA F -39, and the County of Orange between 2000 and 2030. However, the 1992 Hoag Hospital Master Plan was developed for the 2015 timeframe. Therefore, if it is assumed that the Master Plan would adequately serve the population through 2015, a more pertinent question is the expected growth between 2015 and 2030. In this latter timeframe, the growth is projected to be approximately six percent for the City of Newport Beach and RSA F -39. Since an important factor for demand for hospital facilities is population, it is reasonable to assume that the demand for hospital facilities may also experience an incremental increase over this period of time. This is especially true because Hoag is a nationally recognized facility with multiple areas of excellence. The increased demand would not be tied to this project, but the overall growth in the region and demand for hospital services. However, it is speculative to determine whether post - 2015 population growth would directly cause the need for additional facilities beyond that currently permitted by the Master Plan square footage. As such, the proposed Master Plan Update Project is not considered growth inducing. R:ProjeclsWewpWW08\DraB EIRV.O Growth lndudng- 091807.doc 5-4 Section 5.0 Growth - inducing Impacts Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR SECTION 6.0 MITIGATION PROGRAM The following provides a comprehensive listing of all measures that would be applicable to the proposed Master Plan Update Project. Mitigation measure numbering reflects that provided in Resolution No. 92 -43 for certification of Final EIR No. 142. Minor modifications to the mitigation measures are proposed to reflect the current status of development at Hoag; some of the mitigation measures in Final EIR No. 142 have been implemented and are no longer applicable. Strikee -tee is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. Additional mitigation for the proposed Master Plan Update Project is also identified. 6.1 6.1.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Standard Conditions and Requirements SC3.5 -1 Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. `Walpak "type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 30 feet in height. SC 3.5 -2 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. SC 3.5 -3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Department. SC 3.5 -4 Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare. Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward 43. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a landscape and irrigation plan is prepared for each building /improvement within the overall Master Plan. This plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. The plan shall be subject to review by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 45. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas will be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. R:lPMjedsWew ortWW \Draft EIR3.0 Mtiggw -0 18W.dm 6 -1 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the rooftop of any structure on the Lower Campus. Rather, such buildings will have clean rooftops. Minor rooftop equipment necessary for operating purposes will comply with all building height criteria, and shall be concealed and screened to blend into the building roof using materials compatible with building materials. 48. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any Lower Campus structure, the Project Sponsor shall prepare a study of each proposed building project to assure conformance with the EIR view impact analysis and the PCDP and District Regulations, to ensure that the visual impacts identified in the EIR are consistent with actual Master Plan development. This analysis shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planning Department. Mitigation Measures No Longer Required 44. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of plans from, the City Planning Department which detail the lighting system for all buildings and window systems for buildings on the western side of the Upper Campus. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, these requirements have been met. Rationale: This mitigation measure would be replaced by standard conditions (identified above) used by the City of Newport Beach. These standard conditions supersede Mitigation Measure 44. 116. The Project Sponsor shall pay 75 percent of the cost of planting thirty 24 -inch ficus trees (or the equivalent) in the berm between the service road and Villa Balboa southerly of the tennis courts. Planting shall occur on Villa Balboa property. Rationale: This mitigation measure was adopted as part of the certification of Final EIR No. 142 and has already been implemented. Therefore, this measure would no longer need to be tracked through mitigation monitoring. 123. The design of the critical care /surgery addition shall incorporate screening devices for the windows which face the Villa Balboa area for the purpose of providing privacy for residents, so long as these screening devices can be designed to meet the Hospital Building Code requirements regarding the provision of natural light to the facility. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 123 required screening devices for the windows of critical care /surgery that faced the Villa Balboa area because it would have encroached into the minimum building setback. The critical care /surgery facility is not being implemented; therefore, this measure no longer applies. Should other uses be proposed in the location where the critical care /surgery facility would have been implemented, the site plan review process would identify the need for specific screening requirements. However, at the Master Plan level, this measure is no longer required. R9Prgeds \New odWOWDrafi EIP16.o Mtiga ion.09160].doc 6 -2 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 6.2 AIR QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK 6.2.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitiqation Measures to Carry Forward Short-Term Construction Emissions 82.' Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach demonstrating compliance with all applicable District Rules, including Rule 401, Visible Emissions, and Rule 402, Public Nuisance. 89. The Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that methods and materials which minimize VOC emissions have been employed where practical, available and where value engineering allows it to be feasible. 106. Project Sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall be performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance, which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, erosion and siltation control, noise, and other grading related activities. 110. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that low emission mobile and stationary equipment is utilized during construction, and low sulfur fuel is utilized in stationary equipment, when available. Evidence of this fact shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any grading or building permit. Long -Term Operational: Energy Efficiency 37. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of development, the project proponent shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that energy efficient lighting has been incorporated into the project design. 88. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase of development, verifying that energy efficiency will be achieved by incorporating appropriate technologies and systems into future structures, which may include: • High efficiency cooling /absorption units • Thermal storage and ceramic cooling towers • Cogeneration capabilities • High efficiency water heaters • Energy efficient glazing systems • Appropriate off -hour heating /cooling /lighting controls • Time clocks and photovoltaic cells for lighting controls • Efficient insulation systems • Light colored roof and building exteriors • PL lighting and fluorescent lighting systems • Motion detector lighting controls • Natural interior lighting -- skylights, clerestories • Solar orientation, earth berming and landscaping ' Measure 82 also serves as an energy efficiency mitigation measure. RAPrgedsWewportWM&Dratt EIR \6.0 MitigOon- 091807.dm 6 -3 Section 6 -0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 96. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that the thermal integrity of new buildings is improved with automated time clocks or occupant sensors to reduce the thermal load. 97. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods have been incorporated into building designs. 98. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate that building designs incorporate efficient heating units and other appliances, such as water heater, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. 99. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate into building designs, where feasible, passive solar designs and solar heaters. Mitiqation Measures Proaosed for Revision Long -Term Operational 36. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment incorporated within each phase. An air quality analysis shall be conducted prior to each phase of development for the proposed mechanical equipment contained within that phase that identifies additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment to be installed in the phase. phase of development. _ Eanh qubs@qUeAt Rationale: Mitigation Measure 36 requires verification of necessary permits from the SCAQMD for regulated equipment. It further states that if the new emissions result in impacts not previously considered or that will significantly change the land use impact, appropriate CEQA documentation shall be prepared prior to issuance of any permits for that phase of development. This mitigation measure is combining two processes. The SCAQMD would review the data pertaining to the use of regulated equipment. In order for the Applicant to receive the required permit, the project would need to meet the SCAQMD - established standards. The issue pertaining to new significant impacts associated with emissions or land use impacts would not be within SCAQMD's jurisdiction, so to avoid confusion this portion of the mitigation measure is recommended for deletion. The City of Newport Beach would continue to be responsible for ensuring that appropriate CEQA documentation is prepared. 38. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of Master Plan development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorporate the site development requirements of Ordinance No. 91 -16, as appropriate, to the Traffic Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and Planning Commission approval. Requirements outlined in the Ordinance include: RSProjeM \New o0W" \Drafl EIR \6.0 Mtigetiom0918W.dm 6 -4 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental EIR a. A minimum of five percent of the provided parking at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These parking spaces shall be located near the employee entrance or at other preferred locations. b. A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employees shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided at such time as demands warrants. c. A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. d. Information of transportation alternatives shall be provided to all employees. e. A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated in the parking area. f. The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. g. Bus stop improvements shall be coordinated with the Orange County Transportation Authority, consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 30 fe9Wiredig The exact number of each of the above facilities within each phase of the Master Plan shall be determined by the City during review of grading and building permit applications for each phase. The types and numbers of facilities required of each phase will reflect the content of the Ordinance at the time that a permit application is deemed complete by the Planning Department. Rationale. For Mitigation Measure 38, a revision to item "g" is proposed to cross - reference Mitigation Measure 30, which pertains to bus turnouts. The location and design of bus turnouts is within jurisdiction of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Mitigation Measures No Longer Required Short -Term Construction Emissions 87. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department verifying that all roadways associated with the development of the Master Plan will be paved early in the project, as a part of Phase I Master Plan development construction activities. Rationale, Mitigation Measure 87 was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented; all roads are paved. 105. The project sponsor shall ensure that all trucks used for hauling material shall be covered to minimize material loss during transit. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 105 is covered by the California Vehicle Code that requires covering or adequate freeboard (i.e., the height of the side wall above the load) to minimize material loss. 106. Project sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall be performed with the Newport Beach Grading Ordinance which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, erosion and siltation control, noise, and other grading related activities. RAProiWs \Newport0008\DraX EIRWO Mtigation -Nl8 .dw 6 -5 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E/R Rationale: Mitigation Measure 106 addresses compliance with the City's Grading Ordinance which is required of all grading activity in the City. 107. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during earth moving operations. To further reduce dust generation, grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour (MPH), and soil binders should be spread on construction sites or unpaved areas. Additional measures to control fugitive dust include street sweeping of roads used by construction vehicles and wheel washing before construction vehicles leave the site. Rationale: SCAQMD's Rule 403 has been amended since adoption of Final EIR No. 142. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -1 reflects current requirements and is recommended to replace Mitigation Measure 107. 109. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each phase of construction the Project Sponsor shall submit an analysis to the City Building Department that documents the criteria emissions factors for all stationary equipment to be used during that phase of construction. The analysis shall utilize emission factors contained in the applicable SCAQMD Handbook. The analysis shall also be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review and approval. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 109 is proposed for deletion because it is vague. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2, below, would achieve the same results (or better) and provides a greater level of specificity. 121. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each individual phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a CO hot spot analysis for the subject phase of development. This analysis shall utilize the EMFAC7EP emission factor program for the buildout year of the subject phase of development and the CALINE4 CO hot spot model or the model recommended for such analysis at that time. The results of this analysis shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review. City staff will verify consistency with the results of the project buildout CO analysis. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 121 is proposed for deletion because the analysis shows that the project is not projected to result in a CO hot spot at any intersections affected by the project. Further, the SCAB is technically in attainment of the CO ambient air quality standards and the AQMP contains a CO attainment demonstration that shows that CO concentrations do not exceed the ambient air quality standard even at the four worst intersections in the basin. Additional Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts of the Proposed Master Plan Update Project Short-term Construction Emissions: Particulate Emissions MM 3.3 -1 During construction of the project, the Applicant and its Contractors shall be required to comply with regional rules, which assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's ( 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. Two R: PrgwsNe rtW0 \Draft EIRNi.0 Mitigabon- 091 907.dw 6 -6 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR options are presented in Rule 403: monitoring of particulate concentrations or active control. Monitoring involves a sampling network around the project with no additional control measures unless specified concentrations are exceeded. The active control option does not require any monitoring, but requires that a list of measures be implemented starting with the first day of construction. Rule 403 requires that "No person shall conduct active operations without utilizing the best available control measures included in Table 1 of this Rule to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type within the active operation." The measures from Table 1 of Rule 403 are presented in this SEIR as Table A. It is required that all applicable and feasible measures in Table A are implemented. At this time, specific construction projects are not specified so it is unknown which measures will be applicable. All applicable and feasible control measures for each source category used during construction shall be implemented. Prior to permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a list of applicable measures that will be implemented along with a list of inapplicable measures that will not be implemented for the specific construction project. Rule 403 requires that "Large Projects" implement additional measures. A Large Project is defined as "any active operations on property which contains 50 or more acres of disturbed surface area, or any earthmoving operation with a daily earthmoving or throughput volume of 5,000 cubic yards for more than three times during the most recent 365 day period" Grading of the project is not considered a Large Project under Rule 403. However, the project shall implement all applicable and feasible measures specified in Table 2 (presented in this SEIR as Table B) to the greatest extent possible. This results in a higher reduction of fugitive dust emissions than would be achieved through complying solely with Table A. At this time, specific construction projects are not specified so it is unknown which measures will be feasible. Prior to permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a list of applicable measures that will be implemented for the specific construction project along with justification for the infeasibility finding. Rule 403 also requires that the construction activities "shall not cause or allow PM10 levels to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined by simultaneous sampling, as the difference between upwind and downwind sample" Projects that cannot meet this performance standard are required to implement the applicable actions specified in Table 3 of Rule 403 (presented in this SEIR as Table C). Rule 403 requires that that the project shall not "allow track -out to extend 25 feet or more in cumulative length from the point of origin from an active operation" All track -out from an active operation is required to be removed at the conclusion of each workday or evening shift. Any active operation with a disturbed surface area of five or more acres or with a daily import or export of 100 cubic yards or more of bulk materials must use at least one of the measures listed in Table D at each vehicle egress from the site to a paved public road. R:\ Projects \NeWpodU006\Oratt EIR\6.0 Mitigaliw- 0MM07.d. 6 -7 Section ff.O Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE A REQUIRED BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (RULE 403 TABLE 1) RdProje=\NewpOMW006 \Draft EIR\6.0 M111g81i0n- 091807.doo 6 -6 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program oum e.Category Crmtrbf AAeasure Guidance; Backfilling 01 -1 Stabilize backfill material when not actively . Mix backfill soil with water prior to moving handling; and . Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to 01 -2 Stabilize backfill material during handling; and backfilfing equipment 01 -3 Stabilize soil at completion of activity. . Empty loader bucket slowly so that no dust plumes are generated • Minimize drop height from loader bucket Clearing and Grubbing 02 -1 Maintain stability of soil through pre- watering Maintain live perennial vegetation where possible of site prior to clearing and grubbing; and Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent 02 -2 Stabilize soil during clearing and grubbing generation of dust plumes activities; and 02 -3 Stabilize soil immediately after clearing and grubbing activities. Clearing Forms 03 -1 Use water spray to clear forms; or Use of high pressure air to clear forms may cause 03 -2 Use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; exceedance of Rule requirements or 03 -3 Use vacuum system to clear forms. Crushing 04 -1 Stabilize surface soils prior to operation of Follow permit conditions for crushing equipment support equipment; and Pre -water material prior to loading into crusher 04 -2 Stabilize material after crushing. . Monitor crusher emissions opacity . Apply water to crushed material to prevent dust plumes Cut and Fill 05 -1 Pre -water soils prior to cut and fill activities; For large sites, pre -water with sprinklers or water and trucks and allow time for penetration 05 -2 Stabilize soil during and after cut and fill Use water trucks/pulls to water soils to depth of cut activities. prior to subsequent cuts Demolition — Mechanical/Manuel 06 -1 Stabilize wind erodible surfaces to reduce . Apply water in sufficient quantities to prevent the dust; and generation of visible dust plumes 06 -2 Stabilize surface soil where support equipment and vehicles will operate; and 06.3 Stabilize loose soil and demolition debris; and 06 -4 Comply with AQMD Rule 403. Disturbed Soil 07 -1 Stabilize disturbed soil throughout the . Limit vehicular traffic and disturbances on soils construction site; and where possible 07 -2 Stabilize disturbed soil between structures . If interior block wails are planned, install as early as possible . Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes Earth- Moving Activities 08 -1 Pre -apply water to depth of proposed cuts; . Grade each project phase separately, timed to and coincide with construction phase 08 -2 Re -apply water as necessary to maintain soils . Upwind fencing can prevent material movement on in a damp condition and to ensure that visible site emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any . Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient direction; and quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust 08 -3 Stabilize soils once earth - moving activities are plumes complete. RdProje=\NewpOMW006 \Draft EIR\6.0 M111g81i0n- 091807.doo 6 -6 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R TABLE A (Continued) REQUIRED BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (RULE 403 TABLE 1) 09 -1 09 -2 09 -3 09-4 09 -5 11 -1 11 -2 lenin 12 -1 12 -2 12 -3 Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and Maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and Stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and Stabilize material while unloading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and CDmDIv with Vehicle Code Section 23114. Stabilize soils, materials, slopes Apply water to unpaved shoulders prior to clearing; and Apply chemical dust suppressants and/or washed gravel to maintain a stabilized surface after completing road shoulder maintenance. Pre -water material prior to screening; and Limit fugitive dust emissions to opacity and plume length standards; and Stabilize material immediately after screening. Areas 13 -1 Stabilize staging areas during use; and 13 -2 Stabilize staging area soils at project completion. 14 -1 Stabilize stockpiled materials. 14 -2 Stockpiles within 100 yards of off -site occupied buildings must not be greater than eight feet in height; or must have a road bladed to the top to allow water truck access or must have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. R:1Pr0JWSWewpaMJW8\Drah EIR\6.0 WgarioM091607.dac • Use tarps or other suitable enclosures on haul trucks • Check belly -dump truck seals regularly and remove any trapped rocks to prevent spillage • Comply with track -out prevention /mitigation requirements • Provide water while loading and unloading to reduce visible dust plumes • Apply water to materials to stabilize and maintain materials in a crusted condition • Maintain effective cover over materials • Stabilize sloping surfaces using soil binders until vegetation or ground cover can effectively stabilize the slopes • Hvdroseed Drior to rain season • Installation of curbing and/or paving of road shoulders can reduce recurring maintenance costs • Use of chemical dust suppressants can inhibit vegetation growth and reduce future road shoulder maintenance costs • Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to screening operation • Drop material through the screen slowly and minimize drop height • Install wind barrier with a porosity of no more than 50% upwind of screen to the, height of the drop point • Limit size of staging area • Limit vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour • Limit number and size of staging area • Add or remove material from the downwind portion of the storage pile • Maintain storage piles to avoid steep sides or faces Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE A (Continued) REQUIRED BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (RULE 403 TABLE 1) Soured Category 7 7777777T=�= ontr0taessure rt", U.- MW:-n Traffic Areas for Construction Activities 15-1 Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas; * Apply gravel /paving to all haul routes as soon as and possible to all future roadway areas 15-2 Stabilize all haul routes; and - Barriers can be used to ensure vehicles are only 15-3 Direct construction traffic over established haul used on established parking areas/haul routes routes. Trenching 16-1 Stabilize surface soils where trencher or . Pre-watering of soils prior to trenching is an excavator and support equipment will operate; effective preventive measure. and - For deep trenching activities, pre-trench to 18 16.2 Stabilize soils at the completion of trenching inches, soak soils via the pre-trench, and resume activities. trenching • Washing mud and soils from equipment at the conclusion of trenching activities can prevent crusting and drying of soil on equipment Truck Loading 17-1 Pre-water material prior to loading; and 0 Empty loader bucket such that no visible dust 17.2 Ensure that freeboard exceeds six inches plumes are created (CVC 23114) - Ensure that the loader bucket is close to the truck to minimize drop height while loading Turf Overseeding 18-1 Apply sufficient water immediately prior to * Haul waste material immediately off-site conducting turf vacuuming activities to meet opacity and plume length standards; and 18-2 Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. — Unpaved nip ed Roads/Parking Lots 19-1 Stabilize soils to meet the applicable 0 Restricting vehicular access to established performance standards: and unpaved travel paths and parking lots can reduce 19-2 Limit vehicular travel to established stabilization requirements roads (haul routes) and unpaved Vacant Land 20-1 In instances where vacant lots are 0-10 acre or larger and have a cumulative area of 500 square feet or more that are driven over and/or used by motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles, prevent motor vehicle and/or off -road vehicle trespassing, parking and/or access by installing barriers, curbs, fences, gates, posts, signs, shrubs, trees or other effective control measures. I Source! SCAOMD. RrTrc4eM'Newport 080raft EIR*.G Ktiga. ffll 807.d.c 6-10 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR TABLE B DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS (RULE 403 TABLE 2) ugiti�e Drist 5rruraa Ca#ego►q Cat Yro l Rations Earth - moving (except construction cutting and filling areas, and mining operations) (1 a) Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations each subsequerd four-hour period of active operations; OR (la-1) For any earth - moving which is more than 100 feet from all property lines, conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in length in any direction- Earth-moving: Construction fill areas: (1 b) Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. For areas which have an optimum moisture content for compaction of less than 12 percent, as determined by ASTM Method 1557 or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer and the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. EPA, complete the compaction process as expeditiously as possible after achieving at least 70 percent of the optimum soil moisture content. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations during each subsequent four-hour period of active operations. Earth - moving: Construction cut areas and mining operations: (1 c) Conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible emissions from extending more than 100 feet beyond the active cut or mining area unless the area is inaccessible to watering vehicles due to slope conditions or other safety factors. Disturbed surface areas (except completed grading areas) (2a/b) Apply dust suppression in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. Any areas which cannot be stabilized, as evidenced by wind driven fugitive dust must have an application of water at least twice per day to at least 80 percent of the unstabilized area. Disturbed surface areas: Completed grading areas (2c) Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion; OR (2d) Take actions (3a) or (3c) specified for inactive disturbed surface areas. Inactive disturbed surface areas (3a) Apply water to at least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed surface areas on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, excluding any areas which are inaccessible to watering vehicles due to excessive slope or other safety conditions; OR (3b) Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface; OR (3c) Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. Ground cover must be of sufficient density to expose less than 30 percent of unstabilized ground within 90 days of planting, and at all times thereafter; OR (3d) Utilize any combination of control actions (3a), (3b), and (3c) such that, in total, these actions apply to all inactive disturbed surface areas. Unpaved Roads (4a) Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic at least once per every two hours of active operations [3 times per normal 8 hour work day]; OR (4b) Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic once daily and restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour; OR (4c) Apply a chemical stabilizer to all unpaved road surfaces in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. RAPrcjeOs\Newpart JWS \Draft EIR\6.0 Mitigatiom091607.doc 6 -11 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R TABLE B (Continued) DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS (RULE 403 TABLE 2) TABLE C CONTINGENCY CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS (RULE 403 TABLE 3) Fugitiliea3usiSourdeCategary !; ;' ; Contr�E, Aci[uns , Open storage piles (5a) Apply chemical stabilizers; OR (5b) Apply water to at least 80 percent of the surface area of all open storage piles on a daily basis when Disturbed surface areas there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust; On the last day of active operations prior to a weekend, holiday, or any other period when active OR (5c) Install temporary coverings; stabilizer diluted to not less than 1/20 of the concentration required to maintain a stabilized surface for a OR (5d) Install a three -sided enclosure with walls with no more than 50 percent porosity which extend, at a OR minimum, to the top of the pile. This option may only be used at aggregate - related plants or at cement Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; manufacturing facilities. All Categories (6a) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified in Table 2 may be used. TABLE C CONTINGENCY CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS (RULE 403 TABLE 3) R: \ProjeQS Jewpon\408\Drak EIR \6.0 Mitigation- 091807.doc 6 -12 Section'6.0 Mitigation Program Fugitive post Suiirr a Ca[ego' ry Gontrot ACHons Earth - moving (1A) Cease all active operations; OR (2A) Apply water to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving such soil - Disturbed surface areas (06) On the last day of active operations prior to a weekend, holiday, or any other period when active operations will not occur for not more than four consecutive days: apply water with a mixture of chemical stabilizer diluted to not less than 1/20 of the concentration required to maintain a stabilized surface for a period of six months; OR (1 B) Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; OR (26) Apply water to all unstabilized disturbed areas 3 times per day. If there is any evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, watering frequency is increased to a minimum of four times per day; OR (36) Take the actions specified in Table 2, Item (3c); OR (46) Utilize any combination of control actions (1 B), (26), and (36) such that, in total, these actions apply to all disturbed surface areas. Unpaved Roads (1 C) Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; OR (2C) Apply water twice per hour during active operation; OR (3C) Stop all vehicular traffic. R: \ProjeQS Jewpon\408\Drak EIR \6.0 Mitigation- 091807.doc 6 -12 Section'6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental BR TABLE C (Continued) CONTINGENCY CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS (RULE 403 TABLE 3) fugltivaGust Source Category Control Actlpns - Open Storage Piles (1 D) Apply water twice per hour; OR (2D) Install temporary coverings. Paved Road Track-Out (1 E) Coverall haul vehicles; OR (2E) Comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code for both public and private roads. All Categories (1 F) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified in Table 3 may be used. Source: SCAOMD. TABLE D TRACK OUT CONTROL OPTIONS (A) Install a pad consisting of washed gravel (minimum -size: one inch) maintained in a clean condition to a depth of at least six inches and extending at least 20 feet wide and 50 feet long. (13) Pave the surface extending at least 100 feet and a width of at least 20 feet wide. (C) Utilize a wheel shaker /wheel spreading device consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipe, or grates) at least 24 feet long and 10 feet wide to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle under carriages before vehicles exit the site. (D) Install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. (E) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specif ied items (A) through (D) above. II Source: SCAOMD. Construction Equipment Emissions MM 3.3 -2 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the Applicant shall include the following notes on the contractor specifications submitted for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Department of Public Works: To reduce construction equipment emissions, the following measures shall be implemented: • Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. Use existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when available. This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators. • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. R: P.jeo \Newpod\JMMD,afl EIR \6.0 WiMion-091607,doc 6 -13 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR • Minimize obstruction of through- traffic lanes. Construction shall be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum. • Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off -peak hours to the best extent when possible. • Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service). MM 3.3 -3 Prior to issuance of each building permit for the proposed Master Plan Update Project, the Applicant shall include the following notes on the contractor specifications submitted for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Department: • Minimize the amount of paint used by using pre - coated, pre - colored, and naturally colored building materials. • Use high transfer efficiency painting methods such as HVLP (High Volume Low Pressure) sprayers and brushes /rollers were possible. 6.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6.3.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measures No Longer Required Rationale: The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and have been fully implemented. 16. The federal wetland regulations and requirements shall be reviewed by the City and the Project Sponsor at the time the proposed work is undertaken, and the project shall comply with all applicable laws concerning removal and mitigation of wetland at the time, as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission. If this review results in a finding by the Resources Agencies involved in the permit process that mitigation is required for impacts to the 1.07 acres of wetlands dominated by pampas grass, such mitigation will be accomplished as part of the mitigation required for impacts to sensitive wetland plant communities. 17. The Project Sponsor shall prepare a comprehensive restoration and management plan for the wetland mitigation site as required by law. This plan will be submitted to the following agencies for their review and approval/ concurrence prior to issuance of grading and /or building permits for Master Plan development. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • California Department of Fish and Game • City of Newport Beach R9Proiws\WwpmtUWWrak EIR%0 Mliga M-091807.doc 6-14 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memonai Hospital Presbytenan Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R 18. The resulting final mitigation plan shall be approved as part of the Coastal Development Permit for the project. The plan shall also be approved as part of the Corps Section 404 Permit and Streambed Alteration Agreement, if applicable. A wetland mitigation plan approved by the appropriate agencies shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of grading and /or building permits for Master Plan development in any areas affecting wetlands. 19. The plan will be consistent with the following provisions: The amount of new wetlands created under the mitigation plan shall be at least equal size to the area of sensitive wetland communities impacted by the project. • The wildlife habitat values in the newly created wetlands shall not be less than those lost as the result of removal of sensitive wetland communities impacted by the project. • The wetlands created shall not decrease the habitat values of any area important to maintenance of sensitive plant or wildlife populations. • The wetland mitigation planning effort will take into consideration creation of 0.2 acre of salt grass habitat suitable for use by wandering skipper; such consideration would be dependent on the nature of the mitigation plan undertaken and whether wandering skipper could potentially occur in the mitigation area. • The plan will constitute an agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies involved. The plan shall be written so as to guarantee wetland restoration in accordance with stated management objectives within a specified time frame. The plan shall describe the applicant's responsibilities for making any unforeseen repairs or modifications to the restoration plan in order to meet the stated objectives of the plan. 20. The following detailed information will be provided by the Project Sponsor in the final mitigation plan: • Diagrams drawn to scale showing any alternatives to natural landforms; • A list of plant species used; • The method of plant introduction (i.e., seeding, natural succession, vegetative transplanting, etc.); and • Details of the short-term and long -term monitoring plans, including financing of the monitoring plans. 6.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 6.4.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward 21. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an Orange County certified archaeologist shall be retained to, and shall, monitor the grading across the project area. The archaeologist P:NroJaM\NewporW008\Dretl El".e Mlkja8am091807.eoo 6 -15 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIH shall be present at the pre - grading conference, at which time monitoring procedures acceptable to and approved by the City shall be established, including procedures for halting or redirecting work to permit the assessment, and possible salvage, of unearthed cultural material. 22. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an Orange County certified paleontologist shall be retained to, and shall, monitor the grading activities. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, at which time procedures acceptable to and approved by the City for monitoring shall be established, including the temporary halting or redirecting of work to permit the evaluation and possible salvage, of any exposed fossils. All fossils and their contextual stratigraphic data shall go to an Orange County institution with an educational and/or research interest in the materials. 6.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 6.5.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that grading and development of the site shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and with plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. These plans shall incorporate the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist, subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans shall be fumished to the Building Department by the Project Sponsor. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit documentation to the City of Newport Beach Building Department confirming that all cut slopes shall be monitored for potential instabilities by the project geotechnical engineer during all site grading and construction activities and strictly monitor the slopes in accordance with the documentation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall provide to the City of Newport Beach a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation and report of the site prepared by a registered grading engineer and/or engineering geologist. This report shall also identify construction excavation techniques which ensure no damage and minimize disturbance to adjacent residents. This report shall determine if there are any on -site faults which could render all or a portion of the property unsafe for construction. All recommendations contained in this investigation and report shall be incorporated into project construction and design plans. This report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 4. Prior to the completion of the final design phase, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed to the seismic standards applicable to hospital related structures and as specified in the then current City adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a soil corrosivity evaluation. This evaluation shall be conducted by an expert in the field of corrosivity. This site evaluation shall be designed to address soils to at least the depth to R9Pr010d8 \NewPer1U00Mrat0 RIR\9.0 MiVgMion- 091907.do 6 -16 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft supplemental E!R which excavation is planned. At a minimum, at least one sample from each soil type should be evaluated. Appropriate personnel protection shall be worn by field personnel during the field evaluation. In the event soils are found to be corrosive, the source and extent of the corrosive soils shall be determined, and all buildings and infrastructure shall be designed to control the potential impact of corrosive soils over time. Based on the corrosion assessment and source determination, a soils and construction material compatibility evaluation shall be undertaken, concluding with the appropriate mitigation measures and design criteria.. Corrosion resistant construction materials are commonly available and shall be used where the evaluation/assessment concludes that corrosive soils conditions could adversely impact normal construction materials or the materials used for the mitigation of subsurface gas conditions. For example, there are many elastomers and plastics, like PVC, which are resistant to corrosion by up to 70 percent sulfuric acid at 140 degrees Fahrenheit. 8. Should the soil be identified as hazardous due to the severeness of their corrosivity (i.e., a pH less than 2.5), on -site remediation by neutralization shall be undertaken prior to construction. Appropriate regulatory agency approvals and permits shall also be obtained. 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a construction erosion control plan is submitted to and approved by the City of Newport Beach that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and includes procedures to minimize potential impacts of sift, debris, dust and other water pollutants. These procedures may include: • the replanting of exposed slopes within 30 days after grading or as required by the City Engineer. • the use of sandbags to slow the velocity of or divert stormflows. • the limiting of grading to the non -rainy season. The project Sponsor shall strictly adhere to the approved construction erosion control plan and compliance shall be monitored on an on -going basis by the Newport Beach Building Department. Mitigation Measures No Longer Reauired 5. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each phase of development, the Building Department shall ensure that geotechnical recommendations included in "Report of Geotechnical Evaluation for Preparation of Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport, California" as prepared by LeRoy Crandall Associates, June 1989, and in the report prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3, are followed. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 5 pertained to geotechnical constraints. This measure required that prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each phase of development, the City of Newport Beach Building Department was to ensure that geotechnical recommendations included in Report of Geotechnical Evaluation for Preparation of Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus prepared by LeRoy Crandall Associates, June. 1989, and in the R1ProjeMt Nm"rtW008tDra8 El".9 KMtlgMiM-09190TdW 6 -17 sectiOR 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental BR report prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3, are followed. Mitigation Measure 3 (identified above) requires a comprehensive soil and geologic evaluation prior to each grading permit, which would contain recommendations that are based on current grading standards and associated codes. Mitigation Measure 5 is duplicative of Mitigation Measure 3 and could result in conflicts with existing codes and practices. 6.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 6.6.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward 49. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and /or hazardous materials are handled and disposed 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, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. . 52. A soil gas sampling and monitoring program shall include methane and hydrogen sulfide levels. Samples shall be taken just below the depth of actual disturbance. (The individuals(s) performing this initial study may be at risk of exposure to significant —and possibly IethaF- -doses of hydrogen sulfide, and shall be appropriately protected as required.) 53. A site safety plan shall be developed that addresses the risks associated with exposures to methane and hydrogen sulfide. Each individual taking part in the sampling and monitoring program shall receive training on the potential hazards and on proper personal protective equipment. This training shall be at least at the level required by CFR 2910.120. 54. If the analysis of the initial soil gas samples shows unacceptable levels of hazardous constituents that have the potential to pose a health risk during construction activities, additional gas collection wells shall be drilled to contain and collect the gas. 55. Continuous monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide 56. A study of other hazardous constituents that may be present in quantities that pose a health risk to exposed individuals shall be prepared and evaluated prior to the initiation of the project. The constituents studied shall include compounds that are directly related to petroleum, such as benzene and toluene. 59. In the event additional gases are to be collected from newly constructed collection wells as part of a measure to reduce exposures during construction, an evaluation of the capacity and efficiency of the present flare system shall be conducted prior to connecting any new sources. 2 The record shows an incomplete Mitigation Measure 55; however, the provision for continuous monitoring and treatment of methane and hydrogen sulfide is contained in other measures, such as Mitigation Measures 52, 53, 58, 60, 61, 64, 66, 72, 74-76, 79, and 122. Protection from methane and hydrogen sulfide is adequately provided through these measures. R:Wroje=NewportVOOSmreH EIM6.0 Mitigation- 091607.doc 6 -18 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Duff Supplemental EIR 62. A study of the concentration of potential hazardous constituents shall be conducted prior to initiation of the project to characterize the wastewater and any risk it may pose to human health prior to development. A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of hazardous constituents from the site. The Hospital shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit, including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and implementation of Best Management Practices, implementation of erosion control measures, the monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system. 63. Soil samples shall be collected from the appropriate locations at the site and analyzed for BTEX and priority pollutants; if the soils are found to contain unacceptable levels of hazardous constituents, appropriate mitigation will be required, including a complete characterization of both the vertical and horizontal extent of the contamination, and a remedial action plan shall be completed and approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project Sponsor must demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach compliance with this measure prior to issuance of any permits for Phase I construction activities. 66. Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department City of Newport Beach, demonstrating that continuous hydrogen sulfide monitoring equipment with alarms to a manned remote location have been provided in building designs. This monitoring equipment must be the best available monitoring system, and the plans must include a preventative maintenance program for the equipment and a calibration plan and schedule. 68. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach ensuring that all structures built on the Lower Campus are designed for protection from gas accumulation and seepage based on the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer. 69. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach indicating where gas test boring will be drilled under each proposed main building site once specific building plans are complete. Such testing shall be carried out, and test results submitted to the City's building official, prior to issuance of grading permits. If a major amount of gas is detected, a directionally drilled well will be permanently completed and put into the existing gas collection system. 70. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Grading Engineer, City of Newport Beach, indicating that all buildings and parking lots on the Lower Campus will be constructed with passive gas collection systems under the foundations. Such a system typically consists of perforated PVC pipes laid in parallel lengths below the foundation. Riser type vents will be attached to light standards and building high points. Additionally, parking lots on the Lower Campus will contain unpaved planter areas and vertical standpipes located at the end of each length of PVC pipe. The standpipes will serve to vent any collected gas to the atmosphere. A qualified geotechnical firm shall be retained to design such systems. 71. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach demonstrating that all buildings on the Lower Campus are sealed from gas migration. Such sealing may be installed by the use of chlorinated RAProlec \Newpori\d008\Drafl EIR\6.0 WgWion- 091807.doc 6-19 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR polyethylene sheeting or similar approved system. All material of construction including the PVC piping and the ground lining must be evaluated for compatibility with the existing environmental conditions of the soils and/or potential gases. 72. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments demonstrating that all buildings on the Lower Campus will be equipped with methane gas sensors. Such sensors will be installed in areas of likely accumulation, such as utility or other seldom used rooms. Sensors can monitor on a continuous basis, and can be tied into fire alarm systems for 24 -hour surveillance. 73. To avoid possible accumulation of gas in utility or other seldom used service or storage rooms, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of building permits indicating that such rooms are serviced by the buildings' central air conditioning system (or an otherwise positive ventilation system that circulates and replaces the air in such rooms on a continuous basis). 74. During construction, Project Sponsor shall ensure that an explosimeter is used to monitor methane levels and percentage range. Additionally, construction contractors shall be required to have a health and safety plan that includes procedures for worker /site safety for methane. If dangerous levels of methane are discovered, construction in the vicinity shall stop, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department shall be notified and appropriate procedures followed in order to contain the methane to acceptable and safe levels. 83. Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor must submit plans to the City of Newport Beach demonstrating that its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Plan and its infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the Project Sponsor has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach, Fire Prevention Department, and the Orange County Health Care Agency, as required by the Infections Waste Act and A62185/2187. 84. Project Sponsor shall continue compliance with its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infectious Control Manual for all new activities associated with the proposed Master Plan, as well as comply with all new regulations enacted between now and completion of the proposed Master Plan. 85. To the satisfaction of the City building official, the Project Sponsor shall expand existing hazardous infectious, radiological disposal facilities to add additional storage areas as necessary to accommodate the additional waste to be generated by the expanded facilities. 86. The Project Sponsor shall provide evidence to the Planning Director that measures to ensure implementation and continue compliance with all applicable SCAOMD Air Toxic Rules, specifically Rules 1401, 1402, 1403, 1405 and 1415, are being carried out. 100. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all cut material is disposed of at either an environmentally cleared development site or a certified landfill. Also, all material exported off site shall be disposed of at an environmentally certified development cleared landfill with adequate capacity. R:\Projea9WewportV0080rafl EIR\6.0 Mgatim- 091807.doc 6 -20 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 122. The methane gas facility and all building on the lower campus shall be subject to all laws and regulations applicable, including, but not limited to, the Federal Regulation contained in 29 CFR 1910, the State Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.9.5, and the regulations of OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association. Prior to the issuance of building permits on the lower campus, the Project Sponsor shall submit, to the Newport Beach Fire Department a compliance review report of all the above referenced laws and regulations. Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision 64. Prior to the issuance of grading of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall evaluate all existing vent systems located on the lower campus and submit this data to the City Building and Fire Departments. , the State ^ °^"' AA Additionally, any proposed new passive vents shall be evaluated by the City Building and Fire Departments prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 64, adopted as part of Final EIR 142, requires monitoring of the venting systems on the Lower Campus prior to issuance of building permits. The measure requires the findings be sent to State Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, and the Southern California Air Quality Management District for comment. However, these systems are passive vents, which are not regulated by these agencies. Only the active gas extraction plant is regulated by these agencies. The standard used for passive vents is substantially below the thresholds used by these agencies for monitoring. The portion of the mitigation measure requiring agency reporting has led to confusion regarding what the agencies are expected to do with the results when they are received. Mitigation Measures No Lonqer Required The following mitigation measures were adopted with Final EIR No. 142 and have been fully implemented. 50. Prior to construction of structures over or near the Wilshire oil well, Project Sponsor shall ensure that the Wilshire oil well, or any abandoned, unrecorded well or pressure relief well, is reabandoned to the current standards. Abandonment plans will be submitted to the State Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) for approval prior to the abandonment procedures. The City's building official shall be notified that the reabandonment was carried out according to DOG procedures. 51. To further determine the source of the gas on the Lower Campus site, prior to issuance of a grading permit on the Lower Campus, Project Sponsor shall collect gas samples from the nearest fire flooding wells and at Newport Beach Townhomes and compare the gas samples to samples taken from the Hoag gas collection wells prior to site grading and construction. 57. A study shall be conducted that characterizes the wells, the influent gas, and the effluent of the flare. This study shall characterize the gas over a period of time, to allow for potential fluctuations in concentration and rate. 58. A scrubber system shall be required to reduce the concentration of. hydrogen sulfide in the influent gas. RAProg8cfs\Newporrl"0ran EIR\b.o Mingafiw- 09lBW.dac 6 -21 Section 6.L Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental E1R 60. An automatic re -light system shall be installed on the flare system to reduce the risk of a potential release of high concentration of hydrogen sulfide. The system shall be designed with an alarm system that notifies a remote location which is manned 24 hours per day. 61. A continuous hydrogen sulfide monitor that would give warning of a leak of concentrations in excess of acceptable levels shall be installed in the vicinity of the flare. 65. If required by the Southern California Air Quality Air Management District, an air dispersion model shall be required in order to predict the cumulative effects of the emissions. Compliance with any additional requirements of the AQMD shall be verified through a compliance review by the district with written verification received by the Newport Beach Building Department. 67. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that the inferred fault traversing the site is trenched and monitored for gas prior to site grading and construction. If gas monitoring indicates a potential risk during grading, additional gas collection wells will be drilled to collect and contain the gas. 75. The project Sponsor may remove the flare system, contain the gas and utilize the gas for Lower Campus facilities. During the containment process and removal of the flare the Project Sponsor shall ensure that methane levels are monitored throughout the project area to ensure that his transition does not create an upset in methane levels or create odors or risk of explosion. 76. Prior to development on the Lower Campus, the Project Sponsor shall submit to the Cityof Newport Beach within one year of May 1992, plans to install a scrubber system to remove hydrogen sulfide from the influent to the flare. The design and construction of the system should be in accordance with the Best Available Control Technologies, and must be in compliance with SCAQMD (District) Regulation XIII, emission offsets and New Source Review. 77. As required by the District, the Project Sponsor shall develop a sampling and analysis protocol for District approval to evaluate the impact the existing and post- scrubber emissions will have on the ambient air quality and on possible receptor populations. The required evaluation shall include analysis for criteria and toxic pollutants, and evaluation of the potential risk associated with the emission of these pollutants (Rule 1401). Included in the plans for the design of the scrubber system should be a make -up gas source. 78 The plans for the design of the new system will include a calibration and maintenance plan for all equipment, if required by the District as a permit condition, automatic shutdown devices, sensors, and charts for continuous recording of monitoring, and flame arresters. The project sponsor shall evaluate enclosing or placing new equipment underground. 79. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that demonstrate that the flare operation will be shut down within four years of August, 1992. The project sponsor must prepare and obtain approval from the SCAQMD to implement a sampling and analysis protocol for evaluation of the existing emissions from the flare after scrubbing (Mitigation Measures 75 and 76), and the effect of flare shutdown on ambient air quality. The methane gas source should be used, if engineering design R: Pwjec \NewponJ0O81D,a9 EIRW.O WigWion- 091807.doc 6-22 Section 6:0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R allows, as a supplemental source of fuel for the Hospital's boilers. If the gas is not usable, the flare shall be relocated. 80. The plans for the design of the new system will include a calibration and maintenance plan for all equipment, and if required by the District as a permit condition, automatic shutdown devices, sensors and charts for continuous recording of monitoring, and flame arresters. The project sponsor shall evaluation enclosing or placing new equipment underground. 81. Prior to installation of the scrubber system, the Project Sponsor shall develop a protocol for a study to evaluate the integrity of the control equipment and piping. The project Sponsor must obtain agreement from the District on the protocol prior to initiating the study. 90. In conjunction with the Critical Care Surgery addition, the Project Sponsor will place the overhead power lines located west of the Upper Campus underground if feasible. 6.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 6.7.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a construction erosion plan is submitted to and approved by the City of Newport Beach that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and includes procedures to minimize potential impacts of silt, debris, dust and other water pollutants. These procedures may include: • the replanting of exposed slopes within 30 days after grading or as required by the City Engineer. • the use of sandbags to slow the velocity of or divert stormflows. • the limiting of grading to the non -rainy season. The Project Sponsor shall strictly adhere to the approved construction erosion control plan and compliance shall be monitored on an on -going basis by the Newport Beach Building Department. 10. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit.a landscape plan which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation and approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The Project Sponsor shall install landscaping in strict compliance with the approved plan. 11. The Project Sponsor shall continue the current practice of routine vacuuming of all existing parking lots and structures and shall also routinely vacuum all future parking lots and structures at current frequencies. Upon implementation of the County of Orange Storm Water Master Plan, routine vacuuming shall be done in accordance with the requirements specified in the plan. RAPrgedsWeripo041008Qralt EIR18,0 MdigMian- 091807.dw 6 -23 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 12. Upon completion of final building construction plans, and prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that site hydrological analyses are conducted to verifythat existing drainage facilities are adequate. The applicant shall submit a report to the City of Newport Beach Building Department for approval, verifying the adequacy of the proposed facilities and documenting measures for the control of siltation and of erosive runoff velocities. 13. Prior to the completion of final construction plans for each phase of Lower Campus development, the Project Sponsor shall submit a comprehensive geotechnical /hydrologic study to the City of Newport Beach Building Department, which includes data on groundwater. This study shall also determine the necessity for a construction dewatering program and subdrain system. 15. Project Sponsor shall strictly comply with its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infectious Control Manual for all new activities associated with the proposed Master Plan, as well as strictly comply with all new regulations enacted between now and completion of the proposed Master Plan development. Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision 14. Prior to the completion of final building construction plans for each phase of Lower Campus development, the Project Sponsor shall prepare and submit a construction stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Permit for stormwater discharge associated with construction activity (Construction General Permit, SWRCB Order No. 99- 08 -DWO or its successor) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain the required coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The NOI, site plan, a check in an amount specified by the most current fee schedule, and any other documentation required by the permit shall be sent to the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB will send a Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) to the project sponsor and the Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region for use during site inspection, if neededaa apglisation to Rationale: Since the certification of Final EIR No. 142, modifications to how the NPDES permit is administered have been adopted. The State Resources Board is responsible for issuance of the NPDES permit and the RWQCB is responsible for monitoring, if deemed necessary by the permit. Changes to Mitigation Measure 14 are hereby incorporated to reflect this administrative process. R: \ProjectslNewpodW(M Oratt EIR16.0 Mgmion- 091607.doc 6 -24 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR 6.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING PROGRAMS 6.8.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision 24. The proposed project is subject to all applicable requirements of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program (LCP). Those requirements that are superseded by the PCDP and District Regulations are not considered applicable. The following discretionary approvals are required by the City of Newport Beach: EIR certification, adoption a! the MasteF °1a^ adoption of an amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulations, approval of an amendment to the Development Agreement, appFaval of a zone Ghange to Planned Se ..muni °wt, grading permits, and building permits for some facilities. The California Coastal Bevelepment Commission has the discretionary responsibility to issue a Coastal Development Permit for the Lower Campus Program AmeRdment for the I=eweF Campus. Rationale: This mitigation measure would be revised to reflect the current status of required actions associated with the proposed Master Plan Update Project. 118. For any building subject to the issuance of the building permit by the OffiGe of the State Arshitest California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Hoag Hospital shall submit to OSHPD the State Arnhitert a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that review of the senst;astien development plans has been completed and that the plans are in compliance with all City requirements. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 118 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142; however, for projects that require issuance of a building permit by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), the City has limited jurisdiction in the review and approval of development plans. This measure is being revised to indicate that the City will provide a letter indicating review should be requested by OSHPD. Mitigation Measures No Lonqer Required The following mitigation measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142, have been implemented, and are no longer required. 23. The Project Sponsor shall construct, if feasible and by mutual agreement, and maintain a fence along the common property line west of Upper Campus. The proposed design of the fence shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. 113. Subsequent to the approval of this Agreement by the Coastal Commission and the expiration of any statute of limitation for filing a legal challenge to this Agreement, the Master Plan, or the EIR, Hoag shall deposit Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) in an account, and at a financial institution, acceptable to City. The account shall be in the name of the City provided, however, Hoag shall have the right to access the funds in the event, but only to the extent that, Hoag constructs or installs the improvements described in (i) or (ii). Funds in the account shall be applied to the following projects (in order of priority upon notice to proceed served by City on Hoag). R:PryeM\Newpon\J 6\Dreit EIR16.0 Mitigation- 091807,doc 6 -25 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Oran Suoolemental E/P (1) The construction of a sidewalk and installation of landscaping in the Caltrans right -of- way along the west side of Newport Boulevard southerly of Hospital Road; (ii) The construction of facilities necessary to bring reclaimed water to West Newport and /or the Property; Any funds remaining in the account after completion of the projects described in (i) and (ii) shall be used by the City to fund, in whole or in part, a public improvement in the vicinity of the property. 6.9 NOISE 6.9.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Standard Conditions and Requirements Construction Activities SC 3.4 -1 During construction, the Applicant shall ensure that all noise - generating activities be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays. No noise - generating activities shall occur on Sundays or national holidays in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Mitigation Measures Construction Activities 111. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all internal combustion engines associated with construction activities shall be fitted with properly maintained mufflers and kept in proper tune. Operational Activities 42. The City of Newport Beach shall send a letter to each emergency vehicle company that delivers patients to Hoag Hospital requesting that, upon entrance to either the Upper or Lower Campus, emergency vehicles turn off their sirens to help minimize noise impacts to adjacent residents. Hoag Hospital will provide the City with a list of all emergency vehicle companies that deliver to Hoag Hospital. 119. Non - vehicular activities, such as the operation of the trash compactor, which occur in the vicinity of the service /access road shall be operated only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM daily. Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision 117. Use of the heliport/helipad shall be limited to emergency medical purposes or the transportation of critically ill patients in immediate need of medical care aet- available at to and from Hoag Hospital. Helicopters shall, to the extent feasible, arrive at, and depart from the helipad, from the northeast, to mitigate noise impacts on residential units to the west and south. R :FmjeMWBWPOrt 008\Draft 91R�.O Mitigatian- 091807.tl c 6 -26 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Rationale: The helipad is used for transport in and out of Hoag. Patients are brought also brought to Hoag via helicopter for emergency or specialized care. This change clarifies current operations at Hoag. Mitigation Measures No Longer Required 39. If noise levels in on -site outdoor noise sensitive use areas exceed 65 CNEL, the Project Sponsor shall develop measures that will attenuate the noise to acceptable levels for proposed hospital facilities. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, of combination wall /berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 3.4 -10 is proposed that would supersede Mitigation Measure 39. 40. Prior to occupancy of Master Plan facilities, interior noise levels shall be monitored to ensure that on -site interior noise levels are below 45 CNEL. If levels exceed 45 CNEL, mitigation such as window modifications shall be implemented to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 3.4 -11 is proposed that would supersede Mitigation Measure 40. 41. Prior to issuance of a grading and /or building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that existing noise levels associated with the on -site exhaust fan are mitigated to acceptable levels. Similarly, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Building Department that all noise levels generated by new mechanical equipment associated with the Master Plan are mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. Rationale: Mitigation Measures 3.4 -2 and 3.4 -3 are proposed that would supersede Mitigation Measure 41. 112. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noises that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 112 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. This measure has been superseded by the City's standard condition for hours of construction. 114. Rooftop mechanical equipment screening on the emergency room expansion shall not extend closer than fifteen feet from the west edge of the structure and no closer than ten feet from the edge of the structure on any other side. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 114 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented. R: \Projects \NewpotlV008 \Draft EIR\6.0 Mitigation- 0g18N.dw 6 -27 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental EIR 115. Noise from the emergency room expansion rooftop mechanical equipment shall not exceed 55 dBA at the property line. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 115 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented. 120. Within one year from the date of final approval of the Planned Community District Regulations and development Plan by the California Coastal Commission, as an interim measure, the Project Sponsor shall implement an acoustical and /or landscape screen to provide a visual screen from and reduce noise to adjoining residences from the loading dock area. The design process for the Critical Care Surgery Addition shall include an architectural and acoustical study to insure the inclusion of optimal acoustical screening of the loading dock area by that addition. Subsequent to the construction of the Critical Care Surgery Addition, an additional acoustical study shall be conducted to assess the sound attenuation achieved by that addition. If no significant sound attenuation is achieved, the hospital shall submit an architectural and acoustical study assessing the feasibility and sound attenuation implications of enclosing the loading dock area. If enclosure is determined to be physically feasible and effective in reducing noise impacts along the service access road, enclosure shall be required. Any enclosure required pursuant to this requirement may encroach into any required setback upon the review and approval of a Modification as set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 120 applied to the Critical Care/Surgery Center, which was not developed. Therefore, this measure would no longer be applicable. New Mitigation Measures Construction Activities MM 3.4 -1 Prior to the initiation of vibration - generating demolition and construction activities, the Hoag Construction Project Manager shall notify building /department representatives that these activities are planned. This notification will allow for the relocation of vibration- sensitive equipment in portions of buildings that could be affected. The Hoag construction staff shall work with the Project Contractor to schedule demolition and construction activities that use heavy equipment and are located within 50 feet of buildings where vibration - sensitive medical procedures occur, such that demolition and construction activities are not scheduled concurrent with sensitive medical operations. A system of communications would be established between selected vibration - sensitive uses /areas and Construction Managers so that noise or vibration which would affect patient care or research activities can be avoided. On -Site Activities MM 3.4 -2 The final plans for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment for the Ancillary Building and West Tower shall be submitted to the City for review RAPmjedsW wponUOW Draft EIRZ.0 Mifigatian- 091807.a 6 -28 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental E!R and approval. The plans shall be reviewed by an Acoustical Engineer to ensure that they will achieve 58 dBA (Leq) at the property line adjacent to the loading dock area. These plans need to be submitted within six months of the certification of the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Final Supplemental E!R (SEIR). If Hoag does not pursue the redesign of the HVAC systems for the Ancillary Building and West Tower, Hoag shall submit within six months of the certification of the Final SEIR a plan to the City that details how Hoag will bring the current equipment into compliance with the 58 dBA nighttime noise limit when measured at the property line adjacent to the loading dock area. MM 3.4 -3 Prior to issuance of building permits for any project that includes HVAC equipment, an acoustical study of the noise generated by the HVAC equipment shall be performed and a report that documents the results shall be submitted. This report shall present the noise levels generated by the equipment and the methodology used to estimate the noise levels at nearby residential uses or property boundary, as applicable; the report will also demonstrate that combined noise levels generated by all new HVAC equipment does not exceed the applicable Development Agreement limits. This study shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. After installation of the equipment, noise measurements shall be performed and provided to the City that demonstrates compliance with applicable noise level limits. MM 3.4 -4 Truck deliveries to the loading dock area are restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. It is noted that special situations may arise that require delivery outside of these hours. MM 3.4 -5 Sound absorption panels on the east wall of the loading dock shall be installed. Approximately 450 square feet of absorptive panels shall be used to cover major portions of the back wall of the loading dock area. The Noise -Foil panels by Industrial Acoustics or a panel with an equivalent or better sound rating shall be used. MM 3.4 -6 The trash compactor shall be relocated within the loading dock. The trash compactor and baler shall be enclosed in a three -sided structure. The walls shall be concrete block or similar masonry construction. The roof shall be lightweight concrete roof or a plywood surface with concrete tiles; a built -up roof with 5' 5" of insulation on the inside would be an acceptable alternative. The open side shall face away from the residents. Doors may be on the side of the enclosure facing the residents, but must be closed when the baler or compactor are operating. The compactor and baler should only be operated between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. MM 3.5 -7 "No Idling" signs shall be posted in the loading dock area and any area where the trucks might queue. MM 3.5 -8 Grease trap cleaning operations shall be limited to Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. MM 3.5 -9 Upon installation of the fourth cooling tower at the cogeneration facility, additional noise measurements shall be performed to determine compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. The measurements shall be made and a report submitted to R:1PropVSs NewgomQDOWDraR EIM6.0 Miligaliom091907.dO 6 -29 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR the City within three months of commencement of operations of the fourth cooling tower. If a violation is noted, the problem must be corrected and a second set of measurements submitted to the City showing compliance within one year of commencement of operations of the fourth cooling tower. On -Site Land Uses MM 3.4 -10 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any Hoag patio use proposed to be located closer to the roadway then the 65 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 3.4 -7, a detailed acoustical analysis study shall be prepared by a qualified Acoustical Consultant and a report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The Acoustical Analysis Report shall describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the area and the measures required to meet the 65 CNEL exterior residential noise standard. The final building plans shall incorporate the noise barriers (wall, berm, or combination wall /berm) required by the analysis and Hoag shall install these barriers prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. MM 3.4 -11 Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed acoustical study using architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified Acoustical Consultant and a report shall be submitted to and approved by the City for Hoag buildings that are proposed to be located closer to the roadway than the 65 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 3.4 -7 and for office buildings that are proposed to be located closer to the roadway than the 70 CNEL contour distance (Table 3.4 -7). This report shall describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the building(s); the amount of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction provided by the design in the architectural plans; and any upgrades required to meet the City's interior noise standards (45 CNEL for hospital uses and 50 CNEL for office uses). The measures described in the report shall be incorporated into the architectural plans for the buildings and implemented with building construction. 6.10 PUBLIC SERVICES 6.10.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward 91. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by the City Public Works and Fire Departments. 94. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. 6.11 6.11.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measures No Longer Required 47. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate and grade the proposed linear and consolidated view park RAProjeds \NewpodW008,DreR ER\6.0 Wiganon- 091807doc 6 -30 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR as identified in the project description (Figure 3.2 -1). The Project Sponsor will dedicate land for a 0.28 -acre consolidated view park and a 0.52 -acre linear view park. Rationale: The following mitigation measure was adopted and has been implemented. This mitigation measure is no longer required. 6.12 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 6.12.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measures to Carry Forward Construction Traffic 101. In conjunction with the application for a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit a construction phasing and traffic control plan for each phase of development. This plan would identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc.). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 103. The Project Sponsor shall provide advance written notice of temporary traffic disruptions to affected area business and the public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to disruptions. 104. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that construction activities requiring more than 16 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour, such as excavation and concrete pours, shall be limited between June 1 and September 1 to avoid traffic conflicts with beach and tourist traffic. At all other times, such activities shall be limited to 25 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Haul operations will be monitored by the Public Works Department and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion problems arise. Project Traffic 25. The Project Sponsor shall conduct a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis for each Master Plan development project. The analysis shall identify potential intersection impacts, the proposed project traffic volume contributions at these impacted intersections, and the schedule for any intersection improvements identified as necessary by the study to ensure a satisfactory level of service as defined by the TPO. This report shall be approved by the City prior to commencement construction of the development project. 29. The project shall comply with the City of Newport Beach Transportation Demand Management Ordinance approved by the City Council pursuant to the County's Congestion Management Plan. R:\ I.pd. \NeWpOdWO=D(afl EIR \6.0 Mitigation- 09160].d. 6-31 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Site Access and Circulation 91. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by the City Public Works and Fire Department. 95. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Fire Department that all existing and new access roads surrounding the project site shall be designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless the accessway meets minimum width requirements of the Public Works and Fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width. Parking 32. Prior to issuance of approvals for development projects, the applicant shall submit to the City Traffic Engineer for his /her review and approval, a study that identifies the appropriate parking generation rates. The findings of this study shall be based on empirical or survey data for the proposed parking rates. Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision Construction Traffic 102. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Su Oh •eute° ^h"" ' ^ ' ^ ^' -d '^ the bey nvet- -w— owe.— mcZ"ev —,.vc GORStFUCtiOR ffi Rationale: Mitigation Measure 102 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. This SEIR recommends this measure be modified to clarify that haul route plans are not required to be submitted as a part of a grading plan application. A construction traffic plan is required as a part of Mitigation Measure 101. 108. Prior to issuance of any grading and building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit a Trip Reduction Plan for construction crew members where the number of construction employees would be 50 or greater. This plan shall identify measures, such as ride - sharing and transit incentives, to reduce vehicle miles traveled by construction crews. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 108 was adopted as recommends this measure be modified to require where the number of construction employees would Project Traffic 27. M rzs:>r� part of Final EIR No. 142. This SEIR a Trip Reduction Plan only in cases be 50 or greater. v . @.v . ^ bNildiagPermlts fer Phase !! er !!!��, For each Master Plan development project, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study prepared .in RAProjecte \NeWPOHW ffiDmtt EIR\6.0 Wgwion-09160➢.0oo 6 -32 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) guidelines and to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer Prior to permit issuance for future phases. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 27 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. This SEIR recommends this measure be updated to reflect the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements, which have been adopted since approval of Final EIR No. 142. 28. The Project Sponsor shall continue to comply with all applicable regulations adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District that pertain to trip reductions such as Regulation 15 Rule 2202. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 28 has been updated to reflect changes to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's rules and regulations. 30. In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for employees, visitors and patrons of the Hospital, the following transit amenities shall be incorporated into the Master Plan Project: Bus turnouts shall be installed ifae required by the City Traffic Engineer, after City consultation with OCTA, at all current bus stop locations adjacent to the project site. Bus turnouts shall be installed in accordance with standard design guidelines as indicated in OCTA's Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 30 was adopted as part of the Final EIR No. 142. Minor modification to the wording of the measure is recommended to reflect that the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), not the City, would determine the location for bus turnouts. 34. Depending on actual site build -out, intersection improvements may be required at the Hoag Drive - Placentia Avenue /Hospital Road intersection (Upper Campus access), Newport Boulevard/HOspital Road intersection, and at the WGH Hoag Drive/west Coast Highway intersection (Lower Campus access). The need for these improvements shall be assessed during subsequent traffic studies to be conducted in association with Mitigation Measure 25. Improvements could include restriping, traffic signal timing, etc. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 34 has been modified to include the analysis of the intersection of Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road, as well as the two intersections previously identified in Final EIR No. 142. This measure is appropriate to be implemented as a part of proposals for site - specific development. 35. As eache — Master Plan project is constructed, the Project Sponsor shall provide each new employee a packet outlining the available ridesharing services and programs and the number of the Transportation Coordinator. All new employees shall be included in the yearly update of the trip reduction plan for Hoag Hospitals Fegeired by Regulatiea XV in compliance with the City of Newport Beach Trip Reduction Plan. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 35 is proposed to be updated to Reduction Plan. Since the Master Plan was approved in 1992, Quality Management District has delegated the development and reduction plans to the local jurisdictions. R %PrgeosWewponU00MDraft EIR16.0 M igation.091807.doc 6-33 reflect the City's Trip the South Coast Air implementation of trip Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SUDolementaI EIR 38. Prior to the issuance of wing and building permits for each Master Plan development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorporate the site development requirements of Ordinance No. 91 -16, as appropriate, to the Traffic Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and Planning Commission approval. Requirements outlined in the Ordinance include: A minimum of five percent of the provided parking at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These parking spaces shall be located near the employee entrance or at other preferred locations. b. A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employees shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided at such time as demand warrants. c. A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. d. Information of transportation alternatives shall be provided to all employees. e. A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated in the parking area. The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. g. Bus stop improvements shall be coordinated with the Orange County Transportation Authority, consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 30 fe 1649d to eXiSt kNithin five years. The exact number of each of the above facilities shall be determined by the City during review of ^s ad ;g and building permit applications for each development project. The types and numbers of facilities required of the project will reflect the content of the Ordinance at the time that a permit application is deemed complete by the Planning Department. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 38 was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142. A revision to item 'g' is proposed to cross reference Mitigation Measure 30, which pertains to bus turnouts. The siting and design of bus turnouts is within the joint jurisdiction of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City. Site Access and Circulation 33. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits for Master Plan development that includes new, or modifications to existing, internal roadways (other than service roads), the Project Sponsor will prepare an internal circulation plan for submittal to and approval by the DiFeeteF of PubliG WeFks City Traffic Engineerthat identifies all feasible measures to eliminate internal traffic congestion and facility's ingress and egress to the site. All feasible measures identified in this study shall be incorporated into the site plan. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 33 is proposed for revision to identify the City Traffic Engineer as the party responsible for the review and approval of Hoag internal circulation plans. R:\ Projects \Newport 0JDWOrafl EIR%.0 M igahoo-0918G]doc 6 -34 Section 6.L Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Mitiaation Measures No Lonqer Required 26. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I of the project, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. This study shall determine if the traffic to be generated by existing plus Phase I development will not exceed 1,338 P.M. peak hour traffic trips. In the event the Traffic Engineer determines that existing plus Phase I development will generate more than 1,338 P.M. peak hour trips, the project shall be reduced in size or the mix of land uses will be altered to reduce the P.M. peak hourtrips to, at, or below 1,338. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 26 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. This measure applied to Phase I of the project and has been implemented. Further tracking of this mitigation measure through the mitigation monitoring program is no longer necessary. New traffic analysis is required for all phases subsequent to Phase I in compliance with the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any of the proposed Master Plan facilities, the Project Sponsor shall implement a program, approved by the City Traffic Engineer, that monitors and manages usage of the Upper and Lower Campus service roads during non - working hours. Such controls may include requesting that the majority of vendors deliver products (other than emergency products) during working hours (i.e., 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM), signage to restrict use of the road by hospital employees, physicians, patients and visitors during non - working hours, and other methods by which to restrict use. The hospital shall also request that vendors not deliver (i.e., scheduled and routine deliveries) on the weekends. This restriction specifically applies to scheduled and routine deliveries. The results of this program shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of the grading permit. If the results indicate that such controls do not significantly impact the operations of the hospital, and provided that requests for specified vendor delivery times is consistent with future Air Quality Management Plan procedures, the City may require that the program. be implemented as hospital policy. If operation impacts are significant, other mitigation measures would be investigated at the time to reduce service road impacts to the adjacent residential units. Rationale: Mitigation Measure 31 was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented. 6.13 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 6.13.1 FINAL EIR NO. 142 PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitiqation Measures to Carry Forward 92. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate that final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water- saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. The Project Sponsor will also comply with any other City adopted water conservation policies. R: \Projects \Ne pon\J0080rafi EIRl o Mitigation- 091807.doc 6-35 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft SUDOlemental E/R 93. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a master plan of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared for the site. The Project Sponsor shall verify the adequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and construct any modifications or facilities necessitated by the proposed project development. Proposed New Mitigation 6.13.1 During project construction, the contractor shall be required, to the extent practicable, to take concrete and asphalt from project demolition to an off -site recycling location to minimize impacts to existing landfills. The contractor shall provide the City of Newport Beach Building Department verif ication of materials that have been recycled. RAPrgeds \RewponlJO080ratt EIR \6.0 Mitigation- 091807.dm 6 -36 Section 6.0 Mitigation Program Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft supplemental EIR SECTION 7.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED AND PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 7.1 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT City of Newport Beach Planning Department Planning Director .............................................................. ............................... David Lepo Senior Planner ........................................................ ............................... James Campbell Public Works Department, Transportation and Development Services Division City Traffic Engineer ......................................... ............................... Antony Brine, PE, TE Senior Civil Engineer ................................................ ............................... David Keely, PE Office of the City Attorney CityAttorney ................................................................ ............................... Robin Clauson Assistant City Attorney ................................................ ............................... Aaron C. Harp COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Vice President, Facilities Design and Construction ..... ............................... Langston Trigg Senior Project Manager, Facilities Design and Construction ......................... Cary Brooks Government Solutions Principal ...................................................... ............................... Carol Mentor McDermott Principal............................................................. ............................... Coralee S. Newman Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Legal Counsel to Hoag ............................................... ............................... William Devine Legal Counsel to Hoag .............................................. ............................... Shanda Beltran 7.2 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS BonTerra Consulting Principal, Environmental Services ......................... ...........................Dana C. Privitt, AICP Principal, Technical Services ........................... ............................... Kathleen Brady, AICP GIS Specialist ..................................... ............................... ........................Johnnie Garcia Graphic Designer ....................................................... ............................... Kimberly Davis Editor.................................................................................. ............................... Julia York Word Processor .................................. ............................... ..........................Sheryl Kristal R: \ProledS \NeWP0WJ008 \Draft EIR \7A Preparers- Wl807.doc 7 -1 Section 7.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted Preparers and Contributors Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Suoolemental EIR CDM: Health Risk Assessment Principal of Technical Services.. Environmental Engineer............ Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers- Traffic Analysis ........John R. Pehrson, PE ........... Wei Guo, PE, CPP Senior Transportation Engineer ........................ .........................Trissa de Jesus Allen, PE Transportation Engineer I ......................................... ............................... Shane S. Green Mestre Greve Associates: Air Quality and Noise Analyses Principal................................................................ ............................... Fred A. Greve, PE Manager, Environmental Services ................... ............................... Matthew B. Jones, PE LSA Associates, Inc.: Internal Circulation Study Principal............ ............................... .... ........................Anthony L. Petros RAPrgec \Newpo \JOO \Draft EIRV.0 Preparers - 091807 dM 7-2 Section 7.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted Preparers and Contributors Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR SECTION 8.0 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007 (June 6, last accessed.). CARB Air Quality Data Statistics. Los Angeles, CA: CARB. www.arb.ca.gov /adam /. 2002. URBEMIS2002 (v8.7) http: / /www.urbemis.com/ software /Urbemis2002v87.html. California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans). 1996. Guidelines for the Official Designation of Scenic Highways. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. http : / /www.dot.ca.gov /hq /LandArch/ scenic /shpgl .htm. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2003. Guide to Health Risk Assessment. Sacramento, CA: Cal EPA. http:// www. agmd. gov/ cega /handbook/Isttfinalreport.pdf. California, State of, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1998- Seismic Hazard Zones Map [Orange 7.5° Quadrangle]. Sacramento, CA: Division of Mines and Geology. CDM. 2007 (June). Health Risk Assessment (HRA) on Cogeneration Plant Operations at Hoag Memorial Hospital (prepared for BonTerra Consulting). Irvine, CA: Center for Demographic Research. 2007. Orange County Projections 2006 Report. Fullerton, CA: California State Fullerton, Center for Demographic Research. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2007 (April). The EDR Radius Map with GeoChecko: Hoag Hospital, i Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (Inquiry Number 1905440.1s). Millford, CT: EDR. Fundament and Associates. 2007 (February). Strategies for Mitigation of Noise Generating Mechanical Ventilation Equipment. Irvine, CA: Fundament and Associates. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Hoag). 2006 (March). Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Backgrounder. Newport Beach, CA: Hoag. http: //www.hoaghospital.org / PDF /backgrounder -hoag. pdf. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2003. Trip Generation (7`" ed.). Washington, D.C.: ITE. Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers. 2007 (September). Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR Traffic Impact Study (prepared for City of Newport Beach). Costa Mesa, CA: Linscott Law & Greenspan. LSA Associates, Inc. 2007 (September) Access and On -site Circulation Analysis for Hoag Hospital Master Plan (Prepared for City of Newport Beach). Irvine, CA: LSA. Mestre Greve Associates. 2007 (September). Air Quality Assessment for Hoag Hospital Master Plan (prepared for BonTerra Consulting). Laguna Niguel, CA: Mestre Greve. Newport Beach, City of. 2007a (September, last accessed). Demographics. Newport Beach, CA: the City. Me01-emailtattachmenis18. 0 References -091907,4 c 8 -1 Section 8.0 References Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan EIR 2007b (August, as amended). Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations. Newport Beach, CA: the City. 2006a (April). City of Newport Beach General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Vol. I (SCH No. 2006011119) (prepared by EIP Associates). Los Angeles, CA: EIP Associates. 2006b (April). City of Newport Beach General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Vol.II (SCH No. 2006011119) (prepared by EIP Associates). Los Angeles, CA: EIP Associates. 2006c (July). City of Newport Beach General Plan (prepared by EIP Associates). Los Angeles, CA: EIP Associates. 2005 (October). City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (Resolution No. 2005 -64). Newport Beach, CA: the City. 1992a (January). Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 142 for Hoag Hospital Master Plan, Volumes I, II, and VI (prepared by LSA Associates, Inc). Irvine, CA: LSA. 1992b (January). Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 142 for Hoag Hospital Master Plan (SCH #89061429). (prepared by LSA Associates, Inc). Irvine, CA: LSA. South Coast Air Quality Management Board ( SCAQMB). 2003. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMB. http:llwww .agmd.gov /agmp /AQMD03AQMP.htm. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2006a (October). Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. 2006b (November 6, last update). Regulation XIV, Toxics and Other Non - criteria Pollutants: Rule 1402: Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources (Amended March 4, 2005). Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. hftp:llwww,agmd.gov /rules/ reglreg 14_tofc.html. 2006c (February 1, last update). Risk Assessment Procedures for Rule 1401 and 212 (Version 7.0). Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http:llwww.agmd.gov /prdas/ Risk %20Assessmentl RiskAssessment.html. 2005 (June, as amended). "Rule 403. Fugitive Dust." Regulation IV: Prohibitions, Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http:llwww.agmd.gov /rules /reg /regl4_tofc.htmi. 2003 (November, as amended). CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http:l lwww .agmd.gov /cega /oldhdbk.html. l0(e0l imalWtachmant $l8.0 References -091907.doc 8 -2 Section 8.0 References Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R B BMPs Best Management Practices (or Programs) C SECTION 9.0 CAA ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS 9.1 ACRONYMS Community Analysis Areas Acronym Acronym and Abbreviation Description A California Administrative Code AAQS ambient air quality standards ADT average daily traffic (or average daily trips) made by vehicles or persons in CARB a 24 -hour period AM morning (before noon) APCD Air Pollution Control District AQMD Air Quality Management District AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB Air Resources Board B BMPs Best Management Practices (or Programs) C Development Agreement CAA Clean Air Act (federal) CAA Community Analysis Areas CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAC California Administrative Code CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CC City Council CCAA California Clean Air Act CC &Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMP Congestion Management Plan (or Program) CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO carbon monoxide CofA Condition of Approval COG Council of Governments CUP Conditional Use Permit D DA Development Agreement dB Decibel dBA decibel, A- weighted DDA Disposition and Development Agreement DNL Day Night Noise Level DPM Diesel Particulate Matter du dwelling unit du /ac dwelling units per acre R:\Proje= \Newpo WOOB\DraB EIR\eO Glo sary.091807.dm 9 -1 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Draft SUDDleme Acronym Acronym and Abbreviation Description E EB eastbound EIR Environmental Impact Report (CEGA) EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency F °F Degrees Fahrenheit FAR Floor Area Ratio FCAA Federal Clean Air Act FEIR or Final EIR Final Environmental Impact Report (CEGA) FONSI Finding of No Significance G Intersection Capacity Utilization GFA Gross Floor Area GIS Geographic Information Systems GP General Plan GPA General Plan Amendment gsf gross square feet H Sound Energy Equivalent Noise Level Hazmat hazardous materials HCM Highway Capacity Manual HOA Homeowners Association hr. Hour ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization IS Initial Study (CEGA) ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers L Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEGA) LCP Local Coastal Program or Plan Ldn Day -Night Average Sound Level Leq Sound Energy Equivalent Noise Level Lmax maximum noise level LOS Level of Service (traffic flow rating) LUP Land Use Plan M MFR Multiple Family Residential MM mitigation measure MMP Mitigation Monitoring Program MIND Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEGA) MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways Mph miles per hour MPRR Monitoring Program and Reporting Requirements EIR R: \ProjeC&Newp0n\J008\DraR El".0 Glossary-08r 807.doc 94 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental OR Acronym Acronym and Abbreviation Description N NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAP not a part NB Northbound ND Negative Declaration (CEQA) NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (of 1969) NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx oxides of nitrogen (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide) NOA Notice of Availability (CEQA) NOC Notice of Completion (CEQA) NOD Notice of Determination (CEQA) NOP Notice of Preparation (CEQA) NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 0 Single- family residential 03 Ozone OPR Office of Planning and Research, State of California OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Agency OSHPD California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development P Pb Lead PC Planning Commission PDF Project Design Feature PM evening (after noon) PM2.5 respirable particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PM10 respirable particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter R South Coast Air Quality Management Plan RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Southern California Association of Governments ROC reactive organic compounds ROG reactive organic gases S SB Senate Bill SB southbound SC standard condition SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMP South Coast Air Quality Management Plan SCH State Clearinghouse, State of California SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SEL Sound Exposure Level sf square foot (or feet) SFR Single- family residential SO2 sulfur dioxide SO4 Sulfates SOx sulfur oxides AiTrojea NmponW0091Dran EIM9.0 Glwwry-091807.doc 9 -3 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Acronym Acronym and Abbreviation Description T TAC toxic air contaminant TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TCM transportation control measure TCE Trichloroethylene TDM Transportation Demand Management TOG total organic gases TSF thousand square feet U UBC Uniform Building Code V V/C volume -to- capacity ratio VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compounds vpd vehicles per day vph vehicles per hour vphpl vehicles per hour per lane Z ZC Zone Change Symbols Vg /L micrograms per liter Ng /m3 micrograms per cubic meter 9.2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS A- Weighted Decibel Sound Level (dBA): (See decibel, A- Weighted) Acoustics: (1) The science of sound, including the generation, transmission, and effects of sound waves, both audible and inaudible. (2) The physical qualities of a room or other enclosure (such as size, shape, amount of noise) that determine the audibility and perception of speech and music. Acre: A unit of land equal to 43,560 square feet Adverse Impact: A term used to describe unfavorable, harmful, or detrimental environmental changes. Adverse impacts may be significant or not significant (See Significant Impact). Air Basin: An area of the state designated by the Air Resources Board pursuant to Subdivision (a) of §39606 of the California Health and Safety Code for air quality planning purposes. Air Monitoring: The periodic or continuous sampling and analysis of air pollutants in ambient air or from individual pollutant sources. Air Pollutants: Substances that are foreign to the atmosphere or are present in the natural atmosphere to the extent that they may result in adverse effects on humans, animals, vegetation, and materials. Common air pollutants are ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particular matter, ROPr6jeOMNewpmN009\DraR EIR \9.0 Glossary- 091807.eoc 9-4 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR and carbon monoxide. Air pollution is defined in the California Heath and Safety Code as any discharge, release, or other propagation into the atmosphere and includes, but is not limited to, smoke, charred paper, dust, soot, grime, carbon, fumes, gases, odors, particulate matter, acids, or any combination thereof. Air Pollution Control District (APCD): A local agency with authority to regulate stationary sources of air pollution (such as refineries, manufacturing facilities, and power plants) within a given county, and governed by a District Air Pollution Control Board composed of elected county supervisors and city representatives. Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP): A plan prepared by an air pollution control district or agency to comply with either the federal Clean Air Act or the California Clean Air Act. An AQMP contains measures that will be taken to attain and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards. In California, air districts prepare air quality management plans that are included in the state's State Implementation Plan (SIP) that is required by the federal Clean Air Act. Such plans are also referred to as Clean Air Plans or Clean Air Attainment Plans. Air Quality Model: An algorithmic relationship between pollutant emissions and pollutant concentrations used in the prediction of a oroiect's oollutant impact. Air Quality Standards: Standards promulgated by state or federal pollution control districts. The specified average concentration of an air pollutant in ambient air during a specified time period at or above which undesirable effects may be produced. Air Toxics: Any air pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) does not exist (i.e., excluding ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide) that may reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, developmental effects, reproductive dysfunctions, neurological disorders, heritable gene mutations, or other serious or irreversible chronic or acute health effects in humans. Ambient Conditions: Initial background concentration sensed /measured at a monitoring/ sampling site, as in air quality or noise. Ambient Noise Level: The background noise associated with a given environment, usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. The ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Applicant: Applicant means a person who proposes to carry out a project which needs a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use or financial assistance from one or more public agencies when that person applies for the governmental approval or assistance (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15351). For this SEIR, the Applicant is Hoag Hospital. Approval: Approval means the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person. The exact date of approval of any project is a matter determined by each public agency according to its rules, regulations, and ordinances. Legislative action in regard to a project often constitutes approval. With private projects, approval occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy, loan, or other form of financial assistance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15352). R9PrgeOs\NewPOnWO8 \Draft EIR \9.0 GImsary-091807Am 9 -5 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Arterial Road: A vehicular right -of -way whose primary function is to carry through traffic in a continuous route across an urban area while also providing some access to abutting land. Attainment: Achieving and maintaining the air quality standards (both state and federal) for a given air pollutant. Attainment Area: An area considered to have air quality as good as or better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standard as defined in the Clean Air Act. An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a non - attainment area for others. Average Daily Traffic (ADT): The number of vehicles (trips) passing a given point on a road going in a direction during a 24 -hour period. Background Noise: See Ambient Noise. Best Available Control Technology (BACT): Under the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules, for example, BACT is defined as the most stringent emissions control which for a given air emission source has been: (1) achieved in practice; (2) is identified in a State Implementation Plan; or (3) has been found by the SCAQMD to be technologically achievable and cost - effective. Building: Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for the shelter, housing, or enclosure of persons, animals, or property of any kind. Building Elevation: A vertical distance of a building above or below a fixed reference level (i.e., mean sea level); a flat scale drawing of the front, rear, or side of a building (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007. Building Envelope: The volume in which a building may be built as circumscribed by setback lines and maximum allowable building heights (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Building Height: The vertical distance measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the structure. At all points, the height measurement shall run with the slope of the land (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Buildout: Development of land to its full potential or theoretical capacity as permitted under current or proposed planning or zoning designations. The year in which project construction has been completed. Bulk: The mass or volume of buildings. California Air Resources Board (CARB): California's lead air quality agency, consisting of a nine - member Governor - appointed board, responsible for motor vehicle air pollution control, and having oversight over California's air pollution management program. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS): Specified concentrations of air pollutants, recommended by the California Department of Health Services and adopted into regulation by the Air Resources Board, which relate the intensity and composition of air pollution RAProjeds \New otl000a1Drak ElR\9.0 Glossary- 091807.doc J$ section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental OR to undesirable effects. CAAQS are the standards that must be met per the requirements of the California Clean Air Act. California Clean Air Act (CCAA): A California law passed in 1998 the provides the basis for air quality planning and regulation independent of federal regulations, and which establishes new authority for attaining and maintaining California's air quality standards by the earliest practicable date. A major element of the CCAA is the requirement that local Air Pollution Control Districts in violation of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards must prepare attainment plans that identify air quality problems, causes, trends, and actions to be taken for attainment. California Coastal Commission: The lead agency responsible for carrying out California's federally- approved coastal management program. The Coastal Commission plans for and regulates land and water uses in the coastal zone consistent with policies of the Coastal Act. California Code of Regulations (CCR): The regulations that implement California laws. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): The state government agency responsible for the construction, maintenance, and operation of state and federal highways in California. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA): The state agency that incorporates the State Water Resources Control Board, the Integrated Waste Management Board, and other agencies with environmental responsibilities. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15353). Carbon Dioxide (CO2). A colorless gas that enters the atmosphere as the result of natural and artificial combustion processes. It is also a normal part of the ambient air. Carbon Monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless gas resulting from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO interferes with the blood's ability to carry oxygen to the body's tissues and can result in adverse health effects. CO is a criteria air pollutant. Circulation Element: One of the seven state - mandated elements of a general plan, it identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major roads, transportation routes, terminals, and public utilities and facilities. It must be correlated with the land use element. Clean Air Act (CAA): A federal law passed in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 that sets primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for major air pollutants and forms the basis for the national air pollution control effort. Clean Fuels: Blends and /or substitutes for gasoline fuels. These include compressed natural gas, methanol, ethanol, and others. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The document that codifies all rules of the executive departments and agencies of the federal government. It is divided into 50 volumes, known as titles. Title 40 of the CFR (referenced as 40 CFR) lists all the environmental regulations. Cogeneration: An efficient method of making use of all the available energy expended during any process generating electricity and then using the waste heat. R; \Prgecl9\NewporhJ008 \Draft EIRl.O Glossary- W1807.do 9 -7 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): A noise compatibility level established by California Administrative Code, Title 21, Section 5000. Represents a time - weighted 24 -hour average noise level based on the A- weighted decibel. The CNEL scale includes an additional 5 dB adjustment to sounds occurring in the evening (7 PM to 10 PM) and a 10 dB adjustment to sound occurring in the late evening and early morning between (10 PM and 7 AM). Condominium: A building or group of buildings in which units are owned individually, but the structure, common areas, and facilities are owned by all owners on a proportional, undivided basis. Conformity: A requirement of the federal Clean Air Act that no department, agency, or instrumentality of the federal government shall engage in, support in any way, or provided financial assistance for license, permit, or approve any activity that does not conform with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) by causing or contributing to an increase in air pollution emissions, or violation of an air pollution standard, or frequency of violating that standard. Congestion Management Plan/Program (CMP): A state mandated program that requires each county to prepare a plan to relieve congestion and air pollution. Growth management techniques include traffic level of service requirements, standards for public transit, trip reduction programs involving transportation systems management and jobs /housing balance strategies, and capital improvement programming, for the purpose of controlling and /or reducing the cumulative regional traffic impacts of development. Construction: Any site preparation, assembly, erection, substantial repair, alteration, or similar action for or of public or private rights -of -way, structures, utilities, or similar property. Contiguous: Lands or legal subdivisions having a common boundary; lands having only a common corner are generally not contiguous. Criteria Pollutant: An air pollutant for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which a federal or state ambient air quality standard or criteria for outdoor concentrations has been set in order to Drotect Dublic health. Cumulative Impact: A cumulative impact refers to two or more individual affects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15355). Day -Night Average Sound Level (Ldn): The A- weighted average sound level in decibels during a 24 -hour period with a 10 dB weighing applied to nighttime sound levels (10 PM to 7 AM). This exposure method is similar to the CNEL, but deletes the evening time period (7 PM to 10 PM) as a separate factor. Decibel (dB): A unit for expressing the the logarithm of the ratio of the intensity human ear. relative intensity (loudness) of sounds. The decibel is of a given sound to the faintest sound discernible by the RSProjOM%New0otl0008kDrafl EIR%9.0 Glary- 091607.do 9 -8 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental OR Decibel, A- Weighted (dBA): A- weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. The unit of measurement is defined as dBA. Decision Making Authority: Decision - making authority means any person or body vested with the authority to make recommendations or act on application requests. The final decision - making authority is the one which has the authority to act on a request by approving or denying the request. This may include the Community Development Director or his /her designee, Planning Commission, or the City Council. Decision Making Body: Any person or group of people within a public agency permitted by law to approve or disapprove the project at issue (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15356). Demolition: Any dismantling, intentional destruction, or removal of structures, utilities, public or private rights -of -way surfaces, or similar property. Density, Employment: A measure of the number of employed persons per specific area (for example, employees /acre). Density, Residential: The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Densities specified in a general plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or per net developable acre. Design Capacity: The capacity at which a street, water distribution pipe, pump or reservoir, or a wastewater pipe or treatment plant is intended to operate. Density: The gross site area which shall include local roadways, slopes, and open space areas, unless otherwise specified. Density is usually expressed "per acre." For example, a development with 100 dwelling units located on 20 acres has a density of 5 units per acre. Developable Land: Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas. Development Agreement: A legislatively- approved contract between a jurisdiction and a person having legal or equitable interest in real property within the jurisdiction (California Government Code §65865 et seq.) that 'freezes" certain rules, regulations, and polices applicable to development of a property for a specified period of time, usually in exchange for certain concessions by the owner. Development Impact Fees: A fee or tax imposed on developers to pay for the costs to the community of providing services to a new development. It is a means of providing a fund for financing new improvements without resorting to deficit financing. Direct Effects: Effects which are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place. Discretionary Approval /Decision: A decision requiring the exercise of judgment, deliberation, or decision on the part of the decision- making authority in the process of approving or disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the decision- making authority merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations. An approval by a decision - making body which has the legal discretion to approve or deny a project or action. R:1ProjMS \Newpon\Jow\Drafi EIRl9.0 Glossary- 091807.dm 9 -9 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R Discretionary Project: A project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15357). Dispersion: The process by which atmospheric pollutants disseminate due to wind and vertical stability. Easement: A right given by the owner of land to another party for specific limited use of that land. An easement may be acquired by a government through dedication when the purchase of an entire interest in the property may be too expensive or unnecessary. Effects: "Effects" and "impacts" as used in the CEQA Guidelines are synonymous. Effects include: (a) Direct or primary effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place; (b) Indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect or secondary effects may include growth- inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Effects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15358). Emergency: Emergency means a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to life, health, property, or essential public services. Emergency includes such occurrences as fire, flood, earthquake, or other soil or geologic movements, as well as such occurrences as riot, accident, or sabotage (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15359). Emergency Room: A service and facility designed to provide acute emergency medical services for possible life threatening situations (Source: Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Emission Factor: The amount of a specif ied pollutant emitted from a specified polluting source per unit/quantity of material handled, processed, or burned. Emission Standards: The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (ARB), or South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) standards or limits for air contaminant emissions. Entitlement, Gross Floor Area: Any area of a building, or portion thereof, including the surrounding exterior walls, but excluding: 1) Area of a building utilized for stairwells and elevator shafts on levels other than the first level of a building in which they appear; 2) Area of a building and /or buildings which are not for general or routine occupancy, such as interstitial or mechanical occupancies; 3) Area of a building used specifically for base isolation and structural system upgrades directly related to requirements of governmental agencies and is not for general or routine occupancy; and 4) Enclosed rooftop mechanical levels not for general or routine occupancy (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Environment: The physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of RAProje s\NewpodWWWmfl EIRG.0 Glossary- 091807.doc 9-10 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR historical or aesthetic significance. The area .involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project. The "environment" includes both natural and man -made conditions (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15360). Environmental Documents: Environmental documents means Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, draft and final EIRs, documents prepared as substitutes for EIRs and Negative Declarations under a program certified pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.5, and documents prepared under NEPA and used by a state or local agency in the place of an Initial Study, Negative Declaration, or an EIR (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15361). Environmental Impact Report: A detailed statement prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) describing and analyzing the significant environmental effects of a project and discussing ways to mitigate or avoid the effects. The term "EIR" may mean either a draft or a final EIR depending on the context. A Draft EIR means an EIR containing the information specified in CEQA Guidelines § §15122 through 15131. A Final EIR means an EIR containing the information contained in the draft EIR, comments either verbatim or in summary received in the review process, a list of persons commenting, and the response of the Lead Agency to the comments received (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15362). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The federal agency with primary responsibility for the implementation of federal environmental statutes, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. California is included within EPA Region IX, headquartered in San Francisco. Equivalent Noise Level (Leq): A single- number representation of the fluctuating sound level in decibels over a specified period of time (the sound - energy average of the fluctuating level). The sound level corresponding to a steady state noise level over a given measurement period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time varying noise level. Exaction: A contribution or payment required as an authorized precondition for receiving a development permit. It usually refers to a mandatory dedication or fee in lieu of dedication requirements found in many subdivision regulations and may apply to land for parks or other public facilities. First Aid: Low acuity medical treatment for non -life threatening situations (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Feasible: Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15364). Final Map: A map of an approved subdivision filed in the county recorder's office. It shows surveyed lot lines, street rights -of -way, easements, monuments, and distances, angles, and bearings, pertaining to the exact dimensions of all parcels, street lines, and so forth. Findings of Fact: Findings required by CEQA are the conclusions made regarding the significance of a project in light of its environmental impacts. A public agency cannot 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 (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15091). RAProjeals \Newpod\J008 \Draft EIR\9.0 Glossary- C91807.dm 9 -11 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR First Aid: Low acuity medical treatment for non -life threatening situations (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Fixed Noise Source: A stationary device which creates sounds while fixed or motionless, including but not limited to, residential, agricultural, industrial, and commercial machinery and equipment, pumps, fans, compressors, air conditioners, and refrigeration equipment. Floor Area Ratio: The ratio of gross floor area of all buildings permitted on a site divided by the total net area of the site, expressed in decimals to one or two places. For example, on a site with 10,000 net square feet of land area, a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 will allow a maximum of 10,000 gross square feet of building floor area to be built. On the same site, an FAR of 1.5 would allow 15,000 square feet of floor area; an FAR of 2.0 would allow 20,000 square feet; and an FAR of 0.5 would allow only 5,000 square feet. Also commonly used in zoning, FARS typically are applied on a parcel -by- parcel basis as opposed to an average FAR for an entire land use or zoning district. Footprint (Building): The outline of the ground area covered by a building. Freeway: A high- speed, high - capacity, limited- access road serving regional and county -wide travel. Such roads are free of tolls, as contrasted with 'turnpikes" or other 'loll roads" now being introduced into southern California. Freeways generally are used for long trips between major land use generators. At Level of Service "E," they carry approximately 1,875 vehicles per lane per hour, in both directions. Major streets cross at a different grade level. General Plan: A compendium of city or county policies regarding long -term development, in the form of maps and accompanying text. A General Plan is a legal document required of each local agency by the State of California Government Code §65301 and adopted by a city council or board of supervisors. California law requires the preparation of seven elements or chapters in a General Plan: Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation; Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Additional elements are permitted. References in this SEIR to the General Plan are to the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. General Plan Amendment: A change or addition to a community's general plan. A general plan can be amended up to four times a year. General Plan Consistency: Compatibility and agreement with a general plan. Consistency exists when the standards and criteria of a general plan are met or exceeded. Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer system capable of storing, analyzing, and displaying data and describing places on the earth's surface. Glare: A light source, either reflected or direct, that is annoying or distracting. The effect produced by lighting sufficient to cause annoyance, discomfort, or loss of visual performance and visibility. Glare can occur when the luminaire or associated lens of a light fixture is directly viewable from a location off the property that it serves. Grade: For the purpose of determining building height: 1) Finished - the ground level elevation which exists after any grading or other site preparation related to, or to be incorporated into, a proposed new development or alteration of existing developments. (Grades may be worked into buildings to allow for subterranean parking.); 2) Natural - the elevation of the ground surface in its natural state before man -made alterations; 3) Existing - the current elevation of ground R. \Projeds \NeWWt\J008\Drafl EIR\9.0 Glossary- 091807.doc 9 -12 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E1R surface. (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Grading: Alteration of existing slope and shape of the ground surface. Any excavating of filling of earth material or any combination thereof conducted at a site to prepare said site for construction or other improvements thereon. Growth Management: The use by a community of a wide range of techniques in combination to determine the amount, type, and rate of development desired by the community and to channel that growth into designated areas. Growth management policies can be implemented through growth rates, zoning, capital improvement programs, public facilities ordinances, urban limit lines, standards for levels of service, and other programs. Growth Management Plan (GMP): A plan developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) that contains demographic projections (i.e., housing units, employment, and population for its six - county region (i.e., Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Riverside Counties). The plan provides recommendations for local governments to better accommodate the growth projected by occur and reduce environmental impacts. Hazardous Material: A substance or combination of substances which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed. Hazardous Waste: A waste or combination of wastes that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. A hazardous material than cannot be reused or recycled. A hazardous waste possesses at least one of four characteristics — ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity —or appears on special EPA or state lists. Hazardous waste is regulated under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the California Health and Safety Code. Health Care Institution: Any hospital, convalescent home, or other similar facility excluding residential. Height: The vertical distance from the adjacent grade to the highest point of that which is being measured. Heliport: An identifiable area on land or water, including any building or facilities thereon, used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters. Does not include temporary landing and takeoff sites. Refueling and overnight maintenance are permitted. Hertz: Unit of measurement of frequency, numerically equal to cycles per second. Horizontal and Vertical Building Envelopes: The maximum width and height of a structure based on minimum setback requirements and maximum building height limitations for the zone within which the project is located. These envelopes may be used to evaluate visual impacts when specific architectural plans are not provided for subdivision review. R; \Proje s\NewponUW \Oran EIR\9.0 Glossary- 091807.0 9 -13 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan EIR Hot Spot: A localized concentration of an air pollutant associated with restricted dispersion conditions, often occurring in such places as street intersections or close to the source of emissions. Housing Element: One of the seven state - mandated elements of a local general plan, it assesses the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community, identifies potential sites adequate to provide the amount and kind of housing needed, and contains adopted goals, policies, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Under State law, a housing element must be updated every five years. Hydrocarbons (HC): These gases represent unburned and wasted fuel. They come from incomplete combustion of gasoline and from evaporation of petroleum fuels. Impact: The effect, influence, or imprint of an activity or the environment. Impacts include: direct or primary effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place; indirect or secondary effects which are caused. by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect or secondary effects may include growth- inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Impact Fee: A fee, also called a development fee, levied on the developer of a project by a city, county, or public agency as compensation for otherwise- unmitigated impacts the project will produce. California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. specifies that development fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. To lawfully impose a development fee, the public agency must verify its method of calculation and document proper restrictions of use of the fund. Impulsive Noise: A noise of short duration usually less than one second and of high intensity, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay (Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.010). Incorporation by Reference: Reliance on a previous environmental document for some portion of the environmental analysis of a project. An EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR or Negative Declaration (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15150). Indirect Impact: Effects caused by an action that are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Indirect Source: Any structure or installation which attracts an activity which creates emissions of pollutants. For example, a major employment center, a shopping center, an airport, or a stadium can all be considered to be indirect sources. For purposes of air quality, facilities, buildings, structures, properties, and /or roads which, through their construction, indirectly contribute to air pollution. This includes projects and facilities that attract or generate mobile RTroleds�NewpotlW00aDrah EfFMO Glossary -091 e07.aoc 9 -14 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR sources activity (autos and trucks), such as shopping centers, employment sites, schools, and housing developments that result in emissions of any regulated air pollutant. Infrastructure: Permanent utility installations, including roads, water supply lines, sewage collection pipes, and power and communications lines. Initial Study: Under CEQA, a preliminary analysis prepared by the Lead Agency to determine whether an EIR, a Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration must be prepared or to identify the significant environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15365). Inpatient Uses: Hospital patient services which require 24 hour or more stays (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Institutional Use: A non- profit or quasi - public use or institution, such as a church, library, public or private school, hospital, or municipally owned or operated building, structure or land used for public purpose. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE): Organization for professional transportation engineers. ITE publishes the Trip Generation Manual, which provides information on trip generation for land uses and building types. For instance, if an individual needs to know the number of trip ends produced by an industrial park, the report provides a trip rate based upon the size of the building. The report also divides the trip rate into peak hour rates, weekday rates, etc. Intensity, Building: For residential uses, the actual number or the allowable range of dwelling units per net or gross acre. For non - residential uses, the actual or the maximum permitted floor area ratios (FARS). Inter Alia: Latin: "among other things," "for example" or "including ". Legal drafters would use it to precede a list of examples or samples covered by a more general. Intersection Capacity: The maximum number of vehicles that has a reasonable expectation of passing through an intersection in one direction during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. Intersection Capacity Utilization Method (ICU): A method of analyzing intersection level of service by calculating a volume -to- capacity (V/C) ratio for each governing "critical" movement during a traffic signal phase. The V/C ratio for each phase is summed with the others at the intersection to produce an overall V/C ratio for the intersection as a whole. The ICU is usually expressed as a percent. The percent represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. The WC ratio represents the percent of intersection capacity used. For example, a V/C ratio of 0.85 indicates that 85 percent of capacity is being used. Intrusive Noise: Noise which 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 information content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. RAPraeoMew ortW0081Dratt EIR19.0 Glossary- 091807.doc 9-15 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Intruding Noise Level: The total sound level, in decibels, created, caused, maintained, or originating from an alleged offensive source at a specified location while the alleged offensive source is in operation (Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.010). Inversion Layer: A condition in the atmosphere through which the temperature increases with altitude, holding cooler surface air down along with its pollutants. Landscape Area: The landscape area shall include on -site walks, plazas, water, rooftop landscaping, and all other areas not devoted to building footprints or vehicular parking and drive surfaces (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Land Use: The purpose or activity for which a piece of land or its buildings is designed, arranged, or intended, orforwhich it is occupied or maintained. Land Use Classification: A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties. Land Use Element: Designates the general location and intensity of housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, waste disposal facilities, and other land uses. Land Use Plan: An adopted map depicting the approximate location of residential, commercial, public, semi - public, and private uses, open space, and road systems with a statistical summary of areas and densities for these land uses. Lead Agency: The public. agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead Agency will decide whether an EIR or Negative Declaration will be required for the project and will cause the document to be prepared (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15367). Level of Service (LOS): LOS is the qualitative measure that incorporates the collective factors of speed, travel time, traffic interruption, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs provided by a highway facility under a particular volume condition. Level of Service A: Indicates a relatively free flow of traffic, with little or no limitation on vehicle movement or speed. Level of Service B: Describes a steady flow of traffic, with only slight delays in vehicle movement and speed. All queues clear in a single signal cycle. Level of Service C: Denotes a reasonably steady, high - volume flow of traffic, with some limitations on movement and speed, and occasional backups on critical approaches. Level of Service D: Designates the level where traffic nears an unstable flow. Intersections still function, but short queues develop and cars may have to wait through one cycle during short peaks. Level of Service E. Represents traffic characterized by slow movement and frequent (although momentary) stoppages. This type of congestion is considered severe, but is not R: \Pr01e 015 \N"p0rt%JW8 \Draft EIR\9.0 Glossary- 091807Am 9 -16 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R uncommon at peak traffic hours, with frequent stopping, long- standing queues, and blocked intersections. Level of Service F. Describes unsatisfactory stop- and -go traffic characterized by "traffic jams" and stoppages of long duration. Vehicles at signalized intersections usually have to wait through one or more signal changes, and "upstream' intersections may be blocked by the long queues. Local Agency: Local agency means any public agency other than a state agency, board, or commission. Local agency includes but is not limited to cities, counties, charter cities and counties, districts, school districts, special districts, redevelopment agencies, local agency formation commissions, and any board, commission, or organizational subdivision of a local agency when so designated by order or resolution of the governing legislative body of the local agency (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15368). Local Coastal Program (LCP): A combination of a local governments land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and (within sensitive coastal resources areas) other implementing actions that together meet the local requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, the California Coastal Act of 1976. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: The relevant portion of a local government general plan or coastal element that details type, location, and intensity of land use, applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, implementation actions. Luminaire or Luminary: The light- producing element of a light fixture. Examples are bulbs and tubes. Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH): A diagram in the Circulation Element which illustrates the arterial designation of roadways. Each arterial designation defines the number of ultimate lanes planned for a given roadway. Arterial designations include: Freeway, Transportation Corridor, Expressway, Major Highway, Primary Highway, Secondary Highway, and Commuter Highway. May: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15005, "may" identifies a permissive element which is left fully to the discretion of the public agencies involved. Mean Sea Level: A reference or datum mark measuring land elevation using the average level of the ocean between high and low tides (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Median: A physical divider separating lanes of traffic that typically are traveling in opposite directions. A median is often installed to prohibit unsafe turning movements. It can also be used to beautify a streetscape. Ministerial: Describes a governmental decision involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented, but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out. Common examples of ministerial permits include automobile registrations, dog licenses, and marriage licenses. A building permit is R1ProjedsWewportU0080ra8 EIRO.0 Gimsary- 091807Ax 9 -17 Deulfun n.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR ministerial if the ordinance requiring the permit limits the public official to determining whether the zoning allows the structure to be built in the requested location, the structure would meet the strength requirements in the Uniform Building Code, and the applicant has paid his fee (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15369). Mitigation: Mitigation refers to: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or (5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15370). Mitigation Measure: Action taken to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts. Mitigation includes: avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance during the life of the action; and compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Mitigation Monitoring Program: When a lead agency adopts a mitigated negative declaration or an EIR, it must adopt a program of monitoring or reporting which will ensure that mitigation measures are implemented (Sources: CEQA Statute §21081.6[a] and CEQA Guidelines § §15091[d] and 15097). Mixed Use: Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A "single site' may include contiguous properties. Mobile Noise Source: Any noise source other than a fixed noise source. Mobile Sources: A source of air pollution that is related to transportation vehicles, such as automobiles or buses. Must: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15005, "must' or "shall" identifies a mandatory element which all public agencies are required to follow. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Standards set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency for the maximum levels of air pollutants that can exist in the ambient air without unacceptable effects on human health or public welfare. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): In 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act was enacted establishing a national environmental policy and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) to advise the President on environmental issues. NEPA requires the preparation of environmental impact statements (EIS) for all major federal actions which would have a significant effect on the environment. NEPA served as a model for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) enacted in 1970. R:9rD Bs NeWR0nVD088Aafi EIR \9.0 Glmsary-091807.aoc 9 -18 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): Chemical compounds containing nitrogen and oxygen; reacts with volatile organic compounds, in the presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone. It is also a major precursor to acid rain. Nitrogen Dioxide (NOZ). A secondary contaminant formed through a reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen, irritates the lungs at high concentrations and contributes to ozone formation. Noise: Annoying, harmful, or unwanted sound. Noise Attenuation: Reduction of the level of a noise source using a substance, material, or surface, such as earth berms and /or solid concrete walls. Noise Barrier: A wall or other solid structure constructed with the objective of attenuating (i.e., reducing) noise behind the barrier; commonly, a noise wall along a roadway. Noise Contour: A line connecting points of equal noise level as measured on the same scale. Noise levels greater than the 60 Ldn contour (measured in dBA) require noise attenuation in residential development. Noise Element: One of the seven state - mandated elements of a local general plan. It identifies and appraises noise problems and sounds within the affecting the community, and forms the basis for distributing new noise - sensitive land uses. Noise Sensitive Land Use:. Any land use (i.e., residential development) or designated geographic area (i.e., hospital complex) where "intrusive noise" is incompatible with the conduct of the noise sensitive uses or constitutes a "noise disturbance" for residents or works. Non - attainment: The condition of not achieving a desired or required level of performance. Frequently used in reference to air quality. Notice of Completion: A brief notice filed with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) by a Lead Agency as soon as it has completed a draft EIR, and is prepared to send out copies for review (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15372). Notice of Determination: A brief notice to be filed by a public agency after it approves or determines to carry out a project which is subject to the requirements of CEQA The filing of the NOD starts the statute of limitations period (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15373). Notice of Preparation: A brief notice sent by a Lead Agency to notify responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and involved federal agencies that the Lead Agency plans to prepare an EIR for the project. The purpose of the notice is to solicit guidance from those agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. Public agencies are free to develop their own formats for this notice (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15375). Objective: A description of a desired condition for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and measured and, where possible, have established time frames for achievement. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, California ( OSHPD): OSHPD is responsible for overseeing all aspects of construction of general acute care hospital, psychiatric hospital, and multiple -story skilled nursing home, and intermediate care facilities in California. This responsibility includes: a) establishing building standards adopted in the California Building R:\Prqmafiewport W80refl EIR�9.0 Glmsary- 091807.doc 9 -19 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Standards Code which govern construction of these types of facilities; b) reviewing plans and specifications for new construction, alteration, renovation, or additions to health facilities; and, c) observing construction in progress to ensure compliance with the approved plans and specifications. Open Space: Land that has been left in its natural state and has not been developed with primary or accessory structures. Open Space Element: One of the seven state- mandated elements of a local general plan. It contains an inventory of privately and publicly owned open -space lands, and adopted goals, policies, and implementation programs for the preservation, protection, and management of open space lands. Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county. Outpatient Uses: Hospital patient services which do not exceed 24 hours (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Overlay: A land use designation on the land use map, or a zoning designation on a zoning map, that modifies the basic underlying designation in some specific manner. Oxides of Nitrogen: A reddish -brown gas with an odor similar to bleach. The major source of this pollutant is the high temperature combustion of fossil fuels. Health effects include irritation and damage to lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections. Ozone (03): A compound consisting of three oxygen atoms that is the primary constituent of smog. It is formed through chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. Ozone can irritate the lungs as well as damage to trees, crops, and materials. There is a natural layer of ozone in the upper atmosphere which shields the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Ozone is a criteria pollutant. Parcel: The basic unit of land entitlement. A designated area of land established by plat, subdivision, or otherwise legally defined and permitted to be used or built upon. Parcel Map: A map depicting the establishment of up to four new lots by splitting a recorded lot. Parcel maps are subject to the California Subdivision Map Act and a city's subdivision regulations. Particulate Matter -Fine (PM2.5): PM2.5 is a mixture of very small particulates with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns. PM2.5 consists of particles directly emitted into the air and particulates formed in the air from the chemical transformation of gaseous pollutants. PM2.5 particulates are emitted from activities such as industrial and residential combustion, and from vehicle exhaust. Particles 2.5 microns or smaller infiltrate the deepest portions of the lungs, increasing the risks of long -term disease, including chronic respiratory disease, cancer, and increased and premature death. Particulate Matter (PM10): PM10 is any particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns. PM10 consists of particles directly emitted into the air and particulates formed in the air from the chemical transformation of gaseous pollutants. PM10 particulates are emitted from activities such as industrial and residential combustion, and from R:\Pro,egs \Newp0rt\J008 \Draft EIR \9.0 Glmsary-091BWAOC 9 -20 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR vehicle exhaust. PM10 causes adverse health effects, atmospheric visibility reduction. It is a criteria pollutant. Parts Per Million (ppm): The number of weight or volume units of a minor constituent present within each one million units of the major constituent of a solution or mixture, such as salts in water. Peak Hour or Peak Period: The one hour period during which the roadway carries the greatest number of vehicles. Traffic volumes are not constant throughout the day. Peak hours are the times during which volumes are significantly higher than others. Most areas have two peak hours— morning while people travel to work and late afternoon or evening as they leave work and return home. In some cases as third, though usually smaller, peak occurs during the middle of the day. As development intensifies and traffic volumes increase, the durations of the peaks are extended until eventually the peak hour becomes a peak period which may last for two or three hours. Peak period volumes are important as these are the times of day when the most severe congestion occurs, and intersections must be designed to accommodate these volumes if smooth traffic flow is to be maintained. The peak hour refers to the one -hour period during the AM peak period (typically 7 AM to 9 AM) and the one -hour period during the PM peak period (typically 3 PM to 6 PM) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are traveling on a given roadway. Permit: The possession of a permit issued by the city, or where no permits are issued, the sanctioning of the activity by the jurisdiction as noted in a public record. Person: Person includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, limited liability company, company, district, city, county, city and county, town, the state, and any of the agencies or political subdivisions of such entities (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15376). Person Trips: Indicates the number of people, and are of interest in situations where there may be opportunities to accomplish more one - person trips with less vehicle trips —such as a carpool. pH: A measure of acidity or alkalinity of a material, liquid, or solid. pH represent, on a scale of 0 to 14 with 7 representing a neutral state, 0 representing the most acid and 14 the alkaline. Photochemical Smog: The atmospheric condition that results when reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides emitted into the atmosphere react in the presence of sunlight to form other pollutants, such as oxidants. Planning Commission: A body, usually having five or seven members, created by a city or county in compliance with California law (Government Code §65100) that requires the assignment of the planning functions of the city or county to a planning department, planning commission, hearing officers, and /or the legislative body itself, as deemed appropriate by the legislative body. Police Power: The inherent right of a government to restrict an individual's conduct or use of his /her property in order to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the community. Precursor: A chemical compound that leads to the formation of a pollutant. Reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides are precursors of photochemical oxidants. RAProjM N.portl1009XD.ft EIM9.0 Glossary- WIW7.dac 9 -21 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Private Project: A "private project' means a project which will be carried out by a person other than a governmental agency, but the project will need a discretionary approval from one or more governmental agencies for: (a) a contract or financial assistance; or (b) a ease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15377). Program EIR: An EIR prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. A program EIR generally establishes a framework for tiered or project -level environmental documents that are prepared in accordance with the overall program (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15168[a]). Project: Project means the whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (a) an activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100 - 65700; (b) an activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contacts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies; (c) an activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. Project does not include: (a) Proposals for legislation to be enacted by the State Legislature; (b) Continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies, personnel - related actions, general policy and procedure making (except as they are applied to specific instances covered above); (c) The submittal of proposals to a vote of the people of the state or of a particular community; (d) The creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. The term "project' refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term "project' does not mean each separate governmental approval. Where the Lead Agency could describe the project as either the adoption of a particular regulation under subsection (a)(1) or as a development proposal which will be subject to several governmental approvals under subsections (a)(2) or (a)(3), the Lead Agency shall describe the project as the development proposal for the purpose of environmental analysis. This approach will implement the Lead Agency principle as described in Article 4 (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15378). Project Description: Describes the basic characteristics of the project including location, need for the project, project objectives, technical and environmental characteristics, project size and design, project phasing, and required permits. The level of detail provided in the project description varies according to the type of environmental document prepared. Project EIR: An EIR that examines the impacts that would result from development of a specific project (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15161). Public Agency; Public agency includes any state agency, board, or commission and any local or regional agency, as defined in these Guidelines. It does not include the courts of the state. This term does not include agencies of the federal government (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15379). Public Facilities: Institutional response to basic human needs, such as health, education, safety, recreation, and inspiration. Also, includes facilities and services such as, but not limited to, police, fire, libraries, parks, and flood control. R6Proje=G Ne po UOOB%Drefl EIR69.0 Glossary-091807.Eoc 9 -22 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R Quasi - public: A use owned or operated by a non - profit, religious or charitable institution and providing educational, cultural, recreational, religious, or similar types of public programs. Reactive Organic Compound (ROC) /Reactive Organic Gases (ROG): Any organic compound containing at least one carbon atom, except for specific exempt compounds found to be non - photochemically reactive and thus not participating in smog formation. Classes of hydrocarbons (olefins, substituted aromatics, and aldehydes) that are likely to react with ozone and nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere to form photochemical smog. Also referred to as non - methane organic compounds or volatile organic compounds. Regional: Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction, and affecting a broad geographic area. Residential Care: Medically- oriented residential units that do not require the acuity level generally associated with inpatient services but require overnight stays (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Responsible Agency: A public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15381). Reviewing Agencies: Local, state, and federal agencies with jurisdiction over the project area or resources potentially affected by the project. Cities and counties are also considered reviewing agencies. Rezoning: An amendment to the map and /or text of a zoning ordinance to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and /or on a designated parcel or land area. Risk Assessment: The qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the risk posed to human health and /or the environment by the actual or potential presence and /or use of specific pollutants. Safety Element: One of the seven state - mandated elements of the general plan. It establishes the policies and programs to protect the community from risks associated with seismic, geologic, flood, and wildfire hazards. Scale: Refers to the geographic area and data resolution under examination in an assessment or planning effort. Sensitive Receptors: Sensitive receptors are people or institutions with people that are particularly susceptible to illness from environmental pollution, such as the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by illness (e.g., asthmatics), and persons engaged in strenuous exercise. Shall: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15005, "shall' or "must' identifies a mandatory element which all public agencies are required to follow. RSProjedS\N w oAVW&Draft EIR19.0 Glossary-0 1807.doc 9 -23 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Should: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15005, "should" identifies guidance provided by the Secretary for Resources based on policy considerations contained in CEQA, in the legislative history of the statute, or in federal court decisions which California courts can be expected to follow. Public agencies are advised to follow this guidance in the absence of compelling, countervailing considerations. Simple Tone Noise: A noise characterized by a predominant frequency or frequencies so that other frequencies cannot be readily distinguished. If measured, simple tone noise shall exist if the one -third octave band sound pressure levels in the band with the tone exceeds the arithmetic average of the sound pressure levels of the two continuous one -third octave bands as follows: five Db for frequencies of 500 Hertz (Hz) and above or, by 15 Db for frequencies less than or equal to 123 Hz (Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.010). Significant Impact or Significant Effect on the Environment: As defined by the CEQA Guidelines, a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant. The lead agency will determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15382). Site Area: For the purposes of determining development area: (1) gross: parcel area prior to dedications; (2) net: parcel area after dedications (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Sound Level Meter: An instrument meeting American National Standard Institute's Standard S1.4 -1971 or most recent revision thereof for Type 2 sound level meters or an instrument and the associated recording and analyzing equipment which will provide equivalent data. South Coast Air Basin (SCAB): A geographic area defined by the San Jacinto Mountains to the east, the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, and the Pacific Ocean to the west and south. The SCAB is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD): The agency responsible for protecting public health and welfare through the administration of federal and state air quality laws, regulations, and policies in the South Coast Air Basin. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): The organization, known in federal law as a Council of Governments or Metropolitan Planning Organization. As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) represents the counties of Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura, and the cities within these six counties. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and prepare plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. Additional mandates exist at the state level. State Agency: State agency means a governmental agency in the executive branch of the State Government or an entity which operates under the direction and control of an agency in R:\ Projects \Newpon\J00MDraH EIRAO Glossary-09IW7.doc 9 -24 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR the executive branch of State Government and is funded primarily by the State Treasury (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15383). State Implementation Plan (SIP): A document prepared by each state, and subject to federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval, which describes existing air quality conditions and identifies actions and programs to be undertaken by the state and its subdivisions to attain and maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards. A SIP is a compilation of all of a state's air quality plans and rules that have been approved by the federal EPA. In California, air districts prepare non - attainment plans that are included in the state's SIP. Statement of Overriding Considerations: A statement indicating that even though a project would result in one or more unavoidable adverse impacts, specific economic, social or other stated benefits are sufficient to warrant project approval. State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP): A capital improvement program of transportation projects funded with revenues from the State Highway Account and other sources. Stationary Source: A source of air pollution that is not mobile. Any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. Building, structure, facility, or installation means any pollutant emitting activities, including activities located in California coastal waters adjacent to the District boundaries, which a. belong to the same industrial grouping, and b. are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties (except for activities located in coastal waters, and c. are under the same or common ownership, operation, or control or which are owned or operated by entities which are under common control. Statute of Limitations: The time period within which a lawsuit may be filed or other legal action to challenge a CEQA document and approval. Streets: Reference to all streets or rights -of -way shall mean dedicated vehicular rights -of -way (Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations, proposed for amendment, 2007). Structure: Anything, including a building, located on the ground in a permanent location or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground. Supplement to an EIR/Supplemental EIR: An EIR prepared for projects in which only minor changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. A Supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous Draft or Final EIR, but the Supplement must receive the same circulation and review as the previous EIR (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15163). Substantial Evidence: Substantial evidence as used in these guidelines means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence. R:\Proje&MS potlW008\Drafl EIR\9.0 Gi sary-01807 dOC 9 -25 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15384). Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): A colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. Sulfur dioxide enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur- content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. There are National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Air Quality Standards for sulfur dioxide. Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ): A geographic area that identifies land uses and associated trips that is used for making land use projections and performing traffic modeling. Threshold of Significance: Criteria for each environmental issue area to assist with determinations of significance of project impacts. Tiered Project: A specific project evaluated in a project EIR, Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration that is covered by a certified Program EIR. Tiering: Tiering refers to the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such as on general plans or policy statements) with subsequent narrower EIRs or ultimately site - specific EIRs incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the EIR subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of EIRs is: (a) from a general plan, policy, or program EIR to a program, plan, or policy EIR of lesser scope or to a site - specific EIR; or (b) from an EIR on a specific action at an early stage to a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR at a later stage. Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the Lead Agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15385). Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations: Title 24 is part of the California Buildings Standards Code, the building regulations of California. Part 6 is the Energy Code. Toxic Air Contaminant (TACs): Airborne chemical compounds determined by the U.S. EPA and the California EPA, including the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the California Air Resources Board, to pose a potential threat to public health. Air pollutants (excluding ozone, carbon monoxide, PMIG, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide) that may reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, developmental effects, reproductive dysfunctions, neurological disorders, heritable gene mutations, or other serious or irreversible acute or chronic health effects in humans. Toxic air pollutants are regulated under different federal and state regulatory processes than criteria pollutants. Health effects from exposure to toxic air pollutants may occur at extremely low levels. Traffic Model: A mathematical representation of traffic movement within an area or region based on observed relationships between the kind and intensity of development in specific areas. Many traffic models operate on the theory that trips are produced by persons living in residential areas and are attracted by various non - residential land uses. Transit: The conveyance of persons or goods from one place to another by means of a local, public transportation system. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs): Air pollution control measures in the Air Quality Management Plan that are directed to reducing air emissions by reducing vehicle travel. Federal and state law specifies requirements for TCMs. Steps taken by a locality to adjust traffic R:Trol.slNmportW008l raft EIR19.0 Glossary-091807.doc 9-26 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental EIR patterns (e.g., bus lanes, right turn on red) or reduce vehicle use (ridesharing, high- occupancy vehicle lanes) to reduce vehicular emissions of air pollutants. Transportation Demand Management (TDM): A strategy for reducing demand on the road system by reducing the number of vehicles using the roadways and /or increasing the number of persons per vehicle. TDM attempts to reduce the number of persons who drive alone on the roadway during the commute period and to increase the number in carpools, vanpools, buses and trains, walking, and biking. TDM can be an element of Transportation Systems Management. Transportation Systems Management (TSM): A comprehensive strategy developed to address the problems caused by additional development, increasing trips, and a shortfall in transportation capacity. Transportation Systems Management focuses on more efficiently utilizing existing highway and transit systems rather than expanding them. TSM measures are characterized by their low cost and quick implementation time frame, such as computerized traffic signals, metered freeway ramps, and one -way streets. Trip: The trip is the basic measurement used to describe transportation volumes. A trip consists of one unit traveling from one point to another. The unit may be vehicles, persons, or passengers. Trip Assignment: The allocation of vehicle trips to available routes between locations in a traffic study area. Trip End: Every trip has two ends —an origin and a destination. Conversely, every origin or destination generates two trip ends —one arriving and one leaving. For example, traveling from home to work and back involves two trips —home to work and work to home, and four trip ends — home as the origin and home as the destination. Quantification of trip ends is useful in describing the contribution of specific land uses to traffic volumes. Trip Generation: The number of vehicle trip ends associated with (i.e., produced by) a particular land use or traffic study site. A trip end is defined as a single vehicle movement. Roundtrips consist of two trip ends. Trustee Agency: A state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the state of California. Trustee agencies include the California Department of Fish and Game, State Lands Commission, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, and the University of California (with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System) (Source: CEQA Guidelines §15386). Turn Lane: A lane devoted to vehicles making a turning movement to go in a different direction. Turn lanes are necessary to ensure the free -flow of traffic in the through lanes by providing a separate area /lane for turning traffic to slow down and complete the turning maneuver without impeding the through traffic. Uniform Building Code (UBC): A national, standard building code that sets forth minimum standards for construction. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): A measure of both the volume and extent of motor vehicle operation; the total number of vehicle miles traveled within a specified geographical area (whether the entire country or a smaller area) over a given period of time. R: \Pr01eO5 \Ne o&J008\Drafl EIR\9.0 Glossary- 091aW.m 9 -27 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Supplemental E!R Vehicle Trip: Vehicle trip describes the number of vehicles traveling from point to point. Vehicle Trip Ends: A single or one - direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination inside a traffic study site. Vibration: Any movement of the earth, ground, or other similar surface created by a temporal and spatial oscillation device or equipment located upon, affixed in conjunction with that surface (Source: City of Newport Beach Ord. 95 -38 § 11 [part), 1995). View Point: A location from which a site is visible. View-shed: The surface area that is visible from a given viewpoint or series of viewpoints. It is also the area from which that viewpoint or series of viewpoints may be seen (a collection of viewpoints). The viewshed aids in identifying the views that could be affected by the proposed action. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC): Any organic compound containing at least one carbon atom, except for specific exempt compounds found to be non - photochemically reactive and thus not participating in smog formation. VOC is synonymous with reactive organic gases and reactive organic compounds. Volume -to- Capacity Ratio (V /C): In reference to public services or transportation, ratio of peak hour use to capacity. Expressed as v /c, this is a measure of traffic demand on a facility (expressed as volume) compared to its traffic - carrying capacity. A v/c ratio of 0.7, for example, indicates that a traffic facility is operating at 70 percent of its capacity. In evaluating the performance of a roadway, v/c ratios should be considered together with the letter grade system, which is more of a qualitative assessment based heavily on speeds and travel time. Whole of an Action: An action that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (See CECIA Guidelines §15378). Zone: A specifically delineated area or district in a municipality within which regulations and requirements uniformly govern the use, placement, spacing and size of land and buildings. Zoning: The division of a municipality into districts for the purpose of regulating land use, types of buildings, required yards and setbacks, parking, and other prerequisites to development. Zones re generally shown on a map and the text of the zoning ordinance specifies requirements for each zoning category. Zoning Map: Government Code Section 65851 permits a legislative body to divide a county, a city, or portions thereof, into zones of the number, shape, and area it deems best suited to carry out the purposes of the zoning ordinance. These zones are delineated on a map or maps, called the Zoning Map. Zoning Ordinance. A law dividing all land in the city into zones that specifies uses permitted and standards required in each zone. RTrojeclsWewportU0 Ora@ EIM9.0 Glossary-D91807.doc 9 -28 Section 9.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms VOLUME II DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN MASTER PLAN UPDATE SCH No. 1991071003 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Prepared by: C O N S U L 7 I N G 151 Kolmus Drive, Suite E -200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 T: (714) 444 -9199 F: (714) 444 -9599 www.BonTerraConsulting.com September 2007 mom Volume II DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN MASTER PLAN UPDATE TECHNICAL APPENDICES SCH No. 1991071003 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Contact: James Campbell Prepared by: BonTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E -200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 4449199 Contact: Dana C. Privitt, AICP September 2007 Hoag Memonal Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Draft Syoplemental EIR LIST OF APPENDICES A Notices of Preparation and Initial Studies B Draft Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and District Regulations (PC Text) C Traffic Report D Air Quality E Human Health Risk Assessment F Noise Report Planned Community Development Criteria Fhft0�swew &*08mrm omroc Vol 11 e91 m.d w i Table of Contents APPENDIX A NOTICES OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDIES A NOTICE OF PREPARATION May 11, 2007 To: Reviewing Agencies and Other Interested Parties From: David Lepo, City of Newport Beach Planning Director Subject: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment On April 15, 2005, the City of Newport Beach Planning Department (City) prepared an Initial Study for the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Hoag) project and determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was necessary. The Notice of Preparation (NOP), which included a copy of the Initial Study, was distributed for a 30 -day review period. Since the NOP was distributed, certain modifications to the project have been proposed. The City has elected to prepare a revised NOP that outlines those changes and solicit input from responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties regarding those changes. In summary, the changes are: a. The Applicant is no longer requesting an increase the maximum allowable building area on the Hoag Hospital site by 29,807 square feet (sf): 24,215 sf associated with the previously approved cogeneration facility and 5,592 sf associated with the vacation of an unused easement. b. The Applicant is requesting an amendment of the Development Agreement to eliminate the 55 dBA noise level restriction at the Hoag Hospital property line that is currently contained in the "Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations" (PC Text); and c. Indicate that noise generated from Hoag Hospital shall be governed by the City Noise Ordinance except as otherwise noted. These exceptions are related to noise standards at the Hoag Hospital property line adjacent to the loading dock and for the remainder of the property. These exceptions are addressed in this NOP and Initial Study. Because an NOP for the project was previously distributed and comments have already been submitted to the City regarding the project, any comments submitted in response to this revised NOP should be limited to address only those changes to the project as described in this revised NOP. There is no need to resubmit the comments previously provided on the original NOP for those aspects of the project that have not changed. The purpose of this notice is: (1) to serve as the NOP to "Responsible and Trustee Agencies and the State Office of Planning and Research," as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15082 and (2) to advise and solicit comments and suggestions regarding the preparation of the SEIR; environmental issues to be addressed in the SEIR; and any related issues from interested parties other than potential "Responsible Agencies," including interested or affected members of the public. The City of Newport Beach, as Lead Agency, requests that any potential Responsible or Trustee Agency responding to this notice respond in a manner consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(b). Pursuant to CEQA Section 21080.4, Responsible and Trustee Agencies must submit any comments in response to this notice not later than 30 days after receipt. The City will accept comments from others regarding this notice through the close of business, June 12, 2007. R.\Proie Wewporhl0 flwised ISNOP- 051007.d 1 Notice of Preparation All comments or other responses to this notice should be submitted in writing to: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 The City of Newport Beach will also accept responses to this notice by e-mail received through the close of business, June 12, 2007. If e-mail comments are submitted with attachments, it is recommended that the attachments be delivered in writing to the address specified above. The Virus protection measures and variety of formats for attachments can limit the ability for the attachments to be delivered. E -mail responses to this notice may be sent to: JCampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us. Protect Location Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Hoag) is an existing medical campus located at One Hoag Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The approximately 38 -acre site, inclusive of the Lower Campus and Upper Campus, is generally bound by Hospital Road to the north, West Coast Highway to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and residential development and open space to the west. Superior Avenue is the closest major street to the west. Sunset View Park is a linear /consolidated park that extends along much of the northern boundary of the Lower Campus and separates the hospital from the Villa Balboa and Versailles at the Bluff condominium complexes. A regional location map, local vicinity map, and project site map are provided as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Prolect Background In 1992, the City of Newport Beach certified the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final EIR No. 142 for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan and adopted the "Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations" (PC Text). In 1994, the City adopted Ordinance No. 94 -8 approving "Development Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian" (Development Agreement). The PC Text and the Development Agreement set forth the development standards and terms and conditions by which the Hoag Hospital site may be developed and include maximum permissible building area, building height limits, and permitted land uses. The existing General Plan Land Use Element and the PC Text allows up to 1,343,238 square feet (sf) of medical facility and related uses on the Hoag Hospital site. Of the total 1,343,238 sf of allowable building area, 765,349 sf are allocated to the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf are allocated to the Lower Campus. The PC Text does not specify building locations or specific building uses; however, permitted uses for each of the two campuses are listed in the PC Text. Permitted uses on the Lower Campus are categorized as Outpatient Services, Administration, Support Services, and Residential Care. Permitted uses on the Upper Campus are categorized as Hospital Facilities including Inpatient Uses, Accessory Uses, and Temporary Structures. In 2002, the City Council approved the first amendment to the PC Text. The first amendment changed the definition of "Gross Floor Area Entitlement' so that certain non - occupied building areas are not counted toward the maximum permissible building floor areas forthe project site. RAPrgedsNewporh"O ReNsed SWOP- 05IM7.doc 2 - Notice of Preparation ,T �v +is A^ la,Eaatsr p ell �r"'3 �a li ''�' n" u � - ¢ 01 •'ff yl Q L Palmdale' m p h+ i a �• . cIAmM a/ ' „',. AnwIes i r o Y _. +11B �r. Sbnl Van" f9BSt rj _.,.a , 7' q i i Santa M LOS Angeles 157, V +� 2 may 60 �* Wlxnm y Riserside ;us 31 9e VOfCa LInM n'- 1 �� ,+ �; Corona 1:: Puene P2rk IwAnahheim ,4 •_ R' Carson : 111 y 3 Palos Ve.aes 1 unp 13 ".d) - Wes,minsr SYNSeach LE' y +� Sanu Ana ? ` 39 Sz ` HuMn9tM GnsSa MRa 341 8earh: Santa Lalaan3 uwd Regional Location Exhibit 1 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment "q Pe io s o to CONSULFING In in,Rancho 6anca Margarha a. Newpan e.,cn �snim " I Project Location ;as L95una Beach San Juan: »`."" ._ La1119!fdllp San clemagte Santa Lalaan3 uwd Regional Location Exhibit 1 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment "q Pe io s o to CONSULFING -GCaV •k °e i � � 6 Ftly e „L-1,L �SYY_ e FvxccFte �� i VWEa� - iJl4uetl Vi{Ip�R 3 lkelinL q a`e Yot� � ulugr ° Jy Tl,�. .� T Upper Campus Lower Campus Local Vicinity Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Wiles 4 1 Z yS e S 01 Exhibit 2 jowffa—r C - n Y Proiect Description The proposed project requires amendments to the Development Agreement, General Plan, and PC Text. Development Agreement Amendment The amendment of the Development Agreement would do the following: (a) Eliminate the 55 dBA noise level restriction at the Hoag Hospital property line that is currently contained in the PC Text; (b) Allow up to 225,000 sf of authorized development to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus; and (c) Indicate that noise generated from Hoag Hospital shall be governed by the City Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, below: The applicable noise standard at the Hoag Hospital property line adjacent to the loading dock shall be as follows: 7 AM -10 PM 10 PM -7 AM Daytime Nighttime Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 58 dBA 2. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag Hospital property line for the remainder of the property shall be as follows: 7 AM -10 PM 10 PM -7 AM Daytime Nighttime Leq (15 min) 65 dBA 58 dBA 3. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles, shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. General Plan Amendment The current General Plan authorizes maximum allowable building areas of 765,349 sf for the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf for the Lower Campus, for a total of 1,343,238 sf. The amendment to the General Plan would allow up to 225,000 sf to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Under the proposed amendment, the General Plan would allow up to 577,889 sf of development in the Lower Campus and up to 990,349 sf in the Upper Campus provided the total square footage for the Upper and Lower Campus combined does not exceed 1,343,238 sf. PC Text Amendment The PC Text currently authorizes maximum allowable building areas of 765,349 sf for the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf for the Lower Campus, for a total of 1,343,238 sf. As noted above, to allow future flexibility in building placement while limiting the intensity of building on the Lower Campus, the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element would establish a maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus of 990,349 sf and a maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus of 577,889 sf. to no event, however, would the R: \Prgegs\NewponW008 \Revised IS\NOP-051007AOC 3 Notice of Preparation total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 St. The PC Text would be amended to be consistent with this change. The PC Text also includes a provision that noise generated from Hoag Hospital shall not exceed 55 dB at all Hoag Hospital property lines. This noise restriction would be eliminated and noise generated at Hoag Hospital would be governed by the City Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, below: The applicable noise standard at the Hoag Hospital property line adjacent to the loading dock shall be as follows: 7 AM-10 PM 10 PM-7 AM Daytime Nighttime Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 58 dBA 2. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag Hospital property line for the remainder of the property shall be as follows: 7 AM -10 PM 10 PM-7 AM Daytime Nighttime Leq (15 min) 65 dBA 58 dBA 3. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles, shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. In addition, the grease pit cleaning, which is exempt from the City Noise Ordinance as maintenance activity, would occur on a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Other minor revisions to the PC Text include general clarification of definitions and proposed uses, updating of references to completed activities, modification to the Building Area Statistical Analysis to establish square footage limitations, clean up existing exhibits to better reflect height limitations, and clarify and update the sign program and landscaping regulations. Other changes may be required in the Hoag Hospital PC Text to reflect and be consistent with changes to the Development Agreement and General Plan indicated above and/or to provide clarification of standards applicable to future development approvals. Use of a Supplemental EIR The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project requires the preparation of a Supplemental EIR (SEIR). CEQA Section 21166 provides that when an EIR has been prepared for.a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required by the lead or responsible agencies unless one of these events occurs. (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. RdPro0=%NewpodWW8U wised (SWOP- 051007.doc 4 Notice of Preparation (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. This is reflected in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 which states that a Subsequent EIR is required if: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163 allows a lead agency to prepare a supplement to an EIR when any of the conditions described in Section 15162 (stated above) would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR, but only minor additions or changes are necessary to make a previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. Section 15163(b) further states, "the supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised" and "the supplement may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR.' Anticipated Project Approvals The City of Newport Beach would need to make the following project approvals as part of the current amendment requests: • General Plan Amendment • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment • Development Agreement Amendment In addition, prior to initiation of construction, other entitlements would be required. These include: • Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis • Coastal Development Permit (for development on the Lower Campus) • Building Permits R:1ProjWs \Newpo"00081Revised IS\NOP- 051007.doo 5 Notice of Preparation • Grading Permit • Water Quality Management Plan • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan • Demolition Permit Additionally, the Development Agreement would need to be provided to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval; it should be noted that the California Coastal Commission was not a party to the original Development Agreement. Future implementation of the project would require permits and /or approvals from the following agencies: • California Coastal Commission • California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) • State Water Resources Control Board (for NPDES permits) • South Coast Air Quality Management District Anticipated Schedule The project schedule, as currently envisioned, anticipates a Draft SEIR to Final EIR No. 142 to be available for public review in summer 2007. A 45 -day public review period will be provided, after which responses to comments received will be prepared. A hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council are expected at the end of 2007. Master Plan implementation is expected to be phased through the year 2018. Probable Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project The SEIR will focus on those areas that may be affected by the proposed amendment to the Master Plan. The Final EIR will be relied upon for those topical areas where there have been no substantial changes since the previous EIR was certified and would not be affected by the proposed project. Topical areas to be addressed in the SEIR include: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Land Use • Noise • Transportation/Traffic The attached Environmental Checklist identifies the evaluation of environmental issues that will be addressed in the SEIR. Conclusion The City of Newport Beach requests your careful review and consideration of this Notice of Preparation, and it invites any and all input and comments from interested agencies and persons regarding the preparation of the proposed SEIR. RAPrgeM\New onW008 \Revised ISMP- 051007.doc 6 Notice of Preparation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: James Campbell, Senior Planner, 949 -644 -3210 4. Project Location: One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California 92663 5. General Plan Designation: Public Institutions 6. Zoning Designation: Hoag Hospital Planned Community (PC) Text and District Regulations 7. Description of Project: The project proposes amendments to the Development Agreement, General Plan, and PC Text. Development Agreement Amendment The amendment of the Development Agreement would do the following: (a) Eliminate the 55 dBA noise level restriction at the Hoag Hospital property line that is currently contained in the PC Text; (b) Allow up to 225,000 square feet (sf) of authorized development to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus; and (c) Indicate that noise generated from Hoag Hospital shall be governed by the City Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, below: 1. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag Hospital property line adjacent to the, loading dock shall be as follows: 7 AM-10 PM 10 PM-7 AM Daytime Nighttime Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 58 dBA 2. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag Hospital property line for the remainder of the property shall be as follows: 7 AM-10 PM 10 PM -7 AM Daytime Nighttime Leq (15 min) 65 dBA 58 dBA 3. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles, shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. n ?PrgedslNewpoeW GTReOms IVnitial SWdy-05100TAW 1 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment 10431 Study General Plan Amendment The current General Plan authorizes maximum allowable building areas of 765,349 sf for the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf for the Lower Campus, for a total of 1,343,238 sf. The amendment to the General Plan would allow up to 225,000 sf to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Under the proposed amendment, the General Plan would allow up to 577,889 sf of development in the Lower Campus and up to 990,349 sf in the Upper Campus provided the total square footage for the Upper and Lower Campus combined does not exceed 1,343,238 sf. PC Text Amendment The PC Text currently authorizes maximum allowable building areas of 765,349 sf for the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf for the Lower Campus, for a total of 1,343,238 sf. As noted above, to allow future flexibility in building placement while limiting the intensity of building on the Lower Campus, the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element would establish a maximum allowable building. area on the Upper Campus of 990,349 sf and a maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus of 577,889 sf. In no event, however, would the total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. The PC Text would be amended to be consistent with this change. The PC Text also includes a provision that noise generated from Hoag Hospital shall not exceed 55 dB at all Hoag Hospital property lines. This noise restriction would be eliminated and noise generated at Hoag Hospital would be governed by the City Noise Ordinance except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, below: The applicable noise standard at the Hoag Hospital property line adjacent to the loading dock shall be as follows: 7 AM-10 PM 10 PM-7 AM Daytime . Nighttime Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 60 dBA 2. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag Hospital property line for the remainder of the property shall be as follows: 7 AM -10 PM 10 PM-7 AM Daytime Nighttime Leq (15 min) 65 dBA 58 dBA 3. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles, shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. In addition, the grease pit cleaning, which is exempt from the City Noise Ordinance as a maintenance activity, would occur on a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Other minor revisions include general clarification of definitions and proposed uses, updating of references to completed activities, modification to the Building Area Statistical RBProjeds \NewpoMUJOWRevised ISVNWal SWtly- 051007.doc 2 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memonal Hospital Preshytenan Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Analysis to establish square footage limitations, clean up existing exhibits to better reflect height limitations, and clarify and update the sign program and landscaping regulations. Other changes may be required in the Hoag Hospital PC Text to reflect and be consistent with changes to the Development Agreement and General Plan indicated above and /or to provide clarification of standards applicable to future development approvals. 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The approximately 38 -acre site, inclusive of the Lower Campus and Upper Campus, is generally bound by Hospital Road to the north, West Coast Highway to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and residential development and open space to the west. Superior Avenue is the closest major street to the west. Sunset View Park is a linear /consolidated park that extends along much of the northern boundary of the Lower Campus and separates the hospital from the Villa Balboa and Versailles at the Bluff condominium complexes. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Approval of the amendments to the Hoag Hospital Planned Community Text would not necessitate approvals by other agencies. The Development Agreement would need to be provided to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval; it should be noted that the California Coastal Commission was not a party to the original Development Agreement. Future implementation of the project would require permits and /or approvals from the following agencies: • California Coastal Commission • California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) • State Water Resources Control Board (for NPDES permits) • South Coast Air Quality Management District R:TrojeM\NmPortWWMewsW IS \Innlal Study- 0510W.d. 3 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. ® Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ® Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ® Land Use /Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise ❑ Population /Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities /Service Systems ® Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: 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. ❑ 1 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 be the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ® I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because al 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Printed Name Date For RAProjeotsV "on\JO"evlsed Mnifial Study- 051007.Goc 4 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. 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. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures 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. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. RAProjedM\ jpodt JW"evised IS Initial Study- 051W7.doc 5 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv This checklist form is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The checklist form identifies potential project effects as follows: (1) Potentially Significant Impact; (2) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated; (3) Less Than Significant Impact; and, (4) No Impact. Substantiation and clarification for each checklist response is provided (Narrative Discussion commencing on page 14). Included in each discussion are mitigation measures, as appropriate, that are recommended for implementation as part of the proposed project. Al.(SSUFS . ". w iaciigtbn sniff :.��t s" a weas�rcc +:wa. +rvvuw:µie }nuyzw{t. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ® ❑ ❑ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑ ® ❑ ❑ or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ® ❑ ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views ❑ ❑ ❑ in the area? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ❑ ❑ ❑ a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricuhural use? at. Viii QUALITY.' Wtref'e available the significance criteria established by apptcWXe parr quality nanent sr air ptiiltttwn control district may be relied upon tq mike the tipwin�; rWii minatimc Wnuld tHa nrniartt a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ® ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ® ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? R9Proieols \NewponWOW \Revised IS \Initial SWdy-0SWO7.dx 6 City, of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study R:1Pmjeds \Ne portU008\Revised IS\htia Stucy- 05100Tdoc 7 City of Newport Beach ERVIRONMENTALISSUES esy untea�:'. "?53gnlRaent 4t�Itygdo! 8t9nigasrN "tom% "' See attact metsts fpr irrformatioh sotttces); tmpac3 " ": Inenr[w +ai?a tmpad M?Rac# d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ® ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people? IV. " 6toLcrociAL-,;40W URCES thlW'tt the prd t 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. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ® ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? R:1Pmjeds \Ne portU008\Revised IS\htia Stucy- 05100Tdoc 7 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study "Pbteith4h( $Ism W wot ;:llntess "txsa Than .. - a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or ® ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or death involving: disposal of hazardous materials? i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo and accident conditions involving the release of Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the hazardous materials into the environment? State Geologist for the area or based on other c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed to Division of Mines and Geology Special school? Publication 42. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ ® ❑ ❑ liquefaction? public or the environment? iv) Landslides? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ® ❑ ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 18 -1 -13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ❑ use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Y( ''HpZARt3S.ar��)1i1Q2i4R�( ills =�i4i'EIT[p�S,:WdztCd`ft1� a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? R]PrgeOslNewPon0WMRevised IS hOW Study- 051007.da 8 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment ENVIRQNMENTAL ISSUES pown6sny Urdess Lost The {see amaFlerta f urirltorm�tio sr) Bgln"Ot 9�t9atim` Sim No :... ,„mac e) For a project located 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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ ED would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ® ❑ ❑ an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ ED loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDRQL0, 0 AND V1r74TER £1U 17 Y; YVOUicI the pro ject a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ discharge requirements? 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 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner in which would result in flooding on- or off - site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ® ❑ ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ ED as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? R: \Prole= \Newpon000MRevised IS\InitiA Study- 051007.do 9 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv R;1PrgeM NeWDOO\JOD8%Revised ISHndial Study-051001,doo 10 City of Newport Beach _ SRletttimmgt _ FEZi chmenartrfrarmatksn sourrs} rmpe {muast ,, h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ IX. ,l i11iD USA ANR PL kNI NG Would the: project a) Physically divide an established community/? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ IR plan or natural community conservation plan? X $NiNgAnI RESOUtRCES. , w Id the :project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? Xi iN E.UVOU' theipr�jectrgsultin: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ® ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ® ❑ ❑ ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ® ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels.existing without the project? e) For a project located 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? R;1PrgeM NeWDOO\JOD8%Revised ISHndial Study-051001,doo 10 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv R:\ rgec \NeWoAVIDWRevised IS\Initial SNdy- O61007.dm 11 City of Newport Beach Et4lt }ROhiMENTAL WILIES . .. PooaMfdliy ua Stgtt( #reeM . dlltlgdNq'S7 4e55 fl4 11 $igiAf Cat, kW� : {+ti'iiAGiilnen't3 for iniomaiton sources> lICF1Mw:'; n. PmepTpli ANO tious INIG Wotikf the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X111: PUBLICSERVIGES;, :` >' a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which 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? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Police Protection? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other Public Facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ X V.:REC TitilU a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORT CTION CIRCULA7IQN, 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ® ❑ ❑ ❑ of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? R:\ rgec \NeWoAVIDWRevised IS\Initial SNdy- O61007.dm 11 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment - �gtrrliaBfN . ENVIRQNMENTAC �,�,`(��$ Palenl#�fy f}pleta LgaS Thp9 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in b) Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of location that results in substantial safety risks? cause significant environmental effects ?? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ ® ❑ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of equipment)? effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ® Cl capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste turnouts, bicycle racks)? disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XVI. UTILMES AND SERI /ICE SYSTIitNS.'Wctiild the ptri e a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects ?? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑ ❑ ® Cl water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects and /or would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ® ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ® Cl capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? RnProjeUMNm M0008\RevlSed I&INNa Srudy-051007.doc 12 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment ENIIIR4NMENTALISSUS (See attacktinien idr rl #nrmatitr r sou ce XVt MANDATOR WfINDfNGS 3F 31fat (1 4�fiGE Ytrital[y; ieas7her S swan s�pnncwa aw. ce ce bm4 pad x11"U 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 community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which ® ❑ ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? RdPmjeMNNewportV008 \Revised IS \Initial Study- 051007.dm 13 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv NARRATIVE DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS —Would the Amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final EIR No. 142 (1992) concluded that implementation of the Master Plan project in the Upper Campus would have no significant visual impact. Development in the Lower Campus area would have a "perceived significant impact for those residents who live to the north of the Lower Campus." The Master Plan project was also determined to incrementally contribute to significant impacts associated with shade and shadow effects. The existing PC Text allows up to 1,343,238 sf of medical facility and related uses on the Hoag Hospital site. Of the total 1,343,238 sf of allowable building area, 765,349 sf are allocated to the Upper Campus and 577,889 sf are allocated to the Lower Campus. As proposed, an amendment to the General Plan would allow up to 225,000 sf to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Under the proposed amendment, the General Plan would allow up to 577,889 sf of development in the Lower Campus and up to 990,349 sf in the Upper Campus. In no event could the total square footage for the Upper and Lower Campus exceed 1,343,238 sf. Intensification of the development on the Upper Campus has the potential of changing the visual character of the site from that assessed in the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final EIR No. 142. While no new significant impacts are anticipated, the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) will provide a discussion of the changes that would result with the intensification of the Upper Campus. The character of the existing aesthetic environment and visual resources, including a discussion of views within the site and views of the site from surrounding areas, will be identified. The visual assessment would be based on the anticipated levels of intensity, including maximum building heights (no changes in maximum building height are proposed as a part of the project), within the development areas of the site. No changes to setbacks are proposed. The compatibility of the project's height and intensity with the surrounding area will be assessed. Potential shade and shadow impacts will be determined where known. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment. 43.' Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a landscape and irrigation plan is prepared for each buildingfimprovement within the overall Master Plan. This plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. The plan shall be subject ' Mitigation measure numbering reflects that provided in Resolution No. 92 -43 for certification of Final EIR No. 142. R:VProle= Newponwaw8 Revised Imnival SludrOO 7.00c 14 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv to review by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 45. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas will be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. 46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the rooftop of any structure on the Lower Campus. Rather, such buildings will have clean rooftops. Minor rooftop equipment necessary for operating purposes will comply with all building height criteria, and shall be concealed and screened to blend into the building roof using materials compatible with building materials. 48. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any Lower Campus structure, the Project Sponsor shall prepare a study of each proposed building project to assure conformance with the EIR view impact analysis and the PCDP and District Regulations, to ensure that the visual impacts identified in the EIR are consistent with actual Master Plan development. This analysis shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planning Department. Mitigation Measures No Longer Required The following mitigation measure was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented. This mitigation measure would no longer need to be tracked through mitigation monitoring. 116. The Project Sponsor shall pay 75% of the cost of planting thirty 24 -inch ficus trees (or the equivalent) in the berm between the service road and Villa Balboa southerly of the tennis courts. Planting shall occur on Villa Balboa property. Mitigation Measure 123 required screening devices for the windows of critical care /surgery that faced the Villa Balboa area. The critical care /surgery facility is not being implemented; therefore, this measure no longer applies. Should other uses be proposed in the location where the critical care /surgery facility would have been implemented, the site plan review process would identify the need for specific screening requirements. However, at the Master Plan level, this measure is no longer required. 123. The design of the critical care /surgery addition shall incorporate screening devices for the windows which face the Villa Balboa area for the purpose of providing privacy for residents, so long as these screening devices can be designed to meet the Hospital Building Code requirements regarding the provision of natural light to the facility. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The topography of the Upper Campus site has been modified from its original condition through grading and development of the site for the Hoag Hospital medical facilities. The Lower Campus is relatively flat and also has been developed with Hoag Hospital facilities. Hoag Hospital is located in an urbanized setting and the existing site has been developed with medical facilities, parking lots and structures, and related R: \Projeot ewpodW008 \Revised MnitiW Study- OSIM7.doc 15 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study facilities. The site is landscaped with ornamental plant materials. Coast Highway is not a designated State Scenic Highway. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (adopted on May 26, 1992, as amended) notes that all 'lighting systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses." Potential light and glare impacts, particularly with respect to building materials and exterior lighting, associated with the development of the project will be evaluated. Mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce potential aesthetic and light and glare impacts to the extent feasible. Previouslv Adopted Mitigation Measures The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment. 44. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of plans from, the City Planning Department which detail the lighting system for all buildings and window systems for buildings on the western side of the Upper Campus. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, these requirements have been met. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES —Would the Amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? No Impact. The Hoag Hospital project site and the surrounding areas are located in an urbanized area and would not convert farmland to non - agricultural use. No portion of the project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract or is located on land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance according to 2000 Natural Resource Conservation Service mapping. No agricultural resources impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the topic of Agricultural Resources will not be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. H:TrojenlslNewpOOU"lRe ised lSVnitial Study-%I W AO 16 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv AIR QUALITY —Would the Amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? Potentially Significant Impact. Hoag Hospital is within the South Coast Air Basin and is monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board. The South Coast Air Basin is a non - attainment area for ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), and fine particulate matter (PM10). The project's short-term and long -term air quality emission levels and its consistency with applicable air quality management regulations and guidelines will be addressed in the SEIR. As a part of the SEIR, an air quality analysis will be prepared describing existing conditions, including regional and local air quality and meteorology, and the State, federal, and regional air quality regulatory framework. The air quality analysis will address construction and operational impacts associated with the proposed project. The existing air environment will be described in terms of meteorology, local topography that affects pollutant dispersion, and ambient air monitoring data. A summary of current air management efforts, which may be related to the proposed project, will be provided with particular emphasis on the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), and the requirements for air quality assessments identified in the SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook. Sensitive receptor areas within the project vicinity will be identified. Construction impacts are associated with the following activities: grading/excavation, debris removal, exhaust emissions from construction equipment, and employee vehicles. Although specific construction projects are not proposed as part of this amendment process, it is recognized that when development occurs demolition and construction activities would be associated with project implementation. Therefore, the SEIR will forecast the short-term dust and emissions generation due to demolition and construction activities. Measures to reduce dust generation are required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Additionally, measures are contained in the 2003 AQMP for control of construction activity emissions, and these also will be included in the list of mitigation measures. Long -term emissions are associated with increased vehicular traffic and activities on the project site, including the combustion of natural gas and the generation of electricity (i.e., increasing the capacity of the cogeneration facility that serves the hospital). The analysis would compare regional and local impacts from the project with existing conditions and future conditions without the project, using current approved emission factors, traffic estimates, and methodologies. Project- specific and cumulative impacts will be identified using SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds for air quality impacts. A detailed discussion of the consistency of the project with the AQMP will be included. Measures will be developed to reduce significant air quality impacts to the extent possible. R Trge=\Newportll0081Rev1setl ISVnitial Study.051007AW 17 City of Newport &each Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial StudY Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment. 37. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of development, the project proponent shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that energy efficient lighting has been incorporated into the project design. 82 2 Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach demonstrating compliance with all applicable District Rules, including Rule 401, Visible Emissions, Rule 402, Public Nuisance, and Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, 88. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase of development, verifying that energy efficiency will be achieved by incorporating appropriate technologies and systems into future structures, which may include: • High efficiency cooling /absorption units • Thermal storage and ceramic cooling towers • Cogeneration capabilities • High efficiency water heaters • Energy efficient glazing systems • Appropriate off -hour heating /cooling /lighting controls • Time clocks and photovoltaic cells for lighting controls • Efficient insulation systems • Light colored roof and building exteriors • PL lighting and fluorescent lighting systems • Motion detector lighting controls • Natural interior lighting -- skylights, clerestories • Solar orientation, earth berming and landscaping 89. The Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that methods and materials which minimize VOC emissions have been employed . where practical, available and where value engineering allows it to be feasible. 96. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that the thermal integrity of new buildings is improved with automated time clocks or occupant sensors to reduce the thermal load. 97. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods have been incorporated into building designs. 98. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate that building designs incorporate efficient heating units and other appliances, such as water heater, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. 2 Measure 82 also serves as an energy efficiency mitigation measure. RAPrcyeas\NewponU00MROVISM 13Vnitd SWOy- 051007.tlec is City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 99. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate into building designs, where feasible, passive solar designs and solar heaters. 110. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that low emission mobile and stationary equipment is utilized during construction, and low sulfur fuel is utilized in stationary equipment, when available. Evidence of this fact shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any grading or building permit. Mitioation Measures Proposed for Revision Mitigation Measure 36 requires that the SCAQMD verify necessary permits for regulated equipment. It further states that if the new emissions result in impacts not previously considered or that significantly change the land use impact, appropriate CEQA documentation shall be prepared prior to issuance of any permits for that phase of development. This mitigation measure is combining two processes. The SCAQMD would review the data pertaining to the use of regulated equipment. In order for the applicant to receive the required permit, the project would need to meet the SCAQMD- established standards. The issue pertaining to new significant impacts associated with emissions or land use impacts would not be within SCAQMD's jurisdiction, so to avoid confusion, this portion of the mitigation measure is recommended for deletion. The City of Newport Beach would continue to be responsible for ensuring that appropriate CEQA documentation is prepared. The recommended changes are shown below. Strikeout teat is used to show deleted wording. This measure would continue to apply to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. 36. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment incorporated within each phase. An air quality analysis shall be conducted prior to each phase of development for the proposed mechanical equipment contained within that phase that identifies additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment to be installed in the phase. For Mitigation Measure 38, a revision to item g is proposed to cross - reference Mitigation Measure 30, which pertains to bus turnouts (Section XV; Transportation/Circulation). As discussed in Section XV, the location and design of bus turnouts is within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The recommended changes are shown below. Sttikeeul to; is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show new wording. 38. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of Master Plan development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorporate the site development requirements of Ordinance No. 91 -16, as appropriate, to the Traffic Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and Planning Commission approval. Requirements outlined in the Ordinance include: RAPraJW5% ewporNJ00$\ReNsed Wnitiel SWdy- 051007.dm 19 Cily of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study a. A minimum of five percent of the provided parking at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These parking spaces shall be located near the employee entrance or at other preferred locations. b. A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employees shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided at such time as demands warrants. c. A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. d. Information of transportation alternatives shall be provided to all employees. e. A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated in the parking area. f. The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. g: Bus stop improvements shall be coordinated with the Orange County Transportation Authority, consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 30. The exact number of each of the above facilities within each phase of the Master Plan shall be determined by the City during review of grading and building permit applications for each phase. The types and numbers of facilities required of each phase will reflect the content of the Ordinance at the time that a permit application is deemed complete by the Planning Department. Mitigation Measures No Longer Required The following mitigation measure was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented. This mitigation measure would no longer need to be tracked through mitigation monitoring. 87. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department verifying that all roadways associated with the development of the Master Plan will be paved early in the project, as a part of Phase I Master Plan development construction activities. Mitigation Measure 105 is covered by the California Vehicle Code, which requires covering or adequate freeboard (i.e., the height of the side wall above the load) to minimize material loss and as such is not required as a separate mitigation measure. 105. The project sponsor shall ensure that all trucks used for hauling material shall be covered to minimize material loss during transit. Mitigation Measure 106 addresses compliance with the City's Grading Ordinance which is required of all grading activities in the City. 106. Project sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall be performed with the Newport Beach Grading Ordinance which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, erosion and siltation control, noise, and other grading related activities. RAProjedsNewponVOWRe + is" ISlnitial Study -051007.dou 20 City or Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv Mitigation Measure 107 is proposed for deletion. SCAQMD's Rule 403 has been amended since adoption of Final EIR No. 142. Current SCAQMD requirements will be provided in the SEIR. 107. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during earth moving operations. To further reduce dust generation, grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour (MPH), and soil binders should be spread on construction sites or unpaved areas. Additional measures to control fugitive dust include street sweeping of roads used by construction vehicles and wheel washing before construction vehicles leave the site. Mitigation Measure 109 is proposed for deletion because it is vague. Other mitigation will be provided in the SEIR to achieve the same results (or better) and to provide a greater level of specificity. 109. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each phase of construction the Project Sponsor shall submit an analysis to the City Building Department that documents the criteria emissions factors for all stationary equipment to be used during that phase of construction. The analysis shall utilize emission factors contained in the applicable SCAQMD Handbook. The analysis shall also be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review and approval. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact. The potential for carbon monoxide concentrations that could adversely affect sensitive receptors in the project area will be determined as a part of the SEIR. Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision When Final EIR No. 142 was certified in 1992 there was not a certified Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the region. The AQMP (Appendix C) contains Localized Significance Threshold Mass Rate Look -Up Tables. These tables have been developed as a screening mechanism to determine if carbon monoxide hot spot modeling is required. If a project fits within the parameters listed in the table, then further analysis is not required. Mitigation Measure 121 is being modified to reflect the incorporation of these tables in the AQMP. Modifications to the measure are shown in strikeout (deleted text) and italics (new text). 121. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each individual phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall rcmdast determine if the project is consistent with the parameters contained the AQMP Localized Significance Threshold Mass Rate Look -Up Tables (Appendix C of the AQMP) for carbon monoxide. If the project is consistent with these provisions, no further carbon monoxide modeling is required. If the project exceeds these thresholds, a CO hot spot analysis for the subject phase of development will be prepared. This analysis shall utilize the EMFAC7EP emission factor program for the buildout year of the subject phase of development and the CALINE4 CO hot spot model or the model recommended for such analysis at that time. The results of this analysis shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review. City staff will verify consistency with the results of the project buildout CO analysis. RAProjeolsWewpodW009Wewse Islnital Study- 051007.doc 21 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Hoag Hospital uses do not generate significant odors. No significant impacts would be anticipated; this issue will not be addressed in the SEIR. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES —Would the Amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan 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. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or Impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact Final EIR No. 142 identified limited biological resources, including wetlands, on the site. However, as a result of construction of facilities consistent with the Hoag Hospital Master Plan and Final EIR No. 142, those resources have been removed. Mitigation measures were adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142 that reduced the impact to a level of less than significant. These measures, which are listed below, have been fully implemented and no longer need to be carried forward. Additionally, on February23, 2005, a qualified Biologist conducted a field review of the project site to evaluate resources on the site. The findings were that Hoag Hospital is a developed site and supports minimal decorative landscaping. As a result, the project site supports habitat that is of low value for wildlife. There are no plant or wildlife species expected to occur on the project site that are considered sensitive at either the federal, state, or local level. The project site is not part of any wildlife movement corridor. There are no riparian or wetland habitats, or any other environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Implementation of the project would not result in a decrease in the diversity of species or number of plants or animals, nor would it result in a reduction in the number of unique, rare, or endangered plant or animal species or conflict with provisions of the Orange County R:TrojenslNe+p0n0008\Revised Miritid Swdy.051007.doc 22 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Natural Community Conservation Plan Program, or any other habitat conservation plan. Further, the project will result in the removal of only non - native landscaping, which would be replaced by project landscaping. Because of the limited vegetation impacts, no significant impacts to animal life are expected. As the project will have no impacts on wildlife (as defined in the Fish and Game Code §711.2), the project will not contribute to potential cumulative development impacts to such wildlife. Therefore, the topic of Biological Resources will not be addressed in the SEIR. Mitigation Measures No Lonaer Reauired The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and have been fully implemented. The following measures do not need to be carried forward: 16. The federal wetland regulations and requirements shall be reviewed by the City and the Project Sponsor at the time the proposed work is undertaken, and the project shall comply with all applicable laws concerning removal and mitigation of wetland at the time, as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission. If this review results in a finding by the Resources Agencies involved in the permit process that mitigation is required for impacts to the 1.07 acres of wetlands dominated by pampas grass, such mitigation will be accomplished as part of the mitigation required for impacts to sensitive wetland plant communities (Mitigation Measures 17 and 18). 17. The Project Sponsor shall prepare a comprehensive restoration and management plan for the wetland mitigation site as required by law. This plan will be submitted to the following agencies for their review and approval/ concurrence prior to issuance of grading and /or building permits for Master Plan development. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • California Department of Fish and Game • City of Newport Beach 18. The resulting final mitigation plan shall be approved as part of the Coastal Development Permit for the project. The plan shall also be approved as part of the Corps Section 404 Permit and Streambed Alteration Agreement, if applicable. A wetland mitigation plan approved by the appropriate agencies shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of grading and /or building permits for Master Plan development in any areas affecting wetlands. 19. The plan will be consistent with the following provisions: The amount of new wetlands created under the mitigation plan shall be at least equal size to the area of sensitive wetland communities impacted by the project. The wildlife habitat values in the newly created wetlands shall not be less than those lost as the result of removal of sensitive wetland communities impacted by the project. The wetlands created shall not decrease the habitat values of any area important to maintenance of sensitive plant or wildlife populations. R; \Prgecls \NewOon \J005\Revised IS \Inifal Study 051007.doc 23 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Preshytenan Master Plan Amendment • The wetland mitigation planning effort will take into consideration creation of 0.2 acre of salt grass habitat suitable for use by wandering skipper; such consideration would be dependent on the nature of the mitigation plan undertaken and whether wandering skipper could potentially occur in the mitigation area. • The plan will constitute an agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies involved. The plan shall be written so as to guarantee wetland restoration in accordance with stated management objectives within a specified time frame. The plan shall describe the applicant's responsibilities for making any unforeseen repairs or modifications to the restoration plan in order to meet the stated objectives of the plan. 20. The following detailed information will be provided by the Project Sponsor in the final mitigation plan: • Diagrams drawn to scale showing any alternatives to natural landforms; • A list of plant species used; • The method of plant introduction (i.e., seeding, natural succession, vegetative transplanting, etc.); and • Details of the short-term and long -term monitoring plans, including financing of the monitoring plans. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would the Amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. No historic resources are located on or have been identified within a one - mile radius of the project site. The Hoag Hospital project site has been subject to three prior cultural resources investigation, including one investigation conducted at Hoag Hospital subsequent to the certification of Final EIR No. 142. No historic resources were found. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. Potential impacts on cultural resources associated with implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan were addressed in Final EIR.No. 142. Additionally, a records search was conducted through the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. The South Central Coastal Information Center is a part of the California Historical Resources Information System RAPr610= \NMP0nW00&Aev1sed ISVnitial Sludy- 057007.doc 24 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study and provides records data for Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties. The records search (February 22, 2005) included a review of all recorded archaeological sites within a one -mile radius of Hoag Hospital, and included a records review of the California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historic Places, National Register of Historic Places, and California State Historic Resources Inventory. The Hoag Hospital site is developed and has been subject to ongoing demolition and construction activities. Associated with these activities, no prehistoric archaeological or paleontological resources have been noted. However, archaeological and paleontological resources can be uncovered and consequently impacted by excavation and construction activities. Any potential impacts to prehistoric archaeological and paleontological resources are expected to be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of the measures previously adopted for the Master Plan project. For general plan and specific plan projects, pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (Government Code, Section 65352.3), local governments are required to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of protecting and /or mitigating impacts to cultural places. The EIR will include coordination with the NAHC. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment project. 21. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an Orange County certified archaeologist shall be retained to, and shall, monitor the grading across the project area. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, at which time monitoring procedures acceptable to and approved by the City shall be established, including procedures for halting or redirecting work to permit the assessment, and possible salvage, of unearthed cultural material. 22. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an Orange County certified paleontologist shall be retained to, and shall, monitor the grading activities. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, at which time procedures acceptable to and approved by the City for monitoring shall be established, including the temporary halting or redirecting of work to permit the evaluation, and possible salvage, of any exposed fossils. All fossils and their contextual stratigraphic data shall go to an Orange County institution with an educational and /or research interest in the materials. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS —Would the Amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) 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 other substantial evidence of a known fault? R: \Projer s\Ne"p W00B\Revised ISUnitial Study-051W7.doc 25 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. Hoag Hospital is not in an Alquist- Priolo Zone or identified as being in an area subject to liquefaction (source: California Division of Mines and Geology). There is no visible or documented evidence of on -site conditions that could result in landsliding or slope failure. Therefore, these issues will not be addressed in the SEIR. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? Potentially. Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Hoag Hospital is located in a region of historic seismic activity. The Newport- Inglewood Fault, an active fault, and several potentially active faults, are located close to the project site. Existing and planned medical uses would be subject to groundshaking during a seismic event. The Geotechnical Analysis conducted as part of Final EIR No. 142 adequately addressed these potential constraints to provide the City of Newport Beach City Council with an understanding of the potential impacts associated with project implementation. Mitigation measures were adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142 to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the State of California has established "seismic performance" categories for older hospitals (pre -1973 local approved, non - conforming buildings) and new hospitals (post -1973 Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development [ OSHPD] approved, conforming buildings). The Structural Performance Categories (SPC) are based on building age, construction type, and physical condition; Non - structural Performance Categories (NPC) are based primarily on the bracing of equipment, fire sprinkler /alarm systems, emergency power, medical gases, and communication systems. Acute care facilities are required to develop and submit a compliance plan to the OSHPD indicating the intent and actions to be taken to ensure compliance. For hospitals constructed before 1973, structural retrofits are required by the year 2008 and non - structural retrofits were to be completed by 2002. OSHPD may grant hospitals an extension under specific circumstances. Hoag Hospital has requested an an extension to the January 1, 2008, seismic compliance deadline because compliance would ,result in an interruption of healthcare services provided by general acute care hospitals within the area. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter the type of uses proposed on the site, nor substantially increase the intensity of the uses. With the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142, no further assessment in the SEIR is required. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment project. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that grading and development of the site shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach RAPrajedMewpar W008,RMjse IS Iritial Stu0y051007.Cac 26 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv Grading Ordinance and with plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. These plans shall incorporate the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist, subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the 'Approved as Built" grading plans shall be furnished to the Building Department by the Project Sponsor. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit documentation to the City of Newport Beach Building Department confirming that all cut slopes shall be monitored for potential instabilities by the project geotechnical engineer during all site grading and construction activities and strictly monitor the slopes in accordance with the documentation. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall provide to the City of Newport Beach a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation and report of the site prepared by a registered grading engineer and /or engineering geologist. This report shall also identify construction excavation techniques which ensure no damage and minimize disturbance to adjacent residents. This report shall determine if there are any on -site faults which could render all or a portion of the property unsafe for construction. All recommendations contained in this investigation and report shall be incorporated into project construction and design plans. This report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 4. Prior to the completion of the final design phase, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed to the seismic standards applicable to hospital related structures and as specified in the then current City adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. Mitigation Measures No Longer Required Mitigation Measure 5 pertains to geotechnical constraints. This measure requires that prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each phase of development, the City of Newport Beach Building Department was to ensure that geotechnical recommendations included in Report of Geotechnical Evaluation for Preparation of Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus prepared by LeRoy Crandall Associates, June 1989, and in the report prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3, are followed. Mitigation Measure 3 (identified above) requires a comprehensive soil and geologic evaluation prior to each grading permit, which would contain recommendations that are based on current grading standards and associated codes. The information in Mitigation Measure 5 duplicates the information in Mitigation Measure 3 and could result in conflicts with existing codes and practices. It is recommended that Mitigation Measure 5 from Final EIR No. 142 no longer apply. The measure reads as follows: 5. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each phase of development, the Building Department shall ensure that geotechnical recommendations included in "Report of Geotechnical Evaluation for Preparation of Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport, California" as prepared by LeRoy Crandall Associates, June 1989, and in the report prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3, are followed. R:Tro1eds\NmpodV00Metlsed ISUnitial Study-051W7.doc 27 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As identified in Final EIR No. 142, construction activities would expose soils and thereby create the potential for short-term erosion. In accordance with County and State requirements, as individual construction projects are proposed, the project contractor will be required to implement measures to control short-term potential siltation and erosion on and off of the site. The analysis conducted as part of Final EIR No. 142 adequately addresses the potential geotechnical constraints to provide the City of Newport Beach with an understanding of the potential impacts associated with project implementation. The proposed Amendment to the Master Plan would not alter the type of uses proposed on the site or substantially increase the intensity of the uses. With the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142, these impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level; no further assessment in the SEIR is required. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment project. 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a soil corrosivity evaluation. This evaluation shall be conducted by an expert in the field of corrosivity. This site evaluation shall be designed to address soils to at least the depth to which excavation is planned. At a minimum, at least one sample from each soil type should be evaluated. Appropriate personnel protection shall be worn by field personnel during the field evaluation. In the event soils are found to be corrosive, the source and extent of the corrosive soils shall be determined, and all buildings and infrastructure shall be designed to control the potential impact of corrosive soils overtime. Based on the corrosion assessment and source determination, a soils and construction material compatibility evaluation shall be undertaken, concluding with the appropriate mitigation measures and design criteria. Corrosion resistant construction materials are commonly available and shall be used where the evaluation /assessment concludes that corrosive soils conditions could adversely impact normal construction materials or the materials used for the mitigation of subsurface gas conditions. For example, there are many elastomers and plastics, like PVC, which are resistant to corrosion by up to 70 percent sulfuric acid at 140 degrees Fahrenheit. 8. Should the soil be identified as hazardous due to the severeness of their corrosivity (i.e., a pH less than 2.5), on -site remediation by neutralization shall be undertaken prior to construction. Appropriate regulatory agency approvals and permits shall also be obtained. R %Projem\Newp0rtV00B \ReWged IS1lnitial SIU0y-051 OVA= 28 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a construction erosion control plan is submitted to and approved by the City of Newport Beach that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and includes procedures to minimize potential impacts of silt, debris, dust and other water pollutants. These procedures may include: the replanting of exposed slopes within 30 days after grading or as required by the City Engineer. • the use of sandbags to slow the velocity of or divert stormflows. • the limiting of grading to the non -rainy season. The project Sponsor shall strictly adhere to the approved construction erosion control plan and compliance shall be monitored on an on -going basis by the Newport Beach Building Department. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The proposed project does not require the use of a septic tank or an alternative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed in the SEIR. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —Would the Amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Hazardous materials are used during medical diagnosis and treatment, research, and facility operation and maintenance. Hazardous materials typically used in small quantities include chemical reagents, solvents, radioisotopes, paints, cleansers, pesticides, photographic chemicals, and biohazardous substances. Similarly, different types of hazardous wastes are generated (usually in small quantities) through these activities. The analysis conducted as part of the Final EIR No. 142 adequately addresses the potential impacts associated with the use of these materials to provide the City of Newport Beach with an understanding of the potential impacts associated with project implementation. Final EIR No. 142 determined that significant impacts .would be mitigated to a less than significant level. In addition, current federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the handling of such materials would apply. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter the type of uses proposed on the site or substantially increase the intensity of the uses. With the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142, no further evaluation of this topic is necessary in the SEIR. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment project. R\ Projects \NewporrW008Weised lSlnitial Sudy- 051007Am 29 City of Newport Beach Haag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment initial Studv 83. Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor must submit plans to the City of Newport Beach demonstrating that its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Plan and its infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the Project Sponsor has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach, Fire Prevention Department, and the Orange County Health Care Agency, as required by the Infections Waste Act and AB2185/2187. . 84. Project Sponsor shall continue compliance with its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infectious Control Manual for all new activities associated with the proposed Master Plan, as well as comply with all new regulations enacted between now and completion of the proposed Master Plan. 85. To the satisfaction of the City building official, the Project Sponsor shall expand existing hazardous infectious, radiological disposal facilities to add additional storage areas as necessary to accommodate the additional waste to be generated by the expanded facilities. 86. The Project Sponsor shall provide evidence to the Planning Director that measures to ensure implementation and continue compliance with all applicable SCAQMD Air Toxic Rules, specifically Rules 1401, 1402, 1403, 1405 and 1415, are being carried out. 122. The methane gas facility and all building on the lower campus shall be subject to all laws and regulations applicable, including, but not limited to, the Federal Regulation contained in 29 CFR 1910, the State Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.9.5, and the regulations of OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association. Prior to the issuance of building permits on the lower campus, the Project Sponsor shall submit, to the Newport Beach Fire Department a compliance review report of all the above referenced laws and regulations. b) Create 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan assumes that certain existing structures will be demolished and others rehabilitated/ altered. Demolition of buildings and building features could expose construction personnel, staff, patients, and visitors to asbestos - containing building materials and lead -based paint. Because many of the hospital's structures were constructed prior to the mid -1970s when asbestos- containing building materials were being manufactured and used in construction projects, demolition and rehabilitation /alteration efforts may require mitigation to prevent the release of asbestos - containing building materials into the air. The disposition of hazardous materials is subject to regulations set forth at a federal and State level. Because exposure to such materials can result in adverse health effects in uncontrolled situations, several regulations and guidelines pertaining to abatement of and protection from exposure to asbestos have been adopted for demolition activities. R: \ProjWs%NewponUWffiRwjsW Mnitial Study- 05700Zdoa 30 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Regulations that will be followed during construction /demolition activities include: (1) SCAQMD Rules and Regulations pertaining to asbestos abatement (including Rule 1403); (2) Construction Safety Orders 1629 (pertaining to asbestos) and 1532.1 (pertaining to lead) from Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 61 (Subpart M) of the Federal Code of Regulations pertaining to asbestos; and (3) lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In accordance with Rule 1403, any demolition work involving asbestos - containing materials must be identified and potential emissions from asbestos must be determined. In California, asbestos and lead abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the California Department of Health Services (DHS). In addition, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal /OSHA) has regulations concerning the use and management of such hazardous materials. Cal /OSHA enforces the hazard communication program regulations. All demolition that could result in the release of lead and asbestos must be conducted according to Cal /OSHA standards. Final EIR No. 142 notes that Hoag Hospital's Lower Campus is located in the Newport Beach methane gas mitigation district and that methane gas is a public nuisance and public safety hazard for the Lower Campus and in the immediate vicinity of the site (Balboa Coves). To reduce the odors (hydrogen sulfide) and fire hazard (methane gas), the City of Newport Beach installed an experimental gas collection system and gas burner near Balboa Coves, with subsequent burners and wells installed in 1972 and 1976, respectively. Local effects from methane seeps included minor fires from trapped gas and economic impacts from source control measures and monitoring. Final EIR No. 142 further noted that project development in the Lower Campus could increase gas seepage. A mitigation program was approved as a part of Final EIR No. 412. As a consequence of implementation of the mitigation program, Hoag Hospital has constructed a cogeneration facility. One of the functions of the cogeneration facility is to collect and safely reuse methane gas, thereby mitigating safety hazards associated with the presence of methane gas. Therefore, these issues have been fully addressed in Final EIR No. 142. In addition, the project would be required to adhere to applicable procedures and regulations for the removal and disposal of these materials. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter the types of uses proposed on the site nor substantially increase the intensity of the uses. With the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142, no further evaluation of this topic is necessary in the SEIR. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment. 49. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and /or hazardous materials are handled and disposed 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, Office of Statewide Health Planning RtlProjeas\Newp nW008iRevised IS\Indial S1udy05100Tdoo 31 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. 52. A soil gas sampling and monitoring program shall include methane and hydrogen sulfide levels. Samples shall be taken just below the depth of actual disturbance. (The individuals(s) performing this initial study may be at risk of exposure to significant —and possibly lethal-- -doses of hydrogen sulfide, and shall be appropriately protected as required.) 53. A site safety plan shall be developed that addresses the risks associated with exposures to methane and hydrogen sulfide. Each individual taking part in the sampling and monitoring program shall receive training on the potential hazards and on proper personal protective equipment. This training shall be at least at the level required by CFR 2910.120. 54. If the analysis of the initial soil gas samples shows unacceptable levels of hazardous constituents that have the potential to pose a health risk during construction activities, additional gas collection wells shall be drilled to contain and collect the gas. 55. Continuous monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide 56. A study of other hazardous constituents that may be present in quantities that pose a health risk to exposed individuals shall be prepared and evaluated prior to the initiation of the project. The constituents studied shall include compounds that are directly related to petroleum, such as benzene and toluene. 59. In the event additional gases are to be collected from newly constructed collection wells as part of a measure to reduce exposures during construction, an evaluation of the capacity and efficiency of the present flare system shall be conducted prior to connecting any new sources. 62. A study of the concentration of potential hazardous constituents shall be conducted prior to initiation of the project to characterize the wastewater and any risk it may pose to human health prior to development. A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of hazardous constituents from the site. The Hospital shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit, including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and implementation of Best Management Practices, implementation of erosion control measures, the monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system. 63. Soil samples shall be collected from the appropriate locations at the site and analyzed for BTEX and priority pollutants; if the soils are found to contain unacceptable levels of hazardous constituents, appropriate mitigation will be 3 The record shows an incomplete Mitigation Measure 55; however, the provision for continuous monitoring and treatment of methane and hydrogen sulfide is contained in other measures, such as Mitigation Measures 52, 53, 58, 60, 61, 64, 66, 72, 74-76, 79, and 122. Protection from methane and hydrogen sulfide is adequately provided through these measures. R6ProjeM \NewortUWWReisW lS \Initial Study- 051007.a 32 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study required, including a complete characterization of both the vertical and horizontal extent of the contamination, and a remedial action plan shall be completed and approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project Sponsor must demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach compliance with this measure prior to issuance of any permits for Phase I construction activities. 66. Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department City of Newport Beach, demonstrating that continuous hydrogen sulfide monitoring equipment with alarms to a manned remote location have been provided in building designs. This monitoring equipment must be the best available monitoring system, and the plans must include a preventative maintenance program for the equipment and a calibration plan and schedule. 68. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach ensuring that all structures built on the Lower Campus are designed for protection from gas accumulation and seepage based on the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer. 69. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach indicating where gas test boring will be drilled under each proposed main building site once specific building plans are complete. Such testing shall be carried out, and test results submitted to the City's building official, prior to issuance of grading permits. If a major amount of gas is detected, a directionally drilled well will be permanently completed and put into the existing gas collection system. 70. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Grading Engineer, City of Newport Beach, indicating that all buildings and parking lots on the Lower Campus will be constructed with passive gas collection systems under the foundations. Such a system typically consists of perforated PVC pipes laid in parallel lengths below the foundation. Riser type vents will be attached to light standards and building high points. Additionally, parking lots on the Lower Campus will contain unpaved planter areas and vertical standpipes located at the end of each length of PVC pipe. The standpipes will serve to vent any collected gas to the atmosphere. A qualified geotechnical firm shall be retained to design such systems. 71. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach demonstrating that all buildings on the Lower Campus are sealed from gas migration. Such sealing may be installed by the use of chlorinated polyethylene sheeting or similar approved system. All material of construction including the PVC piping and the ground lining must be evaluated for compatibility with the existing environmental conditions of the soils and /or potential gases. 72. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments demonstrating that all buildings on the Lower Campus will be equipped with methane gas sensors. Such sensors will be installed in areas of likely accumulation, such as utility or other seldom used rooms. Sensors can monitor on a continuous basis, and can be tied into fire alarm systems for 24 -hour surveillance. RAPrgects\NewpaRJ008 \Revised IS \Ini6a Study-051007.doc 33 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbytenan Master Plan Amendment 73. To avoid possible accumulation of gas in utility or other seldom used service or storage rooms, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of building permits indicating that such rooms are serviced by the buildings' central air conditioning system (or an otherwise positive ventilation system that circulates and replaces the air in such rooms on a continuous basis). 74. During construction, Project Sponsor shall ensure that an explosimeter is used to monitor methane levels and percentage range. Additionally, construction contractors shall be required to have a health and safety plan that includes procedures for worker /site safety for methane. If dangerous levels of methane are discovered, construction in the vicinity shall stop, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department shall be notified and appropriate procedures followed in order to contain the methane to acceptable and safe levels. 100. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all cut material is disposed of at either an environmentally cleared development site or a certified landfill. Also, all material exported off site shall be disposed of at an environmentally certified development cleared landfill with adequate capacity. Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision Mitigation Measure 64, adopted as part of Final EIR 142, requires monitoring of the venting systems on the Lower Campus prior to issuance of building permits. The measure requires.the findings be sent to the State Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, and the Southern California Air Quality Management District for comment. However, these systems are passive vents, which are not regulated by these agencies. Only the active gas extraction plant is regulated by these agencies. The standard used for passive vents is substantially below the thresholds used by these agencies for monitoring. The portion of the mitigation measure requiring agency reporting has led to confusion regarding what the agencies are expected to do with the results when they are received. Therefore, modification to the wording of the measure is recommended. The recommended changes are shown below. StFikeeut te>E4 is used to show deleted wording. Mitigation Measure 64 would continue to apply to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. 64. Prior to the issuance of grading of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall evaluate all existing vent systems located on the lower campus and submit this data to the City Building and Fire Departments. the State n..part., eRt Q Management Dis#iGt 49F Additionally, any proposed new passive vents shall be evaluated by the City Building and Fire Departments prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Mitigation Measures No Longer Required The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and have been fully implemented. The following measures do not need to be carried forward: 50. Prior to construction of structures over or near the Wilshire oil well, Project Sponsor shall ensure that the Wilshire oil well, or any abandoned, unrecorded well or pressure relief well, is reabandoned to the current standards. RAP,oie l S NeWpotllIDOB .Vsed IS \Ini6.f Study- 051007.0oc '34 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv Abandonment plans will be submitted to the State Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) for approval prior to the abandonment procedures. The City's building official shall be notified that the reabandonment was carried out according to DOG procedures. 51. To further determine the source of the gas on the Lower Campus site, prior to issuance of a grading permit on the Lower Campus, Project Sponsor shall collect gas samples from the nearest fire flooding wells and at Newport Beach Townhomes and compare the gas samples to samples taken from the Hoag gas collection wells prior to site grading and construction. 57. A study shall be conducted that characterizes the wells, the influent gas, and the effluent of the flare. This study shall characterize the gas over a period of time, to allow for potential fluctuations in concentration and rate. 58. A scrubber system shall be required to reduce the concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the influent gas. 60. An automatic re -light system shall be installed on the flare system to reduce the risk of a potential release of high concentration of hydrogen sulfide. The system shall be designed with an alarm system that notifies a remote location which is manned 24 hours per day. 61. A continuous hydrogen sulfide monitor that would give warning of a leak of concentrations in excess of acceptable levels shall be installed in the vicinity of the flare. 65. If required by the Southern California Air Quality Air Management District, an air dispersion model shall be required in order to predict the cumulative effects of the emissions. Compliance with any additional requirements of the AQMD shall be verified through a compliance review by the district with written verification received by the Newport Beach Building Department. 67. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that the inferred fault traversing the site is trenched and monitored for gas prior to site grading and construction. If gas monitoring indicates a potential risk during grading, additional gas collection wells will be drilled to collect and contain the gas. 75. The project Sponsor may remove the flare system, contain the gas and utilize the gas for Lower Campus facilities. During the containment process and removal of the flare the Project Sponsor shall ensure that methane levels are monitored throughout the project area to ensure that his transition does not create an upset in methane levels or create odors or risk of explosion. 76. Prior to development on the Lower Campus, the Project Sponsor shall submit to the City of Newport Beach within one year of May 1992, plans to install a scrubber system to remove hydrogen sulfide from the influent to the flare. The design and construction of the system should be in accordance with the Best Available Control Technologies, and must be in compliance with SCAQMD (District) Regulation XIII, emission offsets and New Source Review. RAProieML NeWWMtl JOUBlRemi Minitial Study- 05ID07.da 35 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 77. As required by the District, the Project Sponsor shall develop a sampling and analysis protocol for District approval to evaluate the impact the existing and post- scrubber emissions will have on the ambient air quality and on possible receptor populations. The required evaluation shall include analysis for criteria and toxic pollutants, and evaluation of the potential risk associated with the emission of these pollutants (Rule 1401). included in the plans for the design of the scrubber system should be a make -up gas source. 78 The plans for the design of the new system will include a calibration and maintenance plan for all equipment, if required by the District as a permit condition, automatic shutdown devices, sensors, and charts for continuous recording of monitoring, and flame arresters. The project sponsor shall evaluate enclosing or placing new equipment underground. 79. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that demonstrate that the flare operation will be shut down within four years of August, 1992. The project sponsor must prepare and obtain approval from the SCAQMD to implement a sampling and analysis protocol for evaluation of the existing emissions from the flare after scrubbing (Mitigation Measures 75 and 76), and the effect of flare shutdown on ambient air quality. The methane gas source should be used, if engineering design allows, as a supplemental source of fuel for the Hospital's boilers. If the gas is not usable, the flare shall be relocated. 80. The plans for the design of the new system will include a calibration and maintenance plan for all equipment, and if required by the District as a permit condition, automatic shutdown devices, sensors and charts for continuous recording of monitoring, and flame arresters. The project sponsor shall evaluation enclosing or placing new equipment underground. 81. Prior to installation of the scrubber system, the Project Sponsor shall develop a protocol for a study to evaluate the integrity of the control equipment and piping. The project Sponsor must obtain agreement from the District on the protocol prior to initiating the study. In. addition, the following mitigation measure was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. While the critical care /surgery facility is not being implemented, Mitigation Measure 90 has already been implemented. Therefore, this measure would no longer apply. 90. In conjunction with the Critical Care Surgery addition, the Project Sponsor will place the overhead power lines located west of the Upper Campus underground if feasible. C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools within 1/4 -mile of Hoag Hospital. R: \ProjeM\Newpod OOMRe 1.ed IS\IN6M Study- 051007.do 36 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No /mpacf. Hoag Hospital is listed on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Facility Index System Database (FINDS). The EPA developed this system in order to cross reference sites for which the EPA maintains files. Not all sites on the list have had a previous violation. For those sites where there has been a prior violation, it has been remediated. No sites with current violations are listed on the FINDS system. (Source: EDR Environmental Resources, Inc., April 17, 2007) e) For a project located 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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport/public use airport. No further discussion in the SEIR is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. Hoag Hospital has an existing helipad. Helipads are subject to review by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics (site approval permit and helipad permit), and by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). No changes to the location of the helipad are proposed as a part of the project. No further discussion in the SEIR is required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The phased implementation of the Master Plan project would, in part, minimize disruptions to services, including the emergency response /evacuation plans. Mitigation Measure 101, adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142, requires the preparation of a construction phasing plan to ensure that emergency access is maintained during construction activities. A study of on -site circulation will be conducted as a part of the SEIR; mitigation shall be provided, as required, to mitigate potential impacts related to emergency response and emergency evacuation. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildiand fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No /mpacf. Hoag Hospital is located in an urbanized area. No wildlands are intermixed or are adjacent to the site. Therefore, no exposure to people or the project site itself would result; no impacts would occur. This issue will therefore not be addressed in the SEIR. R:Troje s \Newponl100B1Revised ISVnitial Study - 051007, doc 37 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner in which would result in flooding on- or off -site? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant impact. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan project is not expected to generate substantial increases in or the degradation of the quality of runoff because the site is currently developed, and with the exception of landscaping and areas currently subject to construction activities, has limited amounts of impervious surfaces. Final EIR No. 142 addressed the anticipated discharge from the project site. Additionally, the Federal Clean Water Act establishes a framework for regulating potential surface water quality impacts, mandating sewage treatment, and regulating wastewater discharges in addition to requiring communities and industries to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits to discharge storm water to urban storm sewer systems. The NPDES program is administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) issued the third term NPDES permit (Order No. R8- 2002 - 0010), which governs the public storm drain system discharges in Orange County from the storm drain systems owned and operated by the County of Orange and Orange County cities (collectively 'the Co- permittees ") in January 2002. This permit would regulate storm water and urban runoff discharges from proposed development to constructed storm drain systems in the project area dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. The NPDES permit specifies requirements for managing runoff water quality from new development and significant redevelopment projects, including specific sizing criteria for treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs). To implement the requirements of the NPDES permit, the Co- permittees have developed a 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) that includes a New Development and Significant Redevelopment Program. This New Development and Significant Redevelopment Program provides a framework and a process for following the NPDES permit requirements and incorporates watershed protection /storm water quality management principles into the Co- permittees' General Plan process, environmental review process, and development permit approval process. The New Development and Significant Redevelopment Program includes a Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that defines requirements and provides guidance for compliance with the NPDES permit requirements for project specific planning, selection, and design of BMPs in new development or significant redevelopment projects. The implementation of appropriate point- source structural and non - structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the DAMP will ensure compliance with these plans. RAPW*ds \NewponUJWONRevised Mnitial Study - W 7.doc 38 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter the type of uses proposed on the site nor substantially increase the intensity of the uses. With the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142 (see below) and standard regulations associated with the NPDES, the project would not violate water quality standards. No further evaluation of this topic is necessary in the SEIR. 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 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)? Less Than Significant Impact. Hoag Hospital is located outside the main groundwater basin of the Orange County Coastal Plain. Perched groundwater is present in the terrace deposits on the slope of the Lower Campus at the contact between the marine deposits and Monterey Formation that outcrops at the base of the slope. Ponding of water has been observed at the toe of the slope. Groundwater has been observed in borings at 26 to 44 feet below ground surface. The presence of groundwater has not been noted in the Upper Campus. Development in the Lower Campus may require a construction dewatering and subdrain system. An NPDES Discharge Permit would be required for the discharge of any groundwater. Final EIR No. 142 determined that potentially significant impacts to groundwater could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR 142 associated with groundwater and water quality would still apply. This issue will not be addressed further in the SEIR. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures The following measure was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment project. 13. Prior to the completion of final construction plans for each phase of Lower Campus development, the Project Sponsor shall submit a comprehensive geotechnical /hydrologic study to the City of Newport Beach Building Department, which includes data on groundwater. This study shall also determine the necessity for a construction dewatering program and subdrain system. Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision Since the certification of Final EIR No. 142, modifications to how the NPDES permit is administered have been adopted. The State Water Resources Control Board is responsible for issuance of the NPDES permit and the RWQCB is responsible for monitoring, if deemed necessary by the permit. Changes to Mitigation Measure 14 are hereby incorporated to reflect this administrative process. The recommended changes are shown below. Str+keoat text is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. This measure would continue to apply to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. R1PMie0SVNeNe0nVJ008 \PeVleed ISHOiliel SWdpOM1007.doc 39 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Preskyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 14. Prior to the completion of final building construction plans for each phase of Lower Campus development, the Project Sponsor shall prepare and submit a construction storm water National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99- 08 -DWQ) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain the required coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The NOI, the site plan, and a check in an amount specified by the most current fee schedule shall be sent to the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB will send a Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) to the project Sponsor and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region for use during site inspection, if needed nnnicf ip deteffniRiRg the ..ne.: f4G at'e..c fe. the AIPP99 PeFMO& The Drn'9n4 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Potentially Than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Final EIR No. 142 addressed potential changes in drainage patterns and increased runoff associated with implementation of the Master Plan and noted that there was adequate capacity in the drainage system to serve Master Plan buildout. These issues have been fully addressed in Final EIR No. 142. The proposed Amendment to the Master Plan would not alter the type of uses proposed on the site or substantially increase the intensity of the uses. Therefore, the drainage patterns and flows would not be substantially different from what was previously addressed in Final EIR No. 142. With the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142, no further evaluation of this topic is necessary in the SEIR. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a construction erosion plan is submitted to and approved by the City of Newport Beach that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and includes procedures to minimize potential impacts of silt, debris, dust and other water pollutants. These procedures may include: • the replanting of exposed slopes within 30 days after grading or as required by the City Engineer. • the use of sandbags to slow the velocity of or divert stormflows. RAPrgedaW ewp.H\J0WRe0s.d&1nitial StUOy- OSIWTtl 40 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv • the limiting of grading to the non -rainy season. The project Sponsor shall strictly adhere to the approved construction erosion control plan and compliance shall be monitored on an on -going basis by the Newport Beach Building Department. 10. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit a landscape plan which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation and approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The Project Sponsor shall install landscaping in strict compliance with the approved plan. 11. The Project Sponsor shall continue the current practice of routine vacuuming of all existing parking lots and structures and shall also routinely vacuum all future parking lots and structures at current frequencies. Upon implementation of the County of Orange Storm Water Master Plan, routine vacuuming shall be done in accordance with the requirements specified in the plan. 12. Upon completion of final building construction plans, and prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that site hydrological analyses are conducted to verify that existing drainage facilities are adequate. The applicant shall submit a report to the City of Newport Beach Building Department for approval, verifying the adequacy of the proposed facilities and documenting measures for the control of siltation and of erosive runoff velocities. 15. Project Sponsor shall strictly comply with its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infectious Control Manual for all new activities associated with the proposed Master Plan, as well as strictly comply with all new regulations enacted between now and completion of the proposed Master Plan development. Please also refer to Mitigation Measure 9 under VIA (Geology and Soils, Threshold d). 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? No Impact. There is no existing housing at Hoag Hospital; no housing is proposed as a part of the project. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. Final EIR No. 142 states the neither the Lower Campus nor the Upper Campus are located in a 100 -year flood zone. No impacts would occur and no further discussion of this topic is required. RAPrge0s \NewpoM1V008 \Rev1sed ISVnitiW Study-051007.doc 41 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospitat Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact Based on the July 2003 study prepared by Earth Consultants International for the City of Newport Beach, the project site would not be subject to inundation by a tsunami even with extreme high tide conditions. The site would also not be subject to inundation as a result of dam failure since there is no dam in the vicinity of the project site. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Physically divide an established community? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The site is currently developed with medical facilities, and will not displace any land uses unrelated to the existing Hoag Hospital facilities. Further, the project site is not in or contiguous to the natural community conservation plan area. No analysis of this issue is 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 plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Significant Impact, The SEIR will analyze the project's compatibility with existing and planned land uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the site, as well as consistency with applicable planning and policy documents. The SEIR will document existing land uses on the site, as well as uses surrounding the project site. A discussion of the project's compatibility with surrounding land uses and consistency with applicable planning documents will be provided. The General Plan will be used as the basis for the analysis. Given that the type of uses proposed are the same as what is provided for in the Hoag Hospital Master Plan, the evaluation of compatibility will be focused on the uses immediately surrounding the project site. Final EIR No. 142 determined that the project would result in significant, unavoidable impacts on residential units contiguous to the western buildings located in the Upper Campus. The placement of hospital buildings adjacent to the existing residential units, in combination with shade and shadow and noise impacts, were considered significant and unavoidable impacts of the Master Plan project. These impacts were discussed in Final EIR No. 142. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter or make these impacts more severe. Therefore, while these issues will be addressed in the EIR, they would not constitute a new impact. No new significant impacts to the larger community would be anticipated with the proposed modifications. RAProjedsWewponWON9 Revised ISVnidal Study-051007.doc 42 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbytenan Master Plan Amendment Mitiaation Measures Proposed for Revision The following land use measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment. However, minor modifications to the mitigation measures are proposed to reflect the current status of the project (i.e., the original project has been approved and the City has processed an amendment to the Local Coastal Program to reflect the future development on the Lower Campus). Sldtee is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. 24. The proposed project is subject to all applicable requirements of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program (LCP). Those requirements that are superseded by the PCDP and District Regulations are not considered applicable. The following discretionary approvals are required by the City of Newport Beach: EIR certification, adeptieR of the MaStGF PlaR, adoption of an Amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulations, approval of an Amendment to the Development Agreement, appFeval „f , ZORe ,.ti. Rge t„ Planned GOFAM Rity DiStriGt grading permits, and building permits for some facilities. The California Coastal Develepmen Commission has the discretionary responsibility to issue a Coastal Development Permit for the Lower Campus Lower GaFRpus. Mitigation Measure 118 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142; however, for projects that require issuance of a building permit by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development ( OSHPD), the City of Newport Beach has limited jurisdiction in the review and approval of development plans. Therefore, this measure is being revised to indicate that the City of Newport Beach will provide a letter indicating review should the OSHPD request such documentation. 118. For any building subject to the issuance of the building permit by the affine of the Stgte A.FeWpet California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development ( OSHPD), Hoag Hospital shall submit to OSHPD the a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that review of the 98AStwsfien development plans has been completed and that the plans are in compliance with all City requirements. Mitiaation Measures No Lonaer Reauired The following mitigation measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142, have been implemented, and are no longer required. 23. The Project Sponsor shall construct, if feasible and by mutual agreement, and maintain a fence along the common property line west of Upper Campus. The proposed design of the fence shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. 113. Subsequent to the approval of this Agreement by the Coastal Commission and the expiration of any statute of limitation for filing a legal challenge to this Agreement, the Master Plan, or the EIR, Hoag shall deposit Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) in an account, and at a financial institution, acceptable to City. The account shall be in the name of the City provided, RAProjws \Newponi J00MRewse lS \Inital SWdy- 05100Tdoc 43 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial StudV however, Hoag shall have the right to access the funds in the event, but only to the extent that, Hoag constructs or installs the improvements described in (i) or (ii). Funds in the account shall be applied to the following projects (in order of priority upon notice to proceed served by City on Hoag). (i) The construction of a sidewalk and installation of landscaping in the Caltrans right -of -way along the west side of Newport Boulevard southerly of Hospital Road; (ii) The construction of facilities necessary to bring reclaimed water to West Newport and /or the Property; Any funds remaining in the account after completion of the projects described in (i) and (ii) shall be used by the City to fund, in whole or in part, a public improvement in the vicinity of the property. X. MINERAL RESOURCES —Would the Amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach General Plan states that the Hoag Hospital site does not contain any known mineral resources. Therefore, no further analysis is necessary and this topic will not be addressed in the SEIR. XI. NOISE —Would the Amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact. Final EIR No. 142 addressed the potential noise impacts associated with implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. However, the proposed Amendment would reallocate development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus, which would modify the trip distribution on the road network. As a result, traffic volumes on the adjacent roadways may change. This has the potential to change the traffic noise associated with the project. In addition, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the authorized noise levels at the Hoag Hospital property Fa rojeol NewponWWSflevlsed ISllnllial Study -0 1007.dm 44 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment initial Studv line for noise generated by Hoag Hospital. This could result in noise levels at adjacent properties periodically exceeding standards established by the City Noise Ordinance. A Noise Study will be prepared as a part of the SEIR to address any changes in findings pertaining to noise impacts from implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling noise caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. Certain demolition and construction activities, including the use of pile drivers, can generate short-term groundborne vibration. The potential for this impact will be addressed in the SEIR. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures The following noise measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment. 39. If noise levels in on -site outdoor noise sensitive use areas exceed 65 CNEL, the Project Sponsor shall develop measures that will attenuate the noise to acceptable levels for proposed hospital facilities. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, of combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. 40. Prior to occupancy of Master Plan facilities, interior noise levels shall be monitored to ensure that on -site interior noise levels are below 45 CNEL. If levels exceed 45 CNEL, mitigation such as window modifications shall be implemented to reduce noise to acceptable levels. 41. Prior to issuance of a grading and /or building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that existing noise levels associated with the on -site exhaust fan are mitigated to acceptable levels. Similarly, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Building Department that all noise levels generated by new mechanical equipment associated with the Master Plan are mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. 42. The City of Newport Beach shall send a letter to each emergency vehicle company that delivers patients to Hoag Hospital requesting that, upon entrance to either the Upper or Lower Campus, emergency vehicles turn off their sirens to help minimize noise impacts to adjacent residents. Hoag Hospital will provide the City with a list of all emergency vehicle companies that deliver to Hoag Hospital. 111. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all internal combustion engines associated with construction activities shall be fitted with properly maintained mufflers and kept in proper tune. 112. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noises that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. RAProje=e NewpcnWO B\Revise IS initial St dy -051 WTdoc 45 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 117. Use of the heliport/helipad shall be limited to emergency medical purposes or the transportation of critically ill patients in immediate need of medical care not available at Hoag Hospital. Helicopters shall, to the extent feasible, arrive at, and depart from the helipad, from the northeast, to mitigate noise impacts on residential units to the west and south. 119. Non - vehicular activities, such as the operation of the trash compactor, which occur in the vicinity of the servicelaccess road shall be operated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. daily. Mitigation Measures No Longer Required The following mitigation measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and have been implemented. As such, these mitigation measures would no longer need to be tracked through mitigation monitoring. 114. Rooftop mechanical equipment screening on the emergency room expansion shall not extend closer than fifteen feet from the west edge of the structure and no closer than ten feet from the edge of the structure on any other side. 115. Noise from the emergency room expansion rooftop mechanical equipment shall not exceed 55 dBA at the property line. The following mitigation measure applied to the critical care /surgery center, which will not be developed. Therefore, this measure would no longer be applicable. 120. Within one year from the date of final approval of the Planned Community District Regulations and development Plan by the California Coastal Commission, as an interim measure, the Project Sponsor shall implement an acoustical and /or landscape screen to provide a visual screen from and reduce noise to adjoining residences from the loading dock area. The design process for the Critical Care Surgery Addition shall include an architectural and acoustical study to insure the inclusion of optimal acoustical screening of the loading dock area by that addition. Subsequent to the construction of the Critical Care Surgery Addition, an additional acoustical study shall be conducted to assess the sound attenuation achieved by that addition. If no significant sound attenuation is achieved, the hospital shall submit an architectural and acoustical study assessing the feasibility and sound attenuation implications of enclosing the loading dock area. If enclosure is determined to be physically feasible and effective in reducing noise impacts along the service access road, enclosure shall be required. Any enclosure required pursuant to this requirement may encroach into any required setback upon the review and approval of a Modification as set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. R9PrujedsWewpurtW008Wevlsed ISVnitiM Study- 051W7.d 46 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study e) For a project located 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not located within any airport land use plan, and is located more than two miles away from the closest public or public use airport or private airstrip. No further assessment in the SEIR is therefore required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. As previously discussed, Hoag Hospital has an existing helipad. The proposed project would not alter the location or demand for helicopter usage. Final EIR No. 142 acknowledges that increases in population, and use of hospital facilities, may result in an increased need for emergency helicopter service. Final EIR No. 142 also states that because this activity is subject to a Conditional Use Permit, it was not considered a part of the project. The amendment does not propose any substantial changes from what was addressed in Final EIR No. 142. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —Would the Amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate a substantial growth in population beyond what was addressed in Final EIR No. 142. Final EIR No. 142 identified no impacts in terms of population, employment, or housing. The project proposes the reallocation of up to 225,000 sf from the Lower to the Upper Campus. The level of development at the Hoag Hospital Campus is consistent with the City General Plan and with regional growth projections. The project does not provide excess infrastructure capacity that would support substantial population growth. The project would provide for increased employment. Short-term employment opportunities would be available during construction although it is anticipated that these employment opportunities could be filled by the local labor pool. With the overall growth in the size of the facilities at Hoag Hospital, there would be an increase in long -term employment opportunities, although this would be expected to be nominal. Although not expected to be significant, the potential for growth inducement on the remaining land on the Hoag Hospital site will be addressed in the SEIR. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. There is no existing or planned housing at Hoag Hospital. Therefore, no housing or persons will be displaced as apart of the implementation of the proposed R: \PmjWs \New onU0=RevisM IS\Initial SWny- 05107.doc 47 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv Master Plan project. Because the project boundaries are the same as the existing facility, no impacts would occur. This issue will therefore not be addressed in the SEIR. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which 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? Police Protection? Potentially Significant Impact. The redistribution of development on the site may result in greater traffic volumes at key intersections. The SEIR will address the potential effects of redistribution of traffic on emergency service access to the site in the traffic analysis to be prepared for the SEIR. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment. 91. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by the City Public Works and Fire Department. 94. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. Schools? No Impact. The change in intensity of the Upper Campus would not result in impacts to schools. The project is not proposing any uses that would generate additional students. Parks? No Impact. As a part of the Master Plan, a 0.28 -acre public view park, Sunset View Park, and a 0.52 -acre linear view park were provided. The park was provided as a project amenity to the community. No impacts were identified in Final EIR No. 142. The reallocation of square footage requested as a part of the project would not result in any new significant impacts. Other Public Facilities? No Impact. The project would not be expected to have impacts to other public facilities. No impacts were identified in Final EIR No. 142; the proposed reallocation of square footage associated with the proposed project is not expected to result any new significant impacts. R;Wf0leolsWewWMtl J00MRevis,, IS1lnitiel Study-051007,d= 48 CITY of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact As a part of the Master Plan, a 0.28 -acre public view park, Sunset View Park, and a 0.52 -acre linear view park were provided, as noted in XIII. The park was provided as a project amenity to the community. No impacts were identified in Final EIR No. 142. The reallocation of square footage requested as a part of the project would not result in any new significant impacts. Mitigation Measures No Longer Required The following mitigation measure was adopted and has been implemented. This mitigation measure is no longer required. 47. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate and grade the proposed linear and consolidated view park as identified in the project description (Figure 3.2.1). The Project Sponsor will dedicate land for a 0.28 -acre consolidated view park and a 0.52 -acre linear view park. XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION —Would the Amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Potentially Significant Impact. The project has the potential to generate short-term construction- related and long -term operational traffic. A Traffic Study will be prepared to evaluate implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan project. The traffic study is anticipated to include the following components: (1) identification of existing traffic conditions on the project site and in the traffic study area; (2) evaluation of existing conditions with buildout of the Master Plan; (3) evaluation of future traffic conditions with the addition of cumulative projects but without the proposed project; and (4) evaluation of future traffic conditions with the addition of cumulative projects and the proposed project. R:Wrgems N.Pp tJ008\Re ised ISlnitiW Study- 05100].dac 49 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures The following traffic measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment. 25. The Project Sponsor shall conduct a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis for each Master Plan development project. The analysis shall identify potential intersection impacts, the proposed project traffic volume contributions at these impacted intersections, and the schedule for any intersection improvements identified as necessary by the study to ensure a satisfactory level of service as defined by the TPO. This report shall be approved by the City prior to commencement construction of the development project. 29. The project shall comply with the City of Newport Beach Transportation Demand Management Ordinance approved by the City Council pursuant to the County's Congestion Management Plan. 33. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits for Master Plan development that includes new, or modifications to existing, internal roadways (other than service roads), the Project Sponsor will prepare an internal circulation plan for submittal to and approval by the Director of Public Works that identifies all feasible measures to eliminate internal traffic congestion and facility's ingress and egress to the site. All feasible measures identified in this study shall be incorporated into the site plan. 101. In conjunction with the application for a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit a construction phasing and traffic control plan for each phase of development. This plan would identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc.). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off-peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 103. The Project Sponsor shall provide advance written notice of temporary traffic disruptions to affected area business and the public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to disruptions. 104. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that construction activities requiring more than 16 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour, such as excavation and concrete pours, shall be limited between June 1 and September 1 to avoid traffic conflicts with beach and tourist traffic. At all other times, such activities shall be limited to 25 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Haul operations will be monitored by the Public Works Department and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion problems arise. Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision Mitigation Measure 27 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. It is recommended that this measure be updated to reflect the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements. RAProjed$ NewpogU008%Revieed lSUnWal Study-051007.doc 50 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Stxikee- t-te*t is used to show deleted wording and italic teat is used to show wording that has been added. 111 develepraeRt. For the Master Plan development project, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a Project Trip Generation Study in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) guidelines and to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to permit issuance for future phases. Mitigation Measure 28 has been updated to reflect changes to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's rules and regulations. 28. The Project Sponsor shall continue to comply with all applicable regulations adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District that. pertain to trip reductions such as Regulatien 15 Rule 2202. Mitigation Measure 35 has been updated to reflect the City's Trip Reduction Plan. The original mitigation measure stated, "all applicable regulations adopted by the Southern California Air Quality Management District that pertain to trip reductions such as Regulation 15." Since the project was approved, the South Coast Air Quality Management District has delegated the development and implementation of trip reduction plans to the local jurisdictions. 35. As eachMaster Plan project is constructed, the Project Sponsor shall provide each new employee a packet outlining the available ridesharing services and programs and the number of the Transportation Coordinator. All new employees shall be included in the yearly update of the trip reduction plan for Hoag Hospital, as Fequired by Regulatien X in compliance with the City of Newport Beach Trip Reduction Plan. Mitigation Measure 102 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. This IS recommends this measure be modified to clarify that haul route plans are not required to be submitted as a part of a Grading Plan Application. 102. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Sunh routes Mitigation Measure 108 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. It is recommended that this measure be modified to require a Trip Reduction Plan only in cases where the number of construction employees would be 50 or greater. 108. Prior to issuance of any grading and building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit a Trip Reduction Plan for construction crew members where the number of construction employees would be 50 or greater. This plan shall identify RiPr0t805�New00rtV00M\ ised Mnitial Study- 05100Tdoc 51 City of Newport Beach measures, such as ride - sharing an d traveled by construction crews. The City Traffic Engineer. Mitigation Measures No Longer Required Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study transit incentives, to reduce vehicle miles plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Mitigation Measure 26 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. This measure applied to Phase I of the project and has been implemented. Further tracking of this mitigation measure through the Mitigation Monitoring. Program is no longer necessary. A new traffic analysis is required for all phases (subsequent to Phase 1) in compliance with the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Therefore, the following measure would not be applicable to the proposed Master Plan Amendment project: 26. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I of the project, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. This study shall determine if the traffic to be generated by existing plus Phase I development will not exceed 1,338 PM peak hour traffic trips. In the event the Traffic Engineer determines that existing plus Phase I development will generate more than 1,338 PM peak hour trips, the project shall be reduced in size or the mix of land uses will be altered to reduce the PM peak hour trips to, at, or below 1,338. Mitigation Measure 31 was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented. 31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any of the proposed Master Plan facilities, the Project Sponsor shall implement a program, approved by the City Traffic Engineer, that monitors and manages usage of the Upper and Lower Campus service roads during non - working hours. Such controls may include requesting that the majority of vendors deliver products (other than emergency products) during working hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.), signage to restrict use of the road by hospital employees, physicians, patients and visitors during non - working hours, and other methods by which to restrict use. The hospital shall also request that vendors not deliver (i.e., scheduled and routine deliveries) on the weekends. This restriction specifically applies to scheduled and routine deliveries. The results of this program shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of the grading permit. If the results indicate that such controls do not significantly impact the operations of the hospital, and provided that requests for specified vendor delivery times is consistent with future Air Quality Management Plan procedures, the City may require that the program be implemented as hospital policy. If operation impacts are significant, other mitigation measures would be investigated at the time to reduce service road impacts to the adjacent residential units. Mitigation Measure 34 was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and repeats the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements. 34. Depending on actual site build -out, intersection improvements may be required at the Hospital Road (Upper Campus access) Placentia Avenue Intersection and at the WCH (Lower Campus access) intersection. The need for these R:Projem \NewponVJDWRevised Minitial Study- M1007.dm 52 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study improvements shall be assessed during subsequent traffic studies to be conducted in association with Mitigation Measure 25. C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. No changes are proposed in the Master Plan project that would result in unsafe conditions to motorists or pedestrians due to design features or incompatible uses. A study of on -site traffic circulation will be conducted as a part of the SEIR to address emergency access. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measure The following measure was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan Amendment. 95. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Fire Department that all existing and new access roads surrounding the project site shall be designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless the accessway meets minimum width requirements of the Public Works and Fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width. Also see Mitigation Measure 91 under Public Services f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (PC Text) (adopted on May 26, 1992, as amended) all parking for the hospital must be provided on the site in surface lots, subterranean lots, and /or parking structures. Parking requirements are set forth in the PC Text. The proposed amendments would not alter the parking requirements associated with implementation of the proposed Master Plan project. Anticipated parking requirements associated with the Master Plan buildout will be identified in the SEIR. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 32. Prior to issuance of approvals for development phases subsequent to Phase I, the applicant shall submit to the City Traffic Engineer for his /her review and approval, a study that identifies the appropriate parking generation rates. The findings of this study shall be based on empirical or survey data for the proposed parking rates. R: ProjedSVewportVOWRevfsed IRNnifia study- 051007.doc 63 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial study g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. Final EIR No. 142 noted that implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan would contribute to an increased demand for public transit. Although Final EIR No. 142 did not consider this to be a significant impact, Mitigation Measure 30 was incorporated to ensure accessibility of transit service for employees, visitors, and patrons of Hoag Hospital. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. This issue was adequately addressed in Final EIR No. 142 and will not be further evaluated in the SEIR. Mitigation Measures Proposed for Revision Mitigation Measure 30 was adopted as part of the Final EIR No. 142. Minor modification to the wording of the measure is recommended to reflect that the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), not the City, would determine the location for bus turnouts. The recommended changes are shown below. StFikeout text is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. This measure would continue to apply to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan, and would apply to the project, as amended. 30. In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for employees, visitors and patrons of the Hospital, the following transit amenities shall be incorporated into the Master Plan project: Bus turnouts shall be installed ifrl —as required by the City Traffic Engineer after City consultation with OCTA, at all current bus stop locations adjacent to the project site. Bus turnouts shall be installed in accordance with standard design guidelines as indicated in OCTA's Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities. Please also refer to Mitigation Measure 108 above (XV.a —b), and Air Quality Mitigation Measure 38. (Ill.a —c) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects and /or would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? RBProj.MNs wp.nlJ00MRevi..d IS inidal Study- 051007.doc 54 City of Newport Bea Ch Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which services or may serve the project that has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. Final Program EIR No. 142 addressed potential impacts to utility and service systems. The document noted that there was adequate water supply to serve buildout of the Master Plan project. Service connections would be taken from the existing 16 -inch City water main that runs east -west in a dedicated City easement on the residential side of the property line. Connections are private lines. Further, Final Program EIR No. 142 noted that there is a sewer line in West Coast Highway to serve the project. The potential need to expand the existing 15 -inch City sewer trunk main was identified and addressed in Final EIR No. 142. PreviouslyAdoi)ted Miti4ation Measures The following mitigation measures were adopted as part of the Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the project. 92. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate that final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water- saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. The Project Sponsor will also comply with any other City adopted water conservation policies. 93. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a master plan of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared for the site. The Project Sponsor shall verify the adequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and construct any modifications or facilities necessitated by the proposed project development. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant. Final EIR No. 142 did not identify any significant impacts regarding the ability to provide adequate disposal capacity for municipal solid waste and infectious waste material. The project would not substantially alter the amount of solid waste being generated by the project. New regulations pertaining to solid waste disposal have been implemented since the certification of Final EIR No. 142. The California Integrated Waste Management Board requires that all counties have an approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan ( CIWMP). To be approved, the CIWMP must demonstrate sufficient solid waste disposal capacity for at least 15 years, or identify additional capacity outside the County's jurisdiction. Orange County's CIWMP, approved in 1996, contains future solid waste disposal demand based on the County population projections adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The Orange County landfill system has capacity in excess of 15 years. Though no significant impact is anticipated as a result of the project, the following new mitigation measure would apply to the project to further reduce impacts on County land fills. RdProjees\Nmport J008\Rwised lS \Initial SWdy061007.do , 55 City or Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Proposed New Mitigation Measure During project construction, the Contractor shall be required, to the extent practicable, to take concrete and asphalt from project demolition to an off -site recycling location to minimize impacts to existing landfills. The Contractor shall provide the City of Newport Beach Building Department verification that the materials have been recycled. References Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR). 2007 (April). EDR Site Report for 1 Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California (Prepared for the BonTerra Consulting). Millford, CT: EDR. LSA Associates, Inc. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 142 for Hoag Hospital Master Plan, SCH #89061429 (Prepared for the City of Newport Beach). Irvine, CA: LSA Associates, Inc. Newport Beach, City of. 1992 (May). Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations. Newport Beach, CA: the City. 2006. Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach, CA: the City. South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). 2005 (February). Hoag Hospital Records Search (Prepared for BonTerra Consulting). Fullerton, CA: SCCIC. R:TrojeCslNewpon\ID08 \Rwised I&nitid Study- 051007.d.c 56 City of Newport Beach a Linda S. Adams Secretary for Environmental Protection June 11, 2007 Department of Toxic Substances Control Maureen F. Gorsen, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Mr. James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 R RECEM BY Arnold Schwarzenegger PLANNING DEPARTMENT Governor JUN 15 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) FOR HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT (SCH# 1991071003) Dear Mr. Campbell: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted document for the above - mentioned project. As stated in your document: `The project proposes amendments to the Development Agreement, General Plan, and PC Text ". Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has comments as follows: 1) The EIR should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project site may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes /substances. 2) The El 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. 9 Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. James Campbell June 11, 2007 Page 2 • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA. • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. • Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452 -3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). 3) The 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. If hazardous materials or wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and /or the environment should be evaluated. It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state laws, regulations and policies. 4) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the appropriate agency, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction. Mr. James Campbell June 11, 2007 Page 3 5) If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a 'Border Zone Property." 6) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 7) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by the appropriate government agency might have to 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. 8) 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. 9) If the site was used for agricultural purposes or if weed abatement may have occurred, onsite soils may contain pesticide and agricultural chemical residue. If the project area was used for poultry, dairy and/or cattle industry operations, the soil may contain related dairy, animal, or hazardous waste. If so, activities at the site may have contributed to soil and groundwater contamination. Proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to construction of the project. 10) If during construction /demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction /demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exists, the EIR should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight. Mr. James Campbell June 11, 2007 Page 4 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. AI Shami, Project Manager, at (714) 484 -5472 or at "ashami @ DTSC.ca.gov ". Sincerely, J Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress cc: 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 #1667 STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY WCEDIED RV ARNOLD SCHW AR7.FNEGGER Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT District 12 e 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 JUN 7 2007 Irvine, CA 92612.8894 Tel: (949) 724 -2241 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F: (949) 724 -2592 Fler your power! Fm: Be energy efflecien[7 June 1, 2007 Mr. James Campbell File: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH #: 1991071003 3300 Newport Boulevard Log #: 1546A Newport Beach, California 92663 SR -1, SR -55 Subject: Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment. The project consists of amendment of the Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital to allow up to 225,000 sq ft. of authorized development to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. The project site is located at One Hoag Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The nearest State Routes to the project site are Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and SR -55. Caltrans District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Marlon Regisford at (949) 724 -2241. Sincerely, Ryatf Chamberlam, Branch Ch1ef Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "Caltrans improves mobility across California" aj South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4182 (909) 396 -2000 . www.agmd.gov Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Campbell: May 25, 2007 RECEIVED IN PLANW4G DEPARTMENT MAY 2 9 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Hone Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment 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 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (1S/EA). Please send the SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. In addition, please send with the IS/EA EIR all appendices or technical documents related 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 all supporting air quality documentation will reouire additional time for review beyond the end of the comment period. Air Ouality Analysis The SCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 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 from 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 aamd von /cMa/models html 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 both construction (including demolition, if any) 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- loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off-road mobile sources (e.g., heavy -duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport hips). 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 calculating PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 significance thresholds can be found at the following internet address: bo://www.agmd.g-oy/cega/imdbook/PM2 5/PM2 5 html Mr. James Campbell -2- May 25, 2007 In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts the SCAQMD recommends calculating localized au quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LST'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 au quality analysis can be found at hM://www.agmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LSTILST.htrni. It is recommended that lead agencies for projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy -duty diesel - fueled vehicles, perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment ( "Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis ") can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA webpages at the following intemet address: htti)://www.gqmd.gov/cqa/handbook(mobile tonic /mobile toxiahmill. An analysis of all tonic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such au pollutants should also be included Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, please refer to Chapter l l 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.g=d.gov/c2qwhandbook/niifigation/MM intro.himl 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 intemet address: ht tp:// www. agmmd .gov /nrdas /agggide/MgWde.html. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective, which can be found at the following intemet address: htty : / /www.arb.ca.gov /ch/bandbook mif Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)(1)), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public Information Center at (909) 396 -2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the SCAQMD's World Wide Web Homepage @M: / /www.agmd.gov). 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 this letter. Sincerely, Jae 5 Steve Smith, PhD. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources SS:CB:h ORC070516 -02L1 Control Number DRAFT 19 June 2007 To: James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 From: Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) Subject: Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOP /IS) dated May 11, 2007 EQAC is please to submit comments on the subject NOP/IS in hopes of making the proposed Hoag Hospital expansion better for the city and citizens of Newport Beach. Per advice on page 1 of the NOP, EQAC has limited comments to the noise issues that were raised in the NOR Discussion on pages 44 -45 of the IS states that increases in noise level at the Hoag Hospital property line result from reallocation of development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus, and states that a noise Study will be presented in the forthcoming SEIR. The SEIR should clearly point out: I. What specific "reallocations of development" are planned? 2. Why is the City Noise Ordinance being used in place of the original noise requirements (i.e. 55 db at Hoag Hospital property lines as noted on page 3 and 4 of the NOP)? What new mitigation measures (MM) are proposed to deal with the newly added noise issues? On page 45, the IS states MM 39 which includes "noise barriers (wall, berm, combination wall/berm)" as common methods of alleviating objectionable noise. The SEIR should explain why these or other MM's are not adequate to resolve that noise problems expected now. What are the sources of noise that require mitigation? Please identify new technologies and procedures and approaches that may be feasibly employed to mitigate equipment noise impacts. On page 46, MM 119 proposes that "non- vehicular activities, such as operation of the trash compactor, ... shall be operated only between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm daily ". The SEIR should explain why days and hours of operation of such noises should not be more severely curtailed! On page 4 of the NOP, curtailment of grease pit cleaning operation to Saturday only from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm is proposed. The SEIR should explain why such restrictions cannot be placed on the trash compactor and other non - vehicular noises. Will additional development increase the need for additional trash compactors and other noise - generating equipment in the existing service drive area? Is another location for such equipment, further removed from the adjacent residences, feasible? On page 46 of the IS. It is stated that MM 114 and 115 are no longer needed because they have already been implemented. Has it been shown that those MM fulfill the original intended requirements? Are the original requirements modified/changed as the result of the new "reallocation of development "? On page 47 the discussion supporting item I. asserts that increases in population and hospital utilization may result in increased need for emergency helicopter service (with the attendant increased noise), but is not considered part of this project because it is ultimately subject to the Conditional Use Permit. Isn't it necessary (or at least wise) to deal with these expected noise problems now? Delaying mitigation could result in measures that are more expensive and/or technically not feasible compared with dealing with them now. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject NOPAS. We trust that the EQAC comments will be useful to the proponents and dealt with in the forthcoming SEIR. From: "Campbell, James" < JCampbell@city.newport- beach.ca.us> To: "DanaPrivitt" < DPrivitt @bonterraconsulting.cwm> Date: 6/12/2007 9:40 AM Subject: FW: Notice of Preparation FYI. From: Stephen Osterman [mailto:ibay4u @yahoo.coml Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:20 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Jeffrey R Binkley; Walter Granath; James Nehez; Ron Seigrist Subject: Notice of Preparation James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Campbell Thank you for sending us The Notice of Preparation regarding the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment. I am currently on the Board of Directors of Newport Beach Townhomes Home Owners Association. As you may know NBTH is located directly across PCH from the Hoag Lower Campus and directly next to Balboa Coves. We are very concerned about Hoag's request to change the sound levels at the Hospital to allow higher levels of sound. My understanding is that they want to change from Cal Trans highest acceptable decibel levels to City of Newport Beach highest acceptable decibel levels which are more lenient to the Hospital. The City Levels would allow higher levels of noise than would the Cal Trans specs. We are currently suffering daily from the outside temporary generator that Hoag has employed while they workout problems with their inside generator system. We still haven't been informed how many more days the hospital will have to use this very noisy temporary generator. Prior to the city approving Hoag's request we would like the opportunity to speak with you and Hoag officials directly regarding the sound portion of this proposed amendment. We are apposed to the levels of noise in this area being raised in any way. Please let me know when we may meet to discuss this issue. Sincerely Stephen Osterman Bayside Realty & Investments 949 - 722 -7153 phone 949 - 722 -8720 fax 949 - 500 -2144 cell 4425 W. Coast hwy. Newport Beach, CA. 92663 VILLA BALBOA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HOAG HOSPITAL LIAISON EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 200 Paris Lane #208 Newport Beach, CA 92663 June 11, 2007 James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915 Subject: NOP, Hoag Master Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) for the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment. These comments are submitted by the Hoag Hospital Liaison Executive Committee on behalf of the Villa Balboa Community Association. The project will entail amendment of the Newport Beach General Plan, Planned Community text, and previously adopted Development Agreement. The NOP indicates that the topics anticipated to be addressed in the SEIR would be the following: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Land Use • Noise • Traffic /Circulation We respectfully suggest that other areas, such as public services and recreation, also be added, as discussed below. The Proiect It is our understanding that the changes will permit up to 225,000 square feet of allowable development to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. The NOP does not provide information as to specific use or configuration of the transferred development. Presumably, the applicant would not be proposing a transfer absent plans for a specific development. It is imperative that the specific development be addressed now. To do otherwise would violate the intent and purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on two fronts. First, it would constitute improper piecemealing of the proposed project. Second, it would violate CEQA's requirement that environmental analysis be conducted as early as possible in the planning process. The applicant also proposed to relax the previously agreed upon noise standard for the site. We note that the existing noise limit of 55dB at the property line for Hoag Hospital is consistent with the Municipal Code Section 10.26.025 which specifies a maximum allowable noise level (Leq) in residential districts of 55 dBA in daytime and evening and 50 dBA at night. The Code further specifies that: B. It is 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 person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property [emphasis added], to exceed either of the following: 1. The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen - minute period; 2. A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) DBA for any period of time (measured using A- weighted slow response).... We note that the specified noise limits apply not only to the zoning district in which the subject property is located but to the zoning district of adjacent property, and that the Code specifies that where two noise zones abut, the lower noise standard shall apply . It appears that the noise limits requested by the applicant are more consistent with those specified for industrial districts under the Code, although the project site is adjacent to residential properties. Further, the applicant is suggesting that the loading docks be exempt from any applicable noise standards. This raises the question as to whether a variance or zoning amendment is contemplated as well. This must be clarified. Aesthetics 1. The applicant proposed to eliminate the requirement for certain visual screening along the service road adjacent to Villa Balboa. It is noted that this area includes loading docks, trash bins, and other visually unattractive areas. The SEIR must address how this change will affect the adjacent residences. 2. Depending on specific uses and energy requirements of those uses, the proposed development could increase demand for power generated by the existing cogeneration plant. The SEIR must address visual impacts of this operation, such as view blockage by steam condensate and heat plumes emitted from rooftop exhaust ports, from both residential areas, Villa Balboa and Newport Crest, and nearby recreational facilities including the bike trail and Sunset View Park, as well as the visual impact on residents and visitors traveling on West Coast Highway. Air Oualitv 1. The air quality analysis must address not only PMIO, but PM2.5. inasmuch as the finer particles are the most injurious to human health. 2. The air quality analysis must address greenhouse gases, particularly as it relates to any increased operation of the cogeneration facility. 3. The air quality analysis must address not only overall emissions but pollution hot spots. 4. The air quality analysis must address aesthetic impacts from the cooling tower and exhaust port plumes. Biological Resources With respect to the cogeneration plant, how does the release of condensate from the cooling towers, steam from the roof of the plant, and heat plumes emitted from rooftop exhaust ports, from the cogeneration plan affect passing wildfowl? The SEIR must address how this could increase as a result of the proposed project. Hazards 1'. The existing medical facility utilizes radioactive material and generates biowaste. Are the amounts generated consistent with the amounts anticipated in previous environmental analyses? This must be addressed in the SEIR. 2. The SEIR must address how generation of biowaste and radioactive waste would be affected by the proposed project. 3. Any effect on haul routes must be addressed. 4. Existing biowaste storage at the westerly portion of the site, adjacent to the service road, is occasionally left uncovered and is moved and sorted by individuals wearing biohazard protection outdoors, in an area open to passerby and nearby residences. The SEIR must address any increases in this activity that may occur as a result of the proposed project and the affect on nearby residents. 5. Has the sampling and analysis protocol noted in Condition 77 been implemented? Where may the public view the data collected? Land Use and Planning We are concerned as to the precedent the proposed project will represent with regard to its carte blanche exemption of loading docks from any noise standard and its relaxation of existing standards for other hospital activities. The SEIR must examine the potential for setting a precedent and the cumulative impact that could result. We note that noise generation is a key factor in determining land use compatibility. Noise The noise analysis must address the impact of operations at the maximum extent of the proposed noise limits. 2. The noise analysis (sound level tests) must be conducted at multiple points along the north, west and south Hoag property lines immediately adjacent to the cogeneration plant. (We respectfully request advance notification of the date and time at which these tests will be conducted in order that we might observe the conduct and location of the sound measures.) 3. The noise analysis must address the frequency at which the maximum 15 minute Leq will occur. 4. The noise analysis must address the potential for setting a precedent elsewhere. 5. The noise analysis must address changes in the noise environment due to increases in traffic of alteration of traffic patterns. 6. The noise analysis must address increases in noise due to any increases in cogeneration operations as a result of the proposed project. Public Services The SEIR must address how the reallocation of allowable development and changes in traffic patterns may affect emergency response times by police and fire personnel. Recreation The SEIR must address the affect the project would have on the adjacent bike trail and on Sunset View Park, specifically: 1. How will the project affect noise levels on the bike trail and the park? 2. How would any increase in demand for cogeneration operations affect views and noise levels for bicyclists and park visitors? With respect to views, items of particular concern are the condensate plumes from the cooling towers, and the heat plumes from the rooftop exhaust ports. Transportation The SEIR must address how the reallocation of allowable development may affect use of the westerly service road on the Hoag site and cut - through traffic in Newport Heights. Utilities The SEIR must address how the reallocation of allowable development may affect specific infrastructure elements such as water and sewer lines. Cumulative Impacts All impacts must be addressed in the context of past, present and reasonably anticipated future growth at Hoag Hospital and the surrounding area. While individual impacts of the proposed project may appear to be less than significant, they are indeed significant when added to the impacts of past growth at Hoag and elsewhere. Were data exist for actual, completed projects versus impacts anticipated in an EIR, the actual data must be utilized. Ongoing Monitoring We were dismayed and disappointed to learn that previously mandated annual reviews of Hoag operations had not occurred. We are thus concerned that mitigation measures adopted for the proposed project actually be implemented and enforced. Any project approvals must include greater assurances that mitigation measures and ongoing monitoring will occur in fact. Conclusion Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please keep us informed as this project moves forward. Please feel free to contact us at your convenience with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Dick Runyon, Chair, Hoag Hospital Liaison Executive Committee 949 - 400 -0569 (Cell) Erik Thurnher Co- Chair, Hoag Hospital Liaison Executive Committee 408 - 234 -7300 (Cell) 9 NOTICE OF PREPARATION April 15, 2005 To: Reviewing /agencies and Other Interested Parties From: Patricia Temple, City of Newport Beach Planning Director Subject: Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment The purpose of this notice is: (1) to serve as the Notice of Preparation to potential "Responsible Agencies" as required by the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15082; and (2) to advise and solicit comments and suggestions regarding the preparation of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), environmental issues to be addressed in the SEIR, and any related issues from interested parties other than potential 'Responsible Agencies," including interested or affected members of the public. The City of Newport Beach, as Lead Agency, requests that any potential Responsible or Trustee Agency responding to this notice respond in a manner consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(b). Pursuant to CEQA Section 21080.4, Responsible Agencies must submit any comments in response to this notice no later than 30 days after receipt. The City will accept comments from others regarding this notice through the close of business, May 18, 2005. All comments or other responses to this notice should be submitted in writing to: David Lepo, Contract Project Manager Hogle- Ireland, Inc. 42 Corporate Park, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92606 The City of Newport Beach will also accept responses to this notice by e-mail received through the close of business, May 18, 2005. If e-mail comments are submitted with attachments, it is recommended that the attachments be delivered in writing to the address specified above. The virus protection measures and variety of formats for attachments can limit the ability for the attachments to be delivered. E -mail responses to this notice may be sent to: diepo@hogleireland.com. Project Location Hoag Hospital is an existing facility located at One Hoag Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The approximately 38 -acre site is generally bounded by Hospital Road to the north, West Coast Highway to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and residential development and Superior Avenue to the west. Sunset View Park is a linear /consolidated park that extends along much of the northern boundary of the Lower Campus and separates the hospital from the Villa Balboa and Seafaire condominiums. A regional location map, local vicinity map, and project site map are provided as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, respectively. RdPmjecWWmpW\JOW8 NOP\NOP -041405.doc Project Background In 1992, the City of Newport Beach certified the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final EIR No. 142 for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan and adopted the "Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations" (PC Text). In 1994, the City adopted Ordinance No. 94 -8 approving 'Development Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian." The PC Text and the Development Agreement set forth the development standards and terms and conditions by which the Hoag Hospital site may be developed and include maximum permissible building area, building height limits, and permitted land uses. The existing PC Text allows up to 1,343,238 square feet ( sq.ft.) of medical facility and related uses on the Hoag Hospital site. Of the total 1,343,238 sq.ft. of allowable building area, 765,349 sq.ft. are allocated to the Upper Campus and 577,889 sq.ft. are allocated to the Lower Campus. The PC Text does not specify building locations or specific building uses; however, permitted uses for each of the two campuses are listed in the PC Text. Permitted uses on the Lower Campus are categorized as Outpatient Services, Administration, Support Services, and Residential Care. Permitted uses on the Upper Campus are categorized as Hospital Facilities including Inpatient Uses, Accessory Uses, and Temporary Structures. In 2002, the City Council approved the first amendment to the PC Text. The first amendment changed the definition of "Gross Floor Area Entitlement' so that certain non-occupied building areas are not counted toward the maximum permissible building floor areas for the project site. Project Description The project consists of amendment of the "Development Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian," amendment of the General Plan, and amendment of the "Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations" (PC Text). Amendment of the Development Agreement would allow the Newport Beach City Council the discretion to approve a request by Hoag Hospital to amend the Development Agreement and the PC Text to increase the maximum allowable building area on the Hoag Hospital site, provided that dhe increase in the maximum allowable building area is to accommodate the physical plant support functions of the previously constructed 24,215 square -foot cogeneration facility. An increase in the maximum allowable building area for the Hoag Hospital site by 24,215 sq.ft. could be approved because the cogeneration facility does not materially increase vehicle trip generation. The Land Use Element of the General Plan currently includes Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for the Hoag Hospital site as the means to define maximum allowable building area. Based on a 1.0 FAR for the Upper Campus (Hoag Hospital Statistical Subarea) and a 0.65 FAR for the Lower Campus (Hoag Hospital Expansion Subarea), the current General Plan maximum allowable building areas are 765,349 sq.ft. (17.57 acres x 43,560 sq.ft. x 1.0 FAR) for the Upper Cam pus and 577,889 sq.ft. (20.41 acres x 43,560 sq.ft. x 0.65 FAR) for the Lower Campus, for a total of 1,343,238 sq.ft. Vacation of an unused easement by the City of Newport Beach, if approved by the City Council, could add 8,603 sq.ft. to the Lower Campus site and increase the maximum allowable building area by an additional 5,592 sq.ft. (8,603 sq.ft, x 0.65 FAR). The total maximum allowable building area for the Hoag Hospital site pursuant to the existing Land Use Element including that attributable to the land area of the easement proposed to be vacated is 1,348,830 sq.ft. R:%Prodeck N. dW0081NOP \NOPL41405.d.c 2 16 a. Gi1 VIG,nrvHle 126 Santa Clad[a I '- ��qE - •118 �J` _ Siml VelinY._ _ „p J 170 • _•..•., -+ 1) GWnde, Ra.rcno .\ '...._. u<- Cala0asas 2 Pasadena . ` ' 27 .110 i ' 2 , — 710 West Hollys e d ..- --1anIN Plamta III WestCOVma Ontario `..i IB' - .x 6a —nfJc - _. WMaer 132 22 -B 71 HawMOme - "'`'` Lt 1 9U Yuma Lied - . "• ... 91 5] -. 19 Lakewood_? 21i 'Buena '+^ \IIJ BI'llll v Carson 241 _r Paton V.,d.s Ielq Wdstel eslei' 22 - SealBeacn Sanla Ana ' 26: J5 55 '. .. Hamingten Costa Raka 26' Beacn In inc "8ancno bmua Margarrt» Ne WpM Mhbmn Project .rn Location .; - - Leguea Beacn Santa Cabkna Witted Regional Location Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment N rv�E 0 5 G Q 77 Mdes San Juan WWanano Sae Clemettfe - Exhibit 1 C 0 N 5 V t 11 N �A��u Local Vicinity Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment T 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles Exhibit 2 CC) anusoe�a �v aimspm a. i :�... .;- a ? >d o' ,i Amendment of the General Plan would replace Floor Area Ratios with maximum allowable building.area as the means to define maximum development permitted on the Hoag Hospital site. This would eliminate the 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the Hoag Hospital Statistical Subarea (Upper Campus) of the Land Use Element and the 0.65 FAR for the Hoag Expansion Statistical Subarea (Lower Campus) of the Land Use Element. In place of FARs, an absolute, maximum allowable building area would be established for the entire Hoag Hospital site comprised of the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus. This maximum allowable building area would include that allowed by the current Land Use Element (1,343,238 sq.ft.), that attributable to the land area of the easement proposed to be vacated (5,592 sq.ft.), and 24,215 sq.ft. attributable to the previously constructed cogeneration facility, for a total allowable building area of 1,373,045 sq.ft. for the entire Hoag Hospital site. To allow future flexibility in building placement while limiting the intensity of building on the Lower Campus, the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element would establish a maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus of 990,349 sq.ft. and a maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus of 583,481 sq.ft. In no event could the building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,373,045 sq.ft. The PC Text would be amended to include the maximum allowable building area of 1,373,045 sq.ft for the entire Hoag Hospital site and to establish maximum allowable building areas of 538,481 sq.ft. for the Lower Campus and 990,349 sq.ft. for the Upper Campus, consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment. Other changes may be required in the Hoag Hospital PC Text to reflect and be consistent with changes to the Development Agreement and General Plan indicated above and /or to provide clarification of standards applicable to future development approvals. Use of a Supplemental EIR The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project requires the preparation of a Supplemental EIR (SEIR). CEQA Section 21166 provides that when an EIR "has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required by the lead or responsible agencies unless one of these events occurs. (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project that requires major revisions to the environmental Impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available." This is reflected in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which states that a subsequent EIR is required if: `(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or RAProj"WaxpwN0 NOPWOP-0 7905.Wc (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at.the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative." CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 allows a lead agency to prepare a supplement to an EIR when any of the conditions described in Section 15162 (stated above) would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, but only minor additions or changes are necessary to make a previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. Section 15163(b) further states, "the supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised" and `the supplement may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR." Anticipated Project Approvals The City of Newport Beach would need to make the following project approvals as part of the current amendment requests: • General Plan Amendment • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment • Development Agreement Amendment In addition, prior to initiation of construction other entitlements would be required. These include: • Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis • Coastal Development Permit (for development on the Lower Campus) • Building Permits • Grading Permit • Water Quality Management Plan • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Demolition Permit Additionally, the Development Agreement would need to be provided to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval; it should be noted that the California Coastal Commission is not a party to the original Development Agreement. Future implementation of the project would require permits and /or approvals from the following agencies: • California Coastal Commission • California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) • State Water Resources Control Board (NPDES permits) • South Coast Air Quality Management District R:IPrgec5lNewp.dOO %NOP NOP -041405.4. Anticipated Schedule The project schedule, as currently envisioned, anticipates a draft SEIR to Final EIR No. 142 to be available for public review in late summer 2005. A 45 -day public review period will be provided, after which responses to comments received will be prepared. A hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council are expected at the end of 2005. Master Plan implementation is expected to be phased through the year 2015. Probable Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project The SEIR will focus on those areas that may be affected by the proposed amendment to the Master Plan. The Final EIR will be relied upon for those topical areas where there have been no substantial changes since the previous EIR was certified and would not be affected by the proposed project. Topical areas to be addressed in the SEIR include: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Land Use • Noise • Public Services (police and fire services) • Transportation /Traffic The attached Environmental Checklist identifies the evaluation of environmental issues that will be addressed in the SEIR. Conclusion The City of Newport Beach requests your careful review and consideration of this notice, and it invites any and all input and comments from interested agencies and persons regarding the preparation of the proposed SEIR. R.1Projects Ne po J00 %NOP \NOP -041405.tlac Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: David Lepo, Hogle- Ireland Associates, Contract Project Manager to the City of Newport Beach, 949.553.1427 4. Project Location: One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California 5. General Plan Designation: Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities 6. Zoning Designation: Hoag Hospital Planned Community (PC) Text and District Regulations 7. Description of Project: The project consists of amendment of the "Development Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian," amendment of the General Plan, and amendment of the "Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations" (PC Text). The existing PC Text allows up to 1,343,238 square feet (sq.ft.) of medical facility and related uses on the Hoag Hospital site. Of the total 1,343,238 sq.ft. of allowable building area, 765,349 sq.ft. are allocated to the Upper Campus and 577,889 sq.ft. are allocated to the Lower Campus. Amendment of the Development Agreement would allow the Newport Beach City Council the discretion to approve a request by Hoag Hospital to amend the Development Agreement and the PC Text to increase the maximum allowable building area on the Hoag Hospital site, provided that the increase in the maximum allowable building area is to accommodate the physical plant support functions of the previously constructed 24,215 square -foot cogeneration facility. An increase in the maximum allowable building area for the Hoag Hospital site by 24,215 sq.ft. could be approved because the cogeneration facility does not materially increase vehicle trip generation. The Land Use Element of the General Plan currently includes Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for the Hoag Hospital site as the means to define maximum allowable building area. Based on a 1.0 FAR for the Upper Campus (Hoag Hospital Statistical Subarea) and a 0.65 FAR for the Lower Campus (Hoag Hospital Expansion Subarea), the current General Plan maximum allowable building areas are 765,349 sq.ft. (17.57 acres x 43,560 sq.ft. x 1.0 FAR) for the Upper Campus and 577,889 sq.ft. (20.41 acres x 43,560 sq.ft. x 0.65 FAR) for the Lower Campus, for a total of 1,343,238 sq.ft. Vacation of an unused easement by the City of Newport Beach, if approved by the City Council, could add 8,603 sq.ft. to the Lower Campus site and increase the maximum allowable building area by an additional 5,592 sq.ft. (8,603 sq.ft. x 0.65 FAR). The total maximum allowable building area for the Hoag Hospital site pursuant to the existing Land Use Element including that attributable to the land area of the easement proposed to be vacated is 1,348,830 sq.ft. Amendment of the General Plan would replace FARs with maximum allowable building area as the means to define maximum development permitted on the Hoag Hospital site. This would eliminate the 1.0 FAR for the Hoag Hospital Statistical Subarea (Upper Campus) of the Land Use Element and the 0.65 FAR for the Hoag Expansion Statistical Subarea (Lower Campus) of the Land Use Element. In place of FARs, an absolute, maximum allowable building area would be established for the entire Hoag Hospital site comprised of the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus. This maximum allowable building area would include that R]Pmiec %N pw WNMNOPVnIGal StudY -041405.dcc 1 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv allowed by the current Land Use Element (1,343,238 sq.ft.), that attributable to the land area of the easement proposed to be vacated (5,592 sq.ft.), and 24,215 sq.ft. attributable to the previously constructed cogeneration facility, for a total allowable building area of 1,373,045 sq.ft. for the entire Hoag Hospital site. To allow future flexibility in building placement while limiting the intensity of building on the Lower Campus, the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element would establish a maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus of 990,349 sq.ft. and a maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus of 583,481 sq,ft. In no event could the building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,373,045 sq.ft. The PC Text would be amended to include the maximum allowable building area of 1,373,045 sq.ft. for the entire Hoag Hospital site and to establish maximum allowable building areas of 538,481 sq.ft. for the Lower Campus and 990,349 sq.ft. for the Upper Campus, consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment. Other changes may be required in the Hoag Hospital PC Text to reflect and be consistent with changes to the Development Agreement and General Plan indicated above and /or to provide clarification of standards applicable to future development approvals. 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The approximately 38 -acre site is generally bounded by Hospital Road to the north, West Coast Highway to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and residential development and Superior Avenue to the west. Sunset View Park is a linear /consolidated park that extends along much of the northern boundary of the Lower Campus and separates the hospital from the Villa Balboa and Seafaire condominiums. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Approval of the amendments to the Hoag Hospital Planned Community Text would not necessitate approvals by other agencies. The Development Agreement would need to be provided to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval; it should be noted that the California Coastal Commission is not a party to the original Development Agreement. Future implementation of the project would require permits and /or approvals from the following agencies: • California Coastal Commission • California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) • State Water Resources Control Board (NPDES permit) • South Coast Air Quality Management District R ; \PrDjeDLSLINeWPDMUD=NORlnitial 5ludy041405ADC 2 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv 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. 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. ❑ 1 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 be the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because al 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed Name For RAPr.J.c0 N.pWQ0081NOPVn111e1 SWdy-041405.d.c 3 City of Newport Beach Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality J Land Use /Planning ❑ Mineral Resources Noise ❑ Population /Housing Public Services ❑ Recreation Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. ❑ 1 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 be the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because al 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed Name For RAPr.J.c0 N.pWQ0081NOPVn111e1 SWdy-041405.d.c 3 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as, well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. 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. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures 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. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. R:1Projec NewporWDWNOPVnibal SWdy-041405.tlnc 4 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study This checklist form is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The checklist form identifies potential project effects as follows: (1) Potentially Significant Impact; (2) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated; (3) Less Than Significant Impact; and, (4) No Impact. Substantiation and clarification for each checklist response is provided (Narrative Discussion commencing on page 13). Included in each discussion are mitigation measures, as appropriate, that are recommended for implementation as part of the proposed project. vo<t -t �at1t Potentiaft '.: t t" - tsss -nml _ sjmM a<4t- Uftatim Sta+ilCtcan a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ d Farmland of Statewide importance (Farmland), as a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ vista? 4 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ ❑ J .but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ d a Williamson Act contract? ❑ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ or quality of the site and its surroundings? which, due to their location or nature, could result in d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ J ❑ ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ d Farmland of Statewide importance (Farmland), as applicable air quality plan? shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 4 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ❑ ❑ ❑ d a Williamson Act contract? ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ d which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? be relied upon to make the #olli a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the J ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 4 ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase 4 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? RAPmJacN%l port1J0091NOPVniba1 Study-0 1405.doc 5 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study R:1RgecnlNewp Or JOaSWONniEal Study -041405.doc 6 City of Newport Beaoh ENYOONMENTALISSUES`; �4i�ti .'Lassa a" {Sae WdomBnts. for kft'rmation source _ 9aiHeastorw 11trn�nt ;' t+c tMia�t naxE ..a knP�ct; e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ J ❑ number of people? `Fit.. BIS�l:taHalGAt RESOURCES. Would;tlie eta: .: " , a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ J 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. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ J habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ J protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ ❑ J native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ J protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ J Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1/: ,. , SUE :T[lRA1.;ItE'StiUI�CES.;WOtdd fh�f?�1 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ J significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ J ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ J ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ J ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Vt. GEOLOGY ANt] SOILS. Wcwld the Piaoject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: R:1RgecnlNewp Or JOaSWONniEal Study -041405.doc 6 City of Newport Beaoh Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study .EWRONMENtAL ISSUES ilnfeas l than i) 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 other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ / ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ J ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ J ❑ ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, , lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ❑ ❑ ❑ 18 -1 -8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ❑ y use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS., Woultl fie- coiect. P a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ J ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located 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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? R:1Prgec %Nmpor1U00tMOP%Inidal Study -041405.Wc 7 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Indial Study g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ J ❑ ❑ an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ d loss, Injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ U J ❑ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ d ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater 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)? c) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ d ❑ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ j ❑ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner in which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ j ❑ ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ I ❑ g) Place housing within a 700 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ j as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 700 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ j structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ d loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ R:1MOCWWWPOm 0%KOPUW StudY-04 1405AW 8 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv R:1Prq.%@aw nWOQSWOMhtal Study -041405,tlo 9 City Nl/FRONMENiAt GSSUES r $ r r Than " ds� a hmerrts.tar rnfcN itiadan sct arcea=i srs rrc� r 61Mgatian s paq cmn �o 4npad knpad lX, ..IANtf USAf1t +ID,PisARINMNGwINsiutttltire "project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or J ❑ ❑ ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? X. - li9IN�RAL 'G�il1FiGESe;Woit►d#h� prat�ect ., - , a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? Xl. MOiSE: VttotAkd ItYe proj8ct t�sr�3n '; a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Xal!.. POP4t.ATt1?MAN i3 M[tU5[NG" s}Voiud itre',#iroject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ❑ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? R:1Prq.%@aw nWOQSWOMhtal Study -041405,tlo 9 City Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv R:1PrOjed Nex JON�NOPMniflaiSMY-0IM5.dDC 10 City of Newport Beach c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which 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? Police Protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public Facilities? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical affect on the environment? AA 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? R:1PrOjed Nex JON�NOPMniflaiSMY-0IM5.dDC 10 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study R:1PM.ec N.,p UOWNOPUmA SW 041405.d.c 11 City of Newport Beach SFgnifiCa�i ENVIRONMENTAILISSUES PotegtiaHy unless less TM an - {See attar hmerrts'%r in(crinaRivn so+ures) Sf{3ryilitaM.. = sAiHgaGon>&gnif{cant.#o :: CX.... . enacmoreteA kn m« impair ' g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ J supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Jr`YVi. tlFttfFIES'ANO' SERVICE "SYST�A7S.UVca�dtheP�i??� '::. ' a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ J ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ ❑ ❑ or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects ?? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑ ❑ J ❑ water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects and /or would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ❑ J ❑ the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ J ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ J ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ J ❑ regulations related to solid waste? XVII MANOATO FtNDIf�6S OE,91(aNIFIG`AA1GE: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ J ❑ ❑ 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 community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually J ❑ ❑ ❑ 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.) R:1PM.ec N.,p UOWNOPUmA SW 041405.d.c 11 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? R.IPr.pMe awpwl OOMNOMIWUal swdy.041405.doc 12 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv NARRATIVE DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION AESTHETICS —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? or C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final EIR No. 142 (1992) concluded that implementation of the Master Plan project in the Upper Campus would have no significant visual impact. Development in the Lower Campus area would have a "perceived significant impact for those residents who live to the north of the Lower Campus." The Master Plan project was also determined to incrementally contribute to significant impacts associated with shade and shadow effects. The existing PC Text allows up to 1,343,238 square feet ( sq.ft.) of medical facility and related uses on the Hoag Hospital site. Of the total 1,343,238 sq.ft. of allowable building area, 765,349 sq.ft. are allocated to the Upper Campus and 577,889 sq.ft. are allocated to the Lower Campus. As proposed, an amendment to the General Plan would establish a maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus of 990,349 sq.ft. and a maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus of 583,481 sq.ft. In no event could the building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,373,045 sq.ft. Intensification of the development on the Upper Campus has the potential of changing the visual character of the site from that assessed in the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Final EIR No. 142. While no new significant impacts are anticipated, the Supplemental EIR will provide a discussion of the changes that would result with the intensification of the Upper Campus. The character of the existing aesthetic environment and visual resources, including a discussion of views within the site and views from surrounding areas to the site will be identified. The visual assessment would be based, using visual simulations, on the anticipated levels of intensity, including maximum building heights (no changes in maximum building height are proposed as a part of the project), within the development areas of the site. No changes to setbacks are proposed. The compatibility of the project's height and intensity with the surrounding area will be assessed. Potential shade and shadow impacts will be determined where known. The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 43. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a landscape and irrigation plan is prepared for each building/improvement within the overall Master Plan. This plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. The plan shall be subject to review by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. R:1Pmje=Wmpo0UD08 NONritiai SluOy -041405.aec 13 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 45. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas will be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. 46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the rooftop of any structure on the Lower Campus. Rather, such buildings will have clean rooftops. Minor rooftop equipment necessary for operating purposes will comply with all building height criteria, and shall be concealed and screened to blend into the building roof using materials compatible with building materials. 48. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any Lower Campus structure, the Project Sponsor shall prepare a study of each proposed building project to assure conformance with the EIR view impact analysis and the PCDP and District Regulations, to ensure that the visual impacts identified in the EIR are consistent with actual Master Plan development. This analysis shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planning Department. In addition, the following mitigation measure was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented. This mitigation measure would no longer need to be tracked through mitigation monitoring. 116. The Project Sponsor shall pay 75% of the cost of planting thirty 24 -inch ficus trees (or the equivalent) in the berm between the service road and Villa Balboa southerly of the tennis courts. Planting shall occur on Villa Balboa property. Mitigation Measure 123 required screening devices for the windows of critical care /surgery that faced the Villa Balboa area. The critical care /surgery facility is not being implemented; therefore, this measure no longer applies. 123. The design of the critical care /surgery addition shall incorporate screening devices for the windows which face the Villa Balboa area for the purpose of providing privacy for residents, so long as these screening devices can be designed to meet the Hospital Building Code requirements regarding the provision of natural light to the facility. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The topography of the Upper Campus site has been modified from its original condition through grading and development of the site for the Hoag Hospital medical facilities. The Lower Campus is relatively flat and also has been developed with Hoag Hospital facilities. Hoag Hospital is located in an urbanized setting and the existing site has been developed with medical facilities, parking lots and structures, and related facilities. The site is landscaped with ornamental plant materials. Coast Highway is not a designated State Scenic Highway. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (adopted on May 26, 1992, as amended) notes that all 'lighting systems R:1P.jec6lNe p.AUOWNOPUnitiaBtudy -041405.WG 14 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses..." Potential light and glare impacts, particularly with respect to building materials and exterior lighting, associated with the development of the project will be evaluated. Mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce potential aesthetic and light and glare impacts to the extent feasible. The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 44. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of plans from, the City Planning Department which detail the lighting system for all buildings and window systems for buildings on the western side of the Upper Campus. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, these requirements have been met. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? or b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? or C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? or No Impact. The Hoag Hospital project site and surrounding area are located in an urbanized area and would not convert farmland to non - agricultural use. No portion of the project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract or is located on land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance according to 2000 Natural Resource Conservation Service mapping. No agricultural resources impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the topic of Agricultural Resources will not be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. AIR QUALITY —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? or b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? or R:1Prgect1Ne poftW9 1NOPVNbal SWEy-041405.uoc 15 City of Newport Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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)? Potentially Significant Impact. The Hoag Hospital is within the South Coast Air Basin and is monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board. The South Coast Air Basin is a non - attainment area for ozone (Oa), carbon monoxide (CO), and fine particulate matter (PM,o). The project's short-term and long -term air quality emission levels and consistency with applicable air quality management regulations and guidelines will be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. As a part of the Supplemental EIR, an air quality analysis will be prepared describing existing conditions, including regional and local air quality and meteorology, and the state, federal, and regional air quality regulatory framework. The air quality analysis will address construction and operational impacts associated with the proposed project. The existing air environment will be described in terms of meteorology, local topography affecting pollutant dispersion, and ambient air monitoring data. A summary of current air management efforts, which may be related to the proposed project, will be provided with particular emphasis on the 2003 AQMP, and the requirements for air quality assessments identified in the SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook. Sensitive receptor areas within the project vicinity will be identified. Construction impacts are associated with the following activities: gradinglexcavation, debris removal, exhaust emissions from construction equipment, and employee vehicles. Although specific construction projects are not proposed as part of this amendment process, it is recognized that when development occurs demolition and construction activities would be associated with project implementation. Therefore, the Supplemental EIR will forecast the short-term dust and emission generation due to demolition and construction activities. Measures to reduce dust generation are required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Additionally, measures are contained in the 2003 AQMP for control of construction activity emissions, and these also will be included in the list of mitigation measures. Long -term emissions are associated with increased vehicular traffic and activities on the project site, including the combustion of natural gas and the generation of electricity (i.e., increasing the capacity of the cogeneration facility that serves the hospital). The analysis would compare regional and local impacts from the project with existing conditions and future conditions without the project, using current approved emission factors, traffic estimates, and methodologies. Project- specific and cumulative impacts will be identified using SCAQMD recommended thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. A detailed discussion of the consistency of the project with the AQMP will be included. Measures will be developed to reduce significant air quality impacts to the extent possible. The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment. R:lwjOMNMPWU0061NOF1niUW Study-041QS.doc 16 City of Newport Hoag Memoriai Hospitai Master Plan Amendment Initiai Study Previous]Y Adopted Mitigation Measures 37. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of development, the project proponent shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that energy efficient lighting has been incorporated into the project design. 82. Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach, demonstrating compliance with all applicable District Rules, including Rule 401, Visible Emissions, Rule 402, Public Nuisance, and Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. 88. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase of development, verifying that energy efficiency will be achieved by incorporating appropriate technologies and systems into future structures, which may include: • High efficiency cooling /absorption units • .Thermal storage and ceramic cooling towers • Cogeneration capabilities • High efficiency water heaters • Energy efficient glazing systems • Appropriate off -hour heating/cooling /lighting controls • Time clocks and photovoltaic cells for lighting controls • Efficient insulation systems • Light colored roof and building exteriors • PL lighting and fluorescent lighting systems • Motion detector lighting controls • Natural interior lighting - skylights, clerestories • Solar orientation, earth berming and landscaping 89. The Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that methods and materials, which minimize VOC emissions have been employed Where practical, available and where value engineering allows it to be feasible. 96. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that the thermal integrity of new buildings is Improved with automated time clocks or occupant sensors to reduce the thermal load. R:IProje=5l pmt OOMNMInWW SWdy441E05.tic 17 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv 97. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods have been incorporated into building designs. 98. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate that building designs incorporate efficient heating units and other appliances, such as water heater, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. 99. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate into building designs, where feasible, passive solar designs and solar heaters. 105. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all trucks used for hauling material shall be covered to minimize material loss during transit. 106. Project Sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall be performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance, which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, erosion and siltation control, noise, and other grading related activities. 107. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during the morning and evening prior to or after earth moving operations. To further reduce dust generation, grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (MPH), and soil binders or SCAQMD approved chemical stabilizers should be spread on construction sites or unpaved areas. Additional measures to control fugitive dust include street sweeping of roads used by construction vehicles, reduction of speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, suspension of operations during first and second stage smog alerts, and wheel washing before construction vehicles leave the site. 110. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that low emission mobile and stationary equipment is utilized during construction, and low sulfur fuel is utilized in stationary equipment, when available. Evidence of this fact shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any grading or building permit. Two mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 36 and 38) are proposed for revision. Mitigation Measure 36 requires verification of necessary permits from the SCAQMD for regulated equipment. It further states if the new emissions result in impacts not previously considered or significantly change the land use impact, appropriate CEQA documentation shall be prepared prior to issuance of any permits for that phase of development. This mitigation measure is combining two processes. The SCAQMD would review the data pertaining to the use of regulated equipment. In order for the applicant to receive the required permit, the project would need to meet the standards established by SCAQMD. The issue pertaining to new significant impacts associated with emissions or land use impacts would not be within SCAQMD's jurisdiction. The City of Newport Beach would continue to be responsible for ensuring that appropriate CEQA documentation is prepared. To avoid confusion, this portion of the mitigation measure is recommended for deletion. The recommended changes are shown below. Strikeout text is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. This measure would continue to apply to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. 36. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning R:1Pmjeca) J poNU00SWOPUnfbal Study -041405.aoc 18 City or Newport Beach Hoag MemorialHosprtat Master Plan Amendment initial sW dv Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment Incorporated within each phase. An air quality analysis shall be conducted prior to each phase of development for the proposed mechanical equipment contained within that phase that identifies additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment to be installed in the phase. if the Raw emissions, when added te existing pFGje priaF to is6wanre af any P9FMitS feF that phase of development. EaGh subsequent For Mitigation Measure 38, a revision to item g is proposed to cross reference Mitigation Measure 30, which pertains to bus turnouts (Section XV, Transportation /Circulation). As discussed in Section XV, the location and design of bus turnouts is within jurisdiction of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 38. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of Master Plan development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorporate the site development requirements of Ordinance No. 91 -16, as appropriate, to the Traffic Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and Planning Commission approval. Requirements outlined in the Ordinance include: a. A minimum of five percent of the provided parking at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These parking spaces shall be located near the employee entrance or at other preferred locations. b. A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employees shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided at such time as demands warrants. c. A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. d. Information of transportation alternatives shall be provided to all employees. e. A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated in the parking area. f. The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. g. Bus stop improvements shall be coordinated with the Orange County Transportation Authority, consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 30. tFansot exists OF 06 antieipated to exist withiR five yeaFs. The exact number of each of the above facilities within each phase of the Master Plan shall be determined by the City during review of grading and building permit applications for each phase. The types and numbers of facilities required of each phase will reflect the content of the Ordinance at the time that a permit application is deemed complete by the Planning Department. The following mitigation measure was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented. This mitigation measure would no longer need to be tracked through mitigation monitoring. RAPrpgec6lfJevpw J00aWONNUal SIWy-041405.E c 19 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv 87. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department verifying that all roadways associated with the development of the Master Plan will be paved early in the project, as a part of Phase I Master Plan development construction activities. In addition, the Mitigation Measure 109 is proposed for deletion. When Final EIR No. 142 was certified in 1992, there was not a certified Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, a wide range of mitigation measures were identified in an effort to ensure the maximum amount of mitigation feasible. Since that time, the AQMP has been certified and the specific mitigation measures have been identified. Other mitigation measures (listed above) have been identified to address construction projects; however, stationary equipment is not a contributor to construction emissions. 109. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each phase of construction the Project Sponsor shall submit an analysis to the City Building Department that documents the criteria emissions factors for all stationary equipment to be used during that phase of construction. The analysis shall utilize emission factors contained in the applicable SCAQMD Handbook. The analysis shall also be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review and approval d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact. The potential for carbon monoxide concentrations that could adversely affect sensitive receptors in the project area will be determined as a part of the Supplemental EIR. The following measure was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment project. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measure When Final EIR No. 142 was certified in 1992 there was not a certified Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP (Appendix C) contains Localized Significance Threshold Mass Rate Look -Up Tables. These tables have been developed as a screening mechanism to determine if carbon monoxide hot spot modeling is required. If a project fits within the parameters listed in the table, then further analysis is not required. Mitigation Measure 121 is being modified to reflect the incorporation of these tables in the AQMP. Modifications to the measure are shown in strike -out (deleted text) and italics (new text). 121. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each individual phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall eeaduot determine if the project is consistent with the parameters contained the AQMP Localized Significance Threshold Mass Rate Look -Up Tables (Appendix C of the AQMP) for carbon monoxide. If the project is consistent with these provisions, no further carbon monoxide modeling is required. If the project exceeds these thresholds, a CO hot spot analysis for the subject phase of development will be prepared. This analysis shall utilize the EMFAC7EP emission factor program for the buildout year of the subject phase of development and the CALINE4 CO hot spot model or the model recommended for such analysis at that time. The results of this analysis shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review. City staff will verify consistency with the results of the project buildout CO analysis. R9Projects Ne pa0W008lNOPllnilial Sludy -041505.eoc 20 City of Newport Beach Haag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Hoag Hospital uses do not generate significant odors. No significant impacts would be anticipated; this issue will not be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan 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. Fish and Wildlife Service? or b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? or 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, vernal . pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? or d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? or e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances? or f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact Final EIR No. 142 identified limited biological resources, including wetlands, on the site. However, as a result of construction of facilities consistent with the Hoag Hospital Master Plan and Final EIR No. 142, those resources have been removed. Mitigation measures were adopted as part of the Final EIR that reduced the impact to a level of less than significant. These measures, which are listed below, have been fully implemented and no longer need to be carried forward. Additionally, on February 23, 2005, a qualified biologist conducted a field review of the project site to evaluate resources on the site. The findings were that Hoag Hospital is a developed site and supports minimal decorative landscaping. As a result, the project site supports habitat that is of low value for wildlife. There are no plant or wildlife species expected to occur on the project site that are considered sensitive at either the federal, state, or local level. The project site is not part of any wildlife movement corridor. There are no riparian or wetland habitats, or any other environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Implementation of the project would not result in a decrease in the diversity of species or number of plants or animals, or a reduction in the number of unique, rare, or endangered plant or animal species, or conflict with provisions of Orange County Natural Community RAPrgec Wwpd WOWNOPIkAtial &udy 04140.tl . 21 City or Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Conservation Plan Program, or any other habitat conservation plan. Further, the project will result in the removal of only non - native landscaping, which would be replaced by project landscaping. Because of the limited vegetation impacts, no significant impacts to animal life are expected. As the project will have no impacts on wildlife as defined in the Fish and Game Code §711.2, the project will not contribute to potential cumulative development impacts to such wildlife. Therefore, the topic of Biological Resources will not be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and have been fully implemented. The following measures do not need to be carried forward: Previouslv Adopted Mitiaation Measures 16. The federal wetland regulations and requirements shall be reviewed by the City and the Project Sponsor at the time the proposed work is undertaken, and the project shall comply with all applicable laws concerning removal and mitigation of wetland at the time, as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission. If this review results in a finding by the Resources Agencies involved in the permit process that mitigation is required for impacts to the 1.07 acres of wetlands dominated by pampas grass, such mitigation will be accomplished as part of the mitigation required for impacts to sensitive wetland plant communities (Mitigation Measures 17 and 18). 17. The Project Sponsor shall prepare a comprehensive restoration and management plan for the wetland mitigation site as required by law. This plan will be submitted to the following agencies for their review and approval/ concurrence prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits for Master Plan development. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • California Department of Fish and Game • City of Newport Beach 18. The resulting final mitigation plan shall be approved as part of the Coastal Development Permit for the project. The plan shall also be approved as part of the Corps Section 404 Permit and Streambed Alteration Agreement, if applicable. A wetland mitigation plan approved by the appropriate agencies shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of grading and /or building permits for Master Plan development in any areas affecting wetlands. 19. The plan will be consistent with the following provisions The amount of new wetlands created under the mitigation plan shall be at least equal size to the area of sensitive wetland communities impacted by the project. • The wildlife habitat values in the newly created wetlands shall not be less than those lost as the result of removal of sensitive wetland communities impacted by the project. R:IProjectlN pM OOSINOPllnWal Study -04JQS.doc 22 Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study • The wetlands. created shall not decrease the habitat values of any area important to maintenance of sensitive plant or wildlife populations. • The wetland mitigation planning effort will take into consideration creation of 0.2 acre of salt grass habitat suitable for use by wandering skipper; such consideration would be dependent on the nature of the mitigation plan undertaken and whether wandering skipper could potentially occur in the mitigation area. • The plan will constitute an agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies involved. The plan shall be written so as to guarantee wetland restoration in accordance with stated management objectives within a specified time frame. The plan shall describe the applicant's responsibilities for making any unforeseen repairs or modifications to the restoration plan in order to meet the stated objectives of the plan. 20. The following detailed information will be provided by the Project Sponsor in the final mitigation plan: • Diagrams drawn to scale showing any alternatives to natural landforms; • A list of plant species used; • The method of plant introduction (i.e., seeding, natural succession, vegetative transplanting, etc.); and • Details of the short-term and long -term monitoring plans, including financing of the monitoring plans. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? or No Impact. No historic resources are located on or have been identified within a 1 -mile radius of the project site. The Hoag Hospital project site has been subject to three prior cultural resources investigation, including one investigation conducted at Hoag Hospital subsequent to the certification of Final EIR No. 142. No historic resources were found. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? or C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact Potential impacts on cultural resources associated with implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan were addressed in Final EIR No. 142. Additionally, a records search was conducted through the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. The South Central Coastal RAPrq..WNawPOd OMNORMWM Swdy-041405.doc 23 City offiewport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Information Center is a part of the California Historical Resources Information System providing records data for Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties. The records search (February 22, 2005) included a review of all recorded archaeological sites within a 1 -mile radius of Hoag Hospital, and included a records review of the California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historic Places, National Register of Historic Places, and California State Historic Resources Inventory. The Hoag Hospital site is developed and has been subject to ongoing demolition and construction activities. Associated with these activities, no prehistoric archaeological or paleontological resources have been noted. However, archaeological and paleontological resources can be uncovered and consequently impacted by excavation and construction activities. Any potential impacts to prehistoric archaeological and paleontological resources are expected to be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of the measures previously adopted for the Master Plan project. No further assessment of prehistoric archaeological and paleontological resources in the Supplemental EIR is warranted. The following measure was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment project. Previously Adopted Mitioation Measures 21. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an Orange County certified archaeologist shall be retained to, and shall, monitor the grading across the project area. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, at which time monitoring procedures acceptable to and approved by the City shall be established, including procedures for halting or redirecting work to permit the assessment, and possible salvage, of unearthed cultural material. 22. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an Orange County certified paleontologist shall be retained to, and shall, monitor the grading activities. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, at which time procedures acceptable to and approved by the City for monitoring shall be established, including the temporary halting or redirecting of work to permit the evaluation, and possible salvage, of any exposed fossils. All fossils and their contextual stratigraphic data shall go to an Orange County institution with an educational and /or research interest in the materials. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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 other substantial evidence of a known fault; or R9Proj. -%Ne P.nV0061N0PVnifia1 SWtly -041405.doa 24 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. Hoag Hospital is not in an Alquist -Priolo Zone or identified as being in an area subject to liquefaction (source: California Division of Mines and Geology). There is no visible or documented evidence of on -site conditions that could result in landsliding or slope failure. Therefore, these issues will not be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction; or iv) Landslides? Potentially SignWicant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Hoag Hospital is located in a region of historic seismic activity. The Newport- Inglewood Fault, an active fault, and several potentially active faults, are located close to the project site. Existing and planned medical uses would be subject to groundshaking during a seismic event. The geotechnical analysis conducted as part of the Final EIR adequately addressed these potential constraints to provide the City of Newport Beach City Council with an understanding of the potential impacts associated with project implementation. Mitigation measures were adopted as part of the Final EIR to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the State of California has established "seismic performance" categories for older hospitals (pre -1973 local approved, non - conforming buildings) and new hospitals (post -1973 Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development [ OSHPD] approved, conforming buildings). The Structural Performance Categories (SPC) are based on building age, construction type, and physical condition; Non- structural Performance Categories (NPC) are based primarily on the bracing of equipment, fire sprinkler /alarm systems, emergency power, medical gases, and communication systems. Acute care facilities are required to develop and submit a compliance plan to the OSHPD indicating the intent and actions to be taken to ensure compliance. For hospitals constructed before 1973, structural retrofits are required by the year 2008 and non - structural retrofits were to be completed by 2002. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter the type of uses proposed on the site, nor substantially increase the intensity of the uses. With the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142, no further assessment in the Supplemental EIR is required. The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment project. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that grading and development of the site shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and with plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. These plans shall incorporate the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist, subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans shall be furnished to the Building Department by the Project Sponsor. R:1Prrgec WmpoU008W0Mn10a1 SIWy-41405.dcc 25 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit documentation to the City of Newport Beach Building Department confirming that all cut slopes shall be monitored for potential instabilities by the project geotechnical engineer during all site grading and Construction activities and strictly monitor the slopes in accordance with the documentation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall provide to the City of Newport Beach a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation and report of the site prepared by a registered grading engineer and /or engineering geologist. This report shall also identify construction excavation techniques which ensure no damage and minimize disturbance to adjacent residents. This report shall determine if there are any on -site faults which could render all or a portion of the property unsafe for construction. All recommendations contained in this investigation and report shall be incorporated into project construction and design plans. This report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Prior to the completion of the final design phase, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed to the seismic standards applicable to hospital related structures and as specified in the then current City adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. In addition, Mitigation Measure 5 pertained to geotechnical constraints. This measure requires that prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each phase of development, the City of Newport Beach Building Department ensure that geotechnical recommendations included in 'Report of Geotechnical Evaluation for Preparation of Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus" prepared by LeRoy Crandall Associates, June 1989, and in the report prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3, are followed. Mitigation Measure 3 (identified above) requires a comprehensive soil and geologic evaluation prior to each grading permit, which would contain recommendations, based on current grading standards and associated codes. Mitigation Measure 5 is duplicative of Mitigation Measure 3 and could result in conflicts with existing codes and practices. It is recommended that Mitigation Measure 5 from Final EIR no longer apply. The measure reads as follows: 5. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each phase of development, the Building Department shall ensure that geotechnical recommendations included in 'Report of Geotechnical Evaluation for Preparation of Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport, California" as prepared by LeRoy Crandall Associates, June 1989, and in the report prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3, are followed. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? or c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? or R:%Pr.q B N.p.0WQWNOPOni1W Study-0 1405.dm 26 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined In Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As identified in Final EIR No. 142, construction activities would expose soils creating the potential for short- term erosion. In accordance with county and state requirements, as individual construction projects are proposed, the project contractor will be required to implement measures to control short-term potential siltation and erosion on and off of the site. The analysis conducted as part of Final EIR No. 142 adequately addresses the potential geotechnical constraints to provide the City of Newport Beach with an understanding of the potential impacts associated with project implementation. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter the type of uses proposed on the site or substantially increase the intensity of the uses. With the Implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142, these impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level; no further assessment in the Supplemental EIR is required. The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment project. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a construction erosion plan is submitted to and approved by the City of Newport Beach that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and includes procedures to minimize potential impacts of sift, debris, dust and other water pollutants. These procedures may include: • the replanting of exposed slopes within 30 days after grading or as required by the City Engineer. • the use of sandbags to slow the velocity of or divert stormflows. • the limiting of grading to the non -rainy season The project Sponsor shall strictly adhere to the approved construction erosion control plan and compliance shall be monitored on an on -going basis by the Newport Beach Building Department. 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a soil corrosivfty evaluation. This evaluation shall be conducted by an expert in the field of corrosivity. This site evaluation shall be designed to address soils to at least the depth to which excavation is planned. At a minimum, at least one sample from each soil type should be evaluated. Appropriate personnel protection shall be wom by field personnel during the. field evaluation. In the event soils are found to be corrosive, the source and extent of the corrosive soils shall be determined, and all buildings and infrastructure shall be designed to control the potential impact of corrosive soils overtime. 7. Based on the corrosion assessment and source determination, a soils and construction material compatibility evaluation shall be undertaken, concluding with the appropriate mitigation measures and design criteria. Corrosion resistant construction materials are commonly available and shall be used where the evaluation /assessment concludes that corrosive soils conditions could adversely R:IPmja= NmportU0 NOTlnitial Study 041405.000 27 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial StudV impact normal construction materials or the materials used for the mitigation of subsurface gas conditions. For example, there are many elastomers and plastics, like PVC, which are resistant to corrosion by up to 70 percent sulfuric acid at 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Should the soil be identified as hazardous due to the severeness of their corrosivity (i.e., a pH less than 2.5), on -site remediation by neutralization shall be undertaken prior to construction. Appropriate regulatory agency approvals and permits shall also be obtained. Please also refer to Mitigation Measure 106, under the Topic of Air Quality (b). e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The proposed project does not require the use of a septic tank or an altemative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact Hazardous materials are used during medical diagnosis and treatment, research, and facility operation and maintenance. Hazardous materials typically used in small quantities include chemical reagents, solvents, radioisotopes, paints, cleansers, pesticides, photographic chemicals, and bichazardous substances. Similarly, different types of hazardous wastes are generated (usually in small quantities) through these activities. The analysis conducted as part of the Final EIR No. 142 adequately address the potential impacts associated with the use of these materials to provide the City of Newport Beach with an understanding of the potential impacts associated with project implementation. Final EIR No. 142 determined that significant impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. In addition, current federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the handling of such materials would apply. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not after the type of uses proposed on the site or substantially increase the intensity of the uses. With the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142, no further evaluation of this topic is necessary in the Supplemental EIR. The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment project. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 83. Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor must submit plans to the City of Newport Beach demonstrating that its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Plan and its infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the Project Sponsor has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach, Fire R3PrajecNNmpod J008MPVnibai S[udy-01405.doc 28 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Prevention Department, and the Orange County Health Care Agency, as required by the Infections Waste Act and AB2185/2187. 84. Project Sponsor shall continue compliance with its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infectious Control Manual for all new activities associated with the proposed Master Plan, as well as comply with all new regulations enacted between now and completion of the proposed Master Plan. 85. To the satisfaction of the City building official, the Project Sponsor shall expand existing hazardous infectious, radiological disposal facilities to add additional storage areas as necessary to accommodate the additional waste to be generated by the expanded facilities. 86. The Project Sponsor shall provide evidence to the Planning Director that measures to ensure implementation and continue compliance with all applicable SCAQMD Air Toxic Rules, specifically Rules 1401, 1402, 1403, 1405 and 1415, are being carried out. 122. The methane gas facility and all building on the lower campus shall be subject to all laws and regulations applicable, Including, but not limited to, the Federal Regulation contained in 29 CFR 1910, the State Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.9.5, and the regulations of OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association. Prior to the issuance of building permits on the lower campus, the Project .Sponsor shall submit, to the Newport Beach Fire Department a compliance review report of all the above referenced laws and regulations. b) Create 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan assumes that certain existing structures will be demolished and others rehabilitated/ altered. Demolition of buildings and building features could expose construction personnel, staff, patients, and visitors to asbestos - containing building materials and lead -based paint. Because many of the hospital's structures were constructed prior to the mid -1970s when asbestos - containing building materials were being manufactured and used in construction projects, demolition and rehabilitation /alteration efforts may require mitigation to prevent the release of asbestos - containing building materials into the air. The disposition of hazardous materials is subject to regulations set forth at a federal and state level. Because exposureto such materials can result in adverse health effects in uncontrolled situations, several regulations and guidelines pertaining to abatement of and protection from exposure to asbestos have been adopted for demolition activities. Regulations that will be followed during construction /demolition activities include: (1) SCAQMD Rules and Regulations pertaining to asbestos abatement (including Rule 1403), (2) Construction Safety Orders 1629 (pertaining to asbestos and 1532.1 (pertaining to lead) from Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 61, Subpart M of the Federal Code of Regulations pertaining to asbestos), and (3) lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). R:1Prt{edWwWftU00MN0P11n1Ue1 atetly-041405.dw 29 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study In accordance with Rule 1403, any demolition work involving asbestos - containing materials must be identified and potential emissions from asbestos must be determined. In California, asbestos and lead abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the Califomia DHS. In addition, Cal /OSHA has regulations concerning the use and management of such hazardous materials. Cal /OSHA enforces the hazard communication program regulations. All demolition that could result in the release of lead and asbestos must be conducted according to Cal /OSHA standards. Final EIR No. 142 notes that the Lower Campus of Hoag Hospital is located in the Newport Beach methane gas mitigation district and that methane gas is a public nuisance and public safety hazard for the Lower Campus and in the immediate vicinity of the site (Balboa Coves). To reduce the odors (hydrogen sulfide) and fire hazard (methane gas), the City of Newport Beach installed an experimental gas collection system and gas burner near Balboa Coves, with subsequent bumers and wells installed in 1972 and 1976, respectively. Local effects from methane seeps included minor fires from trapped gas and economic impacts from source control measures and monitoring. Final EIR No. 142 further noted that project development in the Lower Campus could increase gas seepage. A mitigation program was approved as a part of Final EIR No. 412. As a consequence of implementation of the mitigation program, Hoag Hospital is currently constructing a cogeneration facility. One of the functions of the cogeneration facility is to collect and safely reuse methane gas, thereby mitigating safety hazards associated with the presence of methane gas. Therefore, these issues have been fully addressed in Final EIR No. 142. In addition, the project would be required to adhere to applicable procedures and regulations for the removal and disposal of these materials. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter the type of uses proposed on the site, nor substantially increase the intensity of the uses. With the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142, no further evaluation of this topic is necessary in the Supplemental EIR. The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 49. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and /or hazardous materials are handled and disposed 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, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. 52. A soil gas sampling and monitoring program shall include methane and hydrogen sulfide levels. Samples shall be taken just below the depth of actual disturbance. (The individuals(s) performing this initial study may be at risk of exposure to significant- and possibly lethal- doses of hydrogen sulfide, and shall be appropriately protected as required.) RAP,oj�,WW0081NOPllnih.l SWdy-041405.00 30 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 53. A site safety plan shall be developed that addresses the risks associated with exposures to methane and hydrogen sulfide. Each individual taking part in the sampling and monitoring program shall receive training on the potential hazards and on proper personal protective equipment. This training shall be at least at the level required by CFR 2910.120. 54. If the analysis of the initial soil gas samples shows unacceptable levels of hazardous constituents that have the potential to pose a health risk during construction activities, additional gas collection wells shall be drilled to contain and collect the gas. 55. Continuous monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide' 56. A study of other hazardous constituents that may be present in quantities that pose a health risk to exposed individuals shall be prepared and evaluated prior to the initiation of the project. The constituents studied shall include compounds that are directly related to petroleum, such as benzene and toluene. 59. In the event additional gases are to be collected from newly constructed collection wells as part of a measure to reduce exposures during construction, an evaluation of the capacity and efficiency of the present flare system shall be conducted prior to connecting any new sources. 62. A study of the concentration of potential hazardous constituents shall be conducted prior to initiation of the project to characterize the wastewater and any risk it may pose to human health prior to development. A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of hazardous constituents from the site. The Hospital shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit, including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and implementation of Best Management Practices, implementation of erosion control measures, the monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system. 63. Soil samples shall be collected from the appropriate locations at the site and analyzed for BTEX and priority pollutants; if the soils are found to contain unacceptable levels of hazardous constituents, appropriate mitigation will be required, including a complete characterization of both the vertical and horizontal extent of the contamination, and a remedial action plan shall be completed and approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project Sponsor must demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach compliance with this measure prior to issuance of any permits for Phase I construction activities. 66. Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department City of Newport Beach, demonstrating that continuous hydrogen sulfide monitoring equipment with alarms to a manned remote location have been provided in building designs. This monitoring equipment must be the 1 The record shows an incomplete Mitigation Measure 55; however, the provision for continuous monitoring and treatment of methane and hydrogen sulfide is contained in other measures, such as Mitigation Measures 52, 53, 58, 60, 61, 64, 66, 72, 74-76, 79, and 122. Protection from methane and hydrogen sulfide is adequately provided through these measures. R1P.J.c .x ftUOWWOPW ]SWy-01C05A. 31 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study best available monitoring system, and the plans must include a preventative maintenance program for the equipment and a calibration plan and schedule. 68. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach ensuring that all structures built on the Lower Campus are designed for protection from gas accumulation and seepage based on the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer. 69. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach indicating where gas test boring will be drilled under each proposed main building site once specific building plans are complete. Such testing shall be carried out, and test results submitted to the City's building official, prior to issuance of grading permits. If a major amount of gas is detected, a directionally drilled well will be permanently completed and put into the existing gas collection system. 70. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Grading Engineer, City of Newport Beach, indicating that all buildings and parking lots on the Lower Campus will be constructed with passive gas collection systems under the foundations. Such a system typically consists of perforated PVC pipes laid in parallel lengths below the foundation. Riser type vents will be attached to light standards and building high points. Additionally, parking lots on the Lower Campus will contain unpaved planter areas and vertical standpipes located at the end of each length of PVC pipe. The standpipes will serve to vent any collected gas to the atmosphere. A qualified geotechnical firm shall be retained to design such systems. 71. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach demonstrating that all buildings on the Lower Campus are sealed from gas migration. Such sealing may be installed by the use of chlorinated polyethylene sheeting or similar approved system. All material of construction including the PVC piping and the ground lining must be evaluated for compatibility with the existing environmental conditions of the soils and/or potential gases. 72. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments demonstrating that all buildings on the Lower Campus will be equipped with methane gas sensors. Such sensors will be installed in areas of likely accumulation, such as utility or other seldom used rooms. Sensors can monitor on a continuous basis, and can be tied into fire alarm systems for 24 -hour surveillance. 73. To avoid possible accumulation of gas in utility or other seldom used service or storage rooms, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of building permits indicating that such rooms are serviced by the build's central air conditioning system (or an otherwise positive ventilation system that circulates and replaces the air in such rooms on a continuous basis). 74. During construction, Project Sponsor shall ensure that an explosimeter is used to monitor methane levels and percentage range. Additionally, construction contractors shall be required to have a health and safety plan that includes procedures for worker /site safety for methane. If dangerous levels of methane are discovered, construction in the vicinity shall stop, the City of Newport Beach RAPmject%Ne ponQOWNOPUnihal Sludy- 041405.doc 32 CitypfNewport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial SftW Fire Department shall be notified and appropriate procedures followed in order to contain the methane to acceptable and safe levels. 100. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all cut material is disposed of at either an environmentally cleared development site or a certified landfill. Also, all material exported off site shall be disposed of at an environmentally certified development cleared landfill with adequate capacity. Mitigation Measure 64, adopted as part of Final EIR 142, requires monitoring of the venting systems on the Lower Campus prior to issuance of building permits. The measure requires the findings be sent to State Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, and the Southern California Air Quality Management District for comment. However, these systems are passive vents, which are not regulated by these agencies. Only the active gas extraction plant is regulated by these agencies. The standard used for passive vents is substantially below the thresholds used by these agencies for monitoring. The portion of the mitigation measure requiring agency reporting has led to confusion regarding what the agencies are expected to do with the results when they are received. Therefore, modification to the wording of the measure is recommended. The recommended changes are shown below. Strikeout text is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. Mitigation Measure 64 would continue to apply to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. 64. Prior to the issuance of grading of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall evaluate all existing vent systems located on the lower campus and submit this data to the City Building and Fire Departments. the State DepaAment Additionally, any proposed new passive vents shall be evaluated by the City Building and Fire Departments prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. In addition, the following mitigation measures were adopted with Final EIR No. 142 and have been fully implemented. These mitigation measures would no longer need to be tracked through mitigation monitoring. 50. Prior to construction of structures over or near the Wilshire oil well, Project Sponsor shall ensure that the Wilshire oil well, or any abandoned, unrecorded well or pressure relief well, is reabandoned to the current standards. Abandonment plans will be submitted to the State Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) for approval prior to the abandonment procedures. The City's building official shall be notified that the reabandonment was carried out according to DOG procedures. 51. To further determine the source of the gas on the Lower Campus site, prior to issuance of a grading permit on the Lower Campus, Project Sponsor shall collect gas samples from the nearest fire flooding wells and at Newport Beach Townhomes and compare the gas samples to samples taken from the Hoag gas collection wells prior to site grading and construction. 57. A study shall be conducted that characterizes the wells, the influent gas, and the effluent of the flare. This study shall characterize the gas over a period of time, to allow for potential fluctuations in concentration and rate. R%PrujeclsWewport OMNOPWWW st�Y-0 M5.aoo 33 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment 58. A scrubber system shall be required to reduce the concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the influent gas. 60. An automatic re -light system shall be installed. on the flare system to reduce the risk of a potential release of high concentration of hydrogen sulfide. The system shall be designed with an alarm system that notifies a remote location which is manned 24 hours per day. 61. A continuous hydrogen sulfide monitor that would give warning of a leak of concentrations in excess of acceptable levels shall be installed in the vicinity of the flare. 65. If required by the Southern California Air Quality Air Management District, an air dispersion model shall be required in order to predict the cumulative effects of the emissions. Compliance with any additional requirements of the AQMD shall be verified through a compliance review by the district with written verification received by the Newport Beach Building Department. 67. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that the inferred fault traversing the site is trenched and monitored for gas prior to site grading and construction. If gas monitoring indicates a potential risk during grading, additional gas collection wells will be drilled to collect and contain the gas. 75. The project Sponsor may remove the flare system, contain the gas and utilize the gas for Lower Campus facilities. During the containment process and removal of the flare the Project Sponsor shall ensure that methane levels are monitored throughout the project area to ensure that his transition does not create an upset in methane levels or create odors or risk of explosion. 76. Prior to development on the Lower Campus, the Project Sponsor shall submit to the City of Newport Beach within one year of May 1992, plans to install a scrubber system to remove hydrogen sulfide from the influent to the flare. The design and construction of the system should be in accordance with the Best Available Control Technologies, and must be in compliance with SCAQMD (District) Regulation XIII, emission offsets and New Source Review. 77. As required by the District, the Project Sponsor shall develop a sampling and analysis protocol for District approval to evaluate the impact the existing and post - scrubber emissions will have on the ambient air quality and on possible receptor populations. The required evaluation shall include analysis for criteria and toxic pollutants, and evaluation of the potential risk associated with the emission of these pollutants (Rule 1401). Included in the plans for the design of the scrubber system should be a make -up gas source. 78 The plans for the design of the new system will include a calibration and maintenance plan for all equipment, if required by the District as a permit condition, automatic shutdown devices, sensors and charts for continuous recording of monitoring, and flame arresters. The project sponsor shall evaluate enclosing or placing new equipment underground. 79. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that demonstrate that the flare operation will be shut down within R:%Prajecn \Newp aUDMNOPHnIGal SwdYU 14U5.doc 34 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment inkial Stu& four years of August, 1992. The project sponsor must prepare and obtain approval from the SCAQMD to implement a sampling and analysis protocol for evaluation of the existing emissions from the flare after scrubbing (Mitigation Measures 75 and 76), and the effect of flare shutdown on ambient air quality. The methane gas source should be used, if engineering design allows, as a supplemental source of fuel forthe Hospital's boilers. If the gas is not usable, the flan; shall be relocated. 80. The plans for the design of the new system will include a calibration and maintenance plan for all equipment, and if required by the District as a permit condition, automatic shutdown devices, sensors and charts for continuous recording of monitoring, and flame arresters. The project sponsor shall evaluation enclosing or placing new equipment underground. 81. Prior to installation of the scrubber system, the Project Sponsor shall develop a protocol for a study to evaluate the integrity of the control equipment and piping. The project Sponsor must obtain agreement from the District on the protocol prior to initiating the study. In addition, the following mitigation measure was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. While the critical can; /surgery facility is not being implemented, this measure has already been implemented. Therefore, this measure would no longer apply. 90. In conjunction with the Critical Care Surgery addition, the Project Sponsor will place the overhead power lines located west of the Upper Campus underground if feasible. C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Then; are no existing or proposed schools within 1/4 -mile of Hoag Hospital. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. Hoag Hospital is listed on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Facility Index System Database (FINDS). This system was developed by the EPA to be able to cross reference sites for which the EPA maintains files. Not all sites on the list have had a previous violation. For those sites when; there has been a prior violation, it has been remediated. No sites with current violations are listed on the FINDS system. (Source: EDR Environmental Resources, Inc., February 22, 2005) e) For a project located 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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport/public use airport. No further discussion in the Supplemental EIR is required. RtTrgac6wawPO OQMONnlaai 6W y-0414US.doc 35 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Ptan Amendment Initial Study f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. Hoag Hospital has an existing helipad. Helipads are subject to review by the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics (site approval permit and helipad permit), and by the Federal Aviation Administration. No changes to the location of the helipad are proposed as a part of the project. No further discussion in the Supplemental EIR is required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The phased implementation of the Master Plan project would, in part, minimize disruptions to services, including the emergency response /evacuation plans. Mitigation Measure 101, adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142, requires the preparation of a construction phasing plan to ensure that emergency access is maintained during construction activities. A study of on -site circulation will be conducted as a part of the Supplemental EIR; mitigation shall be provided, as required, to mitigate potential impacts related to emergency response and emergency evacuation. 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? No Impact. Hoag Hospital is located in an urbanized area. No wildlands are intermixed or adjacent to the site. Therefore, no exposure to people or the project site itself would result; no impacts would occur. This issue will not be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? C) Substantially. alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? or d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner in which would result in flooding on- or off -site? or f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan project is not expected to generate substantial increases in or the degradation of the quality of runoff because the site is currently developed, and with the exception of landscaping and areas currently subject to construction activities, has limited amounts of impervious surfaces. Final EIR No. 142 addressed the anticipated discharge from the project site. Additionally, the Federal Clean Water Act establishes a framework for regulating RAPrgecNlN popUJOWINOPVnN31 SWd"41405.&o 36 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study potential surface water quality impacts, mandating sewage treatment, and regulating wastewater discharges, and requires communities and industries to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to discharge storm water to urban stone sewer systems. The NPDES program is administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) issued the thins term NPDES permit (Omer No. R8- 2002 -0010) governing the public storm drain system discharges in Orange County from the storm drain systems owned and operated by the County of Orange and Orange County cities (collectively "the Co- permittees ") in January 2002. This permit would regulate storm water and urban runoff discharges from proposed development to constructed storm drain systems in the project area dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. The NPDES permit specifies requirements for managing runoff water quality from new development and significant redevelopment projects, including specific sizing criteria fortreatment Best Management Practices (BMPs). To implement the requirements of the NPDES permit, the Co- permittees have developed a 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) that includes a New Development and Significant Redevelopment Program. This New Development and Significant Redevelopment Program provides a framework and a process for following the NPDES permit requirements and incorporates watershed protection /storm water quality management principles into the Co- permittees' General Plan process, environmental review process, and development permit approval process. The New Development and Significant Redevelopment Program includes a Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that defines requirements and provides guidance for compliance with the NPDES permit requirements for project specific planning, selection, and design of BMPs in new development or significant redevelopment projects. It is anticipated that the implementation of appropriate point -source structural and non - structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the DAMP will ensure compliance with these plans. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter the type of uses proposed on the site, nor substantially increase the intensity of the uses. With the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142 and standard regulations associated with the NPDES, the project would not violate water quality standards. No further evaluation of this topic is necessary in the Supplemental EIR. b) Substantially deplete groundwater sup groundwater recharge such that then volume or a lowering of the local production rate of pre -existing nearby would not support existing land uses have been granted)? plies or interfere substantially with would be a net deficit in aquifer groundwater table level (e.g. the wells would drop to a level which or planned uses for which permits Less Than Significant Impact Hoag Hospital is located outside the main groundwater basin of the Orange County Coastal Plain. Perched groundwater is present in the terrace deposits on the slope of the Lower Campus, at the contact between the marine deposits and Monterey Formation that outcrops at the base of the slope. Ponding of water has been observed at the toe of the slope. Groundwater has been observed in borings at 26 to 44 feet below the ground surface. The presence of groundwater has not been noted in the Upper Campus. Development in the Lower Campus may require a construction dewatering and subdrain system. A NPDES discharge permit would be required for the discharge of any RftPro]eM%NewWrtU008%N0R1nitia1 swdya 1405.dw 37 Co of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv groundwater. Final EIR No. 142 determined that potentially significant impacts to groundwater could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR 142 associated with groundwater and water quality would still apply. This issue will not be addressed further in the Supplemental EIR. The following measure was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment project. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 13. Prior to the completion of final construction plans for each phase of Lower Campus development, the Project Sponsor shall submit a comprehensive geotechnical /hydrologic study to the City of Newport Beach Building Department, which includes data on groundwater. This study shall also determine the necessity for a construction dewatering program and subdrain system. Since the certification of Final EIR No. 142, modifications to how the NPDES permit is administered have been adopted. The State Resources Board is responsible for issuance of the NPDES permit and the RWQCB is responsible for monitoring, if deemed necessary by the permit. Changes to Mitigation Measure 14 are hereby incorporated to reflect this administrative process. The recommended changes are shown below. Strikeout text is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. This measure would continue to apply to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. 14. Prior to the completion of final building construction plans for each phase of Lower Campus development, the Project Sponsor shall prepare and submit a construction stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Permit for stormwater discharge associated with construction activity (Construction General Permit, 99 -08 -DWQ) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain the required coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The NOI, site plan, and check in an amount specified by the most current fee schedule shall be sent to the State Water Resource Control Board ( SWRCB). The SWRCB will send a Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) to the project sponsor and the Regional Water. Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region for use during site inspection, if needed. ap applisatieg R:IPrgec %Ne poNll008\NOP1N0a1 StudY-0 1405.doc 38 Citv ofNewnod Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Potentially Than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Final EIR No. 142 addressed potential changes in drainage patterns and increased runoff associated with implementation of the Master Plan and rioted that there was adequate capacity in the drainage system to serve Master Plan buildout. These issues have been fully addressed in Final EIR No. 142. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would riot alter the type of uses proposed on the site or substantially increase the intensity of the uses. Therefore, the drainage patterns and flows would not be substantially different from what was previously addressed in the Final EIR. With the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142, no further evaluation of this topic is necessary in the Supplemental EIR Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a construction erosion plan is submitted to and approved by the City of Newport Beach that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and includes procedures to minimize potential impacts of silt, debris, dust and other water pollutants. These procedures may include: • the replanting of exposed slopes within 30 days after grading or as required by the City Engineer. . • the use of sandbags to slow the velocity of or divert stormflows. • the limiting of grading to the non -rainy season The project Sponsor shall strictly adhere to the approved construction erosion control plan and compliance shall be monitored on an on -going basis by the Newport Beach Building Department. 10. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit a landscape plan which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation and approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The Project Sponsor shall install landscaping in strict compliance with the approved plan. 11. The Project Sponsor shall continue the current practice of routine vacuuming of all existing parking lots and structures and shall also routinely vacuum all future parking lots and structures at current frequencies. Upon Implementation of the County of Orange Storm Water Master Plan, routine vacuuming shall be done in accordance with the requirements specified in the plan. 12. Upon completion of final building construction plans, and prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that site hydrological analyses are conducted to verify that existing drainage facilities are adequate. The applicant shall submit a report to the City of Newport Beach Building Department for approval, verifying the adequacy of the R1Prg8CW 0WP0r1U008V0NRifiW sady- 041405.dw 39 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study proposed facilities and documenting measures for the control of siltation and of erosive runoff velocities. 15. Project Sponsor shall strictly comply with its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infectious Control Manual for all new activities associated with the proposed Master Plan, as well as strictly comply with all new regulations enacted between now and completion of the proposed Master Plan development. Please also refer to Mitigation Measure 9 under Geology and Soils (d) and Mitigation Measure 106, under the Topic of Air Quality (b). 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? No Impact. There is no existing housing at Hoag Hospital; no housing is proposed as a part of the project. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. Final EIR No. 142 states the neither the Lower Campus nor the Upper campus are located in a 100 -year flood zone. No impacts would occur and no further discussion of this topic is required. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. Based on the July 2003 study prepared by Earth Consultants International for the City of Newport Beach, the project site would not be subject to inundation by a tsunami even with extreme high tide conditions. The site would also not be subject to inundation as a result of dam failure. Ix. LAND USE AND PLANNING —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Physically divide an established community? or C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The site is currently developed with medical facilities, and will not displace any land uses unrelated to the existing Hoag Hospital facilities. Further, the project site is not in or contiguous to the natural community conservation plan area. No analysis of this issue is required in the Supplemental EIR. R :\ProjecnkNMpod\J0081NOP4ni1ie1 Study- OOM5.doc 40 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Significant Impact. The Supplemental EIR will analyze the project's compatibility with existing and planned land uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the site, as well as consistency with applicable planning and policy documents. The Supplemental EIR will document existing land uses on the site, as well as uses surrounding the project site. A discussion of the compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses and consistency with applicable planning documents will be provided. The existing General Plan will be used as the basis for the analysis. Given that the type of uses proposed are the same as what is provided for in the Hoag Hospital Master Plan, the evaluation of compatibility will be focused on the uses immediately surrounding the project site. Final EIR No. 142 determined that the project would result in signfficant, unavoidable impacts on residential units contiguous to the western buildings located in the Upper Campus. The placement of hospital buildings adjacent to the existing residential units, in combination with shade and shadow and noise impacts,. were considered significant and unavoidable impacts of the Master Plan project. These impacts were discussed in Final EIR No. 142. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not after or make these impacts more severe. Therefore, while these issues will be addressed in the EIR, they would not constitute a new impact. No new significant impacts to the larger community would be anticipated with the modifications proposed. The following land use measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment. However, minor modifications to the mitigation measures are proposed to reflect the current status of the project (i.e., the original project has been approved and the City has processed an amendment to the Local Coastal Program to reflect the future development on the Lower Campus). Strikeout text is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 24. The proposed project is subject to all applicable requirements of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program (LCP). Those requirements that are superseded by the PCDP and District Regulations are not considered applicable. The following discretionary approvals are required by the City of Newport Beach: EIR certification, adeptieR of the M War, adoption of an amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulations, approval of an amendment to the Development Agreement, appieyal Of a Zane GhaA@e W Planned GemmuRity Dist grading permits, and building permits for some facilities. The California Coastal Pevelepi:nent Commission has the discretionary responsibility to issue a Coastal Development Permit for the Lower Campus and a ' eGal reastal Pre..Fam Mitigation Measure 118 was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142; however, for projects that require issuance of a building permit by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), the City of Newport Beach has limited jurisdiction In the review and approval of development plans. Therefore, this measure is being revised to indicate that the City of Newport Beach will provide a letter indicating review should such documentation be requested by OSHPD. R.IPr.JuMlN PW000 &NORInItla13lu0Y041405.wc 41 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment 118. For any building subject to the issuance of the building permit by the Oise of the °o.�.p A Foh otp.Gt California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Hoag Hospital shall submit to OSHPD the State AFGhiteGt a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that review of the seRStrWGtiea development plans has been completed and that the plans are in compliance with all City requirements. In addition, the following mitigation measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and have been implemented. These mitigation measures would no longer need to be tracked through mitigation monitoring. 23. The Project Sponsor shall construct, if feasible and by mutual agreement, and maintain a fence along the common property line west of Upper Campus. The proposed design of the fence shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. 113. Subsequent to the approval of this Agreement by the Coastal Commission and the expiration of any statute of limitation for filing a legal challenge to this Agreement, the Master Plan, or the EIR, Hoag shall deposit Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) in an account, and at a financial institution, acceptable to City. The account shall be in the name of the City provided, however, Hoag shall have the right to access the funds in the event, but only to the extent that, Hoag constructs or installs the improvements described in (i) or (ii). Funds in the account shall be applied to the following projects (in order of priority upon notice to proceed served by City on Hoag). (i) The construction of a sidewalk and installation of landscaping in the CalTrans right -of -way along the west side of Newport Boulevard southerly of Hospital Road; (ii) The construction of facilities necessary to bring reclaimed water to West Newport and /or the Property; Any funds remaining in the account after completion of the projects described in (i) and (ii) shall be used by the City to fund, in whole or in part, a public improvement in the vicinity of the property. X. MINERAL RESOURCES —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? No Impact. The Hoag Hospital site does not contain any known mineral resources (source: City of Newport Beach General Plan). Therefore, this topic will not be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. R:lProjec@1NeH W0081NOMhibal Sludy_041405.doc 42 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study XI. NOISE —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? or b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? or C) A substantial permanent Increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? or d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact. Final EIR No. 142 addressed the potential noise impacts associated with implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. However, the proposed amendment would reallocate development from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus, which would modify the trip distribution on the road network. As a result, traffic volumes on the adjacent roadways may change. This has the potential of changing the traffic noise associated with the project. A noise study will be prepared as a part of the Supplemental EIR to address any changes in findings pertaining to noise impacts from implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling noise caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundbome noise. Certain demolition and construction activities, including the use of pile drivers, can generate short-term groundbome vibration. The potential for this Impact will be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. The following noise measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 39. If noise levels in on -site outdoor noise sensitive use areas exceed 65 CNEL, the Project Sponsor shall develop measures that will attenuate the . noise to acceptable levels for proposed hospital facilities. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, of combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. 40. Prior to occupancy of Master Plan facilities, interior noise levels shall be monitored to ensure that on -site interior noise levels are below 45 CNEL. If levels exceed 45 CNEL, mitigation such as window modifications shall be implemented to reduce noise to acceptable levels. 41. Prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that existing noise levels associated with the on -site exhaust fan are mitigated to acceptable levels. Similarly, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Building Department that all noise levels generated by new mechanical equipment associated with the Master Plan are mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. a:%ProjmW�ewPmn.io NORInisai swdy. 1405.dm 43. City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv 42. The City of Newport Beach shall send a letter to each emergency vehicle company that delivers patients to Hoag Hospital requesting that, upon entrance to either the Upper or Lower Campus, emergency vehicles turn off their sirens to help minimize noise impacts to adjacent residents. Hoag Hospital will provide the City with a list of all emergency vehicle companies that deliver to Hoag Hospital. 111. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all internal combustion engines associated with construction activities shall be fitted with properly maintained mufflers and kept in proper tune. 112. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noises that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. 117. Use of the heliport/helipad shall be limited to emergency medical purposes or the transportation of critically ill patients in immediate need of medical care not available at Hoag Hospital. Helicopters shall, to the extent feasible, arrive at, and depart from the helipad, from the northeast, to mitigate noise impacts on residential units to the west and south. 119. Non - vehicular activities, such as the operation of the trash compactor, which occur in the vicinity of the service /access road shall be operated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m, and 7:00 p.m. daily. The following mitigation measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and have been implemented. These mitigation measures would no longer need to be tracked through mitigation monitoring. 114. Rooftop mechanical equipment screening on the emergency room expansion shall not extend closer than fifteen feet from the west edge of the structure and no closerthan ten feet from the edge of the structure on any other side. 115. Noise from the emergency room expansion rooftop mechanical equipment shall not exceed 55 dBA at the property line. The following mitigation measure applied to the critical care /surgery center, which will not be developed. Therefore, this measure would no longer be applicable. 120. Within one yearfrom the date of final approval of the Planned Community District Regulations and development Plan by the California Coastal Commission, as an interim measure, the Project Sponsor shall implement an acoustical and /or landscape screen to provide a visual screen from and reduce noise to adjoining residences from the loading dock area. RAProjec6 NmpodlJM NONnihal Stud 041405.doc 44 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study The design process for the Critical Care Surgery Addition shall include an architectural and acoustical study to insure the inclusion of optimal acoustical screening of the loading dock area by that addition. Subsequent to the construction of the Critical Care Surgery Addition, an additional acoustical study shall be conducted to assess the sound attenuation achieved by that addition. If no significant sound attenuation is achieved, the hospital shall submit an architectural and acoustical study assessing the feasibility and sound attenuation implications of enclosing the loading dock area. If enclosure is determined to be physically feasible and effective in reducing noise impacts along the service access road, enclosure shall be required. Any enclosure required pursuant to this requirement may encroach into any required setback upon the review and approval of a Modification as set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. e) For a project located 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not located within any airport land use plan, and is located more than two miles away from a public or public use airport or private airstrip. No further assessment in the Supplemental EIR is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. As previously discussed, Hoag Hospital has an existing helipad. The proposed project would not alter the location or demand for helicopter usage. Final EIR No. 142 acknowledges that increases in population, and use of hospital facilities, may result in an increased need for emergency helicopter service. Final EIR No. 142 also states that because this activity is subject to a Conditional Use Permit, it was not considered a part of the project. The amendment does not propose any substantial changes from what was addressed in Final EIR No. 142. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate a substantial growth in population beyond what was addressed in Final EIR No. 142. Final EIR No. 142 identified no impacts in terms of population, employment, or housing. The amount of additional square footage within the Hoag Hospital Master Plan is nominal. The project provides for a reallocation from the Lower to the Upper Campus and an additional 24,215 square feet of medical use on the Upper Campus. The level of development at the Hoag Hospital Campus is consistent with the City General Plan and with regional growth projections. The project does not provide excess infrastructure capacity that would support substantial population growth. The project would provide for R1P"ec6Wmw dUOOMNDP%Iribal SWCy-041405.doe 45 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv increased employment. Short-term employment opportunities would be available during construction although it is anticipated that these employment opportunities could be filled by the local labor pool. With the overall growth in the size of the facilities at Hoag Hospital, there would be an increase in long -term employment opportunities although this would be expected to be nominal. Although not expected to be significant, the potential for growth inducement on the remaining land on the Hoag Hospital site will be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? or C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. There is no existing or planned housing at Hoag Hospital. Therefore, no housing or persons will be displaced as a part of the implementation of the proposed Master Plan project. Because the project boundaries are the same as the existing facility, no impacts would occur. This issue will not be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which 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? Police Protection? Potentially Signiftcant Impact. The redistribution of development on the site may result in greater traffic volumes at key intersections. The Supplemental EIR will address the potential effects of redistribution of traffic on emergency service access to the site. The following measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 91. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by the City Public Works and Fire Department. 94. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate, tothe satisfaction of the City Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression. systems. Schools? No Impact. The change in intensity of the Upper Campus would not result in impacts to schools. The project is not proposing any uses that would generate additional students. R:Tmjec9 Ne po UOWNORnidal SWdy-041405.doc 46 City of Newport Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Parks? No Impact. As a part of the Master Plan, a 0.28 -acre public view park, Sunset View Park, and a 0.52 -acre linear view park were provided. The park was provided as a project amenity to the community. No impacts were identified in Final EIR No. 142. The limited additional square footage requested as a part of the project (24,215 square feet) would not result in any new significant impacts. Other Public Facilities? No Impact. The project would not be expected to have impacts to other public facilities. No impacts were identified in Final EIR No. 142; the limited additional square footage associated with the proposed project is not expected to result any new significant impacts. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. As previously noted, as a part of the Master Plan, a 0.28 -acre public view park, Sunset View Park, and a 0.52 -acre linear view park was provided. The park was provided as a project amenity to the community. No impacts were identified in Final EIR No. 142. The limited additional square footage requested as a part of the project (24,215 square feet) would not result in any new significant impacts. The following mitigation measure was adopted and has been implemented. This mitigation measure would no longer need to be tracked through mitigation monitoring. 47. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate and grade the proposed linear and consolidated View park as identified in the project description (Figure 3.2.1). The Project Sponsor will dedicate land for a 0.28 -acre consolidated view park and a 0.52 -acre linear view park. XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION—Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan 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)? or b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? R:\ Projects\Nevport\d0051NOP%Mitial Study-041405.d= 47 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial studv Potentially Significant Impact. The project has the potential to generate short-term construction- related and long -term operational traffic. A traffic study will be prepared to evaluate implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan project. The traffic study is anticipated to include the following components: 1) identification of existing traffic conditions on the project site and in the traffic study area; 2) evaluation of existing conditions with buildout of the Master Plan; 3) evaluation of future traffic conditions with the addition of cumulative projects but without the proposed project; and 4) evaluation of future traffic conditions with the addition of cumulative projects and the proposed project. The following traffic measures were adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 25. Subsequent to completion of Phase I of the project, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis for each phase of Master Plan development. The analysis shall identify potential intersection impacts, the proposed project traffic volume contributions at these impacted intersections, and the schedule for any intersection improvements identified as necessary by the study to insure a satisfactory level of service as defined by the TPO. This report shall be approved by the City prior to commencement of that phase of construction. 28. The Project Sponsor shall continue to comply with all applicable regulations adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District that pertain to trip reductions such as Regulation 15. 29. The project shall comply with the City of Newport Beach Transportation Demand Management Ordinance approved by the City Council pursuant to the County's Congestion Management Plan. 33. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits for the phase of Master Plan development that includes new, or modifications to existing, internal roadways (other than service roads), the Project Sponsor will prepare an internal circulation plan for submittal to and approval by the Director of Public Works that identifies all feasible measures to eliminate internal traffic congestion and facilities ingress and egress to the site, All feasible measures identified in this study shall be incorporated into the site plan. 35. As each phase of the Master Plan is constructed, the Project Sponsor shall provide each new employee a packet outlining the available ridesharing services and programs and the number of the Transportation Coordinator. All new employees shall be included in the yearly update of the trip reduction plan for Hoag Hospital in compliance with the City of Newport Beach Trip Reduction Plan .2 101. In conjunction with the application for a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit a construction phasing and traffic control plan for each phase of 2 The mitigation measure has been updated to reflect the City's Trip Reduction Plan. The original mitigation measure stated, "all applicable regulations adopted by the Southern California Air Quality Management District that pertain to trip reductions such as Regulation 15.' Since the project was approved, the South Coast Air Quality Management District has delegated the development and implementation of trip reduction plans to the local jurisdictions. RAProjec%NW pp JGGBMPVnibal Study-041405.tic 48 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment initial Studv development. This plan would identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc.). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 102. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. 103. The Project Sponsor shall provide advance written notice of temporary traffic disruptions to affected area business and the public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to disruptions. 104. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that constructions activities requiring more than 16 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour, such as excavation and concrete pours, shall be limited between June 1 and September 1 to avoid traffic conflicts with beach and tourist traffic. At all other times, such activities shall be limited to 25 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour unless otherwise approved by the City traffic engineer. Haul operations will be monitored by the Public Works Department and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion problems arise. 108. Prior to issuance of any grading and building permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit a Trip Reduction Plan for construction crew members. This plan shall identify measures, such as ride - sharing and transit incentives, to reduce vehicle miles traveled by construction crews. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Mitigation Measure 27 stated, "Subsequent to completion of Phase I Master Plan development, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. This study shall analyze whether the traffic to be generated by the subsequent phases of development (Phases II and III) will exceed 1,856 PM peak hour trips when added to the trips generated by the existing (including Phase 1) Hoag Hospital development. This study shall be conducted prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for Phase II or III development." Updating of this measure to reflect the Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements is recommended; therefore, the following wording will apply to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan: 27. For each phase of Master Plan development, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study prepared in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) guidelines and to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. In addition, the following mitigation measure was adopted as part of Final EIR No. 142. Mitigation Measure 26 applied to Phase I of the project, which has been implemented. Further tracking of this mitigation measure through the mitigation monitoring program is no longer necessary. New traffic analysis is required for all phases subsequent to R9Pmjecls%Nawpon1J0WN0P11nitial Study-041405.doc 49 city of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Phase I in compliance with the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Therefore, the following measure would not be applicable to the proposed Master Plan amendment project: 26. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I of the project, the Project Sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. This study shall determine if the traffic to be generated by existing plus Phase I development will not exceed 1,338 PM peak hour traffic trips. In the event the Traffic Engineer determines that existing plus Phase I development will generate more than 1,338 PM peak hour trips, the project shall be reduced in size or the mix of land uses will be altered to reduce the PM peak hour trips to, at, or below 1,338. Mitigation Measure 31 has been implemented. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 34 is redundant to Mitigation Measure 24 and the TPO requirements. Therefore, these measures no longer need to be monitored: 31. Prior to issuance of a grading pennit for any of the proposed Master Plan facilities, the Project Sponsor shall implement a program, approved by the City Traffic Engineer, that monitors and manages usage of the Upper and Lower Campus service roads during non - working hours. Such controls may include requesting that the majority of vendors deliver products (other than emergency products) during working hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.), signage to restrict use of the road by hospital employees, physicians, patients and visitors during nonworking hours, and other methods by which to restrict use. The hospital shall also request that vendors not deliver (i.e., scheduled and routine deliveries) on the weekends. This restriction specifically applies to scheduled and routine deliveries. The results of this program shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of the grading permit. If the results indicate that such controls do not significantly impact the operations of the hospital, and provided that requests for specified vendor delivery times is consistent with future Air Quality Management Plan procedures, the City may require that the program be implemented as hospital policy. If operation impacts are significant, other mitigation measures would be investigated at the time to reduce service road impacts to the adjacent residential units. 34. Depending on actual site build-out,, intersection improvements may be required at the Hospital Road (Upper Campus access) Placentia Avenue Intersection and at the WCH (Lower Campus access) intersection. The need for these improvements shall be assessed during subsequent traffic studies to be Conducted in association with Mitigation Measure 25. C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? or d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses _(e.g. farm equipment)? or R:IPmjec6lNa podUOWNOPllnitial Study -041405.do 50 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. No changes are proposed in the Master Plan project that would result in unsafe conditions to motorists or pedestrians due to design features or incompatible uses. A study of on -site traffic circulation will be conducted as a part of the Supplemental EIR; mitigation shall be provided, as required, to mitigate potential impacts to emergency access. The following measure was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the proposed Master Plan amendment. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measure 95. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Fire Department that all existing and new access roads surrounding the project site shall be designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless the accessway meets minimum width requirements of the Public Works and Fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width. Also see Mitigation Measure 91 under Public Services. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (adopted on May 26, 1992, as amended) all parking for the hospital must be provided on the site in surface lots, subterranean lots, and/or parking structures. Parking requirements are as set forth in the Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations. The proposed amendments would not alter the parking requirements associated with implementation of the proposed Master Plan project. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 32. Prior to issuance of approvals for development phases subsequent to Phase I, the applicant shall submit to the City Traffic Engineer for his/her review and approval, a study that identifies the appropriate parking generation rates. The findings of this study shall be based on empirical or survey data for the proposed parking rates. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. Final EIR No. 142 noted that implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan would contribute to an increased demand for public transit. Although Final EIR No. 142 did not consider this to be a significant impact, Mitigation Measure 30 was incorporated to ensure accessibility of transit service for employees, visitors, and patrons of Hoag Hospital. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. This issue was adequately addressed in Final EIR No. 142 and will not be further evaluated in the Supplemental EIR. The following mitigation measure was adopted as part of the Final EIR No. 142. Minor modification to the wording of the measure is recommended to reflect that OCTA, not the R4PmjecWNewpa UOW%NOP11nita1 Study-041a 5.Loc 51 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Study City would determine the location for bus turnouts. The recommended changes are shown below. Strikeout text is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. This measure would continue to apply to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan, and would apply to the project, as amended. Previouslv Adopted Mitigation Measures 30. In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for employees, visitors and patrons of the Hospital, the following transit amenities shall be incorporated into the Master Plan project: Bus turnouts shall be installed if—,-a� required by the City Traffic Engineer after City consultation with OCTA, at all current bus stop locations adjacent to the project site. Bus turnouts shall be installed in accordance with standard design guidelines as indicated in OCTA's Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities. Please also refer to Mitigation Measures 38 and 108 as identified in (a) above. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —Would the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? or b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? or C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects and/or would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which services or may serve the project that has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. Final Program EIR No. 142 addressed potential impacts to utility and service systems. The document noted that there was adequate water supply to serve build out of the Master Plan project. Service connections would be taken from the existing 16 -inch City water main that runs east -west in a dedicated City easement on the residential side of the property line. Connections are private lines. Further, Final Program EIR No. 142 noted that there is a sewer line in West Coast Highway to serve the project. The potential need to expand the existing 15 -inch. City sewertrunk main was identified and addressed in Final EIR No. 142. R9Pm1em%NeappnuooalNOPl1nl1ie1 swdyaaidos.doc 52 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv The following mitigation measure was adopted as part of the Final EIR No. 142 and would apply to the project, as amended. Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures 92. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate that final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water- saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. The Project Sponsor will also comply with any other City adopted water conservation policies. 93. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a master plan of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared for the site. The Project Sponsor shall verify the adequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and construct any modifications or facilities necessitated by the proposed project development. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? or g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant. Final EIR No. 142 did not identify any significant impacts with regarding the ability to provide adequate disposal capacity for municipal solid waste and infectious waste material. The project would not substantially alter the amount of solid waste being generated by the project. New regulations pertaining to solid waste disposal have been implemented since the certification of Final EIR No. 142. The California Integrated Waste Management Board requires that all counties have an approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). To be approved, the CIW MP must demonstrate sufficient solid waste disposal capacity for at least fifteen years, or identify additional capacity outside of the county's jurisdiction. Orange County's CIW MP, approved in 1996, contains future solid waste disposal demand based on the County population projections adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The Orange County landfill system has capacity in excess of 15 years. Though no significant impact is anticipated as a result of the project, the following new mitigation measure would apply to the project to further reduce impacts on County land fills. New Mitigation Measure During project Construction, the contractor shall be required, to the extent practicable, to take concrete and asphalt from project demolition to an off site recycling location to minimize impacts to existing landfills. The contractor shall provide the City of Newport Beach Building Department verification that the materials have been recycled. References Environmental Data Resources, Inc. February 22, 2005. EDR Site Report for 1 Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for the BonTerra Consulting, Costa Mesa, California. LSA Associates, Inc. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 142 for Hoag Hospital Master Plan, SCH #89061429. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach, California. RiPr.J.ts .po U006lN Nhifial Stud, -041405.Wo 53 City or Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv Newport Beach, City of. October 24, 1988, as amended. Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach, City of. May 26, 1992. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations. South Central Coastal Information Center. February 22, 2005. Hoag Hospital Records Search. Prepared for BonTerra Consulting, Costa Mesa, California. RAPmj001s%Ne podW0081N0Pdni4a1 Study-0414054M 54 City of Newport Beach 05 -18 -2005 12:42PM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 8495530935 T -072 P.002/002 F -521 southern Calharnla Gas Company 1919 S. State COUP Blvd. Anahelrh, CA 92806 -6114 The Gas Company A �Sernpra Energy utility" April 20, 2005 Hogle- Ireland, Ine. 42 Corporate Park, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92606 Attention: David Lepo, Contract P.M. SUbjecp FIR — Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment City of Newport Beach Thank you for providing the oworoardty to respond to this E.I.R. (Environmental 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 them 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 contactual arrangements are made and construction 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 (Commercial/Industrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Custenaers). 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 farther information on any of our energy conservation programs, plesse contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, Technical Supervisor Pacific Coast Region ntttmb c'ua5.tloc 05 -24 -2005 08:23AM FROM- HOGLE-IRELAND 9485530935 T-093 P.002/004 F -581 Ribaudo 260 Cagney Larne No. 320 Newport Reach, CA 92663 9 May 2005 Mr. David Lepo, Contract Project Manager Hogle- Ireland, Inc. 42 Corporate Park, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92606 Dear Mr. Lepo, My wife and I have lived in Villa Balboa since 1983. We have lived through every aspect of the Hoag Hospital development. After many hours of participation in meetings at every city level an agreement was made which allowed the hospital to develop both the upper and lower campuses. This was done in 1992, and it allowed the maximum amount of square footage for both the lower and upper campuses. The City of Newport Beach and our community gained only one thing, and that was height limitations of the buildings scheduled for the lower campus. This was a hard fought battle, but an agreement was made. Public views were protected because of the park built on the ridge above the lower campus. Sometime before the Women's Pavilion on the upper campus was built, the hospital came back with the first amendment to the agreement and asked for an increase in square footage because they didn't realize the area zoned for earthquake protection would take space away from active care areas. That in itself is hard for me to believe, but the additional square footage was granted. Than came a request from Hoag that they wanted to build a co- generating plant (power plant) on the far end of their property. This was granted in spite of some of the emissions from the plant being above what is allowed for a manufacturing facility. I speak of Reactive Organic Gasses or V.O.C.s (Volatile Organic Compounds). The South Coast Air Quality Management District states that 50 lbs of this material will be emitted daily, whereas Raytheon Corporation in El Segundo is limited to 10 lbs_ per day, according to AQMD's Rule 1122. Our question is, why would the AQMD allow Hoag to emit 30 lbs. of V.O.C.s per day while limiting a manufacturing facility to only 10 lbs. per day. Now the hospital wants the additional square feet of area that the power plant took for more dense development on both upper and lower campuses. 05- 24-2005 08:24AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -083 P.003/004 F -581 5-9 -05 Mr. David iepo page two Every time the hospital asks for more area for any reason they usually get their way, and that is really upsetting, especially when every time the question of increased traffic is brought up we are told, "There will be no significant increase in traffic due to this particular expansion". One only has to stand at the comer of Superior and Hospital Rd. to see the increase in traffic. Please consider not granting this amendment until a thorough study is done on traffic and noise. This cannot be done until after the Women's Pavilion is open and operating on a 2417 basis. Currently an empty building cannot be put into the equation. It is understood that the power plant will not generate any traffic, but it will generate a lot of other things. See attached sheet from AQMD. Belle NL Ribaudo :b cc: C. Ouellette — Villageway Management 05 -24 -2005 06:24AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T-093 P.004/004 F -591 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 E. Copley Drive. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4182 a (909) 396 -2000 • www.agmd.gov NOTICE OF EgTENT TO ISSUE 'tPERMTY TO CONSTRUCT and OPF.RATV PURSUANT TO RULE 232 This notice is to inform you that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) has received applications for permit to construct and operate three na mal -gas fired internal combustion engines and one natural gas+fuel oil (amber oil 363) fired boiler at a location in your neighborhood. The AQMD is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Anyone wishing to operate, install or modify equipment that could be a source of air pollution within this region must first obtain a permit from the AQMD. Rule 212 requires the applicant for certain projects, such as this one, to distribute and publish a public notice prepared by the AVID prior in the issuance of a pemoiL The AQMD has evaluated the permit applications for the following equipment and detemtined that the equipment will meet al l applicable air quality requirements of our Rules and Regulations. Company Name: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Application Nos.: 406575,4W76, 406571 & 406578 Location Address: ONE HOAG DR, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 Project Description: THREE NATURAL, GAS FIRED INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES AND A NATURAL GAS/FUEL OIL (AMBER 363) FIRED BOILER This project will use the best available technology for controlling air pollution. Our calculations show that a maximum of 52 pounds of Nitrogen Oxides, 93 pounds of Carbon Monoxide, 50 pounds of Reactive organic Gases (RGG), 18 pounds of Particulate Matter under 10 microns (PM10), and 1 pound of Sulfur Oxides will be emitted from the project described above in any one day. Generally, the amount will be less. But even at the maximum amount, this project complies with all aspects of the AQMD's air pollution control requirements. Detailed computer modeling has shown that the proposed project should have no adverse impact on the surrounding community. This project also emits pollutants that are identified as to cause cancer. Therefore, a health risk assessment was performed for these permit applications. The calculation overrstimates actual risk since it assumes that a person is at the location of highest exposure for an entire lifetime (24 hours/day, 365 dayslyear for 70 years). Even assuming Lhis uNikely condition she evaluation shows that the chance of this project causing cancer is less than twenty seven in- a- million which is within limits considered acceptable for new /modified s=ces. The air quality analysis of this project is available for public review at the AQMD's headquarters in Diamond Bar, and at the Library in City of Newport Beach at 1000 Avaeado Avenue. Information regarding the facility owner's compliance history submitted to the AQMD pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 42336, or otherwise known to the AQMD, based on credible information, is also available from the AQMD for public review, Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed issuance of this permit should submit his or her comments in writing within 30 days of the distribution date shown below. If you are concerned primarily about zoning decisions and the process by which this facility has been sited at this location, you should contact your local city or county planning department. Please submit comments related to air quality to Mf_ Hemang Desai, Air Quality Engineer, General Commercial Team, SDuth Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765 -4182. For additional information, plcase call Mr. Hemang Desai at (909) 396.2596. Distribution Date: January 17, 2003 hope 1) 05 -19 -2005 01:02PM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND DEPARTMENT 08 TRAMSK Doshid 12 3337 Mwbdsym Drinc, SUUC SW Wne, CA 95612.8594 Tel: (949) 7242267 Fu (949)724 -2592 May 11, 2005 Mr. David Lupo City of Newport Rea 3300 Newport Bottle Newport Bit, CA Sett: Hoag 9495530935 T -073 P.002/002 F -522 FAX & MAIL Master Plan Alt pae: WAUCEQA S SCR#: 1999107100 Log #:1546 SR f PCH •t a j%=Y mrPVWff/ :Ufl�U&,l Tbank you for the op orhrmty m review and on the Notice of Prep u ndm (NOV) fora Aran EnAmnmUMW 1:11 Report (REM) for the Hoag Has M29t0 Film Amendment. The project consists ameadmmd of the Dever A bdvm The �m of Ntewport Beach MA Hoag Hospital, m brc[ease The snmdorum allowable bucil" area'for tbo Hoag Hospital site• TIM Pmjeet site is located on Oae Hoag chive in the City of Nevvpar�Heaeh The marem Snore lior 6 to the pmjwt ace Psea$c Coast I hwaY PH and SRr55. Caltrsds Dis m 12 gitshrs is a r agcy w this p and alas the fallowing rmrinneots: t as Section of the NOF hcdicates that the project hag the pot�at d to The Traasport8tion/Crrddati re>amd laag- ct tcnf r and that a >r�C generate st,on ge®+ odncwction- ,�p will be prepared. The Ihafiie study should in mgb ��8 . 111 average daa l ysis and peak -hour analysis far all acted state highway facilS. Tire teEot�d st�nrrld be performed based on shown in the Highway Capacity Ma mW. in order rc! further assist you with the am lysm era have inclosed the Cahtaas Wde for Preparation of'Traffc Impact Studies (P19)• fudtre dwelupm�s, wbwh could potentially i the Phase cnue to as ocd of any related iq the above eommcmv, do state can on Ma ft If yea have any questions not hesitate to caatact Maryam Molavi of my staff at (949) 724- 2267, S�ncera(y� Post+"r Fu% Note 7671 T ~ ufLL CO. ^G ROBERT F. IOSi;ae Chief Pnn� r Trmc mmmmity Fta"it BrazA C: t .q - Terry Roberts, 01fiao of Piarming and Rmearcb Terri reozovic, dalnans HQ MR(Coxa nuaity P122mm Gale Mchtym E6$Wet 12 Depdy Director of Plambg Isaac Aloaeo Rich, Traffic Opera'doas South pravuea Gupta, Elmromamw PWmmg -n.bM n e eWme%enr � Ca*"O•- S } MEMORANDUM To: James Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee ( "EQAC ") City of Newport Beach Subject: Notice of Preparation ("NOP ") for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment (the "Project ") for the City of Newport Beach ("City") Date: May 17, 2005 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment. Listed below are our comments. Project Description The NOP contains an incomplete and confusing proposed Project description, which the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "SEIR ") should complete and clarify. The Project Description identifies the "General Plan Maximum allowable building areas" as 765,349 square feet for the Upper Campus and 577,889 square feet for the Lower Campus. The NOP proposes adding 5,592 square feet to the Lower Campus building area (bringing it to 583,481 square feet.) as the result of vacation of an unused easement by the City. (Page 2) The SEIR should clarify the location of the easement, identify who owns the underlying fee and describe the current easement use. The Project Description further proposes the addition of 24,215 square feet to the building area because the existing cogeneration facility is "non- occupied" and "does not materially increase vehicle trip generation." It is unclear what "non- occupied" means. The SEIR should describe the current use for the cogeneration facility and provide a clear comparison of the current vehicle trip generation and the change due to the proposed Project. Further, the SEIR should clarify how the addition of the addition of the 24,215 square feet would not create additional vehicle trip generation. The total allowable building area now is 1,343,238 square feet of development. This doesn't include, because of the 2002 amendment, "buildings" that are "non- occupied." The SEIR should clarify how much of the current allowable 1,343,238 square feet is built at this time. The NOP states that the addition of both of these areas would increase maximum allowable building area on the Upper and Lower Campuses to 1,373,045 square feet. EQAC Hoag Master Plan NOP Page 2 May 17, 2005 However, the document proposes a maximum Upper Campus building area of 990,349 square feet and a maximum Lower Campus building area of 583,481 square feet. This represents a total of 1,528,830 square feet of maximum allowable building area, but the NOP states: "In no event could the building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,373,045 square feet." This discrepancy should be clarified in the SEIR. The SEIR should include the site plan on the Upper and Lower Campuses, including plans for a new and/or expanded cogeneration facility. (Page 3) The Project Description section states: "Other changes may be required in the Hoag Hospital PC text to reflect and be consistent with changes to the Development Agreement and General Plan indicated above and/or to provide clarification of standards applicable to future development approvals." Given the discrepancy in the maximum allowable building area cited above, there are concerns that the 'other changes" may be related to this additional 155,785 square foot of development rights above the alleged "maximum," and that these other changes may not be included in the traffic report or other studies that assess the proposed Project's impacts. Again, the SEIR should fully address and clarify this discrepancy in the maximum allowable building area. (Page 3) Environmental Checklist Aesthetics This section addresses the potential aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed Project. The Upper Campus construction will be sited over the existing footprint (after demolition), and while it will be higher, it does not exceed existing maximum building height or setbacks. A landscaping plan will require screening equipment and trash from public view, clean rooftops (no mechanical equip) and softening the architecture with plantings. According to the NOP, several mitigation measures associated with aesthetics that were adopted for Final EIR No. 142 will apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure 48 states that "(p)rior to issuance of a building permit for any Lower Campus structure, the Project Sponsor shall prepare a study of each proposed building project to assure conformance with the EIR view impact analysis and the PCDP and District Regulations, to ensure that the visual impacts identified in the EIR are consistent with actual Master Plan development." The SEIR should fully address these view impacts. The study of each proposed building project should be included in the SEIR. While care has been taken to minimize light spillage and concealment of light sources, given the close proximity of residential housing on the both campuses, the SEIR should include restrictions on all non - essential lighting. For example, the SEIR should provide a mitigation measure that would restrict architectural lights after 10:00 PM. EQAC Hoag Master Plan NOP Page 3 May 17, 2005 Air Ouality The NOP deals with air quality issues in and around the proposed Project area and ends with a commitment to identify "sensitive receptor areas within the proposed Project vicinity." The SEIR should expand the commitment to include receptors in the adjacent neighborhoods, where there is a heavy concentration of residential housing, and should include a commitment to any necessary mitigation. (Page 16) The NOP further proposes "increasing the capacity of the cogeneration facility that serves the hospital." The size and location of this facility should be detailed in the SEIR so that factors in addition to air quality can be evaluated. Specifically, noise impacts of this increased size cogeneration facility should be addressed in detail in Section XI —Noise. (Page 16) Mitigation measures 37, 88, 96, 97, 98 and 99 put heavy emphases on "energy efficiency" items in the Air Quality section of this NOP. It is not clear why these measures are included in this section unless they relate to a plan to add on -site electrical power generation equipment. If this is so, the cogeneration facility must be planned for expansion, and all aspects this should be discussed in detail in the SEIR. (Pages 17 and 18) This section states that the City, not the applicant, is responsible for California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") documentation related to "new significant impacts" resulting from the proposed Project, and the applicant proposes to transfer its responsibility for generation of this CEQA documentation to the City. Please identify the CEQA reference that authorizes this transfer of responsibility. Also, please confirm that "air quality analysis" identified in the top paragraph on Page 19 is to be conducted by the Project Sponsor. (Pages 18 and 19) The NOP proposes elimination of mitigation measure 109 because the Air Quality Management Plan ( "AQMP ") has now been approved and obviates the need for it. Since the AQMP is used here and elsewhere in the NOP to relieve the Project Sponsor of various documentation and reporting requirements, specific references to AQMP sections should be cited in the SEIR if they are being used to eliminate previously approved Project Sponsor obligations. (Page 20) The NOP states that no "objectionable odors" are anticipated from the proposed Project and that this issue will not be addressed in the SEIR. Since the proposed Project is in the vicinity of active seismic faults and producing oil fields, it seems that there is risk of releasing underground gases during some deep excavation and/or construction activities. Proof should be presented to assure that the "no objectionable odors" position by the Project Sponsor is substantiated by reliable data. (Page 21) EQAC Hoag Master Plan NOP Page 4 May 17, 2005 Hazards and Hazardous Materials According to the NOP, the majority of hazards and hazardous materials issues have been adequately addressed in the analysis conducted as part of the Final E1RNo. 142. However, the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section states that there is one area that would have a significant impact unless appropriate mitigation is implemented. Subsection g states: "Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan" Mitigation Measure 101 "requires the preparation of the construction phasing plan to ensure that emergency access is maintained during construction activities." The SEIR should include a detailed plan of action, more than the discussed study of on -site circulation, to discuss the emergency response and evacuation plans during the construction process as to not stress and/or cause more damage in the event of a site or neighboring emergency. Hydrology and Water Quality This section focuses on potential impacts to surface water hydrology, surface water quality, groundwater hydrology, and groundwater quality resulting from the development of the proposed Project. Subsections a, b, c, d, e, and f should all be viewed as "Potential Significant Impact" as the upper area could be increased by almost 30 percent. This 30 percent increase represents an area of 225,000 square feet, which on its own is considered to be a significant area. The SEIR should evaluate all of these areas in -depth with the new highest possible numbers. Land Use and Plannin¢ This section states that the impacts of "placement of hospital buildings adjacent to the existing residential units, in combination with shade and shadow and noise impacts, were considered significant and unavoidable impacts of the Master Plan project" and were discussed in Final EIR No. 142. The section goes on to say that "(t)he proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter or make these impacts more severe...No new significant impacts to the larger community would be anticipated with the modifications proposed." (Page 41) The SEIR should fully discuss and analyze how the changes to the Master Plan that are proposed with this Project do not alter or make the land use impacts more severe to the surrounding residential community. EQAC Hoag Master Plan NOP Page 5 May 17, 2005 l ! Noise Mitigation Measure 40 proposes to mitigate interior noise levels over 45 CNEL "prior to occupancy of Master Plan facilities." This seems to be a poor approach to noise mitigation since noise reduction/elimination at the source should be first priority. It may be expensive (or impossible) to solve the noise reduction problems "after the fact" rather than incorporating noise reduction measures into the initial design and construction processes. (Page 43) Subsection f of this section asserts that there will be no noise impact due to usage of the helipad. Since "EIR 142 acknowledges that increases in population, and use of hospital facilities, may result in an increased need for emergency helicopter service," the SEIR should, at least, discuss the impact of future increased emergency helicopter service commensurate with the increases in utilization that are implicit in the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. If future noise mitigation is needed, some measures might be implemented now that may be more difficult or not cost effective later. (Page 45) Public Services The Public Services section states that fire protection and police protection may be significantly impacted by the proposed Project, and it states that the mitigation measures that were adopted for Final EIRNo. 142 would apply to the proposed Project. The SEIR should fully analyze the impacts of the proposed Project on "service ratios, response times and other performance objectives for any of the public services." Further, the SEIR should provide a full discussion of the applicability of the mitigation measures that were adopted for Final EIR No. 142 to the proposed Project. Transvortation/Circulation The NOP is unclear about the amount and location of parking required for the proposed Project. This section states that the proposed amendment would not alter the parking requirement. However, there is not enough information provided in the NOP for decision makers and the public to make such a determination. The earlier plan for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan had an entirely different allocation of development between the Upper Campus and Lower Campus. With the new criteria and allocation of development between the Upper Campus and Lower Campus, the parking should be discussed in detail to insure that adequate parking would be provided in each respective area. The SEIR should indicate: (a) the required parking for the requested square footage currently allowed; (b) the required parking for the requested square footage in the amended plan; (c) where the parking is located and the number of spaces in each location; (d) the number of spaces restricted for pafldng for doctors only and their location; (e) the number of spaces restricted for parking to employees and where they are located; (f) the location of EQAC Hoag Master Plan NOP Page 6 May 17, 2005 available visitor and patient parking and the number of spaces. The SEIR should clarify that the parking requirements for the Upper Campus and Lower Campus will be met. (Page 51) The Transportation/Circulation section states that the traffic study that will be prepared to evaluate implementation of the Hoag Hospital Mast Plan Project will include an "evaluation of future traffic conditions with the addition of cumulative projects and the proposed project." The NOP does not indicate how the "cumulative projects" will be identified. The SEIR should clearly identify the cumulative projects being used and discuss the criteria used to identify them as such. Mitigation Measure 34 describes specific intersections where improvement may be needed. These intersections, even if improved pursuant to Mitigation Measure 34 as part of the earlier master plan, should, nonetheless, be included in the list of intersections to be evaluated in the SEIR traffic study. (Page 50) It would be helpful to persons evaluating the study and the SEIR to have the prior traffic studies and internal circulation studies that were submitted to the Director of Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer attached as exhibits to the new traffic study to be prepared pursuant to this SEIR. The trip reduction plan for the construction crew members that was submitted earlier with EIR No. 142 should be attached as an exhibit to the new traffic study prepared pursuant to this SEIR. The term "transit incentives" as used in Mitigation Measure 108, should be explained and detailed. The text preceding Mitigation Measure 26 indicates that the Measure would not be applicable to the proposed Project, and the Committee agrees. However, a copy of the study given to and approved by the City Traffic Engineer should be attached as an exhibit to the traffic study for this SEIR. (Page 50) The text following Mitigation Measure 26 On page 50 under paragraph no. 26 references Mitigation Measure 24. However, Mitigation Measure 24 is not addressed in the NOR (Page 50) The NOP lists ten traffic measures that were adopted as part of Final EIR 142 and states that they would apply to the proposed Project. The traffic study for the SEIR should address all ten traffic measures in light of the additional impacts associated with the proposed Project, and if necessary, propose additional mitigation measures. Utilities and Service Systems This section analyzes the ways in which the proposed Project will strain the existing utilities and services. It looks at whether the proposed Project will exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new water storm water drainage facilities, have sufficient water supplies and capacity to serve the projected EQAC Hoag Master .Plan NOP Page 7 May 17, 2005 demand and whether there will be sufficient solid waste disposal capacity. The NOP considers that each of these potential environmental issues have less than significant impact based upon Final Program EIR No. 142, stating that there was adequate water supply and adequate sewer and service connections to serve build out of the Master Plan project. It also notes that there would be a potential need to expand the existing 15 -inch City sewer trunk main. Final EIR No. 142 then indicated that the project would not substantially alter the amount of solid waste generated by the project. These assertions are generalities, and the SEIR needs to narrow them to more specifically address the proposed Project. The SEIR should address more than the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities and take into consideration any external or unexpected instances which would require increased water drainage and/or increased solid waste disposal. As a new mitigation measure, the NOP notes that the contractor shall be required, to the extent practicable, to take the project demolition waste to an off site recycling location to minimize impacts to existing landfills and will require verification. The SEIR should emphasize this point and find language more persuasive to encourage participation. Mandatory Findings of Significance This section analyzes the mandatory findings, including the proposed Project's impact on and degradation of the environment, cumulative impacts and any impacts which may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Although the Environmental Checklist notes that the proposed Project may result in potentially significant impacts for each category, the NOP does not contain a section that addresses those impacts or proposed mitigation. The SEIR should fully discuss and analyze the proposed Project's impact on and degradation of the environment, cumulative impacts and any impacts which may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings and propose appropriate mitigation. 05-18-2005 11;43AN FROM- HOGLE-IRELAND 9495530935 T-074 P.002 F -533 JOHN P. AND SUZANNE V. CHAMBERLAIN 260 CAGNEY LANE - UNIT 304 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 949.476.9303 May 17, 2005 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS David Lepo Contract Project Manager HOGLE- IRELAND, INC. 42 Corporate Park Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92606 RE: Notice of Preparation dated April 15, 2005 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Lepo: As is apparent from its content and those References listed at pages 61 to 62 of the document, the Notice of Preparation was drafted without taking into account either the existence or context of the Development Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ("Development Agreement "). It Is by virtue of the Development Agreement - -of which adjoining residents are expresslymade third party beneficiaries - -that any and all development on the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ( "Hoag ") site proceeds.' In that this seminal document, i.e., the 'Section 1.6 of the Development Agreement provides, " _ This Agreement is also consistent with the purpose and intent of state and local laws authorizing development agreements in that it represents comprehensive planning, provides certainty in the approval of subsequent projects subject to compliance with conditions, reduces the economic costs of development by providing assurance to Hoag that it may generally proceed with projects in accordance with existing regulations, and provides assurance to adjoining property owners that limits on the height of structures and amount of development as specified in the Master Plan and this Agreement will remain in full force and affect for a period of twenty -five (25) years (emphasis added)." 05-19 -2005 11:43AM FROMFNOGLE-IRELAND 9496530935 T -074 P.003/012 F-533 Development Agreement was not consulted and utilized in the making of the Notice of Preparation 1 "Notice "), the Notice itself is at least suspect, most likely defective. Article 6. General Provisions, Section 6.5 of the Development Agreement does allow its amendment from time to time. Any amendment, however, is subject to subsection lb) which states: The City Counsel shall not approve, and Hoag shall not request, any amendment.to the provisions of the Master Plan or this Agreement that would increase the maximum permitted gross floor area or the maximum permitted building height (within any lettered building envelope) above that established by the Master Plan as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. This Subsection shall prevail over any conflicting ordinance, resolution, policy or plan adopted by the City Council. As the Notice states at page 5, in connection with the "Project Description," "[t]he project consists of [amendments which] would allow the Newport Beach City Council the discretion to approve a request by Hoag Hospital to ... increase the maximum allowable building area on the Hoag Hospital site ... " Neither the phrase "permitted gross floor area" or the phrase "maximum allowable building area" are terms defined by the Development Agreement.z As such, they retain their usual meaning and interpretation and are, therefore, synonymous in regular parlance. The language of Section 6.5 is mandatory in that It utilizes "shall." Any request by Hoag and any entertaining of such request by the City, would appear to constitute breach of the express terms of the Development Agreement. Therefore, any increase of square footage, for whatever reason, cannot be allowed per the provisions governing development on the Hoag site. Section 1.6 resides in Article 1. Recitals. At Article 11. Miscellaneous Provisions, Section 11. 6, all provisions set forth at "Recitals" are expressly made a part of the terms of the Development Agreement. Section 8.1 of the Development Agreement provides, *'[!In addition, the Master Plan and this Agreement confer benefits on the public and nearby residents by imposing long term restrictions on the height, amount and location of development ... (emphasis added)." 'The Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (referred to in the Notice of Preparation and hereinafter as "PC Text ") is Exhibit C to the Development Agreement and its terms made a part thereof. In the Development Agreement, the PC Text or Exhibit C is referred to as the "Master Plan." 2 05 -19 -2005 11:44AM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -0T4 P.004/012 F-533 In discussing the "Project Background," at page 5, the Notice states, "[iln 2002, the City Council approved the first amendment to the PC text. The first amendment changed the definition of `Gross Floor Area Entitlement' so that certain non - occupied building areas are not counted toward the maximum permissible building floor areas for the project site." As with the phrases "permitted gross floor area" and "maximum allowable building area" discussed above, the phrase "gross floor area entitlement," is not a defined term within the Development Agreement. That this phrase is set forth in the Notice as a defined term and is expressly represented to be a defined term, Indicates a lack of accuracy in the Notice document. Further, based on the mandatory prohibition embodied in Section 6.5 discussed above, it is clear that Hoag violated the provisions of the Development Agreement by even requesting such an amendment, adding as it did to the gross floor area, and that the City Council exceeded its authority In granting such an amendment. The use of "amendment" and implying that such is possible In that it has been done before, is yet another misrepresentation utilized by the Notice to mislead and lull the reader into acquiescence to the development requests. In addition, by requesting and allowing the Increase in floor area relevant to development occurring anywhere on the project site, the floor area ratios or "FAR's" for the Upper Campus and for the Lower Campus, as respectively set forth in the Land Use Element, necessarily would be exceeded. Consequently, the 2002 "amendment" clearly violates the Newport Beach General Plan. This conduct indicates a complete disregard of the terms of the governing document and relevant law, which continuing disregard is manifest by and in the Notice, utilizing this phantom definition and passage of what appears an illegal amendment, to justify that a portion Of the requested floor area increase, to wit, the 24,215 square feet associated with the cogeneration facility, " ... could be approved because [it] does not materially increase vehicle trip generation." Such was the justification for the "amendment." While it is believed no additional development beyond that permitted by the express terms of the Development Agreement may even be legally sted orfllow allowed, ssuming for purposes of argument that such might be granted, observations are made. The only claimed purpose or alleged need for the project is found within the "Environmental Checklist" at page 10 of the Notice, in a more detailed "Description of the Project. The Notice states, ' Itlo allow future flexibility In building placement " This need for "flexibility," however, was well considered in connection with the original (and believed conclusive) approval and was the very reason Hoag was allowed to proceed by way of a Development Agreement and the use of building envelopes. 05 -19 -2005 11 :44AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -074 P.005/012 F-533 The Development Agreement recites. at page 1. Section 1.1. subsection (a). as its express "Purpose," to: Enable Hoag to adapt to the ever changing health care needs of those residents within its service area by authorizing construction of new or additional facilities in a manner that will allow Hoag to respond to rapid changes in medical and health care technology and delivery systems. The Notice itself, at page 5. accurately conveys the developmental freedom afforded Hoag by the PC Text, observing. "[tjhe PC Text does not specify building locations or specific building uses, however, permitted uses for each of the two main campuses are listed in the PC Text." The lists of uses in the PC Text are lengthy, containing only vague, broad categories of building purpose. To return now and claim the need for "flexibility" strains credibility. This passage at page 10 continues. " ... while limiting the intensity of building on the Lower Campus, the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element would establish a maximum allowable building area on the Upper Campus of 990,349 sq.ft. and a maximum allowable amendment on the Lower Campus of 583.481 sq.ft. In no event could the building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,373,045 sq.ft."' Beyond the baselessly alleged need for the project discussed above. this passage is fraught with misdirection. There are numerous references throughout the "Narrative Discussion of the Checklist Evaluation" to the reallocation of development from the Lower to the Upper Campus." The fact is. under the existing Development Agreement and General Plan, Hoag is allowed 577.889 square feet of development on the Lower Campus with an FAR of 0.65 and 0.90 for structures including above -grade covered parking. Assuming the vacation of the easement by the City of Newport Beach. Hoag would be entitled to an additional 5.592 square feet of development for a total of 583,481 square feet. This is the amount sought by the project. calculated at the existing FAR. There is no less development than is currently allowed on the Lower Campus. There is no "reallocation." In that it appears not to be reflected in the requested increase for the Lower Campus. arguably what is "reallocated" to the Upper Campus is the 24,215 square feet attributable to the cogeneration plant. The total additional square footage sought for 3The square footage sought for the Lower Campus is the 583,481 number and not 538.481 as sometimes appears throughout the text of the Notice of Preparation. In his presentation in March. 2005. to Villa Balboa homeowners. Peter Faulk, Executive Vice President of Hoag. employed a similar statement. indicating that development would be "shifted" from the Lower to the Upper Campus. 05. 19-2005 11:45AM FROV.1- 110GLE-IRELAND 9495530935 T -074 P.006 /012 F-533 the Upper Campus is not increased by this amount, but by the unexplained, arbitrary, momentous sum of 225,000 square feet.5 The Notice states, "[ijn no event could the building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,373,045 sq.ft.," however, the sum of the square footage Hoag seeks for the site -- 990,349 Upper /583,481 Lower -- totals 1,573,830 square feet. No where is this total set forth in the Notice. How accurate, thorough and unbiased can the analysis be which accompanies such a deceptive Notice and concludes only an SEIR is warranted? Finally as regards the materials preliminary to the actual environmental analysis, it is noted that the Notice at page 1, in connection with a discussion of "Project Location," and again in connection with the "Environmental Checklist" and the topic "Surrounding Land Uses and Setting," at page 8, the document indicates that the Hoag, " ... site is generally bounded by ... residential development and Superior Avenue to the west." This description is misleading. In fact, the vast portion of Hoag's western border- - along which runs its service road —is contiguous to high six - figure residences. The Hoag site never reaches Superior Avenue, as is apparent from Exhibit 1 to the PC Text. The description in the Notice only seeks to mischaracterize the surrounding uses and marginalize the homes of those adjacent to the property. Alternatively, if such erroneous description was innocent error, one must question the reliability of the attendant analysis -- dealing as it does with speculative uses and impacts - -by one who cannot even accurately identify the land to be analyzed. Initially, one part of the mitigation associated with the Hoag development and relevant to each aspect thereof, was the requirement of an annual review. This was provided by the Development Agreement, at Section 5.2 Public Hearing. As is implied, these annual reviews were /are to be conducted at a publicly noticed hearing, pursuant to Chapter 15.45 of the Municipal Code. It should be noted that this resident, well within 300 feet of the project, never has received the requisite notice by mail of any of these required reviews. The comments which follow are made concerning the "Narrative Discussion of the Checklist Evaluation" which is referred to hereinafter as the "Narrative" or the "initial Study." 5Currently, Hoag is allowed 765,349 square feet of development on the Upper Campus with an FAR of 1.0. Based upon rough estimates of present Upper Campus development, it is believed Hoag has exceeded or is close to exceeding the allowable FAR for the Upper Campus. 5 05-19 -2005 11:45AM FROM- HOGLE-IRELAND 9495530935 T-074 P.007/012 F-533 III. Air Quality The inquiry here is, "[wlould the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project ... [clreate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people ?" In response, the Initial Study indicates the project would have a "Less Than Significant Impact." The Narrative then states that, "Hoag Hospital uses do not generate significant odors." This is not true, as the inquiry is not confined to hospital uses, but to anything the developer is doing or may do on the property in connection with its primary use. Unknown to many and as is discussed below in connection with "Utilities and Service Systems," the dining room /cafeteria functions discharge into an underground tank which must be pumped regularly. This process has gotten increasing involved over the years as Hoag's operation has placed more and more pressure on this system. The operation can involve as many as two large pumping trucks and can generate extreme levels of noise for hours, all the while emitting objectional and putrid odors to those anywhere down wind. In that the erroneous conclusion as to property uses was thought dispositive of the issue, it should and must be addressed as a most adverse, regular impact. IX. Land Use and Planning The inquiry here is, "[w]ould the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project ... [c]onflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project ?" In response, the Initial Study indicates the project would have a "Potentially Significant Impact." This is the height of understatement given that by its very being, the "amendment" cannot legally be sought by virtue of, and so at a minimum, "conflicts with" the Development Agreement, the Newport Beach General Plan, and Government Code Section 65864, et seq. The Narrative states that the SEIR will analyze, among other things, " ... consistency with applicable planning and public policy documents." As discussed above, the very proposal of the project is Inconsistent with the express terms and statements of public policy set forth in controlling documents and expressly prohibited thereby. As has been noted before, Hoag and the City have not met certain of their respective obligations under the controlling documents and applicable law. Each has a history with regard to the development under the plan which Hoag now seeks to modify. These past occurrences, instances of disregard, and history of abuses should and cannot be ignored in any honest analysis of the project. Favorable annual reviews of the development cannot be used as an argument in support of the inconsequence of the past and current abuses in that, as discussed above, the annual review safeguard has not been utilized as contemplated by the then -City Council- -which endured the 0 05 -10 -2005 11:45AM FROMFNOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -074 P.008l012 F -533 hours of testimony in opposition - -or as required by law The unjustified grab for 225,000 additional square feet on the upper Campus is symptomatic of development violative of an "applicable land use plan." Of the three height zones set for the Upper Campus by the PC Text, two have currently been exceeded. These include the Tower Zone, limited by the roof of the tower then existing, In exceeding this limit, Hoag has placed, as to the existing tower roof, a flag pole, an extensive antennae installation, a screening to hide the additional equipment placed above the limit and, as to the Women's Pavilion roof, large, rectangular, metal - sheathed installations. In the Parking Zone, nothing was to exceed the height limit with the exception of the lot's elevator tower, Here, Hoag has placed temporary buildings which, while a permitted use, count toward the buildable area and height limitations. Any prospective plan must have meaningful enforcement provisions in place. The Narrative states that, "[tithe existing General Plan will be used as the basis for the analysis." As has been shown, the General Plan has already been violated by requesting and approving by Hoag and the City, respectively, the so called "first amendment" in 2002, which ran afoul of the respective FAR's for the Campuses set by its Land Use Element, How can the General Plan serve as a basis for meaningful analysis when its provisions have already been ignored? The Narrative notes that, "[flinal FIR No. 142 determined that the project would result in significant, unavoidable impacts on residential units ... The proposed amendment to the Master Plan would not alter or make these impacts more severe. Therefore, while these issues will be addressed in the EIR [sic], they would not constitute a new impact." This is the type of limited, "abandon all hope" attitude which indicates the lack of vision and will to do what good planing requires. Generally, where development is deemed to have a significant and unavoidable impact, it is not allowed. Hoag has 38 acres on which to build, and it yet is allowed to concentrate its development where it makes the least sense and causes the most damage. The analysis here acknowledges that it was bad planning before, but the illogical opinion that increased development will not make the impact more severe is simply irresponsible. When the analysis relative to the Upper Campus was originally made, the emergency room addition had not been completed. Passed with a Negative Declaration and the false representation by Hoag that usage would not be increased, it escaped any analysis of its impact on the environment. When within days of its approval by the City, a neighboring ER made public its decision to close, it was clear use would be increased at the Hoag ER. This addition, largely of glass, increased the concrete canyon effect already well inexistence. Then, the Heart Institute was built, replacing 05 -19 -2005 11:46AM FROI1- HOGLE- I ELAN D 9495530935 T-074 P.009/012 F -533 a grassy area.' Any further development on the Upper Campus, whiie providing additional sources of noise, "hardens" the landscape, amplifies the sounds, and prohibits noise from escaping. Beyond this, Hoag efforts at minimizing noise or purchasing non offensive equipment have proved to be of non - effect. In fact, noise levels on the service road have significantly increased over the past two and one -half years with City efforts to abate the problem a dismal failure. Consistent with this, Hoag cannot maintain what it has developed. Planting on the berm along PCH at the gateway to the City, is terrible, being ugly, overgrown, and full of trash. The fact that it borders construction is no excuse. The berm exists independently of use above it. Roofs tops on the site too, are unsightly, strewn with trash and broken, smoke /steam - belching equipment. Publicly, Hoag representatives have stated it has no obligation to maintain or clean up its developed areas. It only wants to develop more. And when Hoag does build, it does so without any concern as to the efficiency of its installations or the adverse impact thereof on the community. The protection afforded by controlling documents such as the Development Agreement, did not exist at the time impacts were assessed by the EIR. There is now a history of the development too, and a pattern of developer conduct which can be analyzed. The quality of development and of site maintenance can be assessed. None of this was taken into account by the Initial Study. in light of the changed circumstances into which the project is now introduced, there is undeniably new impact associated with this plan, and it is significant. XI. Noise The inquiry here, among others, is, "[w]ould the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project result in ... [e]xposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance ...7" In response to this and the other listed inquiries, the Initial Study indicates the project would have a "Potentially Significant Impact." This response clearly draws from the EIR, which in analyzing noise, found an insignificant impact. What is not apparent from the Narrative discussion is that when Final EIR No. 142 was completed, there were no noise ordinances for the City of Newport Beach. 6Throughout the Narrative, there are references to the fact that the Critical Care Surgery Addition was not built, and that mitigation measures or its impact can be ignored. Be advised that in its place, Hoag did construct the Heart Institute, which generates heat, noise, trips, etc., and, in short, adverse impacts on the surrounding environment which cannot and should not be discounted. 05 -19 -2995 11:46AM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 7 -074 P -010 /912 F -533 In order to provide some context for the date generated, the noise studies which were done at the time utilized the county standard as a benchmark. These studies found, for example, that noise levels on the service road to the west of Hoag consistently exceeded the allowable County standard and spiked by the passage of delivery trucks regularly using the road. Since there were no limits in the City, however, the ability of Hoag to generate noise at what were even unacceptable County- levels was unrestricted. Now, the City has applicable noise ordinances which mandate that noise to adjoining residences be no more than 50 DBA at night and no more than 55 DBA in the day, Accordingly, the mitigation measure Item 39. in the Narrative, is irrelevant, its requirements having been ignored by Hoag anyway. Hoag's development does not meet the requirements of this law now. It is unlikely wholly new development will meet these requirements. It is certain that with increased development, Hoag will not. Further, City ordinances now consider as a public nuisance, any excessive noise occurring for more than a period of 15 minutes. This regularly occurs on the Hoag site by virtue of idling big rigs, the use of the sterilizer and the box-crusher .7 All of these activities violate the ordinances due to their attendant noise. Accordingly, In light of these ordinances and the now - Irrelevant analysis in the EIR, these impacts are new, significant, and require a full evaluation, together with the creation of a system for enforcement of standards. Please see the discussion of noise, as well, in connection with "Air Quality" and with "Land Use and Planning" above. As a final point relevant to the discussion of noise, it is expressly noted that the "District Regulations" in the PC Text, specifically Item L. Loading Dock, require that consideration be given to the problem presented by the loading dock. Despite the presence of the Heart Institute built in the place anticipated for the Critical Care Surgery Addition, noise has not been attenuated, rather increased, As regards the dock Itself, its over use, inadequate size, poor design, and worse location necessitates excessive idling and jockeying of trucks (each equipped with back -up alarms). Clearly, this provision and protection has been ignored by Hoag, the City and the Initial Study. While the subject Impact is perhaps not new, it was substantial enough to warrant a specific District Regulation, yet was never mitigated. It should and must be, particularly in that increased development means a larger plant with greater supply and 'Item 119. In the Narrative deals with non - vehicular activities in the loading dock area, and indicates hours of operation were to be limited as a way of mitigating their effect. Again, relevant ordinances were not In place at the time and this mitigation would likely be seen as too little today. Beyond this, even this accommodation is regularly ignored and violated by Hoag which runs such equipment as the sterilizer and box - crusher at all hours. 05 -18 -2005 11:4TAM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 8495530935 T -014 P.011 /012 F-533 delivery needs. The site is already too large to be adequately serviced by the access roads and dock existing on the property. It is strongly urged that main delivery facilities be located off -site and supplies brought in by smaller, lighter vehicles better suited for the maneuverability required by the site configuration as developed by Hoag. XVi. Utilities and Service Systems The inquiry here is, "[wlould the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project . [elxceed wastewater treatment requirements[,] ... [rlequire or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, ... [rjesult in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which services or may serve the project that has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitmentsM ••• [ble served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs ... [or] [c]omply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste ?" In response to all of these inquiries, the Initial Study Indicates the project would have a "Less Than Significant Impact." The Narrative discusses only sewer lines and landfills. A complete ignorance of the fact that all of Hoag is not on a sewer system and that all of the solid waste generated by Hoag is of the type to go into a landfill. As noted above in connection with the discussion of "Air Quality," the dining room /cafeteria functions discharge into an underground tank which must be pumped regularly. Over the years, this process has become more involved as Hoag's operation has increased. Initially taking less than an hour and one small truck, the operation now can require two large trucks and many hours. The fact of this increase alone as to this one limited system disproves the statement in the Narrative that, "[tlhe project would not substantially after the amount for solid waste being generated by the project." A larger project will result in more waste, as well as increased water needs. This is undeniable. 13eyond this, were the drafters of the EIR aware of this fact, perhaps the need to expand the existing 15 -inch sewer trunk main would have been seen as a necessity and not merely a potential need. Were this analyzed then, the appropriateness and true feasibility of such an arrangement would have been reviewed. In that the pumping site is located on the service road bordering the west of Hoag's site, the pumping can only be done on weekends when traffic is light. While yet another example of the site being over - worked and over - developed, it Illustrates that this form of waste management is inappropriate given the confines of the site and the location which this function must occur. More importantly, were this treatment of waste known to those making a "Utilities and Service Systems" analysis of the site and development thereon, would service connections or landfill capacity have been found sufficient to service Hoag's operation or would serious mitigation or 10 05 -19 -2005 11:47AN FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -074 P.012/012 F -533 sewer assessments be in order? It is urged therefore, that this issue be revisited in light of the use by Hoag of this method of waste management, incompatible with surrounding uses as well as those of Hoag itself, which method promises to become larger in scale and increasing offensive, particularly if greater development is permitted. As initially discussed, the project is prohibited by the Development Agreement, attendant documents and relevant law. In the event Hoag and the City proceed, for the foregoing reasons and in light of the fact that the project seeks to amend the Newport Beach General Plan, it Is urged that the project be given full review and a new EIR required, Very truly yours, S V. CHAMBERLAIN JO cc: Robin Clauson, Esq. (by U.S. Mail) 11 �j HN P. CHAMBERLAIN May 17, 2005 Mr. David Lepo Hogle- Ireland, Inc. 42 Corporate Park Dr. Irvine, Ca 92606 Re: Hoag Hospital proposed amendment to Development Agreement with City of Newport Beach, amendment of General Plan, and amendment to the Planned Community (PC) text. Dear Mr. Lepo, I am an owner at Villa Balboa, adjacent to Hoag Hospital , as well as a board member of the Villa Balboa Community Association. I would like to present the following observations and questions regarding this proposed project, for city planning staff's review and response. 1. What are the reasons for this request? I have not found an explanation for Hoag's request , other than they want the newly constructed Co- generation plant to not be counted towards building square footage on the site. That proposal seems strange since the building obviously takes up horizontal and vertical space on the project site. It contributes to both building coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) on the site. On page 2 , it is stated that "An increase in the maximum allowable square footage for the Hoag Hospital site could be approved because the co- generation facility does not increase vehicle trip generation" Let me ask, Is traffic the only criteria that rules the world ... what about the potential adverse visual effects from increased density? 2. As I see it, this request is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by Hoag to increase the FAR on the upper campus by 30% over existing entitlement, from 1.0 FAR to 1.3 FAR. They have revealed this intent by stating that the maximum building square footage on the upper campus would go from 765,340 sq.ft.t. to 990,349sq.ft., an increase of 225,000 sq.ft. This is tantamount to adding another Women's Pavilion building to the upper campus, in addition to the existing entitlement. 3. What is the reason for abandoning the floor area ratio (FAR) caps in favor of maximum building square footage over the entire site? My guess is that Hoag realized that they would run out of building entitlement on the upper campus, so why not transfer entitlement from the lower campus? Under the existing agreement, if they don't build out the lower campus to the full entitlement, that unbuilt entitlement is "lost ". If Hoag built out 990,349 sq.ft. on the upper campus, that would leave only 382,696 sq.ft. remaining on the lower campus. Conceivably Hoag could build the 3 82,696 sq.ft. of building on only portions of the lower campus, leaving extra vacant land for possible future developments via amendments to the agreement (such as this request). Removing the FAR requirement on the lower campus is a future benefit to Hoag; they could consolidate that remaining building sq. footage into a denser configuration than a .65 FAR would permit. For instance, 382,696 buiding sq.ft. at .65 FAR = 13.5 acres. By increasing FAR to 1.0 (no restrictions to FAR), Hoag could accomplish the same amount of building sq.footage on 8.8 acres, a savings of 4.7 acres. This strategy could result in a vacant lower campus parcel (with no entitlement), for which Hoag could come back to the City and request additional entitlement or even another use, such as assisted living , senior center, or other use not likely to encounter much opposition. 4. Are parking structures counted towards building square footage under the current PC text? Perhaps Hoag plans to construct some massive parking structures on the lower campus. The parking structures could even serve the upper campus. If parking structures are not counted towards building square footage, but are counted towards FAR, then there are serious problems with the proposed removal of maximum FAR `s for both upper and lower campuses. 5. The proposed amendment states that the City may abandon an easement so Hoag can gain another 5592 sq.ft. of building entitlement. My question is , where is the easement, and what is its configuration? If the easement exists in an existing building setback zone along one of the project site's edges (ie. Street setback), I would propose that it not be counted towards additional site area for future Hoag development. It can't be built upon anyway! 6. In summary, I believe that the existing development agreement should not be modified at this time. Sincerely, Philip H. Bias 5 La Serena Irvine, CA 92612 05-25-2005 10:08AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND May 18, 2005 9495530935 T -108 P- 002/003 F -611 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 - 77 FAIR DRIVE - CALIFORNIA 92628.1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Mr. David Lepo Contract Project Manager Hogle - Ireland, Inc. 42 Corporate Park, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92606 SUBJECT; NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT 'REPORT FOR THE HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Dear Mr. Lepo: The City of Costa Mesa has reviewed - the Notice of Preparation for Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment. The proposed project consists of amendments to the Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian General Plan, and "Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations." Following are the City's comments on the proposed amendments. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 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. • Newport Boulevard —19"' Street • Newport Boulevard — Broadway • Newport Boulevard — Harbor Boulevard • Newport Boulevard -- Ile Street/Rochester Avenue • Newport Boulevard —17'^ Street • Newport Boulevard —161' Street • Newport Boulevard — Industrial Way • Superior Avenue -1611 Street • SuperiorAvenue -171i Street The City recommends that these intersections be included.in the General Plan study relating to shifting uses from the lower campus to upper campus. Builtling Division (714)754W$ • Code EMlm ffl (714) 754.5623 -Planning Division (71417545245 FAX (714) 754A8S0 - TDD (714) 754-BM - WwN.d.eo4194n44Ae&u4 05 -25 -2005 10:08AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -108 P.003/003 F -611 wn.1 Zpw May 18, 2005 Peg0 2 2) For Year 2025, the City encourages that the General Plan analysis be conducted under the following assumptions: (a) SR -55 Freeway is not extended south of 1 e Street (b) 19'' Street bridge over the Santa Ana River is not constructed The City recommends that all mitigation measures be conditioned based on these assumptions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. The City of Costa Mesa is very interested in the Hoag Hospital expansion. We hope to continue to have close communication on this project and an opportunity to fully understand any significant impacts to the ttansportation system. If you have any questions or need additiorral information, please contact me at (714) 754 -5278. Sincerely, CLAIRE L. FLYNN, AICP Senior Planner oc: Donald D. Lamm, Deputy City Mgr., Dev. Svs. Director R. Michael Robinson, Asst. Dev. Svs. Director Kimberly Brandt, Principal Planner Peter Naghavi, Transportation Mgr. Raja Sethuraman, Assoc. Engineer APPENDIX B DRAFT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA AND DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PC TEXT) HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN DRAFT PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA AND DISTRICT REGULATIONS REVISED AUGUST 29, 2007 Recommended for Approval by the Planning Commission February 20, 1992 Adopted by the City Council City of Newport Beach Amendment No. 744 Ordinance No. 92 -3 May 26,1992 Amendment No. 2002 -001 City Council Ordinance No. 2002 -17 August 27, 2002 Amendment No. _ City Council Ordinance No. .2007 Last saved on 8/29/2007 2:43PM TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 II. GENERAL NOTES ................................................................................................. 2 III. DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................... 3 IV. DEVELOPMENT PLAN ......................................................................................... 5 V. DISTRICT REGULATIONS ................................................................................... 9 VI. HOAG HOSPITAL SIGN PROGRAM ................................................................. 19 VII. HOAG HOSPITAL PARKING REGULATIONS ................... .............................21 VIII. HOAG HOSPITAL LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS .............. .............................22 IX. SITE PLAN REVIEW . .......................................................................................... 24 Last saved on 8/29/2007 2:43PM 10.44 :IIt30M Page Number 1. PLANNED COMMUNITY SITE AND BOUNDARY MAP .......... ..............................6 2. VEHICULAR ACCESS ............ ........................... ..............................7 3. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ........................................................ .............................13 4. LOADING DOCK NOISE STANDARDS ....................... .............................18 TABLES 1. BUILDING AREA STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ................ ..............................8 2. PARKING REQUIREMENTS Last saved on 8/29/2007 2:43PM ................................. .............................21 I. INTRODUCTION Background The Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community District in the City of Newport Beach has been developed in accordance with the Newport Beach General Plan. The purpose of this Planned Community District is to provide a method whereby property may be classified and developed for hospital - related uses. The specifications of this District are intended to provide land use and development standards supportive of the proposed use while ensuring compliance with the intent of all applicable regulatory codes. The Planned Community District includes district regulations and a development plan for both the Upper and Lower Campuses of Hoag Hospital. In general, over the long term, the Upper Campus will become oriented primarily towards emergency, acute and critical care (predominantly inpatient) uses and the Lower Campus will be developed with predominantly outpatient uses, residential care and support services. Whenever the regulations contained in the Planned Community text conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained in the Planned Community text shall take precedence. The Municipal Code shall regulate this development when such regulations are not provided within these district regulations. All development within the Planned Community boundaries shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code and other governing building codes. II. GENERAL NOTES Water service to the Planned Community District will be provided by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Development of the subject property will be undertaken in accordance with the flood protection policies of the City of Newport Beach. 3. All development of the site is subject to the provisions of the City Council Policies K -4 and K -5 regarding paleontological and archaeological resources. 4. Except as otherwise stated in this text, the requirements of the Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance shall apply. The contents of this text notwithstanding, all construction within the boundaries of this Planned Community District shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code, other various codes related thereto and local amendments. 5. All buildings shall meet Title 24 requirements or the requirements of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development as applicable. Design of buildings shall take into account the location of building air intake to maximize ventilation efficiency, the incorporation of natural ventilation, and implementation of energy conserving heating and lighting systems. 6. Any fire equipment and access shall be approved by the Newport Beach Fire Department. 7. Excluding communications devices on the Upper Campus, new mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops and utility vaults on the Upper and Lower Campuses shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with building materials. Rooftop mechanical appurtenances or utility vaults shall be designed utilizing compatible architectural materials on the Lower Campus. No new mechanical appurtenances may exceed the building height limitations as defined in these district regulations. 8. Grading and erosion control shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Excavation and Grading Code and shall be subject to permits issued by the Building and Planning Departments. 9. Sewage disposal facilities within the Planned Community will be provided by Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permits it shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available. Prior to the occupancy of any structure it shall be further demonstrated that adequate sewer facilities exist. 10. Mass grading and grading by development phases shall be allowed provided that landscaping of exposed slopes shall commence within thirty (30) days of the completion of grading. 2 III. DEFINITIONS Building Elevation: 1. A vertical distance of a building above or below a fixed reference level, i.e., MSL (mean sea level). 2. A flat scale drawing of the front, rear, or side of a building. Building Envelope: The volume in which a building may be built as circumscribed by setback lines and maximum allowable building heights. Building Height: The vertical distance measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the structure. At all points, the height measurement shall run with the slope of the land. Emergency Room: A service and facility designated to provide acute emergency medical services for possible life threatening situations. Entitlement. Gross Floor Area: Any area of a building, or portion thereof, including the surrounding exterior walls, but excluding: 1. Area of a building utilized for stairwells and elevator shafts on levels other than the first level of a building in which they appear; 2. Area of a building and/or buildings which are not for general or routine occupancy, such as interstitial or mechanical occupancies; 3. Area of a building used specifically for base isolation and structural system upgrades directly related to requirements of governmental agencies and is not for general or routine occupancy; and 4. Enclosed rooftop mechanical levels not for general or routine occupancy. First Aid: Low acuity medical treatment for non -life threatening situations. General Plan: The General Plan of the City of Newport Beach and all elements thereof. Grade: For the purpose of determining building height: 1. Finished - the ground level elevation which exists after any grading or other site preparation related to, or to be incorporated into, a proposed new development or alteration of existing developments. (Grades may be worked into buildings to allow for subterranean parking.) 2. Natural - the elevation of the ground surface in its natural state before man-made alterations. 3. Existing - the current elevation of ground surface. Inpatient Uses: Hospital patient services which require twenty -four (24) hour or more stays. 3 Landscape Area: The landscape area shall include on -site walks, plazas, water, rooftop landscaping and all other areas not devoted to building footprints or vehicular parking and drive surfaces. Mean Sea Level: A reference or datum mark measuring land elevation using the average level of the ocean between high and low tides. Outpatient Uses: Hospital patient services which do not exceed twenty -four (24) hours. Residential Care: Medically-oriented residential units that do not require the acuity level generally associated with inpatient services but require overnight stays. Site Area: For the purpose of determining development area: 1. Gross - parcel area prior to dedications. 2. Net - parcel area after dedications. Streets: Reference to all streets or rights -of -way within this ordinance shall mean dedicated vehicular rights -of -way. 91 IV. DEVELOPMENT PLAN Proiect Characteristics The Upper Campus of Hoag Hospital is located on a triangular site of approximately 17.57 acres and is bounded by Newport Boulevard to the east, Hospital Road to the north and existing residential developments to the west. The Lower Campus is located north of West Coast Highway, south of the Sunset View linear and consolidated park and Villa Balboa Condominiums, west of Newport Boulevard, and east of Superior Avenue. It contains approximately 37.38 total acres, including 8,603 square feet of land encumbered by a roadway easement. The Lower Campus adjoins the Upper Campus at its eastern boundary. The Upper Campus is, and will continue to be, oriented towards inpatient functions, while the Lower Campus will be developed with predominantly outpatient, residential care and support services. Development Plan The Planned Community Development Plan for Hoag Hospital is shown on Exhibit 1, Planned Community Site and Boundary Map. Through the year 2017, many of the existing buildings shown on the Development Plan for the Upper Campus may be redeveloped in order to functionally respond to the needs of the Hospital and conform to the requirements of State agencies. Access to the Lower Campus will be from West Coast Highway and_from Hospital Road, via the Upper Campus. Exhibit 2, Vehicular Access, shows the internal circulation for Hoag Hospital. The Development Plan does not specify building locations or specific hospital - related uses. Instead, a developable area is identified based on the regulations established for this Planned Community District. Because of the dynamic nature of the health care industry which leads to rapid technological changes that effect how health care services are delivered, the Development Plan for Hoag Hospital sets development caps as a function of allowable densities established by the Newport Beach General Plan. The maximum allowable building area for Hoag Hospital, which encompasses both the Lower Campus and the Upper Campus, is 1,343,238 square feet. Each Campus is also subject to a maximum allowable building area limit: the maximum allowable building area for the Upper Campus is 990,349 square feet; the maximum allowable building area for the Lower Campus is 577,889 square feet. Table 1, Building Area Statistical Analysis, provides a summary of allowable square footage for both the Upper and Lower Campuses. 5 r mi i LANE Note: Buildings labeled for identification purposes only PLANNED COMMUNITY SITE AND BOUNDARY MAP HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN UPPER CAMPUS 1 HOSPifAL ROAD I o LOMN; f f�NFFRENCE - N�, CENTER �� . , PMgNi 1 . 280 GM %iYE�LME)\. UI Iil�fl �f S" pm" sIHI mm ww "mim snwcnm �l NOORRM 100 0 100 200 SCALE: V-200' 08.20.07 LEGEND PRIMARY ACCESS (SIGNALIZED) OSECONDARY ACCESS PRIMARY ROADWAYS SECONDARY DRIVEWAYAND SERVICE x210 PA %PLANT Note: Buildings labeled for idemiflcatlon purposes onk VEHICULAR ACCESS MODULAR i 'Anr/ 11111 l :rrr.�I i — -- — ii WOMEN'S PAdTWON YAW BLDG N� 480C�MJIEXU{f0i \� I2 irrrr SOUTH COE 1 PARMNS l I STRUCTURE i r cBmm r // WNW Sir= �. _._...__� NORTH �f100 0 100 200 SCALE : i" -200' 08.20.07 TABLE 1 BUILDING AREA STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TOTAL OF LOWER CAMPUS & UPPER CAMPUS BUILDING AREAS - MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE: 1,343,238 SQUARE -FEET As of the date of adoption. 2 Up to 225,000 square -feet can he transferred from the Lower to the Upper Campus s Demolition of some existing structures on the Upper Campus will occur to ensure maximum square -feet will not exceed 1,343,238 square -feet Maximum Allowable Net Allowable Site Area Building Area Existin t Remaining a. U 765,349 sq. ft. 765,349 sq. ft. 698,121 sq. ft. 67,228 sq. ft. 990,349 sq. ft. 2 w a w a U 862,815 sq. ft. 577,889 sq. ft. 188,149 sq. ft. 389,740 sq. ft. 577,889 sq. ft. O .-1 0 1,618,164 sq. ft. 1,343,238 sq. ft. 886,270 sq. ft. 456,968 sq. ft. 1,343,238 sq. ft. 3 F As of the date of adoption. 2 Up to 225,000 square -feet can he transferred from the Lower to the Upper Campus s Demolition of some existing structures on the Upper Campus will occur to ensure maximum square -feet will not exceed 1,343,238 square -feet V. DISTRICT REGULATIONS The following regulations apply to all development within the Hoag Hospital Planned Community. The individual uses listed under the five permitted use categories are not an exhaustive list. Other hospital- related uses which fit into the five (5) permitted use categories are allowed. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, plot plans, elevations and any other such documents deemed necessary by the Planning, Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments. A. Permitted Uses Lower Campus a. Hospital facilities, including, but not limited to: (1) Outpatient services: (a) Antepartum Testing (b) Cancer Center (c) Skilled Nursing (d) Rehabilitation (e) Surgery Center (f) Clinical Center (g) Day Hospital (h) Back and Neck Center (i) Biofeedback 0) Breast Imaging Center (k) Dialysis (1) EEG/EMG/NICE Laboratory (m) First Aid Center (n) Fertility Services (o) G.I. Laboratory (p) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (q) Nuclear Medicine (r) Occupational Therapy (s) Pediatrics (t) Pharmacy (u) Physical Therapy (v) Pulmonary Services (w) Radiation Therapy (x) Respiratory Therapy (y) Sleep Disorder Center (z) Speech Therapy (aa) Ultrasound (bb) Urgent Care IN (2) Administration: (a) Admitting (b) Auxiliary Office (c) Business Offices (d) Information Desk (e) Registration (f) Patient Relations (g) Social Services (3) Support Services: (a) Employee Child Care (b) Health Education (c) Power/Mechanical/Auxiliary Support and Storage (d) Food Services (e) Cashier (f) Chapel /Chaplaincy Service (g) Conference Center (h) Dietitian (i) Gift Shop 0) Laboratory (k) Medical Library (1) Medical Records (m) Pharmacy (n) Parking Facilities (o) Engineering/Maintenance (p) Shipping/Receiving (q) Microwave, Satellite, and Other Communication Facilities (4) Residential Care: (a) Substance Abuse (b) Mental Health Services (c) Extended Care (d) Hospice Care (e) Self or Minimal Care (f) Congregate Care (5) Medical/Support Offices ° Parking structures or decks do not count toward square - footage 10 2. b. Methane gas flare burner, collection wells and associated system components. C. Accessory uses normally incidental to hospital development. d. , Temporary structures and uses, including modular buildings. Upper Campus a. Hospital facilities, including, but not limited to: (1) Inpatient uses: (a) Critical Care (b) Emergency Department (c) Birthing Suites (d) Cardiology (e) Cardiac Care Unit (f) Intensive Care Unit (g) Mother/Baby Unit (h) Surgery (i) Laboratory 0) Pharmacy (k) Patient Beds (2) Outpatient services as allowed on the Lower Campus (3) Administrative uses as allowed on the Lower Campus (4) Support services as allowed on the Lower Campus (5) Residential care as allowed on the Lower Campus (6) Heliport (subject to Conditional Use Permit) 5 b. Accessory uses normally incidental to hospital development. C. Temporary structures and uses, including modular buildings. 5 Does not count toward square- footage 11 B. Prohibited Uses 1. Lower Campus a. Emergency Room b. Heliport C. Conversion of mechanical or structural spaces to uses that allow general or routine occupancy 2. Upper Campus a. Conversion of mechanical or structural spaces to uses that allow general or routine occupancy C. Maximum Building Height The maximum building height of all buildings shall be in accordance with Exhibit 3, Development Criteria Plan, which establishes the following height zones: 1. Upper Campus Tower Zone - maximum building height not to exceed the existing tower which is two - hundred thirty -five (235) feet above mean sea level. 2. Upper Campus Mid -rise Zone - maximum building height not to exceed one - hundred forty (140) feet above mean sea level. 3. Upper Campus Parking Zone - maximum building height not to exceed eighty (80) feet above mean sea level, exclusive of elevator towers. 4. Lower Campus Zone, Sub -Areas A, B, C, F and G - within each sub -area no building shall exceed the height of the existing slope and conform to the range of maximum building heights indicated by the development criteria shown on Exhibit 3. 5. Lower Campus Zone, Sub -Areas D and E - maximum building height shall not exceed the height of the existing Hoag Cancer Center which is fifty -seven and one -half (57.5) feet above mean sea level. 12 LEGEND HEIGHTZONES UPPER CAMPUS ZONES TOWER ZONE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 235' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL r 7A EZI -4 +72 MIDRISE ZONE- MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 140' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL PARKING ZONE- MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 60' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL, EXCLUSIVE OF ELEVATOR TOWER LOWER CAMPUS ZONES LOWER CAMPUS ZONE- SUB AREAS A, B, C, F, AND G -.NO BUILDING SHALL EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING SLOPE OR THE RANGE OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS INDICATED BUILDING HEIGHT SUB AREAS MEAL RANGE OF BUILDING HEIGHT, ABOVE PROPOSED GRADS TMPMk RANGE OF MAXNIU I BUILDING NEIG01S; MEAN SEA.LEIR WU AY9UGE SLOPE E EMON T.T� 210 Al fouLaiign at W and W Note: Buildings labeled For identification purposes only DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA PLAN B 28 Wnft n BelWg 260 270CMKEYLME.. y, �- 280 WAEY LANE AY 1L7 MInlmum Bulk" Semwk f 27 NORTH 100 0 100 200 SCALE . V -200' 08.20.07 D. Buildine Setbacks Setbacks for the Hoag Hospital Planned Community are shown on Exhibit 3. I. Setbacks will be provided along property boundaries adjacent to the Villa Balboa condominiums, as defined below: a. Upper Campus western boundary setback shall be the prolongation of the westerly edge of the existing cafeteria/laboratory building to the points of intersection with the easterly curb line of the existing service drive, then continuing along said line of the existing service drive. b. Lower Campus northern boundary, all of which will have a 20 -foot minimum building setback. 2. The setback on West Coast Highway easterly of the hospital entry signal shall be fifteen (15) feet. In addition, vertical articulation shall be required for buildings easterly of the signal within one - hundred fifty (150) feet of the West Coast Highway frontage, as follows: Ist Floor: Up to eighteen (18) feet in height no additional articulation is required. If the Ist floor exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, it shall be subject to the articulation requirements of the 2nd Floor. 2nd Floor, up to thirty -two (32) feet in height: A minimum of 20% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 2nd floor setback of twenty (20) feet. 3rd Floor and above: A minimum of 20% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 3rd floor and above setback of twenty -five (25) feet. The setback on West Coast Highway westerly of the hospital entry signal shall be forty -five (45) feet. In addition, vertical articulation shall be required for buildings westerly of the signal for buildings within one - hundred fifty (150) feet of the West Coast Highway frontage, as follows: Ist Floor: Up to eighteen (18) feet in height no additional articulation is required. If the Ist floor exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, it shall be subject to the articulation requirements of the 2nd Floor. 2nd Floor, up to thirty -two (32) feet in height: A minimum of 20% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 2nd floor setback of fifty -five (55) feet. 14 3rd Floor and above: A minimum of 20% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 3rd floor and above setback of sixty -five (65) feet. In order to avoid any future structures in this area (within 150 feet of West Coast Highway) from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than two - hundred fifty (250) linear feet in width. Additionally, 20% of the linear frontage within one - hundred fifty (150) feet of West Coast Highway shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. 10% of the linear length of Height Zones A and B as viewed from the existing bicycle /pedestrian trail, exclusive of that area adjacent to the consolidated portion of the view park, shall be maintained as view corridors between buildings. These requirements may be altered for individual buildings, if requested by the hospital, through the site plan review process defined in Section IX. 3. There will be no building setbacks along the westerly boundary of the Lower Campus (adjacent to the municipal parking lot at Superior and West Coast Highway). 4. A twenty (20) foot setback from property line shall be provided along Newport Boulevard from Hospital Road to a point six - hundred (600) feet south; a twenty -five (25) foot setback from property line shall be provided along the remainder of Newport Boulevard and along the Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway Interchange. 5. A ten (10) foot building setback from the property line shall be provided along Hospital Road. E. Lighting The lighting systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to shield the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer. F. Roof Treatment Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the roof of any structure on the Lower Campus. Minor rooftop equipment, necessary for operating purposes, will comply with all building height criteria, and shall be designed and screened to blend into the building roof using materials compatible with roofing materials. 15 G. &M All signs shall be as specified under the Hoag Hospital Sign Program, Part VI. H. Parkin All parking shall be as specified in Part VII, Hoag Hospital Parking Regulations. I. Landscape All landscaping shall be as specified in the Hoag Hospital Landscape Regulations, Part VIII. J. Mechanical and Trash Areas Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas will be screened from public streets and immediately adjacent residential properties. K. West Hoag Drive Circulation Limitations I. The project sponsor shall continue to limit the use of that portion of West Hoag Drive adjacent to residential uses located on the Upper Campus. To the extent reasonably possible and with the understanding that special situations may arise, the project sponsor shall use its efforts to limit truck deliveries to the hours of 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. The project sponsor shall also use other methods to restrict access of this road including signage restricting access. L. Loading Dock The project sponsor shall maintain the acoustical and/or landscape screen to provide a visual screen from and reduce noise to adjoining residences from the loading dock area. Mitigation measures to reduce the noise levels in the loading dock area should be incorporated into the design and operations of the hospital; such mitigation may include relocation of the trash compactor and baler, limiting the hours of truck deliveries to the loading dock area, enclosure of the trash compactor, use of acoustic panels, etc. M. Noise Standards Noise generated at the Hoag Hospital property shall be governed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance, except as noted below. Also refer to Exhibit 4, Loading Dock Noise Standards. 16 The applicable noise standard at the Hoag Hospital property line adjacent to the loading dock shall be as follows: 7AM -10 PM IOPM -7AM Daytime Nighttime Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 58 dBA 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles, shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. In addition, the grease pit cleaning which is exempt from the City Noise Ordinance as a maintenance activity shall occur on a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. 17 PIANT 210 UL11EIANE �. Juviv UIIJM7TT7 , i 0 � o uOFF LOWER CAMPUS Note: Buildings labeled for identification purposes only LOADING DOCK NOISE STANDARDS ♦ M�1R t ".•.� -�27O.CWNEYLANE. �"' 280CdGNEYLME- i P? r UPPER CAMPUS �utllH 9fi�py / t c B Ifo$ ROAD PrrAi= @ @ @� NORTH PARKING STRUCTURE Q \ ANCRIAW ` WEST SUNU L i CONFERENCE CENTER - - �` _� /' •/ CENTER o , COT ��_•�� PATNONG - <� :drnp WOMEN'S PANWON m SOUTH PARNNG STRUCTURE NORTH � loo 0 loo 200 SCALE : V -200' RIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN 08.20.07 VI. HOAG HOSPITAL SIGN PROGRAM A. Purpose and Intent 1. The purpose of this Sign Program is to provide adequate, consistent and aesthetically pleasing on- building wall and ground- mounted signage based upon the provisions set forth by the City of Newport Beach Sign Ordinance and the information signage requirements of Hoag Hospital. 2. The intent of this Sign Program is to produce uniform standards for Hoag Hospital. B. General Sign Standards 1. All signs visible at the exterior of any building or facility of the Hospital, ground - mounted or on- building, may be illuminated or non - illuminated, depending upon need. Illumination method may be by external or internal source. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, or create the illusion of motion, in any fashion. 2. All signs attached to building or facility exteriors shall be mounted as is appropriate to the architectural design features of said building or facility. 3. All signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly maintained, legible, functional and safe with regard to appearance, structural integrity and electrical service. 4. All street signs shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be in compliance with Ordinance 110 -L. 5. For purposes of this section, a building shall be defined as any occupied structure or any occupied portion of a structure that is constructed as an addition to an existing structure and identified as a separate building for wayfinding purposes. Individual building numbers uniquely define the buildings on the Hoag campus. C. Number of Signs Allowed 1. One (1) double -faced primary identification ground- mounted sign or two (2) single -faced gateway entry signs shall be allowed per street frontage. In the case of a sign occurring upon a slope, the average height shall be established by measuring the sign height at the mid -point of the sign length perpendicular to the slope direction. Total maximum signage area shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet and shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height per sign and street frontage. This sign may occur as a wall sign, to be located upon a project boundary perimeter wall, subject to the same number and area 19 maximums described above. This sign may also occur as part of an entry gateway system. 2. Primary entrance identification shall be allowed at the main entrance to the facility and at the main entrance to the Emergency Department. If freestanding, this sign type shall not exceed a maximum height of eight (8) feet average height above finished grade. In the case of a sign occurring upon a slope, the average height shall be established by measuring the sign height at the mid -point of the sign length perpendicular to the slope direction. Maximum sign area shall not exceed seventy (70) square feet. 3. Secondary building and entrance identification signs shall be allowed. If freestanding, this sign type shall not exceed a maximum height of nine (9) feet average height above finished grade. Iri the case of a sign occurring upon a slope, the average height shall be established by measuring the sign height at the mid -point of the sign length perpendicular to the slope direction. Maximum sign area shall not exceed fifty (50) square feetwhether freestanding or wall- mounted. 4. Vehicular and pedestrian directional signs shall be allowed. This sign type may occur as a single- faced, double- faced, or triple -faced sign. The sign shall be sized to allow for proper readability given the number of lines of copy, speed of traffic, setback off the road and viewing distance. This sign type shall not exceed a maximum height of eleven (11) feet average height above finished grade. 5. Donor recognition signage shall be allowed, one (1) at each building elevation. Maximum sign area shall not exceed one hundred seventy -five (175) square feet for donor recognition signage. 6. Hospital identification signs shall be allowed upon hospital towers, one (1) at each elevation. The maximum sign area shall not exceed two hundred seventy -five (275) square feet. Any hospital identification signage on the elevation facing west (Villa Balboa property line) may not be illuminated. 7. On the Lower Campus, two (2) building - mounted identification signs will be allowed per structure and shall not be placed so as to directly face the Villa Balboa property. Such signs shall adhere to the requirements above for secondary building and entrance identification signage and shall be no higher than the roof line of the building upon which they are mounted. 8. Each public parking structure shall be allowed one (1) identification sign above each entrance and exit of the structure. The maximum sign area of each identification sign shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet. Adjacent regulatory parking signage does not count toward the maximum sign area. 20 VII. HOAG HOSPITAL PARKING REGULATIONS A. General Off - street parking for Hoag Hospital shall be provided on -site. Parking may be on surface lots, subterranean or in parking structures. 2. The design and layout of all parking areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Public Works Department. 3. Parking lot lighting shall be developed in accordance with City standards and shall be designed in a manner which minimizes impacts on adjacent land uses. Nighttime lighting shall be limited to that necessary for security and shielded down from any adjacent residential area. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that the requirements have been met. The lighting plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Planning Department. B. Requirements for Off - Street Parking Parking requirements for specific sites shall be based upon the parking criteria established in Table 2. All parking shall be determined based upon the area allocated to the use categories. TABLE 2 PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Category Outpatient Services (1) Support (1) (3) Administrative (1) Residential Care (2) Medical Offices (2) Inpatient (1) Parking Requirements 2.31 spaces/ 1,000 square feet 0.0 spaces/ 1,000 square feet 5.3 spaces /1,000 square feet 1.0 spaces /1,000 square feet 4.0 spaces/ 1,000 square feet 2.35 spaces/ 1,000 square feet (1) Parking factor based on Traffic Study 2001 -002 approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1542. (2) Parking factor based on DKS Associates Traffic Study, May 1987. (3) Support Services generates parking demand that is already accounted for in one of the other categories as determined in Traffic Study 2001 -002 approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1542. 21 VIII. HOAG HOSPITAL LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS A. General Detailed landscape and irrigation plans, prepared by a registered Architect or under the direction of a Landscape Architect, shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. The Landscape Plan may include a concept for the roofs and the parking structures. Trees shall not be used, however planter boxes, green roof treatments or trellis systems may be designed to provide added visual relief of parking structures. All rooftop or top of parking structure landscaping proposals shall conform to the building height limits established in this text. 2. Parking lot trees shall be no less than twenty -four (24) inch box size. 3. Shrubs to be planted in containers shall not be less than five (5) gallon size. Ground covers will be planted from one (1) gallon containers or from rooted cuttings. 4. Every effort should be made to avoid using plants with invasive and shallow root systems. 5. Earth berms shall be rounded and natural in character, designed to obscure automobiles and to add interest to the site. Wheel stops shall be so placed as necessary to avoid damage to trees, irrigation systems, shrubs and other planting materials. 6. Trees in parking lots should be limited in variety. Selection should be repeated to give continuity. Regular spacing or the introduction of irregular groupings may also be considered to add interest and variety. Care should be exercised to allow plants to grow and maintain their mature size without restriction. 7. Emphasis shall be placed on the use of native, drought - tolerant, non- invasive plants on the Lower Campus. On the Upper Campus, naturalized vegetation selections, as well as those plants allowed on the Lower Campus, will be emphasized. Automatically controlled irrigation systems shall be designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. B. Maintenance All planting areas are to be kept free of weeds and debris and cultivated as necessary to maintain. 2. Lawn and ground cover areas are to be kept trimmed and/or mowed regularly. 22 3. All plantings are to be kept in a healthy and growing condition. Fertilization, cultivation and tree pruning are to be carried out as part of a regularly scheduled annual maintenance program. 4. Irrigation systems are to be kept in good working condition at all times. On- going monitoring, adjustments and cleaning of systems are to be part of regular maintenance procedures. 5. Stakes, guys and tree ties on trees should be checked regularly for correct function; ties shall be adjusted to avoid creating abrasions or girdling of branches or central leaders. 6. Damage to plantings created by vandalism, automobile or acts of nature shall be corrected within thirty (30) days. C. Special Landscaped Street West Coast Highway is designated in the Hoag Hospital Planned Community as a special landscaped street. A fifteen (15) foot building setback from right -of- way /property line is required along West Coast Highway. Only driveways, parking and signage structures are allowed in the setback areas. Parking areas shall be screened from view of West Coast Highway with landscaped berths. Landscaping along West Coast Highway shall consist of trees, ground cover and shrubbery. All unpaved areas not utilized for parking or circulation shall be landscaped in a similar manner. Installed trees are to be no smaller than twenty -four (24) inch box. D. Villa Balboa Landscape Zone The area between the Villa Balboa/Hoag property line and the loading dock service access road shall be landscaped except for any driveway, walkway, or other hardscape elements in said area. The purpose of said zone landscaping will be to screen and buffer residential units from hospital activities. E. Parkins Areas A minimum of 5% of the surface parking areas shall be devoted to planting areas. Planting areas around building shall not be included in parking area landscape calculations. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not be regularly spaced. Alternative landscape programs may be developed, including perimeter parking area landscaping, berming and depressing of parking areas to provide additional screening. Alternative landscape programs shall be subject to the review of the Newport Beach Planning Department. A rooftop landscaping program may be developed for parking structures and shall be subject to the review and the approval of the Newport Beach Planning Department. 23 IX. SITE PLAN REVIEW A. Purpose The City Council finds that development on the West Coast Highway frontage of the lower campus of Hoag Hospital may have the potential to affect the aesthetics of the West Newport area as viewed from surrounding arterial roadways. The effect of this section is to establish a Site Plan Review requirement by the Planning Commission for certain individual projects which are proposed by the hospital to differ from the setback, horizontal and vertical articulation requirements as set forth in Section V.D.2. to insure that these projects conform with the objectives of the General Plan and the Master Plan for Hoag Hospital. B. Findings The City finds, determines and declares that the establishment of Site Plan Review procedures contained in this section promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community by ensuring that the development of Hoag Hospital proceeds in a manner which will not result in inadequate and poorly planned landscape areas, excessive building bulk on arterial roadways, inappropriate placement of structures and impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in the area. C. AApplication Site Plan Review approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for any new structure or the addition to an existing structure which does not conform to the provisions of Section V.D.2. D. Plans and Diagrams to be Submitted The following plans and diagrams shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval: A plot plan, drawn to scale, showing the arrangement of buildings, driveways, pedestrian ways, off - street parking and off - street loading areas, landscaped areas, signs, fences and walks. The plot plan shall show the location of entrances and exits, and the direction of traffic flow into and out of off -street parking and loading areas, the location of each parking space and loading space, and areas for turning and maneuvering vehicles. The plot plan shall indicate how utility and drainage are to be provided. 2. A landscape plan, drawn to scale, showing the locations of existing trees (proposed to be removed and proposed to be retained); and indicating the amount, type, and location of any landscaped areas, planting beds and plant materials with adequate provisions for automatic irrigation. 3. Grading plans when necessary to ensure development properly related to the site and to surrounding properties and structures. 4. Scale drawings of exterior lighting showing size, location, materials, intensity and relationship to adjacent streets and properties. 24 5. Architectural drawings, renderings or sketches, drawn to scale, showing all elevations of the proposed buildings and structures as they will appear upon completion. 6. Any other plans, diagrams, drawings or additional information necessary to adequately consider the proposed development and to determine compliance with the purposes of this chapter. E. Fee The applicant shall pay a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council to the City with each application for Site Plan Review under this chapter. F. Standards In addition to the general purposes set forth in sub - section A, in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter as established by said section, the Site Plan Review procedures established by this Section shall be applied according to and in compliance with the following standards, when applicable: 1. The development is in compliance with all other provisions of the Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations (P -C Text); 2. Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City; 3. Development shall be sited and designed to maximize the aesthetic quality of the project as viewed from surrounding roadways and properties, with special consideration given to the mass and bulk of buildings and the streetscape on West Coast Highway; 4. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, landscaping and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development. G. Public Hearing - Required Notice A public hearing shall be held on all Site Plan Review applications. Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the hearing date, postage prepaid, using addresses from the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses, to owners of property within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required by this Section. In addition to the mailed notice, such hearing shall be posted in not less than two (2) conspicuous places on or close to the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. 25 H. Action by the Planning Commission If all applicable standards established by this Section are met, the Planning Commission shall approve the development. Conditions may be applied when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said development into conformity. If the development is disapproved, the Commission shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. A Site Plan Review decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to review by the City Council either by appeal, or upon its own motion, or upon the request of the Commission. The action of the Commission on any Site Plan Review shall be final and effective twenty -one (21) days following the Commission action thereon unless, within the twenty -one (21) day appeal period an appeal in writing has been filed by the applicant, or any other person, the Commission has requested a review of its decision, or unless the City Council, not more than twenty -one (21) days after the Commission action, on its own motion, elects to review and act on the action of the Commission, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision. Such action by the City Council shall be final. I. Anneal to the City Council Any Site Plan Review decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any other person, at any time within twenty -one (21) days after the date of the Conunission decision. An appeal to the City Council shall be taken by filing a letter of appeal in duplicate, with the Planning Department. Such letter shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based and shall be accompanied by a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council. J. Action by the City Council An appeal shall be heard and acted on by the City Council within sixty (60) days of filing a letter of appeal, and the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Commission. The decision of the City Council is final. 26 K. Expiration and Revocation of Site Plan Review Approvals 1. Expiration. Any Site Plan Review granted in accordance with the terms of this Title shall expire within twenty -four (24) months from the date of approv- al if a building permit has not been issued prior to the expiration date and subsequently construction is diligently pursued until completion, unless at the time of approval the Planning Commission has specified a different period of time. 2. Violation of Terms. Any Site Plan Review granted in accordance with the terms of this Title may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such Site Plan Review are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith. 3. Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing on any proposed revocation after giving written notice to the permittee at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, and shall submit its recommendations to the City Council. The City Council shall act thereon within sixty (60) days after receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 27 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC REPORT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR Newport Beach, California September 18, 2007 Prepared for City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 LLG Ref. 2 -05 -2652 Prepared By: Trissa (de Jesus) Allen, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer Llnscott Lawa Greenspan, Engineers 1m Corporate Drive Suite 122 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.691.1517 r 714.69L6139 r www.6genginsers.com TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction ........................... ... .................... .......... ............................................................... 1 2.0 Project Description ............... _.. ................................................................................................. 1 3.0 Study Scope .......................... .......................... ........................................................................ 6 4.0 Existing Conditions ......................................... .._......_............................... ..............................9 4.1 Existing Street Network ....................................................................... ............................... 9 4.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................................... ............................... 9 4.3 Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................................... ............................... 13 4.4 Existing Traffic Conditions ................................................................ ............................... 13 5.0 Traffic Projections .............................................. ........................................................ » .......... 15 5.1 Project Traffic Volumes ..................................................................... ............................... 15 5.1.1 Project Trip Generation Rates ................................................ ............................... 15 5.1.2 Project Trip Generation Estimates ......................................... ............................... 18 5.2 Year 2015 without Project Traffic Forecasts ..................................... ............................... 22 5.3 Year 2015 with Project Traffic Forecasts .......................................... ............................... 27 5.4 Year 2015 with Project Alternative Traffic Forecasts ....................... ............................... 27 5.5 Year 2025 without Project Traffic Forecasts ..................................... ............................... 27 5.6 Year 2025 with Project Traffic Forecasts .......................................... ............................... 27 5.7 Year 2025 with Project Alternative Traffic Forecasts ....................... ............................... 27 6.0 Traffic Impact Analysis ....... _ ...... _.._ .............. .......................................................................... 40 6.1 Significant Traffic Impact Criteria ..................................................... ............................... 6.2 Year 2015 without Project Traffic Conditions ................................... ............................... 40 6.3 Year 2015 with Project Traffic Conditions ........................................ ............................... 40 6.4 Year 2015 with Project Alternative Traffic Conditions ..................... ............................... 42 6.5 Year 2025 without Project Traffic Conditions ................................... ............................... 42 6.6 Year 2025 with Project Traffic Conditions ........................................ ............................... 42 6.7 Year 2025 with Project Alternative Traffic Conditions ..................... ............................... 42 7.0 Conclusions ............................... ................................................................................................. 46 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Level of Service Worksheets B. Project Traffic Distribution Pattern LNW,OTr, LAW & GREENSPAN. engineers LLG Ref; 2 -W -2652 .. 1 Hoag Hospital Master Plan E[R N: L+ 60UL '�05:(is+tphpntlri3 ?- �yt.final 9 -1 BA).dnc LIST of FIGURES FIGURE # PAGE Figure1: Vicinity Map ...................................................................................... Figure2: ..............................3 Study Area Figure 3: ........................................................................................ ............................... Existing Roadway and Intersection Physical Characteristics ......... ............................... 8 10 Figure 4: Existing (2005) AM Peak Hour Traffic Vol umes ........................... 11 Figure 5: ............................... Existing (2005) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 12 Figure 6: ........................... ............................... Project - Generated AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 23 Figure 7: ...................... ............................... Project- Generated PM Peak Hour Traffic Vol umes 24 Figure 8: ....................... .........................:..... Project Altemative- Generated AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ... ............................... 25 Figure 9: Project Altemative- Generated PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .... ............................... 26 Figure 10: Year 2015 without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......... ............................... 28 Figure 11: Year 2015 without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Vol umes .......... ............................... 29 Figure 12: Year 2015 with Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 30 Figure 13: .............. ............................... Year 2015 with Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 31 Figure 14: ............... ............................... Year 2015 with Project Alternative AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................... 32 Figure 15: Year 2015 with Project Alternative PM Peak Hour Traffic Vol umes ........................... 33 Figure 16: Year 2025 without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Vol umes ......... ............................... 34 Figure 17: Year 2025 without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Vol umes .......... ............................... 35 Figure 18: Year 2025 with Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............. ............................... 36 Figure 19: Year 2025 with Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Vol umes ............... ............................... 37 Figure 20: Year 2025 with Project Alternative AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................... 38 Figure 2 -1: Year 2025 with Project Alternative PM Peak Hour Traffic Vol umes ........................... 39 LiNscon, LAw & GaEENspm, engmem LLG Ref. 2-05 -2652 11 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR iV : \?6aa�'a5_65�ta�pnnY;pc ?.ryl. awl 9.1 a -ai.Qw LIST OF TABLES TABLE # PAGE Table 1: Development Summary for the Project ............................................. ............................... 4 Table 2: Development Summary for the Project Al ternative .......................... ............................... 5 Table 3: Level of Service Definition for Signalized Intersections ................ ............................... 13 Table 4: Existing (2005) Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ............. ............................... 14 Table 5: Project Trip Generation Rate Comparison ...................................... ............................... 15 Table 6: Project Trip Generation Estimates .................................................. ............................... 19 Table 7: Project Alternative Trip Generation Estimates ............................... ............................... 20 Table 8: Year 2015 with Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................... 41 Table 9: Year 2015 with Project Alternative Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ............ 43 Table 10: Year 2025 with Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................... 44 Table 11: Year 2025 with Project Alternative Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ............ 45 LMSCOTT. LAw & GAEEtaraw, engineers LLG Rd 2 -05.2652 111 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR NAWO\2052652u IpDn@452,1 -60al A1847&C TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EAR Newport Beach, California September 18, 2007 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the findings of a traffic impact study conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to determine and evaluate the traffic impacts associated with the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The proposed project would allow the transfer of up to 225,000 square feet (SF) of medical use from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. A "project alternative" has also been evaluated, which would allow less square footage (up to 150,000 SF) to be transferred. All references to the project and project alternative in this study assume maximum reallocation of square footage. A traffic study was originally prepared for the previous Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR in October 1991 by LSA Associates. That original traffic study focused on the evaluation of Phase I traffic and parking - related issues, but also provided detailed analyses based upon an assumed buildout size for the two remaining phases of the Master Plan: Phase II and Phase III. As part of the list of mitigation measures that was developed for Phase I, a Phase II Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis was required subsequent to the.completion of Phase I. LLG completed the Phase II TPO traffic study on October 15, 2001. Subsequently, LLG completed the Phase III TPO traffic study on June 22, 2005, which evaluates the potential traffic impacts of developing 130,000 SF of outpatient uses in a new building in the Lower Campus. This traffic impact study presents an inventory of existing characteristics and traffic volumes on roadways adjoining the site, forecasts vehicular traffic anticipated to be generated by the project (corresponding to the transfer of 225,000 SF of medical use from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus) and project alternative (transfers less square footage of 150,000 SF), and evaluates potential impacts of these project - generated trips on the surrounding street system. The findings of this study will become part of the overall SEIR for the project being prepared by Bonterra Consulting. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would allow for the reallocation of up to 225,000 SF of medical uses that are currently approved for the Lower Campus to be transferred to the Upper Campus. The proposed project would allow for up to 1,343,238 SF of uses at Hoag Hospital, corresponding to the square footage currently permitted at Hoag as part of the existing Master Plan. As part of the proposed project, the applicant is not requesting the approval of any project - specific land uses but only the reallocation of square footage. UNScD LAw & GREENSPAN, &Vneers LLG Rer 2-05 -2652 1 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR . N:'vW 142U5.G53Utryont?6Rryo-flnnl 9- IBA2dw: As indicated previously, a "project alternative" has also been evaluated, which would allow less square footage (150,000 SF rather than 225,000 SF) of medical use to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Figure 1 illustrates the location of Hoag Hospital and its orientation within the surrounding street system. The buildout of the Hospital, project, and project alternative are expected to be completed by Year 2015. Table I summarizes the development summary for Hoag Hospital under existing conditions (with a total size of 886,270 SF, inclusive of 409 beds), future conditions without the project (totaling 1,343,238 SF, inclusive of 409 beds), and future conditions with the project (corresponding to the same future size of 1,343,238 SF, inclusive of 485 beds). Table 2 presents the development summary for the project alternative. As indicated on Tables 1 and 2, future non - project related development at Hoag Hospital (i.e., projects not associated with the square footage reallocation from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus; also referred to as the "buildout of the Hospital" or the "no project' alternative) from the present to the Year 2015 would result in a net increase of 456,968 SF, but would maintain the same number of inpatient beds (409 beds). Although site - specific development is not being proposed as part of the Master Plan update, for purposes of CEQA, it is necessary to make land use assumptions in order to adequately address the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project. In the case of traffic, traffic generation is based on specific land uses. As such, for purposes of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update SEIF, this traffic analysis correlates a portion of the square footage reallocation to inpatient beds, specifically 76 additional inpatient hospital beds. Trip generation rates for inpatient uses are expressed in terms of "trips per bed," rather than "trips per square feet." The number of beds is more indicative of, or correlates better with, the trip making potential of inpatient uses, compared to square footage. These inpatient "trips per bed" rates account for traffic generated by inpatient drop- off/pick-up activities, inpatient visitors, medical staff, administrative staff, and emergency room - related uses. The proposed update to the Master Plan does not place an upper cap on inpatient hospital beds nor does it preclude the applicant from requesting more inpatient hospital beds as long as the square footage allocations are not exceeded and no new traffic impacts would occur. Table 1 shows that the buildout of the Hospital would increase the existing size by 456,968 SF, and the project would increase the number of existing beds by 76 inpatient beds. Compared to future conditions without the project, the project would not involve any increase in square footage, but would result in an increase of 76 inpatient beds (485 beds minus 409 beds). As indicated in Table 1, the project would increase the existing size of the Upper Campus by 292,228 SF (comprised mostly of inpatient and support uses), and increase the existing size of the Lower Campus by 164,740 SF (primarily outpatient uses). Compared to future conditions without the project, the project would result in an increase of 225,000 SF (292,228 SF minus 67,228 SF) in the Upper Campus, and an equal reduction of 225,000 SF (164,740 SF minus 389,740 SF) in the Lower Campus. Lxas M, LAW 6 GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2 -05 -2652 2 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EEt N. �6a6�?n5.fi� ?10.eyon��.6� ?v y�linal 9 -1 B -0l.dac LINSCOTT LAW R GREENSPAN e n gin ecru TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT Note: [a] Inpatient beds are inclusive of square footage totals. LNSCOTT, LAW 8 GRMWAN, 6ag1a981a 4 Haag Hospital Master Plan EIB N:VblplZa5E63TWepwft:65bry1•rmJ 7- 547Anc INCREMENTAL INCREMENTAL EXISTING FUTURE SIZE FUTURE SIZE SIZE W /OUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT Description (Gross SF) Beds (Gross SF) Beds (Gross SF) Beds EXISTING UPPER CAMPUS Inpatient 643,436 - - - - - Outpatient (Women's Pavilion) 15,392 - - - - - Outpatient (James Irvine Expansion) 800 - - - - - Outpatient (Cardiac Services Bldg. 1995) 5,544 - - - - - Outpatient (MRI Waiting) 500 - - - - - Support (Women's Pavilion) 27,114 - - - - - Support (Emergency Gen. Addtn. 1998) 5,335 - 698,121 - UPPER CAMPUS TOTAL: LOWER CAMPUS Outpatient (Cancer Center) 65,000 - Outpatient (Conference Center) 13,270 - Support (Conference Center) 77,864 - Support (Child Care Center) 71800 - Support (Cogeneration Building) 24,215 - 188,149 - LOWER CAMPUS TOTAL: EXISTING TOTAL 886,270 409 - - FUTURE ADDITIVE DEVELOPMENT UPPER CAMPUS Inpatient - - 67,228 - 0 - Inpatient (South Building) - - 131,335 - Outpatient (South Building) - - - 26,268 - Support (South Building) - - - - 120,498 - Outpatient (Imaging/ECU Expansion) - - - - 14,127 - - - 67,228 - 292,228 - UPPER CAMPUS TOTAL: LOWER CAMPUS Outpatient - - 225,000 - 0 - Outpatient (Outpatient Building) - - 110,000 - 110,000 - Outpatient (Medical Office Building) - - 50,027 - 50,027 - Support (Child Care Center Expansion) - - 4,713 - 4,713 - - 389,740 164,740 1 - LOWER CAMPUS TOTAL: FUTURE ADDITION TOTAL - 456,968 456,968 1 76 EXISTING + FUTURE ADDITION - 1,343,238 409 [a] 1,343,238 485 [a] Note: [a] Inpatient beds are inclusive of square footage totals. LNSCOTT, LAW 8 GRMWAN, 6ag1a981a 4 Haag Hospital Master Plan EIB N:VblplZa5E63TWepwft:65bry1•rmJ 7- 547Anc TABLE 2 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Note: [a] Inpatient beds are inclusive of square footage totals. tMWTT. LAW 8 GREEFSPAN, eaglneM Uk Ref. 2 -05 -2652 5 boat Haspital Master Plan EDL N:I2600V^a5366]U gwWC662-rpt -riml 7-5 -07.6 INCREMENTAL INCREMENTAL EXISTING FUTURE SIZE FUTURE SIZE SIZE W/O PROJECT ALT WITH PROJECT AL (Gross SF) Beds (Gross SF) Beds (Gross SF) Beds Description EXISTING UPPER CAMPUS Inpatient 643,436 - - - Outpatient (Women's Pavilion) 15,392 - - - Outpatient (James Irvine Expansion) 800 - - - Outpatient (Cardiac Services Bldg. 1995) 5,544 - - - Outpatient (MRI Waiting) 500 - - - Support (Women's Pavilion) 27,114 - - - Support (Emergency Gen. Addln. 1998) 5,335 - - 698,121 - - UPPER CAMPUS TOTAL: LOWER CAMPUS Outpatient (Cancer Center) 65,000 Outpatient (Conference Center) 13,270 - - Support (Conference Center) 77,864 - - Support (Child Care Center) 7,800 - - Support (Cogeneration Building) 24,215 - - 188,149 - - LOWER CAMPUS TOTAL: EXLSTING TOTAL 886,270 409 - FUTURE ADDITIVE DEVELOPMENT UPPER CAMPUS Inpatient 67,228 - 0 Inpatient (South Building) - - 56,335 Outpatient (South Building) - - - 26,268 Support (South Building) - - - 120,498 Outpatient (Imaging/ECU Expansion) - 14,127 - 67,228 - 217,228 UPPER CAMPUS TOTAL: LOWER CAMPUS Outpatient - 225,000 - 75,000 Outpatient (Outpatient Building) - 110,000 - 110,000 Outpatient (Medical Office Building) - - 50,027 - 50,027 Support (Child Care Center Expansion) 4,713 - 4,713 - 389,740 - 239,740 LOWER CAMPUS TOTAL: FUTURE ADDITION TOTAL - - 456,968 456,968 76 EXISTING +FUTURE ADDITION - 1,343,238 409 ]a] 1,343,238 485 [aJ Note: [a] Inpatient beds are inclusive of square footage totals. tMWTT. LAW 8 GREEFSPAN, eaglneM Uk Ref. 2 -05 -2652 5 boat Haspital Master Plan EDL N:I2600V^a5366]U gwWC662-rpt -riml 7-5 -07.6 Table 2 indicates that the project alternative would increase the existing size and number of impatient beds by the same amount as the project (i.e., 456,968 SF and 76 beds), and involve the same increase in inpatient beds (76 beds) as the project when compared to future conditions without the project alternative. Using a 76 -bed increase as basis for the project alternative is considered conservative, as the project alternative would not reallocate as much square footage as the project. As presented in Table 2, the project alternative would increase the existing size of the Upper Campus by 217,228 SF (mostly support uses), and increase the existing size of the Lower Campus by 239,740 SF (primarily outpatient uses). Compared to future conditions without the project alternative, the project alternative would result in an increase of 150,000 SF (217,228 SF minus 67,228 SF) in the Upper Campus, and an equal reduction of 150,000 SF (239,740 SF minus 389,740 SF) in the Lower Campus. This traffic impact study evaluates the potential impacts of the net increases in beds for inpatient uses, and in square footage for outpatient uses, between future conditions with and without the proposed reallocation of square footage. 3.0 STUDY SCOPE The work scope for this study, including the base assumptions, technical methodologies, and geographic coverage, were developed in conjunction with the City of Newport Beach Public Works staff, and according to the City's traffic study guidelines. Because the City of Costa Mesa is within the project's influence area, City of Costa Mesa staff requested that this study include the evaluation of nine Costa Mesa intersections. The City of Costa Mesa traffic study guidelines were applied in the analysis of those nine intersections. The following traffic scenarios are addressed in the study: • Existing (2007) Conditions - The analysis of existing traffic conditions is intended to provide a base of analysis for the remainder of the study. The existing conditions analysis includes an assessment of the streets and highways in the area, current traffic volumes, and operating conditions. • Year 2015 without Project Conditions - This phase of analysis projects future traffic conditions in the Year 2015, which could be expected to result from regional growth and related projects, without the addition of project traffic, but with the buildout of the already - approved maximum square footage of the Hospital. • _ Year 2015 with Project Conditions - This is an analysis of future traffic conditions in the Year 2015, which could be expected to result from regional growth, related projects, and the buildout of the already- approved maximum square footage of the Hospital, with the addition of project - generated traffic. Any potential traffic impacts will be determined, and mitigation measures developed. LMSCOri, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2 -05 -2652 6 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Eat N:Vb M0520321Repon�52- .W-6m1 IR47.dx- • Year 2015 with Project Alternative Conditions - This is an analysis of future traffic conditions in the Year 2015, which could be expected to result from regional growth, related projects, and the buildout of the already- approved maximum square footage of the Hospital, with the addition of project alternative- generated traffic. Any potential traffic impacts will be determined, and mitigation measures developed. • Year 2025 without Project Conditions - This phase of analysis projects future traffic conditions in the Year 2025, which could be expected to result from regional growth and related projects, without the addition of project traffic, but with the buildout of the already - approved maximum square footage of the Hospital. • Year 2025 with Project Conditions - This is an analysis of future traffic conditions in the Year 2025, which could be expected to result from regional growth, related projects, and the buildout of the already- approved maximum square footage of the Hospital, with the addition of project- generated traffic. Any potential traffic impacts will be determined and mitigation measures developed. • Year 2025 with Project Alternative Conditions - This is an analysis of future traffic conditions in the Year 2025, which could be expected to result from regional growth, related projects, and the buildout of the already- approved maximum square footage of the Hospital, with the addition of project alternative - generated traffic. Any potential traffic impacts will be determined, and mitigation measures developed. The analysis is focused on assessing potential traffic impacts during the morning and evening commute peak hours (between 7:00 -9:00 AM, and 4:00 -6:00 PM) on a typical weekday. Figure 2 illustrates the study area. A total of 15 key intersections were selected by the City of Newport Beach, and a total of nine intersections were selected by the City of Costa Mesa. The 24 key intersections, which are illustrated on Figure 2, include the following: Newport Beach Intersections 1. Orange Street/West Coast Highway 2. Prospect Street/West Coast Highway 3. Balboa Boulevard- Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway 4. Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway 5. Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway 6. Bayshore Drive- Dover Drive/West Coast Highway 7. Bayside Drive/East Coast Highway 8. Jamboree Road/Fast Coast Highway 9. Newport Boulevard/Via Lido 10. Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road 11. Superior Avenue/Placentia Avenue 12. Newport Boulevard southbound off- ramp/West Coast Highway UNSCOTT. taw& GFEBm . &Vkwm LW W. 2-05 -2652 7 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR N.L6W405.fii ?VtcyoTHiS ?- ryi -anw AI eA].doc 4 3 21 18TH ST 2 19 S11 t t8 16 W 6 yti o^ 11 17 �kyr 3 10 HOSPITAL R t ' 14 j 2 s 4 3 e S g 2 8 a �d 9 r 6 9qr A f B 9 r KEY FIGURE 2 Q. ~21M iNIE"EMN N SCALE STUDY AREA HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH Newoort Beach Intersections (Continued) 13. Superior Avenue/Hospital Road 14. Hoag Drive - Placentia Avenue/Hospital Road 15. Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway Costa Mesa Intersections 16. Superior Avenue /16th Street - Industrial Way IT Newport Boulevard/Industrial Way 18. Newport Boulevard/16th Street 1.9. Superior Avenue/ I7th Street 20. Newport Boulevard/17th Street 21. Newport Boulevard/18th Street - Rochester Avenue 22. Newport Boulevard/Harbor Boulevard 23. Newport Boulevard/Broadway 24. Newport Boulevard/19th Street 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The assessment of existing conditions includes an inventory of the street system, the traffic volumes using these facilities, and traffic operating conditions at analyzed locations. 4.1 Existing Street Network A comprehensive inventory of the street system adjacent to the project was undertaken to develop a detailed description of existing traffic conditions. Figure 3 illustrates the existing physical characteristics of the streets, including lane configurations and traffic control at intersections, number of travel lanes, posted speed limits, and median types along roadways. 4.2 Existing Traffic Volumes The AM and PM peak hour traffic counts for 11 of the 15 key intersections in Newport Beach were provided by the City, and were collected in 2005 /2006. The traffic counts along Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard, and Jamboree Road were adjusted by a growth factor of 1% per year compounded annually to reflect Year 2007 conditions, as directed by City staff. Due to construction activities that precluded the collection of new traffic counts at the Superior Avenue/Hospital Road and Hoag Drive- Placentia Avenue/Hospital Road intersections, the City's 2003 peak hour traffic counts for these two intersections were adjusted by growth factors derived from adjacent intersections to reflect Year 2007 conditions. The AM and PM peak hour traffic counts for the remaining two key intersections in the City (Prospect Street/West Coast Highway and Hoag Drive/West Coast Highway) were collected in March 2007. The AM. and PM peak hour traffic counts for the nine key intersections in Costa Mesa were collected in March and April 2007. Figures 4 and S illustrate the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. LM OM, law 8 GREEtWM, engineers LLG Ref. 2.054652 9 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EQL N:�?6Mr. +04M!rRgwMV.ti52- rp -5nn1 A18.0'l.doc O J L � _6 PNAlE `M SPOT \ e PRASE — sicNAl _ I •� � I y\ � 1}t }f jh`• y \� a NAM AGNAL � � t — AGNAI HOSPITAL ROI / / =PHASE �4CNµ/ / /r lq-AGNAL N N -S SPOT SIGHAL ' N -S AMR ( ASE ST P ` ` \ ` J A` 6,oxASE \ r \ ) )1�. � ur A •.� Mme \\ � // \ \ � e PXAlE /Jltl�. � \1 \ A PHASE \ A PI(Am s -V AL —AGNAL e 1 1 l;f 1 I 1 I \ I SR \\ \\ \\\ Q+r IT 4j,-(r, 1\ Lt r }h \ \ = PXAS� \ \ ] PHAA: \ ! -ASE \ ]PHASE \_29 Pm SMNAL -AGNAL - SIGNAL fP \\ /JjtSY r 1 / '{l• r 1 \ e vrlAlE a PL(ASE MAL —N-S SPLIT // NS SPLIT Y/ \ �//%�A�� /1 .., KEY FIGURE 3 . TRAFFIC LANE ASAGNMENT • . PARM AGNAL P PARKING. NP • NG PARKING U . UNDIKA O O LLA N NO SCALE 2 • POSTER GG TRAVEL LANES 0 SKK> •POSTED SPEED OMIT (WPM) EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EtR, NEWPORT BEACH oq I r � f0.rj1 t 1 1 1 a J u4 I6�1'h I RRR L ` 125\ n _ r 1 —17T1 — NOSPITAL I ., 2 ♦ I J/ '�r\I /JIl is \I tY p / JI ♦``` / / ♦ ♦ ♦♦ �y ` /' 1 neap r- I� I 1 Isas � — 109a 1 ; I l a I ` •— anal l p .- aNWI Nsi2\ l J a \1 10 7 e\ 1 r� 1 1 j FIGURE 4 0 '`'/NO SCALE EXISTING (2007) AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 40AG 14OSPITAL MASTER PUN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH 91 h ST +i2,X \ ay ♦ I J/ '�r\I /JIl is \I tY p / JI ♦``` / / ♦ ♦ ♦♦ �y ` /' 1 neap r- I� I 1 Isas � — 109a 1 ; I l a I ` •— anal l p .- aNWI Nsi2\ l J a \1 10 7 e\ 1 r� 1 1 j FIGURE 4 0 '`'/NO SCALE EXISTING (2007) AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 40AG 14OSPITAL MASTER PUN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH ti i / lJl /in h—.0 h 1Z I�� = 17TH W 1E1H � 6 HOSPITAL Rp_,� l � / m 1 Iy I M5 94 it 1019 -/ h 74z— h \25 ST M1/ \ 2r h J o t 1 ; Po \ I / J r si I h \ h \\ 29 I I 7)tiW I I .. p BB) 1 /Jllr� I Jilrn°I u'\ `91// FIGURE 5 tO SCALE EXISTING (2007) PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAO HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH 4.3 Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Level of Service (LOS) qualitatively measures the operating conditions within a traffic system and how drivers and passengers perceive these conditions. Level of service ranges from LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. LOS D is typically recognized as the minimum satisfactory service level in urban areas, and by the City of Newport Beach and City of Costa Mesa. Based upon City of Newport Beach and City of Costa Mesa guidelines, the intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology was used to determine the volume -to- capacity relationship for an intersection (based upon the individual volume -to- capacity ratios for key conflicting traffic movements), and corresponding level of service. By assuming 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) as the practical capacity for through lanes, left -turn, and right -turn lanes, the ICU method directly relates traffic demand to the available capacity (an ICU allowance for yellow time is not required by either City's guidelines). The resulting ICU numerical value represents the greatest green time requirements for the entire intersection. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. Level of service definitions for signalized intersections are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Based upon the level of service methodology described, the existing peak hour traffic volumes presented in Figures 4 and S were used in conjunction with existing lane configurations illustrated in Figure 3 to determine the current traffic operating conditions at the 24 key intersections. Appendix A contains the detailed level of service worksheets. 4.4 Existing Traffic Conditions Table 4 summarizes the existing peak hour levels of service at the 24 study intersections. As shown, all 15 key intersections in Newport Beach, and eight of the nine key intersections in Costa Mesa currently operate at satisfactory levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours_ The following Costa Mesa intersection operates at a deficient LOS E during the AM peak hour: 19. Superior Avenue /17th Street LMS=. Law g GREENspAN, englnew LLG Ref. 2.05 -2652 13 Hoeg Hospital Matter Plan EIR N� �60tt�053h�5 ?.Reyonvi <?.�p.Rnal9 -18.0] dw .• �i ;� ��C ' � ,{+� -�,r i ]%CSCt7,�S �„ t #.11.�,a. ,'� -0f,.'�le1'YICe #Oil, A <_ 0.60 Free Flow B > 0.60 — 0.70 Rural Design C > 0.70 — 0.80 Urban Design D > 0.80 — 0.90 Maximum Urban Desi n E > 0.90 — 1.00 Capacity F > 1.00 Forced Flow Based upon the level of service methodology described, the existing peak hour traffic volumes presented in Figures 4 and S were used in conjunction with existing lane configurations illustrated in Figure 3 to determine the current traffic operating conditions at the 24 key intersections. Appendix A contains the detailed level of service worksheets. 4.4 Existing Traffic Conditions Table 4 summarizes the existing peak hour levels of service at the 24 study intersections. As shown, all 15 key intersections in Newport Beach, and eight of the nine key intersections in Costa Mesa currently operate at satisfactory levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours_ The following Costa Mesa intersection operates at a deficient LOS E during the AM peak hour: 19. Superior Avenue /17th Street LMS=. Law g GREENspAN, englnew LLG Ref. 2.05 -2652 13 Hoeg Hospital Matter Plan EIR N� �60tt�053h�5 ?.Reyonvi <?.�p.Rnal9 -18.0] dw TABLE 4 EXISTING (2007) INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Note: Bold 1.03 values indicate adverse service levels bared on City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa sundards LNSOari, lnw & GarftuPAtL e+t8inea7s 14 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EBL N:126W2052652WApce,ZM p-fiml 7- 547.dw Peak Key Intersections Hour ICU LOS City of Newport Beach Intersections 1. Orange Street at AM 0.64 B West Coast Highway PM 0.69 B 2. Prospect Street at AM 0.77 C West Coast Highway PM 0.65 B 3. Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. at AM 0.75 C West Coast Highway PM 0.76 C 4. Riverside Avenue at AM 0.74 C West Coast Highway PM 0.78 C 5. Tustin Avenue at AM 0.74 C West Coast Highway PM 0.59 A 6. Bay Shore Drive -Dover Drive at AM 0.74 C West Coast Highway PM 0.79 C 7. Bayside Drive at AM 0.74 C East Coast Highway PM 0.65 B S. Jamboree Road at AM 0.75 C East Coast Highway PM 0.78 C 9. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.41 A Via Lido PM 0.46 A 10. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.55 A Hospital Road PM 0.68 B 11. Placentia Avenue at AM 0.60 A Superior Avenue PM 0.55 A 12. Newport Blvd. SB Off' -Ramp at AM 0.80 C West Coast Highway PM 0.65 B 13. Superior Avenue at AM 0.68 B Hospital Road PM 0.62 B 14. Hoag Drive - Placentia Ave. at AM 037 A Hospital Road PM 0.57 A 15. Hoag Drive at AM 0.48 A West Coast Highway PM 0.45 A City of Costa Mesa Intersections 16. Superior Avenue at AM 0.42 A 16th Street - Industrial Way PM 0.42 A 17. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.57 A Industrial Way PM 0.55 A I8. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.50 A 16th Street PM 0.49 A 19. Superior Avenue at AM 0.90 E 17th Street PM 0.67 B 20. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.80 C 17th Street PM 0.82 D 21. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.73 C 18th Street- Rochester Street PM 0.88 D 22. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.66 B Harbor Boulevard PM 0.74 C 23. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.60 A Broadway Boulvard PM 0.70 B 24. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.84 D 19th Street PM 0.86 D Note: Bold 1.03 values indicate adverse service levels bared on City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa sundards LNSOari, lnw & GarftuPAtL e+t8inea7s 14 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EBL N:126W2052652WApce,ZM p-fiml 7- 547.dw 5.0 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS In order to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project, the amount of traffic that could be generated (i.e., project traffic generation), and future traffic volumes on the surrounding street system (i.e., Year 2015 and Year 2025 forecasts), need to be estimated. It is necessary to develop these projections in order to determine any potential traffic impacts that the project - generated traffic may have on the adjacent circulation system. This is done through a comparison of the Year 2015 and Year 2025 without project scenarios (representing future conditions without the proposed project, but with the buildout of the already- approved maximum square footage of the Hospital), against the Year 2015 and Year 2025 with Project scenarios (representing future conditions with the project). The same comparison steps were applied to the project alternative. 5.1 Project Traffic Volumes A two -step process was utilized to develop project traffic forecasts. The first step is project traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic at the project area on a peak hour and daily basis. The second step of the forecasting process is the use of the current Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) to complete the project traffic assignment, by which project - generated trips are allocated to specific links and intersections on the street system. The modeling effort was conducted by Urban Crossroads, Inc., and produced the project - generated forecasts at each of the 15 key intersections in Newport Beach during the AM and PM peak hours (also used as basis to extrapolate project traffic volumes to the nine key intersections in Costa Mesa). 5.1.1 Project TO Generation Rates Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one -way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation factors and equations used in the traffic forecasting procedure are typically found in the Seventh Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C., 1997]. Empirical trip rates have been developed for Hoag Hospital's outpatient and inpatient uses as part of the Hoag Master Plan EIR Traffic Study (prepared by LSA Associates in September 1991), and LLG's prior TPO study for Phase II. Table 5 presents a comparison of the inpatient and outpatient trip rates from the three sources, and indicates that the outpatient trip rates from the Phase II TPO are 14% to 125% greater than the 1991 EIR's rates on a typical weekday and during the AM and PM peak hours. The Phase II TPO outpatient rates are 29% greater than the ITE (7�h Edition) trip rates for medical - dental office buildings for the AM peak hour, but are slightly lower (5% to 13 %) for a typical weekday and PM peak hour. The Phase II TPO inpatient rates are 18% to 118% greater than the hospital ITE trip rates for a typical weekday and the AM and PM peak hours. More recent traffic counts at Hoag's driveways were not performed due to construction activities at Hoag Hospital that could result in an atypical "snapshot" of Hoag's existing traffic generation. Therefore, any empirical trip rates derived from newer driveway counts may not accurately represent U=M, Lnw 6 GREENSPAN, engineers ,� 5 [.LG Ref. 2A5 -2652 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR N:'�6 W"``OS:n:?rReywi�lM1C�ryt -f ra19- 18- D].QOc TABLE 5 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES Notes: [a] Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Traffic Impact and Parking Analysis, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., September 1991. [b] Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2003. L.a+scorr, Uwd GREEt SP/H, engneers 16 Hoeg Hospital Mesta Plan EQt N126WYN1,M2W p.e,6i2.".W 2.5-07.*. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Description Daily In Out Total In Out Total Inpatient (trips per bed) 25.80 0.92 0.71 1.63 0.50 1.04 1.54 (Phase 11 TPO Empirical Trip Rates) Outpatient (trips per 1,000 SF) 34.19 1.79 JAI 3.20 0.97 2.25 3.22 (Phase 11 TPO Empirical Trip Rates) OTHER SOURCES FOR COMPARISON 1991 EIR Traffic Study Trip Rates [a] Outpatient (trips per 1,000 SF) 29.90 1.00 0.42 1.42 0.67 1.06 1.73 ITE (71h Edition) Trip Rates [b] Hospital (trips per bed) 11.81 0.79 0.34 1.13 0.47 0.83 1.30 Medical - Dental Office Building 36.13 1.96 0.52 2.48 1.00 2.72 3.72 (trips per 1,000 SF) Notes: [a] Source: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Traffic Impact and Parking Analysis, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., September 1991. [b] Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2003. L.a+scorr, Uwd GREEt SP/H, engneers 16 Hoeg Hospital Mesta Plan EQt N126WYN1,M2W p.e,6i2.".W 2.5-07.*. Hoag Hospital's traffic generation under typical circumstances (i.e., without major construction activities occurring). According to City staff, the empirical rates from the Phase II TPO study should be applied to this study. These survey -based rates for inpatient and outpatient uses are considered to be the most appropriate for use in this study (compared to the trip rates per the 1991 EIR and ITE 7a' Edition, and any recent field study, if performed) because they are based upon actual field surveys conducted in 2001 (during typical/non -major construction conditions at Hoag), and therefore provide the best correlation to Hoag Hospital's unique tripmaking characteristics for inpatient and outpatient facilities. As indicated in Table 5, the empirical trip rates for inpatient uses are expressed in terms of "trips per bed ", not "trips per 1,000 SF ". These inpatient "trips per bed" rates account for traffic generated by inpatient drop- off/pick -up activities, inpatient visitors, medical staff, administrative staff, and emergency room - related uses. The number of beds is more indicative of, or correlates better with, the tripmaking potential of inpatient uses, compared to square footage. The relationship between square footage and inpatient trips is not linear. Inpatient space expansions may not directly result in additional inpatient trips because some of the added hospital space is used for equipment, storage, utilities, and patient /employee/visitor amenities. Therefore, using inpatient trip rates based on square footage could overestimate the potential number of trips that inpatient uses could realistically generate. The number of beds in a hospital is typically representative of the inpatient component's intensity, patient, employee, and visitor levels. This characteristic has been observed in other traffic studies previously completed by LLG for hospitals. Consistent with the inpatient characteristics at those other hospitals, Hoag is experiencing the need to provide more square footage for supporting typical hospital functions (i.e., the same inpatient function now requires more space than it did in the past). By comparing inpatient "square footage per bed" ratios between the West Tower (older building within the Hoag campus) and the newly built Women's Pavilion, it was evident that Hoag Hospital is moving towards providing more inpatient square footage per bed (or room). For example, a patient room's size increased by 57 %, from 191 SF to 300 SF. An ICU room's size increased by 82 %, from 225 SF to 410 SF. An operating room's size was expanded from 450 SF to 550 SF (22% increase), and a labor /delivery room was larger. The outpatient trip rates (expressed in terms of "trips per 1,000 SF ") reported in Table 5 account for traffic generated by "stand- alone" outpatient facilities within the Hoag medical campus (i.e., James hvine Surgery Center, and Cancer Center), and other medical office buildings in the Hoag campus that provide outpatient care and receive medical referrals from the hospital/inpatient facilities at Hoag. These outpatient "trips per 1,000 SF" rates include trips by outpatients, outpatient drop - off/pick -up activities, outpatient visitors, medical staff, and administrative staff. Outpatient (or "Medical Office Building ") trip generation rates are typically greater, and result in more trips, than inpatient (or "Hospital ") trip rates. The prior Phase II TPO study concluded that the Latswn, Law & GaffNSPAN. engineers LLG Ref. 2.05 -2652 17 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR N.CMOLVSWZRq "ab5UPt.find 9-19477 outpatient rates (in "trips per 1,000 SF ") were greater than the inpatient rates (also expressed in "trips per 1,000 SF") derived from that study. Specifically, the outpatient rates were greater by 54% on a daily basis, 127% during the AM peak hour, and 142% during the PM peak hour, compared to the inpatient rates. The ITE rates for Medical - Dental Office Buildings and Hospitals, when both are expressed in "trips per 1,000 SF", indicate the same relationship (i.e., medical office rates are greater than hospital rates). Based on the Phase II TPO study, trip rates were not derived for the Support Services category because the significant majority of traffic generated by support services (i.e., food services, engineering, maintenance, day care, and educational /conference facilities) was determined to be the same trips already accounted for in one or more of the other land use categories. For example, the educational/conference areas in the Lower Campus are used by Hoag employees originating from the Upper Campus. Similarly, on -site amenities, such as cafeterias, are used by visitors that are inherent in the inpatient and/or outpatient category. The same Hoag medical and administrative employees who are included in the inpatient and outpatient categories also use support/ancillary uses such as food service facilities and the day care center. Trips generated by engineering and maintenance staff at Hoag Hospital are inherent in the inpatient and/or outpatient category. Therefore, although Support Service facilities may result in internal tripmaking within the Hoag medical campus, these ancillary uses are not expected to generate additional trips at any of the key intersections analyzed. 5.1.2 Project Trip Generation Estimates The empirical trip rates, which are summarized in Table 5, were applied to the existing and future components of Hoag Hospital. Table 6 presents the trip generation estimates under existing conditions, future conditions without the project, future conditions with the project, and the project - generated trips. Table. 7 summarizes the trip generation estimates under existing conditions, future conditions without the project alternative, future conditions with the project alternative, and the project alternative - generated trips. For the Upper Campus, Table 6 indicates that the project is expected to generate 3,342 daily trips on a typical weekday, of which 253 trips would occur during the AM peak hour, and 247 trips would occur during the PM peak hour. Table 6 further indicates that the project would result in a reduction in traffic generation for the Lower Campus, corresponding to 7,693 fewer daily trips, 720 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 724 fewer PM peak hour trips compared to future conditions without the project. Table 6 also shows that, for the entire Hoag medical campus, the project is expected to result in an overall net reduction of trips, comprised of 4,351 fewer daily trips, 467 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 477 fewer PM peak hour trips, when compared against conditions without the project. As discussed in the previous section of this report, outpatient uses typically generate more trips than inpatient uses. Specific to the Hoag medical campus, prior field studies (per the Phase II TPO traffic study) indicate that the empirical outpatient trip rates for Hoag are 54% to 142% greater than inpatient trip rates derived from those same traffic generation surveys. Therefore, transferring out 225,000 SF of LINscou. LAW & GRAN, enO"is LLG Ref. 2 -05 -2652 18 Hoeg Hospital Master Plan EQr asno•.+ sw aepnW2,pt -nna c1"?.da TABLE 6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES totes: 1l The ancillary uses under the "Support" category are not expected to generate additional trips. r] The entire project- related addition of 13 1,33 5 SF of inpatient square footage (inclusive of 76 new beds) is for the South Building. 2652- PwjDesc Revised 3- 13-07.xls.xls 5130/2007 EXISTING EXISTING + FUTURE ADDITION WITHOUT THE PROJECT EXISTING+ FUTURE ADDITION WITH THE PROJECT PROJECT - GENERATED TRIPS AM Pk Hr Tri s PM Pk Hr rips Size (GSF) AM Pk Hr Tri s I PM Pk Hr Tri s Size GSF AM Pk Hr Trips I PM Pk Hr rips AM Pk Hr Tri s I PM Pk Hr Tri s In Out Total In Out Total Addition Existing +Additio Total Beds In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In I Out Total In Out I Total Description Size Daily Trips Daily Trips Addition Existing Total +Additio Beds Daily Trips Daily Trips GSF Beds UPPER CAMPUS Inpatient / Inpatient (South Building) Outpatient (Women's Pavilion) Outpatient (James Irvine Expansion) Outpatient (Cardiac Sm. Bldg. 1995) Outpatient (MR] Waiting) Support (Women's Pavilion) [a] Support (Emergency Gen. Addtn.) [a] Outpatient (South Building) Support (South Building) [a] Outpatient (Imaging/ECU Expansion) 643,436 15,392 800 5,544 500 27,114 5,335 - - - 409 - - - - - - - - - 10,552 526 27 190 17 - - - - - 376 28 1 10 1 - - - - 290 22 1 8 1 - - - - - 666 50 2 18 2 - - - - - 205 15 1 5 0 - - - - - 425 35 2 12 1 - - - - 630 50 3 17 1 - - - - 67,228 - - - - - - - - 710,664 15,392 800 5,544 500 27,114 5,335 - - - 409 - - - - - - - - - 10,552 526 27 190 17 - - - - - 376 28 1 10 1 - - - - - 290 22 1 8 1 - - - - - 666 50 2 18 2 - - - 205 15 1 5 0 - - - 425 35 2 12 1 - - - - 630 50 3 17 1 - - - - - 131,335 [b] - - - - - 26,268 120,498 14,127 774,771 15,392 800 5,544 500 27,114 5,335 26,268 120,498 14,127 485 - - - - - - - - 12,513 526 27 190 17 - - 898 - 483 446 28 1 10 1 - 47 - 25 344 22 1 8 1 - - 37 - 20 790 50 2 18 2 - - 84 45 243 15 1 5 0 - - 25 - 14 504 35 2 12 1 - 59 - 32 747 50 3 17 1 - - 84 - 46 1,961 0 0 0 0 0 0 898 0 483 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 25 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 20 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 45 38 '0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 14 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 32 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 46 UPPER CAMPUS TOTAL: 698,121 409 IIJ12 416 322 738 226 475 701 67,228 765,349 409 11,312 416 322 738 226 475 701 292,228 990J49 485 14,654 558 433 991 303 645 948 3J42 142 111 253 77 170 247 LOWER CAMPUS Outpatient (Cancer Center) Outpatient (Conference Ctr.) Support (Conference Center) [a] Support (Child Care Center) [a] Support (Cogeneration Building) [a] Outpatient Outpatient (Outpatient Building) Outpatient (Medical Office Building) 65,000 13,270 77,864 7,800 24,215 - - - - - - - - - 2,222 454 - - - 116 24 - - - - - 92 19 - - - - 208 43 - - - - - 63 13 - - - - - 146 30 - - - - - 209 43 - - - - - - - - - - 225,000 110,000 50,027 65,000 13,270 77,864 7,800 24,215 225,000 110,000 50,027 - - - - - - - - 2,222 454 - - - 7,693 3,761 1,710 116 24 - - - 403 197 90 92 19 - - - 317 155 71 208 43 - - - 720 352 161 63 13 - - 218 107 49 146 30 - - - 506 248 113 209 43 - - - 724 355 162 - - - - 110,000 50,027 65,000 13,270 77,864 7,800 24,215 0 110,000 50,027 - - - - - - - - 2,222 454 - - - 3,761 1,710 116 24 - - - - 197 90 92 19 - - - 155 71 208 43 - - 352 161 63 13 - - - - 107 49 146 30 - - - - 248 113 209 43 - - - - 355 162 0 0 0 0 0 (7,693) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (403) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (317) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (720) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (218) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (506) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (724) 0 0 Support (Child Care Ctr. Expansion) [a] - - - - - - 4,713 4,713 - - - - - - - 4,713 4,713 - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LOWER CAMPUS TOTAL: 1889149 - 2,676 140 111 251 76 176 252 389,740 577,889 - 15,840 830 654 1,484 450 19043 19493 1649740 352,889 - 8,147 427 337 764 232 537 769 (7,693) (403) (317) (720) (218) (506) (724) UPPER +LOWER CAMPUSES 886,270 409 139988 556 433 989 302 651 953 4569968 IJ439238 409 279152 1,246 976 2,222 676 1,518 2,194 456,968 IJ43,238 485 22,801 985 770 1,755 535 19182 19717 (4351) (261) (206) (467) (141) (336) (477) totes: 1l The ancillary uses under the "Support" category are not expected to generate additional trips. r] The entire project- related addition of 13 1,33 5 SF of inpatient square footage (inclusive of 76 new beds) is for the South Building. 2652- PwjDesc Revised 3- 13-07.xls.xls 5130/2007 TABLE 7 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Votes: Via] The ancillary uses under the "Support" category are not expected to generate additional trips. 'b] The entire project alternative- related addition of 56,335 SF of inpatient square footage (inclusive of 76 new beds) is for the South Building. 2652- ProjDe Revised 3- 13 -07.xls.xls 5/30/2007 EXISTING EXISTING+ FUTURE ADDITION W/O THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE EXISTING+ FUTURE ADDITION W/ THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE- GENERATED TRIPS AM Pk Hr Tri s PM Pk Hr Trips Size (GSF) AM Pk Hr rips PM Pk Hr Trips Size (GSF) AM Pk Hr Tri s PM Pk Hr rips AM Pk Hr Trips PM Pk Hr Trips In Out Total In Out Total Addition Existing Addition Tots Beds Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Addition Existing + Additio Total Beds Daily Trips In I Out Total In Out Total Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Description Size Daily Trips GSF Beds UPPER CAMPUS Inpatient / Inpatient (South Building) 643,436 409 10,552 376 290 666 205 425 630 67,228 710,664 409 10,552 376 290 666 205 425 630 56,335 [b] 699,771 485 12,513 446 344 790 243 504 747 1,961 70 54 124 38 79 117 Outpatient - (Women's Pavilion) 15,392 - 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 15,392 - 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 - 15,392 - 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (James Irvine Expansion) 800 - 27 1 1 2 1 2 3 800 - 27 1 1 2 1 2 3 - 800 - 27 1 1 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient(Caudiac Sm. Bldg. 1995) 5,544 - 190 10 8 18 5 12 17 5,544 - 190 10 8 18 5 12 17 - 5,544 - 190 10 8 18 5 12 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient(MRI Waiting) 500 - 17 1 1 2 0 1 I 500 - 17 1 I 2 0 1 1 - 500 - 17 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Women's Pavilion) [a] 27,114 - - - - 27,114 - - - - - - 27,114 - - - 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 Support (Emergency Gen. Addtn.) [a] 5,335 - - - - - - - - 5,335 - - - - - - - 5,335 - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (South Building) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26,268 26,268 - 898 47 37 84 25 59 84 898 47 37 84 25 59 84 Support (South Building) [aj - - - - - - - - - - - - 120,498 120,498 - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Imaging /ECU Expansion) - - - - - - - - 14,127 14,127 - 483 25 20 45 14 32 46 483 25 20 45 14 32 46 UPPER CAMPUS TOTAL: 698,121 409 11,312 416 322 738 226 475 701 67,228 765 ,349 409 11,312 416 322 738 226 475 701 217,228 915 ,349 485 14,654 558 433 991 303 645 948 3 ,342 142 III 253 77 170 247 LOWER CAMPUS Outpatient (Cancer Center) 65,000 - 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 65,000 - 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 - 65,000 - 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Conference Ctr.) 13,270 - 454 24 19 43 13 30 43 13,270 - 454 24 19 43 13 30 43 - 13,270 - 454 24 19 43 13 30 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Conference Center) [a] 77,864 - - - - - - 77,864 - - - - - - - 77,864 - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Child Care Center) [a] 7,800 - - - - - - - - 7,800 - - - - - - - 7,800 - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Cogeneration Building) [a] 24,215 - - - - - 24,215 - - - - 24,215 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient - - - - - - - - - 225,000 225,000 - 7,693 403 317 720 218 506 724 75,000 75,000 - 2,564 134 106 240 73 169 242 (5,129) (269) (211) (480) (145) (337) (482) Outpatient (Outpatient Building) - - - - - 110,000 110,000 - 3,761 197 155 352 107 248 355 110,000 110,000 - 3,761 197 155 352 107 248 355 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Medical Office Building) - - - - 50,027 50,027 - 1,710 90 71 161 49 113 162 50,027 50,027 - 1,710 90 71 161 49 113 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support (Child Care Ctr. Expansion) [a] 4,713 1 4,713 - - - - - 4,713 1 4,713 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LOWER CAMPUS TOTAL: 188,149 - 2,676 140 III 251 76 176 252 389,740 577,889 JIL8+8301 654 1,484 450 1,043 1,493 239,740 427,889 - 10,711 561 443 1,004 305 706 1,011 (5,129) (269) (211) (480) (14.5) (337) (482) UPPER +LOWER CAMPUSES 886,270 409 13,988 556 433 989 302 651 953 456,968 1 ,343,238 409 27,152 1,246 976 2,222 676 1,518 2,194 456,968 1,343,235 485 25 ,365 1,119 876 1,995 608 1{351 1,959 (1,787) (127) (100) (227) (68) (167) (235) Votes: Via] The ancillary uses under the "Support" category are not expected to generate additional trips. 'b] The entire project alternative- related addition of 56,335 SF of inpatient square footage (inclusive of 76 new beds) is for the South Building. 2652- ProjDe Revised 3- 13 -07.xls.xls 5/30/2007 the greater, trip- generating outpatient uses from the Lower Campus would cause a major reduction in Lower Campus trips. Adding that same square footage to the Upper Campus as lesser, trip- generating inpatient use (translating to the addition of 76 inpatient beds, totaling 485 beds), some outpatient use (40,395 SF), and 120,498 SF of support uses (which do not generate additive trips, as discussed previously) results in some increase in Upper Campus trips, but not as much as the reduction of Lower Campus trips. The net effect of having some increase in Upper Campus trips, and a major reduction in Lower Campus trips, is an overall decrease in trips for the Hoag medical campus as a result of the project. Table 7, which presents the trip generation estimates for the project alternative, indicates that the project alternative is expected to generate the same trips in the Upper Campus as the project, primarily because the inpatient trip generation is a function of the number of inpatient beds (which is the same under both scenarios), not square footage. Although less square footage is transferred to the Upper Campus under the project alternative, the anticipated increase in the number of inpatient beds (76 beds), and the sizes for the outpatient and support components of the transfer (40,395 SF and 120,498 SF, respectively) are consistent with the development program for the project. Because the number of inpatient beds is the same, the application of the inpatient "trips per bed" rates to the project alternative yields the same number of trips in the Upper Campus. Table 7 further indicates that the project alternative would result in a reduction in traffic generation for the Lower Campus, corresponding to 5,129 fewer daily trips, 480 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 482 fewer PM peak hour trips compared to future conditions without the project. These trip reductions related to the project alternative are less than those of the project. Table 7 also shows that, for the entire Hoag medical campus, the project alternative is expected to result in an overall net reduction of trips, comprised of 1,787 fewer daily trips, 227 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 235 fewer PM peak hour trips, when compared against conditions without the project. These overall net reductions related to the project alternative are less than those of the project. The project traffic generation estimates were provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. for input to the current NBTM, and were used as basis for the project traffic assignment on the street system using the City's model. The NBTM "Constrained" network was used for Year 2015 analysis, and the City's "Buildout" network (also known as the City's currently adopted "General Plan Baseline" network) was used for Year 2025 analysis. Key roadway changes reflected in the new constrained (versus Baseline) analysis include: ■ No extension of SR -55 ■ No widening of Coast Highway through Mariner's Mile ■ No extension of 19th Street across the Santa Ana River ■ No widening of Jamboree Road north of Ford Road The project traffic has been assigned to the roadway system using the NBTM. The NBTM formulas distribute traffic on the basis of the types of trips and the locations of other land uses that can be expected to interact with the proposed use. The project trip distribution has been obtained directly LWSCnii, LAW & GREEnsraw, engineers LLG Ref. 2 -05 -2652 21 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR ' N:' Q60UL+ 052fii ?Uteyon1fi52�ryn5na19- 18 -0].EOc from the NBTM forecasting tool and represents the distribution of traffic traveling to and from the overall hospital campus. Traffic is then assigned to the roadway system at the same time as traffic that is generated by other surrounding uses within the study area and throughout the Southern California region. All traffic is assigned to the roadway network under the assumption that each driver will seek the minimum time path. For this reason, the proposed changes in traffic associated with the project also affect the travel paths selected by other drivers. Thus, increasing the amount of traffic associated with the Upper Campus and using Hospital Road to access the hospital may cause other traffic that formerly used Hospital Road to choose a different travel path. Embedded in NBTM, and provided for informational purposes only, is an overall traffic distribution pattern for Hoag Hospital at all Newport Beach and Costa Mesa intersections, which is illustrated on Figure B -1 and included in Appendix B. The land use intensities were modified for the NBTM's Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1413 and 1713 to reflect the existing and future components of Hoag Hospital, as previously presented in Tables 1 and 2 and Tables 6 and 7. Using the specialized analysis capabilities of NBTM, the project's trip distribution characteristics were identified, and applied in forecasting Year 2025 (General Plan buildout) traffic volumes with the development of the project. Urban Crossroads, Inc. also developed the Year 2025 (General Plan buildout) forecasts without the proposed reallocation of medical uses from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. By taking the differential between the Year 2025 with and without project forecasts, the project - generated traffic volumes were derived for the 15 key intersections located in the City of Newport Beach. These project - generated traffic volumes were used as basis to extrapolate project traffic volumes to the nine key intersections located in the City of Costa Mesa. The same approach was applied in developing model forecasts for the project alternative. As previously indicated, the project - generated traffic volumes forecasted at the northernmost Newport Beach intersections were used as basis to extrapolate project traffic volumes to the nine key intersections located in the City of Costa Mesa. Specifically, the project - generated trips on the approaches and departures of the Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue intersections were used as basis to "track" the approacb/departure volumes onto Costa Mesa intersections. The approacb/departure volumes were translated to turning movement volumes at Costa Mesa intersections by applying the overall trip distribution pattern developed and provided by Urban Crossroads. Figures 6 through 9 illustrate the project - generated and project altemative- generated traffic volumes at the 24 key intersections during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Urban Crossroads examined these volumes and deemed them reasonable for use in this study. 5.2 Year 2015 without Project Traffic Forecasts For the 15 key intersections in Newport Beach, the Year 2015 without Project forecasts were developed by Urban Crossroads, Inc. by using the NBTM. For the nine key intersections in Costa LINSWrr. LAW & GMENSPAN, engineers WS LLG Ref. 2 -05 -2652 Hoag Hospital Master Plan BUZ N ZWyC052o5?RWftU652.ryt- final AIIA7,&c W / 0 0 kkk /�° C \ 1 0 r ,1d- o ° 1 \ -o_ hda \ \\ ,iC 00 00 \ 1 00-- d� r 0 100--la \°1 wim df \ \ 1 \ HOSPITAL M P 0 /' ozs o\ / I I / I\ \ 0 I �I \ 0 1 0 1 \ d" 0.- \ 1 \ lr-0 11 0., oSpII _r /�� -owl /Jllr -o I Jllr -i0 1 \ t FIGURE 6 (t.0 SCALE PROJECT— GENERATED AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR. NEWPORT BEACH A ' OO I J /lam° 1 \4 �° \\ J /lam° °\ z I �°,_, •� 0'01 1 \ -10- - 1\ � W1 1 HOSPITAL RD IL r / / r ogo _ °\ 0 \I 0- r ! \ c -m \II Il�u a�01 1 \, add/ 1\ / 1\ d6 / 1\ O_N O \\ ° \\ 101 /Ilia° I �/,!P�?,�(, FIGURE 7 0 "O SCALE PROJECT- GENERATED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAO HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH I 1 4 I I � 4 /JfCro \I \ a- NV� / ^ \ \\ +70�,� \`\ \ w IaTH \ \ HOSNTAL RD� D r ! I / \ ads I ds ad I ad 4 X�f f `i a I 22\ \ -- - - - --- /Jllro10l Jllr��0I .' . - \ o \ C 0 I FIGURE 8 0 to SCALE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE— GENERATED AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES NOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH t \ _ R�a —olo\ T 1P ` k-0 -- ' HOSPITAL R I o f u! o \I r.j 10 L \°1 dd- J ° to / / , H +00--T� $ //— - \ 5 �a -101 o, o \\ —�/ p o \ / moo \ JoOI o\ J °OI o\ 0 1 I - -IO 11 Ill 0 11 .i�l o'0I1 �(r o 1 4 - k FIGURE 9 �O SCALE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE- GENERATED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAO HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH Mesa, a 1% annual growth rate was applied to existing traffic volumes to reflect Year 2015 conditions, per City of Costa Mesa staff direction. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the Year 2015 without Project AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. Comparing the Year 2015 without Project traffic volumes against existing volumes indicates negative growth in some locations. Urban Crossroads, Inc. examined these volumes and deemed them reasonable on the basis of new parallel roadways and/or traffic volume increases competing for available capacity. 5.3 Year 2015 with Project Traffic Forecasts The estimates of project - generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2015 without Project volumes to develop traffic projections for the Year 2015 with Project scenario. The resulting traffic volumes at each of the 24 key intersections are illustrated in Figures 12 and 13 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. 5.4 Year 2015 with Project Alternative Traffic Forecasts The estimates of project alternative - generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2015 without Project volumes to develop traffic projections for the Year 2015 with Project Alternative scenario. The resulting traffic volumes at each of the 24 key intersections are illustrated in Figures 14 and 15 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. 5.5 Year 2025 without Project Traffic Forecasts For the 15 key intersections in Newport Beach, the Year 2025 (General Plan buildout) without Project forecasts were provided by Urban Crossroads, Inc. based upon using the NBTM. The City of Costa Mesa provided the Year 2025 without Project forecasts for the nine key intersections in Costa Mesa. Figures 16 and 17 illustrate the Year 2025 without Project AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. A comparison of the Year 2025 without Project traffic volumes against existing volumes indicates negative growth in some locations. Urban Crossroads, Inc. examined these volumes also, and considered them reasonable for use in the study. 5.6 Year 2025 with Project Traffic Forecasts The estimates of project - generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2025 without Project volumes to develop traffic projections for the Year 2025 with Project scenario. The resulting traffic volumes at each of the 24 key intersections are illustrated in Figures 18 and 19 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. 5.7 Year 2025 with Project Alternative Traffic Forecasts The estimates of project alternative- generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2025 without Project volumes to develop traffic projections for the Year 2025 with Project Alternative scenario. The resulting traffic volumes at each of the 24 key intersections are illustrated in Figures 20 and 21 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. UNSCOTT. LAW & GREENSaan, engineers LLG Ref. 2-05 -2652 27 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR N :'�Wa5WDRcpii 2- rybfMI 9 -1"7&c OD /�f r 7 / /J!(r� \ IeiJ �� I 17TH 1 \ \ \ W 16TH \ - _ HDS7NTAL RD rw t / ST T -- \ Jv ) J 1,;: 40 I \\ lit aa;/ 11 Il�m \11 J /C. o+OSOII /C�o� \I /Si91, o So 0 \ 90 1 / J 7 FIGURE 10 tO SCALE YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES MOAC HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH ,4 I r'C 1��M4i / _ l Jl it 5�1\ 54:f ^`T 1 \a c HOSPITAL RD 400 1 I AKK \ \ / �K \ 1 \\ \ 1 \ \ JlCry s2\ J I 2u 1 ,/-A— \\ ^ _m I 81\\ JI t �xi I \ 22-1 \ 121 -g/ / I a r I`w\ J/ �21 c1 J/���220V Iz��y , Boa /JI 1 1 JgplJl�b 1 1 2610+ / , 001 � , / / Y FIGURE 11 LSCALE YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAO HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH O �I eel lJ /Craw 4—&� tr— HOSPITAL RD —Oaf./ / 0 \ ism 42� \� I J/C J \I vJl 1. w \I 2 Dia I T 4� i 46 \ , J l— Ioep 1 1 I l r zp I \_� .y \� I 42� \� I J/C J \I vJl 1. w \I 2 Dia I T 4� i \ > R °ar /R8 na\ w \w \ /Jll —s� °1 Jll i 1 FIGURE 12 SCALE YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH I \ J l— Ioep 1 1 I l r zp I \_� \ > R °ar /R8 na\ w \w \ /Jll —s� °1 Jll i 1 FIGURE 12 SCALE YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH 1 I � I /J/ sris\ +2 17TH � w 1eTH HOSPITAL RU 470 1 J � / v�� I c�0\ / X70\ xsto l l lira I I `r \\ \\ o; 4S / \ r 'gel ST P\ �•6 1 Y � f +20 k 9) \\vRR>8 `8; \ �.-�u I Jllrss I I r c ' 70a\ JI lr(70 I JI rw I 1 FIGURE 13 tO SCALE YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH N -750 1 12 `683` "kc/ lei r �j, 3{i w gf / HOSPITAL I I r, r I 1 zseo�FS�/ R@ +so 1 \2,>0� / t \ \ I I I.Cr —iii jay/ \} n ` \\ -', \Itro91 -3�/ 1� \ 1 \\ 4 \ j I r 20 b 0 11 1 11� Rbt n®0\ / 5iP5; '60\ JI w I Ilrl00 1 12 `4go`t01 FIGURE 14 "o SCALE YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HGAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH _ 1 1 1 \ I n R W 76M HDSPIUL RI)v/ ' I — i i- / o +80 1 / / r / jR` 7h\ 1 it+D' 1 � t I I K120 /Jllriiil s /� —Br \ Jll�ur I �\rril X"sr 1 �— Z 14 T 1 � 1 � -6 J/ lad I r w I I •— ro al I r •- D 30l i r r FIGURE 15 SCALE �D YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE PM PEAK HOUR TRAffIC VOLUMES HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH le A 0 I I / s J 33 30 1 1 / \ 17TH 41 HOSPITAL 1 / o ! 50 I r Jl�isa°1I llrm \I! J/l oal! J/ cool SID 0i\ \ \ 151 / P \ � I /�a� � x�\ \ /Jlllrji0 J� rro�D1 /' ��" x70\ J/ 140j' \ / FIGURE 16 "o Sc"u YEAR 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BOAC HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH w C71 400 go \ h \ go W 161H / \ ' HOSPITAL RD so J� ^ ]eo / 19TH tT TH ST \ - ga �/2 J2� w \ 1 J / / 1 \ 1 460 _ \ \ �rG•I I/ J L 23501 /8825 L iJ1 / g53R ` I20`\ 0 /Jlhr w 1 Jllr � \\ 20 R �/ 1 s10^ / / FIGURE 17 (t.0 SCALE FIGURE 2025 WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PUN EIRE NEWPORT BEACH 11 /Jll� \ i —1 \ / \ w TM 4 _ \ \ -- HOSW,AL R6 / c r 50 1 / 1 ! � \\ \ l ! 21 1 \ 12 l \ yy ` --- - --- -- R? / \ `\/ �3 \ -,°\ va _p � a \ I ,0 1/ J I l r so \I t ,=o— 1• r 1 � o RR S41\ / L 5,0 \ / a0\ J fi\ J b\ 1 \3ID— 01+ I I� I1 a (0X01+ o55a1 /Jllrio °I Jllr80 1 Tr/� I -- , " 4� / FIGURE 18 0 SCALE YEAR 2025 WITH PROJECT AN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR. NEWPORT BEACH W V `^ A 1 /J /1r.00 /J /lrb If /J'Eop l\ /Jllr -�\ \ice 1 \ 'class//, HOSPITAL RD no I I / / tb�\ / r 'sa-. /I°01 \ qT ST _ s Sao [ 1 l„lo I/ J I l lr so \1 Al Ica , \ \ ol �0\ J B0� r -X10°7//$i J \\ i i Yl 4ili8 z w 1 FIGURE 19 0 ° SCALE YEAR 2025 WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAO HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH Yj W l 1 4 I 1 J� � .. I ,/ no�{°itibi 500 J /lr330 \ 'O I 17TH HpSPITAL RD P i ^ "i jai' / r lam,, \ 27pp� s A. ST w � 151p— \ I Jp �. /—JO I �)Ilrappl T I 4 \ /�R �\ /��� `\ ��O$l \`7•se9l \Q J l— tssp 1 I I lr ao 11 iosall o�ai 241p+ \ app., 1 ad \ ap \\ �)flrip /wI ) lr17pl 4j14 FIGURE 20 oscALe YEAR 2025 WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH m 1 1 I / e Jos /Fero\ Jll�a �\ W189 X05PITAL ff " r I q\'Aoor� / Tel \ r r J l l' 928 1 I ! l 440 \I /�I �m 1 �Il�nml I 31 ®j j FIGURE 21 0 vn0 SCALE YEAR 2025 WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR. NEWPORT BEACH 3 9 \ /�I �m 1 �Il�nml I 31 ®j j FIGURE 21 0 vn0 SCALE YEAR 2025 WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR. NEWPORT BEACH 3 9 6.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This section presents a comparison of conditions with and without the project at each analyzed intersection to determine the incremental effect of project trips on Year 2015 and Year 2025 traffic conditions. Detailed calculations for ICU values and the resulting levels of service are included in Appendix A. 6.1 Significant Traffic Impact Criteria In order to provide a quantitative basis for determining the significant traffic impact at a specific location, it was necessary to establish the criteria to be used in the analysis of intersections for this study. Per the City's of Newport Beach and City of Costa Mesa guidelines, the project is considered to have a significant impact if the following criteria are met: the ICU value under "with project" conditions is 0.91 or greater (LOS E or F), and • the ICU increase attributable to the project is 0.01 or greater. A significant traffic impact caused by the project is considered to be mitigated when project - related improvements modify the ICU value to less than or equal to 0.90, or an ICU value to less than or equal to the "without project" ICU. 6.2 Year 2015 without Project Traffic Conditions The projected Year 2015 without Project peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service for each of the analyzed intersections. Table 8 indicates that 18 of the 24 key intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. The following six intersections (three intersections in Newport Beach, and three intersections in Costa Mesa) operate at a deficient LOS E or LOS F during the peak hour noted: 3. Balboa Boulevard- Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway (PM peak hour) 10. Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road (PM peak hour) 12. Newport Boulevard southbound off- ramp/West Coast Highway (AM peak hour) 19. Superior Avenue/17th Street (AM peak hour) 21. Newport Boulevard/18a' Street- Rochester Avenue (PM peak hour) 24. Newport Boulevard/19d' Street (both peak hours) 6.3 Year 2015 with Project Traffic Conditions The Year 2015 with Project peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service for each of the analyzed intersections. Based upon the application of the significance criteria described previously, Table 8 indicates that the project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the key intersections; therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary. LK=Ori, Lnw & GREEWPAN, engineers 4Q LLG Ref. 2-05 -2652 Hoag Hospital Master Plan ERR u'�6011 \;05205 ?`RN�12tic3_M.final 9- 18.07.x: TABLE 8 YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Bold LOS valuts indimte advem =vim levels based on City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa standards LNKM. Law& GFUWAN. erg6Wers 41 LLC Ref 2-05 -2652 Hoag Hospital Maslen Plan EIR N:1:bamzosusx'ae"w 1.65zm-fn 7-547AX Year2015 WithoutPro'ect Year 2015 With Project Peak ICU Significant Key Intersections Hoar ICU LOS ICU LOS Increase Impact City of Newport Beach Intersecdons 1. Orange Stmt at AM 0.81 D 0.80 C -0.01 - West Cosa Highway PM 0.75 C 0.74 C -0.01 - 2. Prospect Street at AM 0.87 D 0.86 D -0.01 - West Coast Highwa PM 0.77 C 0.77 C 0.00 - 3. Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. at AM 0.89 D 0.87 D -0.02 West Coast Highway PM 0.96 E 0.96 E 0.00 4. Riverside Avenue at AM 0.81 D 0.80 D -0.01 - West Coast lbghway PM 0.82 D 0.81 D -0.01 - 5. Tustin Avenue at AM 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.00 West Coast Hi PM 0.70 B 0.70 B 0.00 - 6. Bay Shore Drive -Dover Drive at AM 0.76 C 0.76 C 0.00 - West Coast Highway PM 0.86 D. 0.86 D 0.00 - 7. Bayside Drive at AM 0.84 D 0.85 D 0.01 - East Coast Highway PM 0.75 C 0.75 C 0.00 - 8. Jamboree Road at AM 0.72 C 0.71 C -0.01 - East Coast lighway PM 0.72 C 0.71 C -0.01 - 9. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 - Via Lido PM 0.42 A 0.42 A 0.00 - 10. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.69 B 0.64 B -0.05 - Hospital Road PM 0.94 E 0.91 E -0.03 - 11. Placentia Avenue at AM 0.66 B 0.64 B -0.02 Superior Avenue PM 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.00 12. Newport Blvd. SB Off -Ramp at AM 0.98 E 0.84 D -0.14 West Coast Highway PM 0.84 D 0.78 C -0.06 13. Superior Avenue at AM 0.68 B 0.70 B 0.02 Hospital Road PM 0.48 A 0.48 A 0.00 14. Hoag Drive - Placentia Ave. at AM 039 A 0.38 A -0.01 - Hospital Road PM 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.00 - 15. Hoag Drive at AM 0.58 A 0.56 A -0.02 - West Coast Hi way PM 0.56 A 0.51 A -0.05 - City of Costa Mesa Intersections 16. Superior Avenue at AM 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.00 - 16th Street- Industrial Way PM 0.45 A 0.46 A 0.01 - 17. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.00 - industrial Way PM 0.59 A 0.58 A -0.01 18. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 16th Street PM 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 19. Superior Avenue at AM 0.97 E 0.97 E 0.00 17th Street PM 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 20. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 17th Street PM 0.89 D 0.88 D -0.01 21. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.79 C 0.78 C -0.01 I8th Street - Rochester Street PM 0.95 E 0.94 E -0.01 22. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.71 C 0.69 B -0.02 Harbor Boulevard PM 0.80 C 0.79 C -0.01 23. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.65 B 0.65 B 0.00 Broadway Boulvard PM 0.76 C 0.75 C -0.01 24. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.90 E 0.90 E 0.00 19th Street PM 0.93 E 0.92 E -0.01 Bold LOS valuts indimte advem =vim levels based on City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa standards LNKM. Law& GFUWAN. erg6Wers 41 LLC Ref 2-05 -2652 Hoag Hospital Maslen Plan EIR N:1:bamzosusx'ae"w 1.65zm-fn 7-547AX 6.4 Year 2015 with Project Alternative Traffic Conditions The Year 2015 with Project Alternative peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service for each of the analyzed intersections. Based upon the application of the significance criteria described previously, Table 9 indicates that the project alternative is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the key intersections; therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary. 6.5 Year 2025 without Project Traffic Conditions The projected Year 2025 without Project peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service for each of the analyzed intersections. Table 10 indicates that 18 of the 24 key intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. The following six intersections (three intersections in Newport Beach and three intersections in Costa Mesa) operate at a deficient LOS E or LOS F during the peak hour noted: 4. Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway (both peak hours) 6. Bayshore Drive- Dover Drive/West Coast Highway (PM peak hour) 12. Newport Boulevard southbound off- ramp/West Coast Highway (AM peak hour) 20. Newport Boulevard/17th Street (both peak hours) 21. Newport Boulevard/18a' Street- Rochester Avenue (both peak hours) 24. Newport Boulevard/19a' Street (both peak hours) 6.6 Year 2025 with Project Traffic Conditions The Year 2025 with Project peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service for each of the analyzed intersections. Based upon the application of the significance criteria described previously, Table 10 indicates that the project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the key intersections; therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary. 6.7 Year 2025 with Project Alternative Traffic Conditions The Year 2025 with Project Alternative peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level -of service for each of the analyzed intersections. Based upon the application of the significance criteria described previously, Table 11 indicates that the project alternative is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the key intersections; therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary. Uusoou, Lew& GREMPAN, engweers 42 Hoag Hospital Ref. -0 Ent - N�`�6g1'�DSri�2�RgwnW+�? -rye -foil 9- iR -0].dp; TABLE 9 YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Now Hold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa standards >_ llBSCOif, Lttw& 13BEBrsPpa, ertgvteevs 43 Hoag Hospital' Master Plan EEL N:l]eda@a5102ateput1M52 V-F.W 7- 5M.dac Year2015 W /out POeM Alt Year 2015 With Project Alternative Peak ICU Significant Key Intersections Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Increase Impact City of Newport Beach Intersections 1. Orange Street at AM 0.81 D 0.80 D -0.01 West Coast Highway PM 0.75 C 0.74 C -0.01 2. Prospect Street at AM 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.00 West Coast Highway PM 0.77 C 0.77 C 0.00 3. Balboa B Ivd: Superior Ave. at AM 0.89 D 0.88 D -0.01 West Coast Highway PM 0.96 E 096 E 0.00 4. Riverside Avenue at AM 0.81 D 0.80 D -0.01 West Coast Highway PM 0.82 D 0.81 D -0.01 5. Tustin Avenue at AM 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.00 West Coast Highway PM 0.70 B 0.70 B 0.00 6. Bay Shore Drive -Dover Drive at AM 0.76 C 0.76 C 0.00 West Coast Highway PM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 7. Bayside Drive at AM 0.84 D 0.85 D 0.01 East Coast Highway PM 0.75 C 0.75 C 0.00 8. Jamboree Road at AM 0.72 C 0.71 C -0.01 East Coast Highway PM 0.72 C 0.72 C 0.00 9. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 Via Lido PM 0.42 A 0.42 A 0.00 10. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.69 B 0.65 B -0.04 Hospital Road PM 0.94 E 0.92 E -0.02 - 11. Placentia Avenue at AM 0.66 B 0.65 B -0.01 Superior Avenue PM 0.61 B 0.62 B 0.01 12. Newport Blvd. SB Off -Ramp at AM 0.98 E 0.88 D -0.10 - West Coast Highway PM 0.84 D 0.80 C -0.04 13. Superior Avenue at AM 0.68 B 0.70 C 0.02 Hospital Road PM 0.48 A 0.48 A 0.00 - 14. Hoag Drive - Placentia Ave. at AM 0.39 A 0.39 A 0.00 Hospital Road PM 0.50 A 0.51 A 0.01 - 15. Hoag Drive at AM 0.58 A 0.57 A -0.01 West Coast Highway PM 0.56 A 0.53 A -0.03 City of Costa Mesa Intersections 16. Superior Avenue at AM 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.00 16th Street- Industrial Way PM 0.45 A 0.46 A 0.01 17. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.00 - Industrial Way PM 0.59 A 0.59 A 0.00 18. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 - 16th Street PM 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 - 19. Superior Avenue at AM 0.97 E 0.97 E 0.00 - 17th Street PM 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 20. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 17th Street PM 0.89 D 0.89 D 0.00 21. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.79 C 0.78 C -0.01 1 Sth Street - Rochester Street PM 0.95 E 0.94 E -0.01 - 22. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.71 C 0.70 B -0.01 - Harbor Boulevard PM 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.00 23. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.65 B 0.65 B 0.00 Broadway Boulvard PM 0.76 C 0.76 C 0.00 24. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.90 E 0.90 E 0.00 19th Street PM 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.00 Now Hold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa standards >_ llBSCOif, Lttw& 13BEBrsPpa, ertgvteevs 43 Hoag Hospital' Master Plan EEL N:l]eda@a5102ateput1M52 V-F.W 7- 5M.dac TABLE 10 YEAR 2025 WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Note: Hold IDS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa standards Lr1SCOTf. LAWS Gar:E WM, atgirt = LLG Ref. 2 -05 -7652 Hoag Hospital Master Pam EIR N:tt4 W�2a5263iWepod3652- ryt•fiw17.3-07.EO� Year 2025 Without Project Year 2025 With Project ICU Significant Peak Key Intersections Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Increase Impart City ojNewport Beach Intersecdons 1. Orange Street at AM 0.76 C 0.75 - C -0,01 - West Coast Highway PM 0.80 C 0.79 C -0.01 - 2. Prospect Street at AM 0.89 D 0.88 D -0,01 - West Coast Highway PM . 0.76 C 0.75 C -0.01 - 3. Balboa Blvd.- Superior Ave. at AM 0.84 D 0.82 D -0.02 - West Coast Highway PM 0.78 C 0.75 C -0.03 - 4. Riverside Avenue at AM 0.92 E 0.92 E 0.00 - West Coast Highway PM 0.96 E 0.95 E -0.01 - 5. Tustin Avenue at AM 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.00 - West Coast Highway PM 1 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 - 6. Bay Shore Drive -Dover Drive at AM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 - West Coast Highway PM 0.92 E 0.91 E -0.01 - 7. Bayside Drive at AM 0.88 D 0.89 D 0.01 - East Coast Highway PM 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.00 8. Jamboree Road at AM 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.00 - East Coast Highway PM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 9. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.00 - Via Lido PM 0.52 A 0.52 A 0.00 10. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.77 C 0.67 B -0.10 - Hospital Road PM 0.86 D 0.84 D -0.02 11. Placentia Avenue at AM 0.61 B 0.59 A -0.02 - Superior Avenue PM 0.53 A 0.54 A 0.01 - 12. Newport Blvd. SB Off -Ramp at AM 1.15 F 1.00 F -0.15 - West Coast Highway PM 0.75 C 0.69 B -0.06 13. Superior Avenue at AM 0.66 B 0.67 B 0.01 - Hospital Road PM 0.59 A 0.59 A 0.00 - 14. Hoag Drive - Placentia Ave. at AM 0.47 A 0.47 A 0.00 - Hospital Road PM 0.77 C 0.77 C 0.00 15. Hoag Drive at AM 0.58 A 0.56 A -0 .02 - West Coast Highway PM 0.58 A 0.53 A -0.05 - City of Costa Mesa Intersections 16. Superior Avenue at AM 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.00 - 16th Street - Industrial Way PM 0.48 A 1149 A 0.01 17. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.66 B 0.65 B -0.01 - Industrial Way PM 0.71 C 0.70 C -0.01 18. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.67 B 0.67 B 0.00 - l6th Street PM 0.70 C 0.69 B -0.01 19. Superior Avenue at AM 0.82 D 0.82 D 0.00 - 17th Street PM 0.76 C 0.76 C 0.00 20. Newport Boulevard at AM 097 E 0.96 E -0.01 17th Street PM 0.% E 0.95 E -0.01 2l. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.99 E 0.98 E -0.01 I8th Street - Rochester Street PM 0.97 E 0.96 E -0.01 22. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.73 C 0.71 C -0.02 Harbor Boulevard PM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 23. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.75 C 0.75 C 0.00 Broadway Boulvard PM 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 - 24. Newport Boulevard at AM 1.06 F 1.06 F 0.00 - 19th Street PM 1.03 F 1.02 F -0.01 Note: Hold IDS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa standards Lr1SCOTf. LAWS Gar:E WM, atgirt = LLG Ref. 2 -05 -7652 Hoag Hospital Master Pam EIR N:tt4 W�2a5263iWepod3652- ryt•fiw17.3-07.EO� TABLE 11 YEAR 2025 WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Note: Bold LAS vahm indicate adverse service levels based on City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa standards Llascorr, LnwBGaEra AK611gtrrea7s 2 45 Hoag Hospital Master P EBi N:1260N20526524R.yoM7652+pduW 7.5 -07.dx Year 2025 W /out Pro ect Alt Year 2025 With Project Alternative Peak ICU Significant Key Intersections Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Inerease Impact City ofNervpor t Beach Intersections 1. Orange Street at AM 0.76 C 0.75 C -0.01 - West Coast Highway PM 0.80 C 0.79 C -0.01 - 2. Prospect Street at AM 0.89 D 0.89 D 0.00 West Coast Hi PM 0.76 C 0.75 C -0.01 - 3. Balboa Blvd.- Superior Ave. at AM 0.84 D 0.83 D -0.01 - West Coast Highwa PM 0.78 C 0.76 C -0.02 - 4. Riverside Avenue at AM 092 E 0.92 E 0.00 - West Coast Hi PM 0.96 E 0.95 E -0.01 - 5. Tustin Avenue at AM 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.00 - West Coast Highway PM 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 - 6. Bay Shore Drive-Dover Drive at AM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 - West Coast Highway PM 0.92 E 0.91 E -0.01 7. Bayside Drive at AM 0.88 D 0.89 D 0.01 - East Coast Highway PM 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.00 - 8. Jamboree Road at AM 0.83 D 0.82 D -0.01 - East Coast Highway PM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 - 9. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.00 - Via Lido PM 0.52 A 0.52 A 0.00 10. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.77 C 0.70 C -0.07 Hospital Road PM 0.86 D 0.85 D -0.01 - 11. Placentia Avenue at AM 0.61 B 0.60 A -0.01 - SuperiorAvcnuc PM 0.53 A 0.55 A 0.02 - 12. Newport Blvd. SB Off -Ramp at AM 1.15 F 1.05 F -0.10 - West Coast Highway PM 0.75 C 0.71 C -0.04 - 13. Superior Avenue at AM 0.66 B 0.68 B 0.02 - Hospital Road PM 0.59 A 0.59 A 0.00 - 14. Hoag Drive--Placentia Ave. at AM 0.47 A 0.48 A 0.01 - Hospital Road PM 0.77 C 0.78 C 0.01 - 15. Hoag Drive at AM 0.58 A 0.57 A -0.01 - West Coast Highway PM 0.58 A 0.55 A -0.03 - City of Costa Mesa Intersections 16. Superior Avenue at AM 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.00 16th Street-Industrial Way PM 0.48 A 0.49 A 0.01 - 17. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.66 B 0.65 B -0.01 - Induarial Way PM 0.71 C 0.70 C -0.01 - 18. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.67 B 0.67 B 0.00 16th Street PM 0.70 C 0.70 B 0.00 - 19. Superior Avenue at AM 0.82 D 0.82 D 0.00 - 17th Street PM 0.76 C 0.76 C 0.00 20. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.97 E 0.96 E -0.01 - 17th Street PM 0.% E 0.96 E 0.00 21. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.99 E 0.98 E -0.01 - 18th Street - Rochester Street PM 0.97 E 0.97 E 0.00 22. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.73 C 0.72 C -0.01 - Harbor Boulevard PM 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.00 23. Newport Boulevard at AM 0.75 C 0.75 C - Broadway Boulvard PM 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 24. Newport Boulevard at AM 1.06 F 1.06 F 0.00 - 19th Street PM 1.03 F 1.03 F 0.00 Note: Bold LAS vahm indicate adverse service levels based on City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa standards Llascorr, LnwBGaEra AK611gtrrea7s 2 45 Hoag Hospital Master P EBi N:1260N20526524R.yoM7652+pduW 7.5 -07.dx 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Project Description: The proposed project would allow for the reallocation of 225,000 SF of medical uses that are currently approved for the Lower Campus to be transferred to the Upper Campus. The proposed project would allow for up to 1,343,238 SF of uses at Hoag Hospital, corresponding to the square footage currently permitted at Hoag as part of the existing Master Plan. As part of the proposed project, the applicant is not requesting the approval of any project- specific land uses but only the reallocation of square footage. Proiect Alternative Description: The "project alternative" would allow less square footage (150,000 SF rather than 225,000 SF) of medical use to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. ■ Study Scope: A total of 15 key intersections were selected by the City of Newport Beach, and a total of nine intersections were selected by the City of Costa Mesa. The traffic scenarios that were evaluated include: existing conditions, Year 2015 without Project, Year 2015 with Project, Year 2025 without Project, and Year 2025 with Project, conditions. • Existing Traffic Conditions: A total of 23 out of the 24 key intersections currently operate at satisfactory levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. The following Costa Mesa intersection operates at a deficient LOS E during the AM peak hour: 19. Superior Avenue /17th Street Proiect Trip Generation: For the Upper Campus, the project is expected to generate 3,342 daily trips on a typical weekday, of which 253 trips would occur during the AM peak hour, and 247 trips would occur during the PM peak hour. The project would result in a reduction in traffic generation for the Lower Campus, corresponding to 7,693 fewer daily trips, 720 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 724 fewer PM peak hour trips compared to future conditions without the project. For the entire Hoag medical campus, the project is expected to result in an overall net reduction of trips, comprised of 4,351 fewer daily trips, 467 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 477 fewer PM peak hour trips, when compared against conditions without the project. Proiect Alternative Trip Generation: The project alternative is expected to generate the same trips in the Upper Campus as the project, primarily because the inpatient trip generation is a function of the number of inpatient beds (which is the same under both scenarios), not square footage. The project alternative would result in a reduction in traffic generation for the Lower Campus, corresponding to 5,129 fewer daily trips, 480 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 482 fewer PM peak hour trips compared to future conditions without the project. These trip reductions related to the project alternative are less than those of the project. For the entire Hoag medical campus, the project alternative is expected to result in an overall net reduction of trips, comprised of 1,787 fewer daily trips, 227 fewer AM peak hour trips, and Lwscou. LAW & GaEEl6PAN, engineers LLG Ref: 2 -05 -2652 46 Hoag Hospital Master LHan ELR : V:�36dP�052ti32Vtggn42b <2.,�_�,y y18-0I.EOc 235 fewer PM peak hour trips, when compared against conditions without the project. These overall net reductions related to the project alternative are less than those of the project. ■ Year 2015 without Project Traffic Conditions: The projected Year 2015 without Project peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service for each of the analyzed intersections. A total of 18 out of the 24 key intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. The following six intersections (three intersections in Newport Beach, and three intersections in Costa Mesa) operate at a deficient LOS E or LOS F during the peak hour noted: 3. Balboa Boulevard- Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway (PM peak hour) 10. Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road (PM peak hour) 12. Newport Boulevard southbound off- ramp/West Coast Highway (AM peak hour) 19. Superior Avenue /17th Street (AM peak hour) 21. Newport Boulevard/18 h Street - Rochester Avenue (PM peak hour) 24. Newport Boulevard/19 h Street (both peak hours) ■ Year 2015 with Proiect Traffic Conditions: The Year 2015 with Project peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service for each of the analyzed intersections. Based upon the application of the significance criteria described previously, the project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the key intersections; therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary. ■ Year 2015 with Project Alternative Traffic Conditions: The Year 2015 with Project Alternative peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service for each of the analyzed intersections. Based upon the application of the significance criteria described previously, the project alterative is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the key intersections; therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary. ■ Year 2025 without Proiect Traffic Conditions: The projected Year 2025 without Project peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service for each of the analyzed intersections. A total of 18 out of the 24 key intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. The following six intersections (three intersections in Newport Beach and three intersections in Costa Mesa) operate at a deficient LOS E or LOS F during the peak hour noted: 4. Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway (both peak hours) 6. Bayshore Drive- Dover Drive/West Coast Highway (PM peak hour) 12. Newport Boulevard southbound off- ramp/West Coast Highway (AM peak hour) 20. Newport Boulevard/17th Street (both peak hours) 21. Newport Boulevard/18 h Street - Rochester Avenue (both peak hours) 24. Newport Boulevard/19a' Street (both peak hours) UNWAM, LAW & GREENSPAN. en9kWM LLG Ref 2 -05 -2652 47 Hoag Hospital Master PI= EQt N. 1'. 6a0v�0 $X+ }'_+Reyon�:rii +_.ryv_fnel A1 &07.d ■ Year 2025 with Project Traffic Conditions: The Year 2025 with Project peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service for each of the analyzed intersections. Based upon the application of the significance criteria described previously, the project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the key intersections; therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary. ■ Year 2025 with Project Alternative Traffic Conditions: The Year 2025 with Project Alternative peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level. of service for each of the analyzed intersections. Based upon the application of the significance criteria described previously, the project alternative is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the key intersections; therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary. UNscorr, Lnw 8 GNEENspm. en8ineers LLO Ref 2 -05 -2652 48 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR N'. +L6IXi \. 205 :6c>�agpn12ti�2- ryi- fim19- IM7.&I LINSCATT, LAW & GREEMPAN, @ngiMerS APPENDIX A INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS LLG Ref. 2 -05 -2652 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR N. lbW¢!Ii2b521Repnn',Ap,Mk Co,er Pn,s.dN YEAR 2015 LINSCOT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref 2 -05 -2652 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR N '100 i:6c ?- 1tol- n -Ap1 -- , CASC 1'nces.tloP UNSCOTT• LAW I OREINSPAN• ENOINEORS 1590 Corporate Drive. Suite 122, Costs Man CA 92626 (714) 641-1587 Inalresdion; 1. N•S St Orange Summit E•W St West Coast Highway Project, Hoag Master Plan EIR File: N:1260012052652000Yssr2015.xls ControlTyPe: SO TMMC Signal INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Orange Street &I WestCmst Highway Peak Hour AM Annua!Growah: 1.0% Date WNW Date of Count 2007 Projection Year. 2015 • Key Wrtilleting Movement as a Pon of ICU. Functions as a separete Dam laft, Irdadvar. Is nor striped as SUCh. Counewriducladby. C6y01NewportBeac1 Capacity expressed In vairldes, per hour of grew. Projecticulminacl: .0.010 Area Tmffm Millgadmin: SIgnificant Impact: NO ITGCWVDL 1 4101 1 0 4101 1 a $160 1 -W Slid 1 0 6110 :1 �A4 meai6i6k .................. W4 .1 �l I His Nor ...-V Nb Left 13 0 0 0.000 • 0 13 0 0 0.000 - 0 50 0 0 Dom • 0 so 0 0 Dcal) • 0 50 0 0 0.000 Hit Thru 2 1 100 0.010 0 2 1 1600 0,010 0 0 1 IND 0.031 0 0 1 1600 0.031 0 0 1 1600 0.031 Hit, Right sit 1 1600 0.036 0 se 1 1600 0.036 0 so 1 1600 0.031 0 so I IND 0.031 0 so 1 1600 0.031 SID Loat 31 0 0 0.000 0 31 0 0 0.000 0 so 0 0 0.000 0 so 0 0 0.000 0 so 0 0 0.00 Sb Thn, 0 1 1600 0.029 • 0 0 1 1600 0.029 • 0 0 1 1600 0.044 • 0 0 1 1500 0.044 • 0 0 1 1600 0.044 - N Right is 0 0 0 is 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Eb Left 19 1 1600 0.012 0 19 1 1600 0,012 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 100 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 Eb Thru 2894 3 4800 0.605 • 0 2994 3 4800 0605 • 0 3580 3 4800 0.750 • -50 3530 3 4800 0.740 • 0 35M 3 4830 0.740 - ED Rigm 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Wb Left 12 1 1600 0.009 • 0 12 1 1600 0.008 • 0 20 1 1600 0.013 • 0 20 1 1600 0.013 • 0 20 1 1600 0,013 • Wb Thru 1032 3 4800 0.215 0 1032 3 4800 0.215 0 1320 3 41100 0.275 0 1320 3 4800 0.275 0 1320 3 4800 0.275 Wb Min 11 1 1600 0.007 0 11 1 1600 0,007 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1800 0,013 7 7 ........ ............. ...... ......... ICU GA42 GJ42 0.807 0.797 0J87 LOS 0 8 0 C C • Key Wrtilleting Movement as a Pon of ICU. Functions as a separete Dam laft, Irdadvar. Is nor striped as SUCh. Counewriducladby. C6y01NewportBeac1 Capacity expressed In vairldes, per hour of grew. Projecticulminacl: .0.010 Area Tmffm Millgadmin: SIgnificant Impact: NO ITGCWVDL 1 4101 1 0 4101 1 a $160 1 -W Slid 1 0 6110 :1 LINSCOTIr. LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 CoMande Dt", Sued 122, Cosh, Mae CA 92826 (714) 441-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY LITILIZAnOR I- Orange Street at West Coat Highway N-S Ilt Orange Street pea Now. PM Date: 0524m S-W St West coast Highway Annual Grath: 1.00% Dateolcount 2007 Project Meg Maslar Plan EIR projamn year. 2015 File: NV000t2052852IICUYea201 S.m Control Type; GO Treffila Signal Key tor Ming MmMord as a Pon 01 ICU. FumWm as a separate turn lone, Mchomever. Is not striped as SUCh. "ad ICU impact .0.009 Ame TTaft hIsplim CO&MCcamnshmsedby. 0"fNe"011808CII 81grdlicurrut hpaM NO Capadilrexpressed In VehMS per hour of green, onl VW, 4524 0 4$16 5300 r •0 5200 1 0 6260 rt :5 LIN, W. 0" W.::00W m wo NE Left 24 0 0 0,000 0 24 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0.000 a 40 a a 0.000 No Thru 5 1 loco 0.018 0• a 1 1000 0,018 0 10 1 IWO 0.031 0 io I 1600 0.071 a 10 1 1600 0.031 No Right 38 1 1800 0.024 0 30 1 1600 0.024 0 60 1 1800 0.031 0 50 1 1600 0.031 a so 1 1600 0,031 SO Left 31 0 a O.Wo 0 31 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 20 a a 0.000 a 20 a 0 Me Sb Tta 3 1 IWO 0.031 0 3 1 1600 0.031 0 0 1 1800 0.031 0 0 1 1000 0.031 a a 1 1600 0.031 So Right to 0 0 0 Is 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 a 9 a 30 0 0 Ele Lon 38 1 1600 0.024 0 38 1 1800 0.024 a 40 1 IWO 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 - a 40 1 1600 0.025 Eb TEN 1245 3 4800 0262 0 1246 3 4800 0.262 0 1690 3 4800 0.358 0 1690 3 JIM 0.350 a logo 3 4800 0.358 fib Right I1 0 0 a it 0 a 0 30 0 0 a 30 0 a a 30 a a Will Len 37 1 1600 0.023 0 37 1 IBM 0.023 a 40 1 1800 0.025 a 40 1 1600 0.025 a 40 1 1600 0.025 WO ThM 3037 3 4800 0.833 0 3037 3 4800 OA33 0 3320 3 4800 0.692 -40 3280 3 4800 QM3 - 0 3260 3 4600 0.683 Wb Right at I IWO 0,025 0 41 1 1600 0226 0 30 1 1600 0.018 a 30 1 1600 0.019 a 30 1 1690 0,019 ........... ICU 0.880 0.088 0.748 0.730 0,730 LOS a 11 C C Key tor Ming MmMord as a Pon 01 ICU. FumWm as a separate turn lone, Mchomever. Is not striped as SUCh. "ad ICU impact .0.009 Ame TTaft hIsplim CO&MCcamnshmsedby. 0"fNe"011808CII 81grdlicurrut hpaM NO Capadilrexpressed In VehMS per hour of green, onl VW, 4524 0 4$16 5300 r •0 5200 1 0 6260 LINSCO". LAW GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 150 Corp=fo WA, Sub 122, Coast Meta CA 92825 (714)641.1587 tnterMcdon! 2. N-S St pmapect Street S-W Sc wen CoMmunghway propect HOME Meatisr Plan SIR Foe: N.IW00120628S29CUYaw201 5.* ConVol Typo: SO Treffic Signal INTERS114111011 CAPACITY UrANAMN plosped Sumet All waW1 coast mighw• Peak Ha= AM Annual Gnnfrx 1.013% Data; =4107 Dole of count: 2007 Projection year: 2015 • Key Wng*V MOVOril"t Me 0 Pan Of ICU. Funcomit as a separate hen lane, havvever, IS not skilled as Such. Proloct ICU Impact: .0,013 Area Traffic Mlliginlen: Slontrimmarripaim NO Capsetly sOpmensed in vehicles per hourafgnion. Inial1ho4 1 4352 1 0 4352 1 0 5220 52i0- 0 6260 A ** .......... ... ...... ... No Left 13 0 0 0.000 0 13 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 CDOO 0 20 0 0 0.000 No Thru 2 1 1600 0.009 0 2 1 1600 0.009 0 to 1 1600 0.019 0 10 1 16130 0.010 0 10 1 1600 0.010 No RIOM 38 1 1600 0.024 0 38 1 1000 0.024 0 40 1 1800 0.025 0 40 1 1800 0,025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 So Loh 223 0 0 0.000 0 223 0. 0 0,000 0 ISO 0 0 0,000 0 150 0 0 0,000 0 ISO 0 0 0.000 So Thm 0 1 loco GASO 0 a I Iwo 0.150 0 0 1 IODD 0.094 0 0 1 1600 0.094 0 0 1 low 0.0941 So Right 17 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Eb Left 11 1 1600 0.007 0 11 1 1800 0.007 0 20 1 1800 0.013 0 20 1 1500 0.013 a 20 1 Am 0.013 Els1'llm 2029 a 4900 0,612 a 2929 3 4800 0.612 0 37013 3 4800 . 0.773 40 3640 3 4800 0Y60 0 3840 3 4800 OJGQ Eli Right 6 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 10 a 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 Wb Leffl IS I ISOD 0.010 0 is 1 1600 oJolo 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 IQ 1 1000 0.005 0 to 1 100 0.008 Wb Thru 1071 3 4600 0.228 0 1071 3 4800 0.228 0 1350 3 000 0.283 0 1350 3 4800 0.283 0 1350 3 4800 0263 Wb Right 24 0 a 0 24 a 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 ICU 0.772 0.772 0.87s 0460 CARD LOS C C 0 0 0 • Key Wng*V MOVOril"t Me 0 Pan Of ICU. Funcomit as a separate hen lane, havvever, IS not skilled as Such. Proloct ICU Impact: .0,013 Area Traffic Mlliginlen: Slontrimmarripaim NO Capsetly sOpmensed in vehicles per hourafgnion. Inial1ho4 1 4352 1 0 4352 1 0 5220 52i0- 0 6260 LINSCOW. LAW & GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1560 Conldai CM, SUN 12; COSIO MWI? CA 92626 (714) 041,1587 InfewleCtion: 2. WE St Prospect Street E-W St WeNCoastltlgnvray Project: Hogg Master Plan EIR File: NV.(n)VQO528W)ICUY@ff2OI5A;Js Convol Type: 50 Tmft tillinal INIMRSECTM CAPACITY MUM Prospect Skeet at West COW WOMY Pest' Hour. PM Annual Growth: 1.00% Date: 0524107 Data of Count 2007 PMIWmymr. 2015 • Key conflicung movement so a part of ICLJ. P,*o ICU impact: .0.007 ATNTmftMMDUWW Functiont, Ot 0 sequato han lane, h0w)"t. to not Witte " Such. Caunscncudedby: NeflamiDmiBuratingSONIM signficrthapact NO c4lipmety O*Mssad in vehicles Per hour of groan, 1 0 4181 1 0 6280 1. An 8240 0 5 ;!PA ......... .. D u No Left 5 a 0 0.000 0 5 0 0 0.000 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 10 0 0 0.000 No Thfu 2 1 1000 0.004 0 2 1 1600 0.004 0 Q I WOO 0.006 0 0 1 IWO O.Ow 0 a 1 1500 0.005 No Right 26 1 ISOD 0.018 0 26 1 1600 0.016 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 ISDO 0.019 0 so 1 1600 0.019 SO LOA 82 0 0 0.001) 0 62 0 0 0.000 0 90 0 0 0.000 0 90 0 0 0.000 0 so 0 0 0,000 So Thdu 1 1 1601) 0.044 0 1 1 1600 0.044 0 0 1 logo 0.069 0 0 1 1600 0.089 a 0 1 1600 0,069 So Right 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 . 0 20 0 0 Eb Left 38 1 16DO 0.024 0 38 1 1600 0.04 0 21) 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 IGDO 0,013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 Eb Tft 1215 s 4900 0254 0 1215 3 4800 0.254 0 1740 3 4800 0,367 •10 1730 3 4000 0.365 0 030 3 4600 0.366 Eb Right a 0 0 0 5 0 0 - 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 a 0 Wb Left 25 1 16130 0.016 0 26 1 1600 0,018 0 30 1 Iwo 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 3 1600 0.010 0,685 WbThm 2752 3 4000 0.02 0 2752 3 4500 0,582 0 3300 3 4000 0.692 .30 3270 3 4800 MIS 0 3270 0 4800 0 WO Right 41 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 a 0 0 20 7 �,7 ...... ICU 0.60b GO 0.774 0.767 067 .7 c C c • Key conflicung movement so a part of ICLJ. P,*o ICU impact: .0.007 ATNTmftMMDUWW Functiont, Ot 0 sequato han lane, h0w)"t. to not Witte " Such. Caunscncudedby: NeflamiDmiBuratingSONIM signficrthapact NO c4lipmety O*Mssad in vehicles Per hour of groan, 1 0 4181 1 0 6280 1. An 8240 0 5 tr LWSMT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 CON)ON116 Overall, Suft 122, Costs Mass CA 92626 (7141591.1587 Innernooffim 3. "St 13811)(41 BlvdISUPOdw Ave E•W St Weal Coast migh." Project: Hong Master Plan EIR File: N328001205265211CLIYes,201 S.As COntMITVpe:6ON-S S* INTERSEVITON CAPACITY UTILIZATION Saloon OlvdSuporlor Ave at West Coast Highway Peak Noun. AM Annual Gicnem: 1,00% Date: 058507 Date of count 2007 ProjeCtbn Year. 2015 • Key connoting movement as a pan of ICU. Functions as a separate lum two. however, Is not striped as such, Project ICU Impact: -0.017 area Tragic MuggVen: CmMsconduciedloy: Cftyof Newport Bemh slitnWicanImpact NO Capacity expressed In whildes, Par hour of green, I Total V*h 1 6464 1 0 5464 1 0 69$0 "lo 0 5910 YiiZAQA 'an A6 0 210 1 Iwo 0.131 10 220 I loco 0.138 0 220 1 1600 0,138 NO Left 204 1 1800 0.128 0 204 1 1600 0.128 No Thru 327 2 3200 0130 0 327 2 3200 0.130 0 430 2 3200 0.163 IQ 440 2 3200 0.103 0 440 2 3200 0.163 He Right go D 0 - 0 90 0 0 0 so 0 0 40 so 0 0 0 60 0 0 $is Left 172 1 1600 0,107 0 172 A 1600 0807 0 210 1 1800 0A31 0 210 1 15)) 0.131 0 210 1 1600 0.131 Sb TIN 122 2 3200 0.038 0 122 2 3200 0.038 0 190 2 3200 0.059 0 Igo 2 320D 0.050 0 Igo 2 3200 0.059 Sle Right 100 2 3200 0,069 0 189 2 3200 0.059 0 120 2 3200 0.038 0 120 2 3200 0.038 a 120 2 3200 0.038 Eb Left g" 2 3200 0.312 0 098 2 3200 0.312 0 IDOO 2 3200 0,313 40 1040 2 3200 0.325 0 1040 2 3200 0.325 Eb Thm 2284 3 4800 0.472 0 2264 3 48)) 0,472 0 2640 3 4800 0.550 •90 2550 3 4600 0.533 0 2550 3 ODO 0.03 Eb R19M 240 1 1800 0.150 0 240 1 1800 0.150 0 230 1 IWO 0.144 0 230 1 1600 0.144 0 230 1 1600 0.144 Wb LON 62 1 few 0.039 0 62 A law O.Q39 0 70 1 law 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 Wb 7hru see 4 8400 0,124 0 588 4 6400 0.124 0 550 4 6400 0.117 0 Sm 4 6400 0.117 0 550 4 5400 0.117 Wb Might 208 0 0 0 208 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 2170 0 a ................ ICU 4148 0.743 0.989 Uri 0.871 LOS C 0 D D 0 • Key connoting movement as a pan of ICU. Functions as a separate lum two. however, Is not striped as such, Project ICU Impact: -0.017 area Tragic MuggVen: CmMsconduciedloy: Cftyof Newport Bemh slitnWicanImpact NO Capacity expressed In whildes, Par hour of green, I Total V*h 1 6464 1 0 5464 1 0 69$0 "lo 0 5910 LINSCOTT, LAW 8 GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 7580 Corpprafe Drive, SB9e 122, Cone Mesa CA 9262E (714)647.1587 IntareedOn: 3. N•S 61: Bolboa BNNSUPerla Ave E'W S1: Won Covet Highway Protect.. HOBO Mena Wen EIR File: NA28DOIYM,r2652YCl1Year2015.si, COMM, Type: 60 N•S spat IMRSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Balboa BWGUpeaa Ave at Well Most Highway Peak Haan PM Annual Grower 1.00% No Len 264 1 1800 0.155 0 260 1 1600 0.185 0 T^a' 203 2 3200 0.088 0 204 2 3200 0.088 900 1 1600 0350 10 410 ]NO NO Rlghl 88 0 0 0 69 0 p 0 25D 2 3200 0.108 10 260 0 9D 0 0 •20 70 SO Leh 185 1 1600 0.103 0 165 1 160D 0.103 SO The' 237 2 32DO 0.074 0 18 1 1600 0.100 <D 120 SO Right 745 2 3200 0.233 0 237 2 3200 0.074 0 360 2 3200 0.113 0 745 2 3200 0.233 0 820 2 3200 0.266 0 360 20 840 EO Left 258 2 3200 0.080 0 258 2 3200 0.080 p Eb Thru 1181 3 4800 0.246 0 1181 3 488 0.206 300 2 3200 0.084 0 300 Eb Right 227 1 1600 0.142 0 227 1 168 0.142 0 138 3 4800 0.288 •10 1370 0 320 1 160D 0.28 0 320 We Thru M WL Left 146 1 188 0.093 0 148 1 1WO 0.093 0 210 1 1B8 0.131 •10 28 Wb Right 2135. U 64000 0.363 0 2197 135 0 8400 0.363 0 2740 4 6400 0.450 • .4p 2l8 0 140 0 0 AD 18 0."1 s Kay comocting movemem as a pen of ICU. " Function u 9 Separate hum lam, however, It not striped m such. COunls conducted by: City Of Newport Beech Capedly evp7esae0ln vehldee per hour or green Date: 05/25707 Dam of Cows: 2007 ProjeNon Year 2015 1 1690 2 0.268 0 410 1 IWO 0.256 3200 ° 0.103 0 260 2 320D 0.103 0 0 70 0 0 1 168 2 0.075 0 120 1 1600 0.075 3200 2 3200 D.113 0263 0 360 2 3200 0.113 0 840 2 3200 0.263 2 3200 3 0.094 0 38 2 3200 0.094 4800 1 0.285 0 1370 3 480 0295 168 0.200 0 320 1 180 0.200 1 180 0.125 0 200 1 168 0.125 4 848 0 0 0.438 0 278 4 648 0.438 0 18 0 0 E E Protect ICU Impact: 0.81 Area Traffic Mitigation: Significant Impact NO UNSCOrr. LAW & GRUEENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1680 CoMoneff Dfiw, Suffit 122, Costa Mass CA 92626 (714) 641.1587 INTERSOOTIN CAPACITY UTM.=OM fribirlACtion: 4. Riversifte A"Atio at Wool Coast Moment NS St Rlvmlde Avenue Peak Hour, AM Dam: 05124i07 fi•w St West coast Hig" Annual Glo M: 1.00% Data of CMIA: 2007 Protect: Haag Matter Plan EIR Projection Year. 2015 File: NA260OV20S2652VCUY*ar2016.,ds Control Type: 60 TmMe Signal Functions as a separate time lone, hmver, 16 not limped 02 Such. "M ICU Impact -0.003 Area TnifflaMilgallow. Counts conducted by: C40f Newport Beach Significant impact NO CapschyeVmsudtn"hioesperhburofgroan. IT0614VOL 1 4161 1 0 4151 1 0 4660 -7-75 4480 0 "Do Yi:i Lit t: t ..:t Nb Left 2 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 No Thri, No RIOM 6 0 1 0 1500 0 0.006 0 0 6 0 1 0 1600 0 0.005 0 0 0 0 1 0 1600 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 1 0 1600 0 DOW 0 0 0 0 1 0 1600 0 0.1100 So Left as 0 0 0,000 0 80 0 0 0.000 0 TO 0 0 0.000 0 70 0 0 O.Doo 0 70 0 0 0.000 So Thn, 15 1 1600 0.053 0 15 1 1800 0,053 0 10 1 loop 0.050 0 10 1 loop 0.050 0 10 1 1600 0.050 St, R19M 304 1 1000 0.190 0 301 1 1600 0.100 0 310 1 IBOD 0,194 -10 Sao 1 1600 0.183 0 300 1 1600 0.100 Eb Left 283 1 1600 0.177 0 283 1 1500 0.177 0 250 1 loop 0.155 0 250 1 1600 0.156 0 250 1 1800 0.156 Eb Thm 2115 2 3200 0.657 0 2115 2 3200 M667 0 2410 2 3200 0.765 .10 2400 2 3200 0.753 0 2400 2 3200 0.753 Eb RIght is 0 0 0 is 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 10 0 0 - We Left 0 1 1600 0.005 0 9 1 1600 0.00 0 0 1 1600 O.DDO 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 IND 0.000 Wts Thu 1244 3 4800 0.259 0 1244 3 4600 0.259 0 1460 3 4800 0.304 M 1410 3 48DD 0.294 0 1410 3 4000 0.294 Wle Right Be i 1800 0.043 0 69 1 1600 0.040 0 40 1 ISDO 0.025 0 N 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1000 M: q ICU 0.73111 0.735 0,608 0403 9403 iLOS C IS D Ift D Functions as a separate time lone, hmver, 16 not limped 02 Such. "M ICU Impact -0.003 Area TnifflaMilgallow. Counts conducted by: C40f Newport Beach Significant impact NO CapschyeVmsudtn"hioesperhburofgroan. IT0614VOL 1 4161 1 0 4151 1 0 4660 -7-75 4480 0 "Do OD- LINSCOTT. LAW & OREENSPAN. EMOINEERS 1580 Corporate Orin. State 122, CWW MOSS CA 92626 1`714) 641.1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1,11aftection: 4. Riverside Avenue at West Coast Hlghmy N•S St RIWMdb Avenue Peak Hour, PM E•W St West coast High", Dow:. 04124107 Project Hogg Master Plan EIR Annual Growth: 1.00% Data. Count: 2007 File: N.125001205211674GUYtonoi S.vs Isaledon year 2015 Control Typo: 50 Traffic Signal Key cDnftMg movement as a past of CU. Fundon3 a a tapapilet turn ffirm, hm"r, Is not rApe4 as won. Project ICU Impact -0,004 AnIsTraftmil5aikin; Coufftccnducxdby: City of NawpoM1Beadl Significant impact NO Capacity expressed In voldclas per hour of grew. 11youlva 1 49141 1 0 4960 1 a 5450 1 -70 5390 0 "30 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 No Left 26 0 0 0.000 0 28 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 Nb Thin, 7 1 1000 0.030 0 7 1 1600 0.030 0 10 1 1600 0.025 0 to I iGOO 0,025 0 10 1 1000 0.025 ute Right 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 to 0 0 So Left 85 0 0 0.000 0 85 0 0 0,000 0 110 0 0 0.000 0 110 0 0 0.000 0 110 0 0 0.000 Sit Thm 7 1 1600 0A67 a 7 1 1600 0.057 0 10 1 1600 0.075 0 10 1 1600 0,075 0 to 1 1600 0.070 Sb Right 437 1 1600 0.273 0 437 1 1600 0173 0 420 1 IODD 0.263 0 420 1 1600 0,203 0 420 1 1600 0,263 Eb Left 271 1 1800 0.169 0 271 1 1800 0.180 0 290 1 1800 0,181 •20 270 1 iGDD 0.169 0 270 1 1600 0.109 Eb Thru 1543 2 3200 0.498 0 1543 2 3200 0.489 0 1870 2 3200 0.588 -30 1840 2 3200 0,578 0 14140 2 3200 0,570 Eb Right 21 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 10 a 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 Wb Len 28 1 1800 0.018 0 26 1 iew 0.1318 0 io 1 1800 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.000 0 10 1 1600 0.0011 WbThm 2454 3 4800 0,511 0 2464 3 4800 0.511 0 2650 3 4800 0.552 -20 2630 3 4600 0,5411 0 700 3 4800 0,548 Wb Right 68 1 1600 0.041 0 so i lew 0.041 0 50 1 1600 0.031 0 50 1 1800 0.031 0 60 1 1600 0.031 ........... tau 0.764 0.704 0,016 Call 0,811 LOB C C 0 D 0 Key cDnftMg movement as a past of CU. Fundon3 a a tapapilet turn ffirm, hm"r, Is not rApe4 as won. Project ICU Impact -0,004 AnIsTraftmil5aikin; Coufftccnducxdby: City of NawpoM1Beadl Significant impact NO Capacity expressed In voldclas per hour of grew. 11youlva 1 49141 1 0 4960 1 a 5450 1 -70 5390 0 "30 LINSCOrr• LAW & GRESSISPAN. ENGINEERS 1800 Corponaft, D", Suite 122, Costs Was CA 92626 P (714) 641-1687 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: S. TUSM, Aftnug 0 West Coast HIghMSY " St Tustin Avenue Peak Hour AM Date: 01512407 E•W Sr: Went Coast mighmay Annum Growth: 1.00% 08%o1 Count =7 Protsm Hoag mamer Man SIR Projection Year. 2015 Flo: 4:W00V052852rCUYGw2OI SAS Control Type: 30TMft Signal • Kay confliding movement as a pan of ICU. Fundlions as a Separate turn Iwo. however, Is not gulped as such. Project ICU Impact 0.000 Area Traft MR129flon: C0wdSC0ftdUMdby: Cftyof Newport S8SCh SQnl6eant k04aCt NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per how of groan. 170914vah 1 $031 1 0 3421 t a 4260 1 40 4210 421 P ; i:; . . ........ . ftii ". IS Nb Left 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 a 0 0 GAGO • 0 0 0 a 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 DODO ND Thu 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1800 0.000 0 0 1 1800 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0,000 0 0 1 1800 0.000 Nb Right 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 SO Loa x 0 0 DWI) 0 36 0 0 DDOO 0 SO 0 0 ODOO 0 60 0 0 0.000 0 so 0 0 0.000 SIS Thm a 1 1000 0.033 • 0 0 1 1600 0.033 • 0 a 1 1600 0.056 • 0 0 1 lem 0.055 1 0 0 1 IBM 0,055 SD Right Is 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 - Eb Left 27 1 1000 0.017 0 27 1 IBOO 0.017 0 10 1 MO ODDS -10 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1500 0.000 eThm 2263 2 am 0.707 • a M 2 3200 0.707 • 0 2540 2 3200 0.704 • 0 2540 2 3200 0.794 • 0 2540 2 3200 OAS EbRight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wb Loft 0 0 0 DODO • 0 0 0 0 DODO • 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 a 0 OAOO • 0 a a 0 O.M Wb Thm 1249 3 4800 0.260 0 1248 3 4800 0.260 0 1570 3 4800 0.327 40 1530 3 4800 0,319 0 1530 3 4800 0.319 Wb Right 39 1 1000 0.025 0 39 1 1600 0.025 0 so 1 16M 0.031 0 W 1 1600 0.0%1 0 so 1 160) 0.031 ....... ... X .. .. ........... . ...... 0.740 0.744 OA60 0,1150 0.850 1ICU 1.08 c c a 0 - 0 • Kay confliding movement as a pan of ICU. Fundlions as a Separate turn Iwo. however, Is not gulped as such. Project ICU Impact 0.000 Area Traft MR129flon: C0wdSC0ftdUMdby: Cftyof Newport S8SCh SQnl6eant k04aCt NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per how of groan. 170914vah 1 $031 1 0 3421 t a 4260 1 40 4210 421 O LINSCOrr, LAW A ORMSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 CorporMa Was, Sulfie 122, 000 Mess CA 02628 (7f4)641-1507 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UMLIZ&TM Intersectlon: 6. TWMAv MWGMComstHlghvwty NS St Tudn Avenue Peak Hour, PM Dalc 0624107 E•W St weatcoaltHwMay Annual Grown: 1.0041 Date of Count: 2007 pmjaol: Hoag Master Plan EIR pwjec Year: 2016 FRe: N-V60012062862000Ymr2QlS.-A0 CMMTYPDZ30T,Smc Signal as a pe4 of ICU. • Functions a a separate mm land. howevar. Is nol9oipee 03 SuCh. Pmpd[CLIImpact: 4.002 me& Traft mslqsftn� Counle CondUC1,04 by. CRy of Ne"001 SeaCh SIgnblunt ImPaM NO CgpocRy expressed In vahlose per hour of green. MUNK 1 42"- 1 0 4220 1 0 40 40 1 .0 4000 0 4900 4: No Left i a a 0,000 0 1 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 No Thn, 0 1 1600 0.004 0 a 1 1800 0.004 0 0 1 16M 0.000 0 a 1 1600 oJ000 0 a i iwo 0.000 He Right t 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Sb Loh 45 0 0 0.000 0 45 0 0 0.000 0 70 0 0 omo 0 70 0 0 0.000 0 70 0 0 0.000 Bb Thn, 0 1 1600 0.054 0 0 1 1600 0.054 0 0 1 1600 0M9 0 0 1 1600 0.069 0 0 1 law 0.059 Sb RIGht 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 Eb Left 32 1 1600 0.020 0 32 1 1800 0.020 0 100 1 1600 0.063 0 100 1 1600 0.033 0 100 1 1600 0.063 Eb True 1583 2 3200 0.491 0 1503 2 3200 0A91 0 1910 2 3200 0l597 -30 1580 2 3200 0.508 0 imso 2 3200 0.566 Eb Right 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 WD Left a 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 a 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 M Tt" 2447 3 48M 0.618 Q 2467 3 4000 0.518 0 2720 3 4800 0.567 -10 2710 3 4800 0.565 0 4800 2710 3 0.556 WI, Right 47 1 1000 0.030 0 47 1 1800 0,030 0 100 1 1600 0,063 0 1013 1 1800 0,063 0 100 1 1600 0.063 k: 411 ICU U92 0.692 0.999 0.607 0.897 LOS A A B Is a as a pe4 of ICU. • Functions a a separate mm land. howevar. Is nol9oipee 03 SuCh. Pmpd[CLIImpact: 4.002 me& Traft mslqsftn� Counle CondUC1,04 by. CRy of Ne"001 SeaCh SIgnblunt ImPaM NO CgpocRy expressed In vahlose per hour of green. MUNK 1 42"- 1 0 4220 1 0 40 40 1 .0 4000 0 4900 LINBCOTT. LAW & OfMENSPAN. ENGINEERS IMO COIMM 0". SOBS 122. Cogs Man Do 92626 (714) 841-1587 Intemoolow. 5. NS St Day Snow, DtfvwDonr N" E•W St Wntcossamigh"y PMJBM HOSO MaStOr Plan EIR file: N.12W0120328528CUYeW20IS.YJS Control Type: 60 NS ftift Say Shore DAIRODOV" On" M West Coast Higmay, Peak Hoc. AM AnnualGro,Sen: 1.00% Dow: 0524107 Date Of count: 2007 Projection Yount. 2015 it it 0 51 1 1600 0.032 Hb Left 511 1 1600 0.032 0 20 1 law 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 Nb Thru 55 2 3200 0.037 0 55 2 3200 0.037 0 W 2 3200 0.0311 0 00 2 320D 0.038 0 50 2 3200 0.038 No Ri 84 0 0 0 64 a 0 0 60 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 50 0 0 So Left 1077 3 4800 0.224 0 1077 3 4800 0.224 0 1050 3 4800 0,219 0 1050 3 4800 0.219 0 IDSO 3 4800 0.219 So Than, 74 1 1800 0.048 0 74 I two 0.046 0 Be 1 1600 0.050 10 go 1 1600 0.056 0 90 1 low 0.056 Sic Right 173 1 1000 0.108 0 173 1 1800 0,108 0 70 1 1800 010" 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 Eb Lott 129 2 3200 0,040 0 129 2 3200 0,040 0 170 2 3200 0.053 0 170 2 3200 0.03 0 170 2 3200 0.053 EbThru 2125 3 ASOG 0A64 0 2196 3 4800 0.454 0 2280 3 Saw 0.473 0 2260 3 4800 0.473 0 2280 3 4800 0.473 Eb Right 32 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 Aft, Lott 29 1 1800 0.018 0 29 1 1000 11018 0 50 1 1500 0.031 0 so 1 1600 0.031 0 80 1 1640 0,031 Aft, TIM 1223 3 *600 0,269 0 1293 3 4600 0.269 0 1610 3 4800 0.315 40 1460 3 4800 0.304 0 1400 3 4800 0.304 Will Right 878 Free 9099099 0.000 0 678 Free 9999999 0.000 0 710 Free BOD9999 0.000 0 710 Free 9999990 0-1100 0 710 Fwa, 2949999 0,000 .... ........ .... . ............... ................ ICU 0.743 0.743 0.701 0.791 0.741 Loa a C C C C Key confiloding arms and as a part of ICU. Fintestons as a separate turn lam. W%@Wr. Is not Striped n SUM. Counts conducted by., Chyet"orl8noth Capacity nPonsed In Vehicles Par hour Of "am "StAICUIrmact: 0.000 Area Traffic Mitigalign: Significant knps= NO IrQWWL 1 6851 1 0 6051 1 0 Soso 1 .40 folo 1 0 6010 UVISCOTT. LAW & DREENSPAN, EVOINEERG 1680 COfPDMPD 0". Suft 122, COM 111889 CA 92626 (71Q 641.1587 Intersection: 6. NS St Say Share DmvwDo,nrr Drive E.W St Weal ocautHigmMy Project Meg Matter PWn EIR Fas: N.A260012oS2SMCUY@arAI5.x0* Control Type: 00 NS Split INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTIUMATION Bay Sh" Dr "Mfter Drive at West CoaSt Hig" Pa" Hour. PIA Annual Growth: 1.00% Date 054"7 Owe of Count 2001 "ecuon Year. 2015 Key tcufficlIng movement as a part of ICU. Functions a a separate turn Ism, however, IS not amperl as such. Courds conducted by City of Newpood BINICII Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of peen. PtojectICU Impact .0,002 Area Traffic Mitigator: SlimillcontIMpact NO Iroutow 1 7M I a 7062 1 0 7266 1 40 722o I a 7220 1 :1111 ........ . . . .. . . . ... . Nb Left 28 1 1600 0.017 0 28 1 1600 0.017 0 20 1 1500 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.019 0 20 1 1600 0,013 Nb Thru 63 2 3700 0.034 - 0 63 2 3200 0.034 0 00 2 3200 OW - 0 so 2 3200 0.047 - 0 90 2 3200 0.047 Nb Right 40 0 0 - 0 46 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 60 0 0 Sb Lelft 093 3 4800 0.207 • 0 993 3 4800 0.207 0 1050 3 4800 0.219 • 0 IDSO 3 4800 0219 • 0 1050 3 4600 0.219 Sb Thru 66 1 1800 0.041 0 65 1 1800 0.041 0 80 1 Iwo 0,050 0 so 1 1800 0.050 0 so I loop 0.050 Sb Right 1" 1600 0.122 0 198 600 0.122 0 110 1 1600 0.089 0 Ila 1 1600 0.060 0 NO I im 0.009 Eb Left 156 2 3200 0.049 • 0 15e 2 3200 0.049 0 130 2 3200 0.041 • 0 130 2 3200 0.041 • a 130 2 3200 0.041 Eb Thm MIS 3 4800 0.372 0 1755 3 41800 0.372 0 1780 3 41800 0,371 -W 1730 3 4800 0.365 0 1730 3 4000 0.365 Eb Right 29 a 0 0 29 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Wb Left 00 1 1600 0.036 0 to I ISM 0.038 0 70 1 100 0.0" 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 70 1 1000 0.0" Wb Thnu 2394 3 4000 0.499 0 2394 3 4WD 0.409 0 2660 3 4800 0A32 -10 2640 3 4800 0.650 0 215010 3 4800 0,550 Wit pught 1267 free 0999999 c.0DD 0 1287 Free 9998999 0.000 0 1220 Roe 9990900 OA00 0 1220 FM 0999999 0.000 0 1220 Free 9999999 0.000 ICU 0.709 0.789 0.869 0.867 0.057 Los C C 0 0 0 Key tcufficlIng movement as a part of ICU. Functions a a separate turn Ism, however, IS not amperl as such. Courds conducted by City of Newpood BINICII Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of peen. PtojectICU Impact .0,002 Area Traffic Mitigator: SlimillcontIMpact NO Iroutow 1 7M I a 7062 1 0 7266 1 40 722o I a 7220 1 LINSCOTT. LAW A GREENSPAN• ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drall, Sub 122, Costs MaSs CA 92625 (714) 641.1587 INTERSECTION CAPACM UrLIZATION tntemedw 7. BOYMCIS Drtm 0 EDO COMI Highway N-S at: Bayside Drin Peak Hoar. AM Cars: 05124107 E•W St Esta cam Fmhsy Annual Cird��, 1.0% 05befccurfl; 2007 PTI)IRCIC HORD lah"PHIM EIR "ecuor, Year. 2015 Fft; N.V60WDM52YCUYew20I5jus ConV0ITyP0:60N-S SPIN • Key C0n6vtl1a M"Thent 5110 pad at VCU• FWNa0b as a NPZMID turn rab, however, Is not 8111pe0 as such. PoJeci ICU Impact: 0.011 Ares, Traffic Mitfgatlon: Countsconductedby: C18rotNe"w1bach Slgnlfipf4lmpacl: No CaPACIly expressed In whidel per hour of Omen. eta Vol. 186 0 5196 0 6020- 1 •10 6010 1 0 9010 .. ... ..... W. ... WWI: Rb Lot 303 0 0 D.D00 0 398 0 0 0.000 0 410 0 0 0.000 10 420 0 0 0.000 0 420 0 0 0.000 No Thns 17 3 00D 0.094 • 0 17 3 4800 D.DD4 • 0 30 3 4800 DIN • 0 30 3 4800 0A10 • 0 30 3 000 0.110 DID Right 35 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 ED 0 0 0 so 0 0 80 Left IN 1 11500 0,012 0 IS 1 1600 0512 0 so I ISOD 0.01 a 50 1 lam ox!ll 0 50 1 Iwo 0.031 SID Tura 9 1 IWO 0.017 - 0 0 1 low 0,017 • 0 10 1 Iwo 0.108 - a 10 1 1000 0.038 - 0 10 1 1601) 0.030 SID Right 18 0 a 16 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 60 0 0 ED 1,14 26 1 1600 0,018 0 28 1 1600 0.016 0 00 1 7800 0.038 0 Do I logo 0.030 0 50 1 1600 0.030 ED Thru 2820 3 4800 0.889 • 0 2628 3 4800 0,589 • 0 3070 3 4600 0.840 • 10 3080 3 4600 0.642 • 0 3080 3 4860 0.642 ED Right 347 1 1600 0.217 0 347 1 ISM 0217 0 380 1 160 0.238 0 390 1 1600 0238 0 300 1 loco 0,230 WD Left 53 1 1500 0,039 • 0 63 1 Iwo 0.039 • 0 go 1 1600 0.058 • 10 100 1 1800 0.063 • 0 100 1 1600 0.065 Wit Thm 1421 4 6400 0.224 0 1421 4 5400 0.224 0 1710 4 $400 0.280 4D 1570 4 6400 0.273 0 1670 4 6400 0.273 WD Right 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 go 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 so 0 0 ICU 0.7211 0.732 0.641 0153 0.053 Los C C ID 0 ID • Key C0n6vtl1a M"Thent 5110 pad at VCU• FWNa0b as a NPZMID turn rab, however, Is not 8111pe0 as such. PoJeci ICU Impact: 0.011 Ares, Traffic Mitfgatlon: Countsconductedby: C18rotNe"w1bach Slgnlfipf4lmpacl: No CaPACIly expressed In whidel per hour of Omen. eta Vol. 186 0 5196 0 6020- 1 •10 6010 1 0 9010 UNBCO", LAW & GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1580 M01316 Drive, Suite 122, COO Men CA 92628 (714) 641-1587 INTERSOC Intsmedon: 7. BaysIdO Drive at EAN Coast Highway N-S St Baystdo Drive peattour. PM Date: 05VID7 E-W St: East Coast Highway Annual Onowtim: 1.00% Dale of Count 2007 Project Hoag Master Plan EIR PmIsclanYear. 2D15 File: N:1260012062652VCUYur2KIl5.%% Control Type., 80 WE Split Key conflicting MMMeM as 0 Pan at ICU. Functions a A NPOMW KIM lens, however, Is not striped as such. Project ICU Impact: .0.002 Area Traffic MWgsWn: Couneconductedby.. city Of Newmart Beach signinaamimpact: NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. I761,11101. 1 0200 1 0 0200 1 0 Soso 1 30 Ino 1 0 OP50 . ...... . .. .... ....... ......... No Left 482 0 0 0.000 0 402 0 0 0.000 0 320 0 0 OoDQ -10 310 0 0 0,000 0 310 0 0 DOW No Thm V 3 4900 0.110 0 17 3 4800 0.110 0 10 3 000 0,069 0 10 3 4800 0.057 0 10 3 4800 0.067 No Night 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 So Left 21 1 1600 0.017 0 27 1 1600 0.017 0 too 1 1600 0.083 0 Igo I leoo 0.063 0 100 1 IODD 0.063 SbThnu 11 1 1800 0.028 0 11 1 1800 0.026 0 10 1 1600 0.056 0 to I leoo 0.056 0 10 1 IWO 0.058 So Right 30 0 0 - 0 30 0 0 0 so 9 9 0 so 0 0 - 0 00 0 0 Eb Left 48 1 1500 0.030 0 48 1 1600 0.030 0 so 1 1600 0.056 0 so I IWO 0.056 0 20 1 IOOD 0.056 Eb Thru law 3 4000 0,410 0 low a 480.444 4O 9.410 0 2130 3 4800 O. -10 2120 3 4800 0.442 0 2120 3 4800 0.442 0, Right 428 1 1600 0.288 0 428 1 1600 0.288 0 Soo 1 1600 0.375 -10 590 1 1800 0.369 0 590 1 1800 0.369 Wb Left 76 1 1633 9.047 0 76 1 1600 0.047 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1000 0.019 0 30 1 IWD 0.019 Wb Thm 3056 4 8400 0.482 0 3056 4 6400 0.492 0 3540 4 $400 0.684 0 3540 4 6400 OX64 0 3540 4 8400 0.564 WO Right 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 To 0 0 0 To 0 0 ......................... ...... ............ -77�77 �'77777OA4771.: ICU 0.648 0.148 0.752 0.760 0.760 LOB B a C C C Key conflicting MMMeM as 0 Pan at ICU. Functions a A NPOMW KIM lens, however, Is not striped as such. Project ICU Impact: .0.002 Area Traffic MWgsWn: Couneconductedby.. city Of Newmart Beach signinaamimpact: NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. I761,11101. 1 0200 1 0 0200 1 0 Soso 1 30 Ino 1 0 OP50 I N 781 LINKIM, UAW i GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1380 COMOMM Ddre. SM40 122, Cost, Mesa CA 02626 (714) 641.1587 Intersection: a. N$ St Jamboree Road E•W St East Coast Highway Project Neap MeeNt Plan EIR Fib: NA28001205265211CUYeer1016.M1a Conlmi TyPC 80 Woo Signal INTERS CTIOp Jamboree Road at East Coast Highway Peak Hour AM Anhu9l Growth; 1,0091 _......... -..- ....,,n- �,a . r 30 7 7800 0.096 0 30 1 1800 0.018 Rig 479 2 3200 0.188 ' 0 439 2 O 20 1 1200 0.078 0 20 1 7600 0.010 RIOM 177 p P 3200 0.188 0 600 0 8200 0.188 0 600 0 8200 0.768 0 777 0 0 0 700 0 0 • 9 100 0 9 Left 221 1 1200 0.138 0 221 1 1800 0.130 0 Thru 311 2 3200 0.087 0 311 2 3200 0.097 D 150 1 1600 0.095 0 150 1 1800 0.094 Right 252 Free 8989988 0.000 0 862 Free pontro9 0.000 240 2 8200 0.078 0 240 2 9200 0.076 0 IW Free 6609696 0.000 J0 720 Free 6698666 0.000 Left 1222 8 . 4800 0,255 0 1222 8 4800 0.266 0 1230 8 4600 0.256 .10 1220 8 5800 0.254 ihru 1941 4 640D 0.305 0 1941 4 6400 0.806 Right 31 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 1620 0 8400 0.306 0 1850 4 84p 0.309 0 0 0 0 Left 149 2 8200 0.044 0 730 2 8200 0.043 0 90 1049 4 8400 0,164 0 1040 4 2 32DO 0.028 0 90 2 4 400 0.177 8200 0.028 Right 218 1 1500 0.135 0 216 1 1800 0.136 0 "DO 1120 4 BDO 0.076 0 11 0 t 8800 0.076 Key completing movement as a pan W ICU. C ae a iepareM a Nm 111118,110 8r. Is not Striped ee 110. Counts 00ndualed by: Coy of Neep l Beets Cape* expressed In venklas per hour Of own, 0 NOM ICU ImPi4L •0.002 6pnmum impact: ND Date: Dale of Caunt Prelectan Year. 0 20 1 1600 0 500 2 3200 0 100 0 0 0 150 1 1600 0 240 2 3200 0 720 Free 8680999 0 1220 8 4800 0 1050 4 6400 0 20 0 0 0 90 2 3200 0 1130 4 6400 0 120 1 1600 AMD TraIBC Mitgati>m 06424107 2007 2016 0.013 0.188 0.095 0.075 0.000 0.254 0.305 0.025 0.177 0.075 440:t 0.71] LINWOOTT, LAW & GRININSPAN, ENGUNIFERS 1580 COi 01", SUffe 122, Cattle Also, CA 92620 (714) 841.1597 intentection: a. NS St Jarnbame Flood E•W St. IEWCoastlOgIlmy PMIOM Haig flastar Plan EIR F14: N:12000=620520(;UYaa,20I5.)ds CanimlType:807fralfic Signal Jamboree ROW at East COMM Hlgftay Peak Row, PM Annual Gnwnh: 14094 Date: 0524107 Date of Ccunl: 2007 Pmjecllon Year. 2016 • Key conficting movement as a part of /CU. Function as a separate turri lent. however, 13 MCI alliped as such. Counts candueW by: City of Newport Beach Capacity "Pleased In Vehicles per how of omen. Prqecli ICU impact: -O.ccO Am Tiliffic M10i Significant Impact: NO Itabri 1 7730 1 a Md 1 0 7590 1 40 7560 1 0 7550 1 ........... . .... ....... NO Left so I loco 0,031 a so 1 1600 0.031 a 40 1 loco 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 a 40 1 1600 0.025 No Thn, 205 2 3200 0.117 0 280 2 3200 0.117 0 ago 2 SNO 0,147 •20 340 2 3200 0.141 a 340 2 3200 0.141 has RION $5 a 0 a 66 0 0 0 110 0 a 0 110 0 a a Ila 0 0 So Loft 255 1 1600 0.159 0 255 1 1600 0.159 0 ISO I I= 0.094 0 ISO I loco 0.0814 0 ISO I loco 0.094 So TM 727 2 3200 0.227 0 727 2 3200 0227 0 550 2 3200 0A72 0 560 2 3200 0.172 a Sao 2 3200 0.172 80 Right 1322 Flea 0999999 0.000 0 1322 Fla* 9999999 0.000 0 I&W Fmo 9909999 OXCO -10 1640 Free 9899969 0.000 0 1640 Flea 9999099 0.000 Eb Lon goo 3 4800 0.103 0 Boo 3 4800 0.183 a 740 3 4600 0.154 0 740 3 4800 0.154 a 740 3 4800 0.154 Eb Thn, 1028 4 5400 0268 0 1628 4 8400 0.2611 0 1530 4 04CO 0.244 0 1530 4 6400 0244 a 1530 4 SON 0.244 0 Rigitt 20 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 30 0 a a 30 a a 0 30 0 0 VAN LON 189 2 3200 0.059 0 189 2 3200 0.059 0 210 2 32110 OM a 210 2 3200 0.065 0 210 2 32011 0.059 Wb Thm 2048 4 5400 0,320 a 2046 4 6400 0.320 0 2090 4 6400 0.327 -10 2080 4 6400 6.325 0 zcSO 4 5400 0.325 Will Right 234 1 . loop 0,146 a 234 1 loco 0.140 0 130 1 loco 8081 a 130 1 loco Mal 0 130 1 1600 0.001 ........ ... . ........... ...... ICU 0.771 5.779 0.722, 0.714 0.714 LOS 0 C C a C • Key conficting movement as a part of /CU. Function as a separate turri lent. however, 13 MCI alliped as such. Counts candueW by: City of Newport Beach Capacity "Pleased In Vehicles per how of omen. Prqecli ICU impact: -O.ccO Am Tiliffic M10i Significant Impact: NO Itabri 1 7730 1 a Md 1 0 7590 1 40 7560 1 0 7550 1 .y 1 r J LINSCOTT, LAW A GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate DrNe, Sob 122, CO M Mesa CA 92626 (714) 641.1587 Intersection: 2. N•S Et Newpon BoWWar6 E -W 51: VMLNo Protect: Hoag Mader Plan EIR FIM: Ni2800t2052052aCUYe82015.tls Control Type: 30 TMiN Signal Na Left 0 0 0 0.000 Na ThM 1306 3 4800 0.277 N0 Right 23 0 0 0 S9 LM 415 2 3200 0.130 SO Thor 553 3 4800 0.176 SO Right 0 0 0 1700 E0 Left 0 0 0 0.000 E9 Thru 0 0 0 0.000 EO Rlght 0 0 0 0 Y tLM 9 1 1000 0.008 W9 Thou W9 Right 0 402 0 2 0 3200 O.WO 0.126 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION NewPort SoUlWar6 at Me Llao Peak Hour. AM Annual Growsr: 140% Date: 0524ro7 Date of 6o0 2007 Projection Year 2015 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 1308 3 4800 0377 • 0 1890 3 4800 0.356 10 1700 3 4800 0.358 0 1700 3 4000 0.358 0 23 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 415 2 3200 0.130 • 0 510 2 3200 0.159 0 510 2 3200 0.159 0 510 2 3200 0.159 0 853 3 48M 0179 0 730 3 4800 0.152 0 730 3 4800 0.162 0 730 3 4800 0.152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0400 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 1800 O.t09 0 20 1 1000 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 OV3 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.006 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 402 2 3200 0.126 0 400 2 3200 0.126 •10 300 2 3200 0.122 0 380 2 3200 0.122 tCU 9,412 0.4/S SAW 0.680 0638 LOS A A A A A • KeyCOnSR8n0 MWenMiK at a pert of ECU. •• Functions as a separate Mm [one, however, Is not strpes as such. Project ICU Impact: 0.002 Area TreRm Mitigation: Countecen0uchni City of Newport Beach Synlfi mImpact NO Cape*eVp d In yehltle6 per hour of preen, lrobivaL 1 3010 1 0 7010 0 370 1 0 33" 1 0 7770 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1560 COMMAI, DA9, SUIP 122, Costs Man CA 92626 (714)64f-1587 INTERSECTIO11CA intmection: 0. Newport Boulevard at Vis LIdo WS St., Newpon somievani peak Mae. PM Date: owal E•W St Me Lldo Annual Growth: t.00% Date of Count 2007 prqW. Kaill Master plan EVR projection Yur. 2015 File; N.2000120526529CUYear20I5.A& Convol Tylow. go Tmffic Signal Key conflicting movement as a pan of ICU. Functions as a separate Cum lane, however. Is not Strilmd at such. IRmiledicuimpact 0.000 Area Traffic Mittgation; Counts conductedby. Cilyoffle"ort Such Slithifitant Impact NO Capacity expressed In vehides W how of area". MINIM 1 4421 1 a 4431 a 3570 a 2570 a 3570 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 No Left 0 0 a amo 0 a 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 No Thm 1107 3 4800 0280 0 1107 3 4800 0.280 0 goo 3 4800 0.213 • 0 goo 3 4800 Q.213 0 Soto 3 4800 0.213 No Right 40 a 0 0 49 0 0 - 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 So Left 627 2 3200 0.11115 0 527 2 3200 0,165 0 580 2 3200 0,181 • 0 500 2 3200 0.181 0 Sao 2 3200 0,181 So Thm 2104 3 4800 0.438 • 0 2104 3 4800 0.438 • 0 1460 3 4600 0.304 0 1450 3 4800 0.304 0 1460 3 4800 0.3" 9b foght a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eb Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0,000 E¢ Thu 0 a a om a 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0400 So Right 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 Wit Lee 29 1 1600 0.018 0 29 1 ISDO 0.018 0 40 1 16DO 0.025 0 40 1 16M 0.025 0 40 1 Iwo UMS Wb Thm 0 0 0 0.001) 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 oom 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Wb Right 524 2 3200 0.164 0 524 2 3200 0.164 0 470 2 3200 0.147 0 470 2 3200 0.147 a 479 2 3200 0.147 yo-4, L"I ....... �'! : � : � : : . -'.. .......... . .. X. ....... 4-PPQL: � : : : : : :.: : : : : : . I ' 777777b�:: ICU OAH 0.486 0.419 0.410 0.68 1 1.08 - A A A A A Key conflicting movement as a pan of ICU. Functions as a separate Cum lane, however. Is not Strilmd at such. IRmiledicuimpact 0.000 Area Traffic Mittgation; Counts conductedby. Cilyoffle"ort Such Slithifitant Impact NO Capacity expressed In vehides W how of area". MINIM 1 4421 1 a 4431 a 3570 a 2570 a 3570 to LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1500 CoMandle Drim SON 122, Coat Man CA 92626 (7141641.1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY 1111LIZATION Indersecdon: 10. Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road "St Newport Boulevard Peak Hour. AM Data: 05124107 E•W St Hossomi Read Annual Growth: 1.00% Data of Court 2007 Project Hoag Matter Plan EIR prolBalanyear. 2015 Ric *2000%2054B52VCUY9&20I SAS Control Type: 00 Three Signal fuu�ddvvs n a separate Imn have. however. 11 no Wpod as such, Project ICU linpact .0-056 Area TrallIc Will Couvittoon,11,10i MYO Newport Beach Sigullficimilinpact- NO Capacity Wasurad in "Moles Parham at green. Masi 1 41309 1 0 430 1 0 4940 t •110 4630 1 a 4520 6::; a Ails No Left 128 1 low 0.080 • 0 128 1 lead 0.080 • 0 160 1 1600 0.100 .30 130 1 1500 0.081 0 130 1 1600 0.081 NO Thm ISIS 3 4800 0.324 a 1556 3 4500 0,324 0 2000 3 4800 0.417 40 1980 3 4800 0.408 • 0 1930 3 4900 OAOS Nb Right 74 1 1600 0.046 0 74 1 IODO 0.046 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 loop 0.013 Sit Left 52 1 ISM 0.032 0 52 1 1800 0.032 a 110 1 1800 0.050 0 Ila. I lead 0.009 • 0 110 1 1600 0.01121 St Thru 1162 3 4800 0.323 • a 1152 3 4800 0.323 • 0 1160 3 4000 0,290 -190 980 3 4000 0.271 0 980 3 4800 0.271 Sb Right 400 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 240 0 a 100 340 0 0 . 0 340 0 0 Ets Left 162 2 2200 0.061 • 0 162 2 3200 OMI • 0 210 2 3200 0.050 20 230 2 3200 0.072 • 0 230 2 3200 0.072 Ets Thn, 132 1 1600 0.063 0 132 1 1600 0.0" 0 250 1 1800 0.156 -100 150 I IODD 0.004 0 ISO 1 1600 0.094 Eb Right 262 1 1600 0.183 0 262 1 Iwo 0A83 0 ISO I Iwo 0,094 120 270 1 1600 0.189 0 270 1 1000 0.169 Wb Left Bd 1 1600 0.052 0 84 1 Iwo 0.062 0 SO I IBM 0,050 0 so 1 1400 0.060 0 W 1 1600 0.050 wb Thwu 224 2 3200 page • 0 224 2 3200 0.00 • 0 220 2 3200 0.084 0 220 2 3200 0.080 • 0 220 2 3200 0.088 We Right 84 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 so 0 0 10 so 0 0 . a 60 0 0 . . ........ :7 :,I:':7:7:::�:': >::....,:•:.:. 00 ... ......... : :-: *- -;,77-:-7-7 . . 1 ICU 0.560 C."O D.BM 0.031 0,037 LOS A A a B a fuu�ddvvs n a separate Imn have. however. 11 no Wpod as such, Project ICU linpact .0-056 Area TrallIc Will Couvittoon,11,10i MYO Newport Beach Sigullficimilinpact- NO Capacity Wasurad in "Moles Parham at green. Masi 1 41309 1 0 430 1 0 4940 t •110 4630 1 a 4520 UNSCOTT. LAW & OREENSPAN, ENOMEERS 1580 Corp"M DAM. Suft 122 Came Man CA 92626 (714) 641-1587 ImeMecfiGn: 10. NS SA: Newport Boufevdrd E-W st Ho.plal Read Project- Hoag MWel Pan EtR File: KA260012052652YCUY&ar20 ISAO Convol Type. So Tame alvw Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road Pao](Hour. PM Annual GRMth: 1.00% Dale: 0524107 Data of Count. 2007 Projection Year. 2015 Key coafficting ma"ment as a pad of ICU. Functions as a aparme, turn lane, ftowever, Is not stripod as such. Counts conducted by. Chy at Newport Beach Capacity expressed In "home perhourof preen. I'Medt ICU IMP11M -0.033 Ante Traffic Mitigation: Significant IMP90: NO ITONIVIA 1 4654 418511 1 0 4580 :40 We 0 4640 e No Left 148 1 1000 0.093 0 148 1 IeOO 0,093 - 0 220 1 1600 0,138 -20 200 1 1600 0,125 0 200 1 lead 0 M No Thru ifill 3 4800 0.315 0 tell It 4800 0.316 0 1160 s 400D 0242 20 1140 3 4800 0.230 0 1140 3 4000 0.238 No Right lie 1 1600 0.074 0 lie 1 1800 0.074 0 70 1 1800 0.044 0 70 1 1800 0.044 0 70 A low 0044 Sb Left 45 1 IWO 0.028 0 45 1 1600 0,028 0 so 1 1600 0.031 0 so I 1600 0.031 0 50 1 1600 0031 So Thru IM s 4800 QAiO 0 1766 S 4800 0.410 • 0 Issr, 3 "Do 0.427 40 1780 3 4800 0.419 0 1780 3 4800 0.419 So Right 214 0 a 0 214 0 0 0 190 0 0 40 230 0 0 0 230 0 0 Eb Left 300 2 3200 0.094 0 300 2 3200 0.094 0 100 2 3200 0.059 .20 170 2 3200 0.00 0 VO 2 3200 MOO Eb Thre 138 I MO 0.004 0 135 1 1000 0,084 • 0 270 1 1600 0.169 -10 260 1 IeOO 0.183 0 No 1 1600 0.183 Eb Right 280 1 1600 0.182 0 260 1 1800 0,162 0 -10 1 1600 -0.0011 70 to 1 1500 0.038 0 60 1 1600 0.030 WO Left 160 1 1000 0,094 0 IN 1 1600 0.094 • - 0 330 1 1400 am 40 S21) 1 1600 0.200 0 320 1 1600 0.900 Wb Thnu lei 2 3200 0.067 0 181 2 32DO 0,087 0 170 2 3200 OVS 10 ISO 2 3200 0.081 0 180 2 3200 0.081 We Right 34 0 0 0 34 0 a - 0 so 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 so 0 0 ICU QJUII 0.401 O."a 0.907 0.907 LOS a a a E III Key coafficting ma"ment as a pad of ICU. Functions as a aparme, turn lane, ftowever, Is not stripod as such. Counts conducted by. Chy at Newport Beach Capacity expressed In "home perhourof preen. I'Medt ICU IMP11M -0.033 Ante Traffic Mitigation: Significant IMP90: NO ITONIVIA 1 4654 418511 1 0 4580 :40 We 0 4640 N N LINBCOTT• LAW 6 GREENSPAII, EMBERS 1580 CWO" Dave, Suke 121, Coale Mesa CA 92626 (714) 611.1507 Mtemcdon: 11. NS SC Placente Avenue E•W SC SuperlorAvenua PMJOM Hoag Master Plan EIN Fee: N: 12600120628520CUYGQ016.tla COnP0l Type: 6O Traffic Signal Na Leh 12 0 0 0.000 ' Na Thm 232 2 3200 0.091 Na fthl 47 0 0 • Sri lee 12 1 1800 O.OG St, Thm 728 1 1800 0.205 ' St, Right 238 1 1800 0.148 Ea 1.e11 362 1 1600 0.226 Ea Thm 1133 2 3200 0.362 ' Ea 111& 28 0 0 • We IAN 62 1 1800 0.033 ' We Tam 280 2 3200 0.084 We Right 8 0 0 • 0 12 0 0 0.000 0 232 2 3200 0.091 0 47 0 0 720 0 12 1 1800 0.908 0 328 1 1600 0.208 0 236 1 1600 0.148 0 362 1 1600 0.226 0 1133 2 3200 1382 0 28 0 0 0 0 82 1 1600 OA33 0 280 2 3200 0.084 0 e 0 0 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTWZMN Placentia Avenue at Superior Avenue peak HOUr. AM AmwIGNW: 1.00% 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 X320 2 7200 0.119 0 60 0 0 720 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 400 1 1800 0.250 0 280 1 1800 0.175 0 370 1 1600 0.231 0 1180 2 3200 0184 0 80 0 0 720 0 40 1 1600 0,026 0 410 2 3200 0.134 0 20 0 0 0 Date: 05124107 Date or Count: 2007 PmJectlOn Yew.. 2015 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 720 2 7200 0.119, 0 720 2 7200 0.119 0 60 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 10 1 1800 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.008 410 770 1 1800 0.271 0 340 1 1800 0.271 20 300 1 1600 0.188 0 30D 1 1600 0.188 0 770 1 1600 0.271 0 770 1 1600 0.271 10 1190 2 7200 0288 ' 0 1190 2 3200 0.786 0 50 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 • 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 010 400 2 7200 0.131 0 400 2 7200 0.171 0 20 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 • ICU 0.800 0.600 BAG- 4.641 aAU LOS A A e N B • Key eonM1la8a9 mowlGmea a P0001 ICU. ^ Functions as a separate mm lane, hovrovar. U not striped as such. PmJecl ICU Impact: •0.015 Area Traffic Mitigation: Count$ CcnauWea ay: Cry of Newport BeaCh SigniBUnt enpam.. NO Cap" evpreGeo In vthlCes per hour of green. ITallim 1 9708 1 0 2708 0 2140 •10 4130 0 2130 UNSCOTT, LAW GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1680 Copareft, DoNe. Sub 122. Coats Man CA 92626 (714)691.1567 Intersection: It. We at Pisoartus Avenue E•W at Swp.dorAvan.. pr*a Hoeg Means, Plan SIR Flo: W2GOOVOS2S52WUYsAr2OIS.jd% ContiotTypt.SeTraft Signal INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Placentia Avenue at Superior Avenue Posix Hour. PM Annual Growth: 1.00% Date: 05r24M7 Date at Count 2007 Pmj.cdon Year. 2015 • Key cartreoling mcnaernal Ste penal CU. Function as a $operate turn lane. h0mver, 16 not $1,11)(r0 85 such project ICU tape= •0.006 Area TmMo Mttigagow Courtscanduculdby: CIW0fNawpQrtB0KA Significanthipect NO Copaclay expressed In vehicles per hour of Gram. ItafluWaL 1 2576 0 S71; 0 3040 1 40 3080 1 0 3060 A Nb Los 37 a 0 0.000 0 37 0 o 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.00 0 20 0 0 0.000 a 20 0 0 0.000 Nb Thm no 2 3200 0.137 0 320 2 3200 OAV 0 420 2 3200 0.175 • -10 410 2 3200 0.175 • 0 410 2 3200 0.176 M Right so 0 0 0 go a 0 0 120 0 0 10 130 0 0 0 130 0 0 as Left 15 1 1600 0.000 0 15 1 1600 0.009 0 10 1 1600 0.006 • 0 io 1 1500 0,006 • 0 10 1 Iwo 0.906 as Thm 231 1 MO 0.144 0 231 1 toolo od" 0 240 1 1600 0.150 20 No I ISM 0.163 0 260 1 1600 0.103 as Right 423 1 1000 0.2114 0 423 1 1800 0.264 0 450 1 1800 0.281 •30 420 1 two 0263 9 420 1 7600 0283 ES Left 320 1 1600 0700 • 0 320 1 1600 0.200 • 0 250 1 1600 GASS • -20 239 1 *00 0.144 • 0 230 1 law 0.144 IRS, Thru 436 2 3200 0.140 0 438 2 3200 0.140 0 010 2 3200 0.200 •10 600 2 3200 0.197 0 Boo 2 3200 0.197 So Right 13 0 0 0 is 0 0 a 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 INS Laft so I I= 0.036 a be i IEQ5 0.035 0 50 1 1000 0.031 0 50 1 1600 0.031 0 so 1 1600 0.031 Wb TIN 830 2 3200 0.201 - 0 630 2 $200 0.201 - 0 870 2 =0 0.275 - 20 890 2 3200 0.281 - 0 ago 2 3200 9.261 Wb Right 13 0 a 0 13 0 0 0 . 10 0 0 . 0 10 0 0 0 10 .0 0 I . .- I fuk;�MiviligiIi - :,..! ...................... k:a:A ICU 0.647 - 0.647 0.012 0.606 0.606 LOS A A 6 a a • Key cartreoling mcnaernal Ste penal CU. Function as a $operate turn lane. h0mver, 16 not $1,11)(r0 85 such project ICU tape= •0.006 Area TmMo Mttigagow Courtscanduculdby: CIW0fNawpQrtB0KA Significanthipect NO Copaclay expressed In vehicles per hour of Gram. ItafluWaL 1 2576 0 S71; 0 3040 1 40 3080 1 0 3060 LINSCOTT, LAW 8 GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 COWMA) Drina, Soft 122, Coati Mesa CA 92M (7141041-1587 Intersealan: 12. WE St NewpOn Brad SS 08 -Ramp E -W St Went Coast Highway PMJGM . Hoeg Manor Plan EM File: N:1280M2D528529CUYIa2015.)N Centml Type:20 Tramp Signal INTBR9ECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Newport SW SS OMRamp al Want Coati Highway Peak Hour. AM Annual Grown: 1X0% Len 0 0 0 0.000 '- o .•.nn:,:wrPaPrlw:: arwo-r 0 0 Thm 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 U 0 0 p0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Left 0 0 0 0 mN 450 20 3200 0.742 0 454 2 3200 0.142 0 - 0 0.000 0 0 0 LO 2 3200 0.076 130 370 2 3200 0.000 Right 284 1 1800 0.177 0 0'� 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 284 1 1800 0.177 � 0 390 0 0 0.000 1 7600 0.236 •210 770 1 1800 0,108 Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 . 0 0 TNU 1885 2 3200 0.623 0'820 a a a a 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Right 845 Free 9899890 0.000 0 1995 2 3200 0.629 0 2360 2 3200 0.738 • -60 2300 2 3200 0.719 B 645 Free 9999999 0.000 0 170 Free ONO999 0.000 0 170 Free 9999999 0.000 ThN 1098 3 4800 9966966 0.000 000 O. 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 - Right 486 F 0 1098 3 4800 0.229 0 1110 3 4800 0231 -50 1060 3 4800 0.221 ree 0 498 Free 9999999 0.000 0 450 Free 9989999 0.000 0 450 Free 9999999 0.000 C • Key OOnlscilng movement as a pen of ICU. •• Functions as a NpMWe tm left, however. Is not eelpad is such. Counts denducted by: City O NSM0r1804101 Capacity expressed In vehkles per hour or Breen E D Date; 0524107 Date Of Count: 2007 Projection Year. 2015 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 370 2 3200 0.115 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 170 1 1600 0.108 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 2300 2 3200 0.719 0 170 Free 9999999 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 1060 3 4800 0.221 0 450 Free 9999989 0.000 PMJe01CU IMPG= •0.141 Anta Tmft Mlegailm: 51905mt IMPect NO 8.816 D ru UNSCOTT. LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1500 COMMto Drive, SUS& 122, Cosfa Mesa CA 92428 (70) 6414587 InterfacIlan: 12. NS St Newport Blvd SO Of•Ramp E-W St West Coast ftlasway Project Hoag Meadfir Plan EIR File: N12III301205206211CUYUMI S.As Control Typt:20Traffic Signal Nowporl B14 SB Off -Ramp at West Coast Highway Peak Hour: PM Annual Gnmill: 1.00% Dam: 004M7 02m 01 count 2))7 Projection Yew. 2015 • Key ombfiloffing movement as a pan of ICU. funedims as a sapariffe han land. hmsever. Is not ftiped as such. Project ICU IMPSM: 4.007 me Trafto Magadan! Cowt$WduC dby: CAyMNewpgt 6eaon Sloffifitarl IMPAW: NO Capacity evredband In "Nolea per how of green. 4"9 1 0 4"9 1 0 Me 1 .210 $610 -1 0 solo H He Left 0 0 o 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.0)) 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 a 0 0 0 0.000 NbThM a a 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 a 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 No Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SO 1.14 532 2 3200 0.166 0 532 2 0200 0.166 0 360 2 3200 0,113 70 430 2 3200 0,134 0 430 2 3200 0.134 Sbillnu 0 a 0 0.000 0 a 0 0 Mo 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.D00 0 0 0 0 0.000 So Right 304 1 1000 0.246 0 304 1 1000 0.246 0 sw 1 1600 0.313 -10D 400 1 1800 0.250 0 400 1 1600 0.250 Eb LsA 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 ODDD 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0400 Eb Thru 042 2 3200 0.296 0 242 2 3200 0.295 0 1570 2 3200 0.491 -140 1430 2 32DO 0,447 0 1430 2 3200 0,441 Eb Right 267 Free 9999999 0.0)) 0 257 Free 9909969 0400 0 120 FM 2909999 0.000 -20 100 Free 9999099 0.01)(0 0 100 Free 9999999 0.000 We Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0,000 a 0 0 0 U.000 Wb Thro lads 3 4600 0,406 0 1949 3 4090 0.406 0 2540 3 4800 0.5" 40 2520 3 4800 0.525 0 2520 3 4800 0.525 Wb Flight 585 Free 9999999 0,000 0 585 Free 0999990 0.000 0 1330 Fred 909999 0900 0 430 Free 9999909 0,000 0 830 Free 9999999 0.000 IOU 0.652 0.662 OA42 O."s 0.774 Ub; It a 0 C 0 • Key ombfiloffing movement as a pan of ICU. funedims as a sapariffe han land. hmsever. Is not ftiped as such. Project ICU IMPSM: 4.007 me Trafto Magadan! Cowt$WduC dby: CAyMNewpgt 6eaon Sloffifitarl IMPAW: NO Capacity evredband In "Nolea per how of green. 4"9 1 0 4"9 1 0 Me 1 .210 $610 -1 0 solo N In LINSCOTT•LAW S OREENSPAN, SNOWEERS 1560 COfPM" AMa, SUW 12R Coats Mass CA 94826 (714) 641.1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY BTILQ_ YMu N-S St 5on:. 18. SuperiorAmue at Hospital Road E- S SupenarRoanua Peak Hour. AM Derv: 08/24/07 EWSC H099EMger Annual Growth: 1.OD% Date of Count: 2007 Proles: X996 Heeler Plan EIR File: N: 126001Y052862VCUYea2016,a5 Projection Year. 2015 COMMITY06:2OTm16c Signal ......:...:,• ..: ........: .......:.......... .... ...... .. .. .............: ......... ... ..... ..:.......... :....:............ ....:..:.: ............ ... T?NAFE.:i::::::::::::.:::.: :.;.;Z0.:ii;:Pli I #IOM:i:i::::::::: 1:1:1:11:: >:::::::: 0 20 10 0 1540 410 1 2 0 1600 3200 0 0.000 0.609 Nb Left 0 1 1600 0.000 Nb Thm 1523 2 3200 0.804 Nb Rigid 410 0 0 0 0 1 18110 O400 0 1523 2 3200 0.604 0 410 0 0 - 0 0 1 1800 0.000 0 1520 2 3200 0.600 ' 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 1540 410 1 2 0 logo 3200 0 0.000 0.809 ' SID La0 $b TpfU Ste Right 79 478 0 1 2 0 1800 3200 0 0.048 0.140 - D 0 0 79 478 0 1 2 0 1600 3200 0 0.049 0.149 - 0 0 0 90 530 0 1 2 0 1600 3200 0 0.056 ' 0.168 10 10 0 100' 540 0 1 2 0 1600 3200 0 0.063 0.169 - 0 0 0 100 $40 0 1 2 0 1600 3200 D 0.083 0.180 - Eb Leh Eb Thou Eb Right 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1600 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1600 0 0.000 0.000 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 D 1800 0 0.000 ' 0.000 - 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1800 0 0.000 0.000 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1600 0 0.000 0.000 Wb Le7i WbThru Wb Rghl 35 0 80 0 2 0 0 3200 0 0.000 0.030' • 0 0 0 35 0 60 0 2 0 0 3200 0 0.000 0.030 - 0 0 0 30 0 60 0 2 0 0 32D0 0 0.000 0.026 - 0 0 0 30 0 80 0 2 0 0 3200 0 0.000 0.026 - 0 0 0 30 0 60 0 2 0 0 3200 0 0.000 0.028 1900'/0 IGIOP7 0!i }::;;i:•:i::;:;::: 8 .... • •::•:•: ... ....4A44.:.•.........:.•...•. :• }•.• .:...:.:.:.::.:.•.:•..;::: ;.•.;.:..•..: •.•... ..,.,.•., . . . . .•. .•:. O. ODd:! �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �>: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �:< �i: ....i.•.:..:....:.:: �: 0AB0. . . . :.•. . . . ..: .. :.. . :. .:..•::..:..::::.A90P: :: .•::.. :•.•.r...... %� �i:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�'::�:�:�: :�:�:�'::�:� :�': :8.644::': low LOS 0.433 B 0.693 B 0.684 B 01700 8 0.700 B i(" corl0kOng mavemam as a pan of ICU. '• Functions as a separate cum Iona, however, is not groped as Duch. Protect ICU Impact: 0.016 Aree TMIRC MN9a50n: Course c0neuctae It% National Dow BSur *9 Services SIgnlACanllmpact: NO COWRY expressed In vehicles per hour of green calm. 0 280 1 0 -2W a0 2880 2680 UNSCOM LAW A MENSPAR, ENGINEERS 1580 COMMIR Onus. SUNN 122 COSH AfM CA 92620 (714) 641-1581 INTERSINICIPION CAPACFrV LITILUATION Intersection: 13. SUP06" AVeMJ@ at HOSPItall RU80 N•S St SupedorAvenue Peak Hour. PM Dow: WNW F-W St "cookie Reed Annual Gmwm: 1.013% Cow of count 2007 prolow HOSO WiltIf Plan EIR Pm;,Wun Year. 2015 File: INJIM001205265MICUY64W201 SAI Control TV&! 20 Tt&Mc Signal Fumedome as 9 aecanite Ism lone, WOOM. 14 not StrioOd 0, SUM Prolect ICU Impact 0.00.3 Anse Tniffic Millgatlow, Counts conducted by. National Date It Surveying Services SyNkcomImpact NO Capadoe*mBMlnvehlcWeperbmrolgreen. ilaWVOL 1 2989 1 a 2980 1 a 2 20 1 -20 24" 1 0 2400 ............. . .............. 0 0 1 1600 0.000 No Left 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 Jeco 0.000 No Thm 850 2 3200 0,311 0 No 2 3200 0.311 0 690 2 3200 0.253 -30 660 2 3200 0.244 0 680 2 3200 0.244 Nb RW I" a 0 0 144 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 120 0 0 So Left loll 1 1600 0.057 • 0 ioe 1 1600 0.007 0 so 1 1600 0.050 0 90 1 1600 0.050 0 w I iiaw 0.050 Sb Thu 1120 2 3200 0.353 0 1129 2 3200 0.353 0 970 2 3200 0.303 10 980 2 3200 0.305 0 880 2 3200 0.306 So RlQMt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eb Left 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 a 0 0 0 0.000 Eb Thru 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1500 0,000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 Too 0.000 Eb MIME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wb Left 634 0 0 0.000 0 Bu 0 0 O.OD) 0 460 0 0 0.000 -10 470 0 0 0.000 0 470 0 0 0.000 ft TM 0 2 3200 0,237 0 0 2 3200 0237 0 0 2 3200 0,175 0 a 2 3200 0.175 0 0 2 3200 0.175 Wb Right 125 0 0 0 VS 0 0 0 so 0 0 to so 0 0 0 90 0 0 ............... ................ ICU 0.416 0,916 0.478 0,4811 0.01 WS Is B A A A Fumedome as 9 aecanite Ism lone, WOOM. 14 not StrioOd 0, SUM Prolect ICU Impact 0.00.3 Anse Tniffic Millgatlow, Counts conducted by. National Date It Surveying Services SyNkcomImpact NO Capadoe*mBMlnvehlcWeperbmrolgreen. ilaWVOL 1 2989 1 a 2980 1 a 2 20 1 -20 24" 1 0 2400 1.I11860TT, LAW 6 GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1690 CoMmie D6va, Sub 122, Costa Mean CA 92626 (714) 641-1587 Intersection: 14. N•8 St Haag DOW61PNOmtia A" E•W St HoaplW Roth PmIOOt Hong Inter Plan EIR Fee: N:1 W=OS2SMCUYn12018.M8 CeneWTypr.30N•8 SpE Left 16 0 0 0.000 ThN 22 1 1800 0.024 Right 73 1 1800 0.049 Leff 341 0 0 0.000 ThN 46 2 8200 0.131 Right 34 0 0 2 Left 67 1 1600 0.1742 TMU 289 2 $200 0.104 Right 44 0 0 0 396 Left 150 1 1600 0.099 �Thry -159 2 3200 0,173 �Right 396 0 0 0 18 0 0 0.000 a 22 1 1600 0.024 , 0 78 1 1600 0.048 0 341 0 0 0.000 0 45 2 3200 0131 , 0 34 0 0 1800 0 87 1 1000 0.042 • 0 286 2 3200 0.104 0 44 0 0 0 0 168 1 lam 0.089 0 159 2 3200 0,173 0 396 0 0 - INTERSECTION CAPACITY OTILMAT16N Haag DevW Isamu, Ave m Hospaal Reed Peak Hour. AM Date: 052117 Annvsl Gmethn I'm Date of Count 2DD7 Pro7ewon YSer. 2015 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 40 1 1600 0.038 0 f20 1 1600 0.075 0 330 0 0 O.ODD 0 80 2 3200 0.134 0 20 0 0 1800 0 80 1 1600 0.030 0 270 2 3200 0.091 0 40 0 0 30 0 120 1 1600 0.015 0 140 2 3200 0184 0 450 0 0 1800 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 •10 30 1 1800 0.031 • 0 w 1 1600 0.031 30 150 1 1800 0.094 0 150 1 1600 0.094 0 330 0 0 0.000 0 330 0 0 0.000 -30 50 2 320D 0.128 • 0 50 - 2 3200 0.128 10 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 SO 1 1800 0.038 0 SO 1 1600 0.038 0 210 2 3200 0.100 0 270 2 3200 0100 10 50 0 0 0 50 a 0 - 70 190 1 1600 0.119 0 180 1 1800 0.119 •10 100 2 3200 0.181 0 - 130 - -2 3200 0.181 0 450 0 0 6 450 0 0 •- hDU 0.370 0.370 0.394 0.376 Naze LOS A A A A A • FunconRCas movamantrn ape,ho however, •• Functions ea a casemate turn lane, havrover, N not striped ea such. Projed ICU Impel: •0.078 Am Traffic MNBatlom Ccm%wn6UCW Oy: National Data A Surveying Services S19ni6rant Impact: NO Cap&* e4pmmd In "haves per hwrat green. T6M1 Voa I W 1 0 foe I 0 1690 1 70 1760 1 0 1760 00 LOISCOTT, LAW a GRIIIERSPAIM. KNOINGERS 1590 Cormanue Define. Svft 192, Costa Was CA 92$20 (714) 641.15111' Intefnctlon: 14. N-S St HOBO Ave E-W St Hospital Read Project Hoag Mamborlibin SIR File: N:M0O12OS28529CUYeer2OI5Xa Control Type: 30 N-S spot Hong Drive/Placenda Ave at Hospital Road Peak Hour. PM Annual GMWII; um Date: Date of Count: Projection Year 06124107 2007 2015 i ijiiij*!Vt:*z ............... ...... NO Left 38 .0 0 0,000 0 38 a a 0.000 0 30 0 0 0.000 -10 20 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 NO Thfu 67 1 1800 0.065 0 67 1 ISDO 0.065 0 iOD 1 1600 0,081 20 120 1 ISDO 0.088 0 120 1 1600 O.Olut Nti Right 139 1 18 00 N 0.087 a M 1 1600 0.087 0 ISO I logo Omo •10 ISO 1 1800 0.004 0 150 1 IODO 0.004 SO 1.6ft 436 0 0 0.00 0 435 0 0 0.000 a 360 0 0 0.000 30 390 0 0 0.000 0 spit 0 0 0.000 $0 Thm 35 2 3200 0.180 0 35 2 3200 0.100 0 so 2 3200 0.165 .10 40 2 3200 OAS3 0 40 2 3200 0.183 sit Fright 108 0 0 0 Ilia 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 go 0 0 eb LOS W 1 1600 0.088 a 140 1 1600 0.055 0 110 1 1000 0.069 -10 100 1 1800 0.063 0 too 1 1800 0,063 Eli Thru 292 2 3200 0.102 0 2112 2 3200 0.102 0 220 2 3200 0.075 0 220 2 3200 0.076 0 220 2 3200 0.075 Eb Right 34 0 0 - 0 34 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 a 0 Via, Left 153 1 1800 0.095 0 153 1 Iwo 0.098 0 140 1 1600 0.088 50 100 1 law 0.119 a ISO I 1600 0.M9 WO Thm 246 2 3200 0.240 0 246 2 3200 0.240 0 170 2 3200 0.191 •10 180 2 3200 0.189 0 160 2 32DO 0.188 WD Right 521 0 0 0 521 0 0 0 440 0 0 0 440 a a 0 440 0 0 tau 0.673 DA73 GAO? 0.502 11.4102 Los A A A - - A A I • Kay WIMMI19 MOYMOM 83 a part Of ICU. Project ICU Impact: OM5 Arva Traffic Mitigation: Functions at A UPMW turn liffiffli. M�, W not slid as such Counts candUeted by; Nallarial Date A SUNOVIng SOMIMS Slgnlflmnt IMP90: NO Capacity GMMMd M VeMn PW hour of Clear. reds 1195 1 2208 1 0 ms 1 0 1890 r 50 1940 0 Iwo UNSCOTT. LAW & GREINSPAR. E94MULM 1580 CO'PMfO DdM, SUN@ 122, Corp Mass CA 920M (714) 641-1507 111TERSEMN CAPACITY UTIULATION Intersection: 0. Hoeg Dftaa[ Want Coast H!gIav&y NS St 8080 Drive E-W St. w"Comatirugh"y PeakHour. AM Dm: MQ07 PM)Bct H099 Mostor Plan SIR Annual Gromh: 1,00% Date Of Court 2007 PRO: N.4AOMOS2G522VCUYOW2O15jd2 projecilon Year: 2015 Control Type: so N•S Split . 2MAIVIIII'MmIRIF ........... ... ...... ....... NO Left 4 1 IODD 0.003 0 4 1 1600 0L003 0 10 1 Iwo 0.006 0 10 1 1500 0.05 0 10 I IODD 0.006 NO Thm 0 1 1800 0.004 0 0 1 1600 0.004 0 0 1 1600 0.006 0 0 1 IBOO 0.006 0 0 1 1600 0.006 NO Paphl 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 5b Left 27 2 3200 0.006 0 .27 2 3200 0.008 0 70 2 32DO 0.022 •50 20 2 3200 0.006 0 20 2 3200 0.005 St, Thm 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 O.ODO 0 0 0 0 OMO 0 0 0 0 0.000 SO R12M 43 1 11100 0.027 0 43 1 IODD 0.027 0 80 1 1600 0.050 -30 50 1 IGDO OMI 0 50 1 1600 0'031 SO Left 101 1, IODO 0.101 0 161 1 isoo 0.101 0 290 1 WOO 0.181 .70 220 1 1600 0A38 0 220 1 1600 0.135 10 Cb Thm 2109 3 4800 0.459 0 Vag 3 4500 0.459 0 2630 3 4900 0,550 40 2800 3 4800 0.544 0 2600 3 4800 0.5" Eb FORM 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 - 0 10 0 0 ND WO Left 13 1 1600 0.008 0 13 1 1600 0.008 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 WO Thm 765 4 6400 0.152 0 765 4 fAOO 0.152 0 970 4 6400 0.196 20 990 4 6400 0.150 0 goo 4 wo 0.156 WO Falght 209 0 0 - 0 209 0 0 0 300 0 0 480 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 - s'y UAfV OATS 0378 Use Oise we A A A A A Functions me 9 saparaft, turn ten*. 69 er. Is not ruiped as sue . Pmjoot CU Impact 4.022 Ana Tralk MiUgaflon: Counts Ow4fted by, Memel Oats L Survoy'no Sarsuss Sigalficentunpaa NO Cgpaft express" in vehI*s per hourotgreeft. InOtOlVaL 1 2432 1 a 3432 1 0 4370 1 440 3930 1 0 3930 UNSCOTT,LAW & 1590 CMOMM Drive, SUAM? 122, Costs Man CA 92626 (714) 841-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Indersectlon: 16. Hoag Drive at Woo coast Highway WS SL Hoag Drive Peak Kmx. PIA Date; 05124107 ISM St West coast highway Annual Orowth: 1.00% Date of Coal: 2007 Project! Hoag Master Plan SIR Projection Year. 2015 File: Ni280D12O52652VCUYed(2O15.xlS Control Type: 80 NS Split :iQ' Mi"Miloty. MIX14 'iE:lif AE. 4i lywo'cil PIN Nis I.Oft 3 1 1600 0.002 0 3 1 1800 0.002 0 10 1 ISO 0406 0 to 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 IIIDD 0.008 Nis Thu 0 1 1000 0.000 0 0 1 1800 0.008 0 0 1 1600 0.O13 0 0 A Iwo 0.013 0 0 1 ISO() 0.013 No Right 12 0 0 0 12 a 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 - 0 20 0 0 So Left 100 2 3200 0.031 0 100 2 3200 0.031 a 200 2 3200 OM .120 140 2 3200 0.044 0 140 2 3200 0.044 So ThM 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.0110 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 O'Goo Sb Right 114 1 1600 0.071 0 114 1 1600 0.071 0 200 1 1600 0.126 •50 150 I 1600 0.094 0 150 1 1600 0.094 Eb Left 19 1 Iwo 0.012 0 19 1 1600 0.012 0 90 1 1600 0.066 0 so I two 0.050 0 90 1 1600 0.056 Eb ThM 1075 3 4800 0.226 0 1075 3 4600 0.228 0 1270 3 4800 0.267 •0 1230 3 4800 0.258 a 1230 3 4800 0.258 Et, Right 12 a, 0 0 12 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 C5 Wts Left 69 1 160 0.037 0 59 1 1600 0.037 0 10 1 IOGO 0.006 0 10 1 IGD0 0.006 0 10 1 1800 0.00 WbTVft 2301 4 5400 0.356 0 2301 4 6400 0.366 0 2470 4 6400 OAGS 40 2440 4 6400 0.394 0 2440 4 6400 0.394 We Right 39 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 130 0 0 .60 80 0 0 0 00 a 0 ICU CA46 OA" 0.564 GAOT GAOT Los A A A A A "knagonil 90 8 separate turn Iwo, however, 181101 sislipaid U such, Project IOU Impact: -0.048 Area Theme VIVIrAtIon; .cattlicanductiniby: National Data S Surveying Services Sionificamimpect: NO .8pocIty, aspreassed In vehicles per boa of green. Tbt#IV*L 1 3134 1 0 JM 0 4470 •200 4180 1 0 4180 UNSOOTT. LAW E GRUKOPAN, ENGMESRS 1800 COMMIO DOW, SUBS 122, Costa Mesa CA 92646 (711) 041.1687 Inmrsee9an: 16. N -S St: Supodor Avenue E-W St lem SireetBrnWe111al Way PNfed: "099 MOeter Plan SIR Fse: N:1260012052S8211CUY9er2OIS.aN ConlrolTypE.3OTmMp Signal Nb Lan 17 1 1800 0.048 Nb Tbm 790 2 3200 0.255 ' Nb Riant 157 0 0 0 SS Len 2e 1 1600 0.015 ' Sb Thm 420 2 3200 0.169 Sb Right 120 0 0 - Eb Len 25 1 1600 0.016 ' Eb Thm ISO 1 1600 0.111 M Eb Right 27 0 0 - f Wb Left 27 0 0 0.000 Wb TIN 125 t 1600 0.110 ' Wb Right 39 0 0 - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILMAATION Supodor AYenue at ISM StraeNndustral Way Peak Hour. AM Oetet 0MV07 Annual Omv : 1.00% Dote Of count! 2007 Pmjadion Yea. 2015 6 83 1 1800 0.052 0 53 1 1600 0.052 0 83 1 1600 0.052 0 83 1 1600 0.052 63 883 2 3200 0.286 ' 0 853 2 3200 0.286 ' 10 863 2 3200 0289 0 863 2 3200 0380 ' 5 e2 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 62 0 0 2 28 1 1800 0.016 ' 0 26 1 1600 OAIS 0 28 1 1600 0.018 ' 0 26 1 1600 0.018 ' 34 454 2 3200 0.102 0 454 2 3200 0.182 -10 444 2 3200 0.179 0 4" 2 3200 0.179 10 130 0 0 0 130 0 0 - 0 130 0 0 0 130 0 0 2 27 1 1800 0.017 ' 0 27 1 1600 0.017 0 27 1 1600 0.017 ' 0 27 1 1800 0.017 ' 12 152 1 1800 0.119 0 162 1 1600 0.119 0 162 1 1600 0.119 0 162 1 1600 0.119 2 29 0 0 - 0 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 2 29 0 0 0.000 0 29 0 0 0.000 0 29 0 0 0.000 0 29 0 0 0.000 10 138 1 1600 0.129 ' 0 135 1 1600 0.129 0 135 1 1600 0.120 ' 0 138 1 1600 0.129 ' 3 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 IGU OAIG 0.60 0.460 - SAO 0'63 LOS A A A A A 'Kay taM1leNhy meventmtaeaperiat lCU. I'MOM ae a 6parete Wm [One. OOwevet, N not Banged to $UCh. Project ICU Impad: 0.003 Area Traffic MMg86on: Counts TondlAXed. by: NaBOnal Data 8 Surveying ServIces Sngnmmnt anium NO Capacby OVANSed in vehicles per hear of green. Tet41 full 151 034 0 Y 0 20 I 0 031 LINSICOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 COMOMM O&V, SuNe 122, Caft A460 CA 82026 (714) 641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZA11ON Intersection: 18. Superior Avenue at fain S1reoWndu8blal Way NS SI: SupedarAveftue Peak Hour PM 00m: 051244)7 E•W St 11IMStreatlInduWalWay Mnual OMMIl: 1.00% Date Of Cowt 21107 ?"a Hug Motu Plan EIR Pmlecdon Year. MIS Foe: NVIII)MOS2652YWYOW01 6xis COrftITVv30Tmft SIgnat • Key conflicting mDument as a Dart Of ICU. Fmalafts as a "Mato tum I• htw w. Is Tmi striped as Wch Proled ICU Impact 0.007 Area Treffic MIVItatlon; Camteconductedby: Nm*nslDwa&SumayIn9Svrvlws SIgnificant IMPOO: NO CVPWIV wl'obsed In vehidev per tmv at gm", Ta"I VOL 1 2035 1 fas 2998 a 218 a; 1 20 2298 2216 ................ . Nb Left 51 1 000 0.032 A 55 1 ISDO 0.034 0 55 1 IWO 0.034 0 ss i ifito 0.104 0 56 1 1600 0.034 NO Thm 709 2 3200 0.236 57 766 2 3200 0254 0 788 2 3200 0.254 0 786 2 3200 0.254 0 766 2 3200 0264 Nb Right 44 0 0 4 48 a 0 - 0 4B 0 0 0 4B 0 0 0 48 0 0 Sb Left to 1 1800 0.011 i to i ifloo 0.012 0 10 1 10DO 0.012 0 19 1 filoo 0.012 0 19 1 Moo 0.012 SD Thm 721 2 3200 0244 5B 770 2 3200 0.283 0 779 2 3200 0.263 20 789 2 3200 0.270 0 799 2 SM 0.270 SD Right 59 0 0 - 5 a& 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 64 0 0 . 0 64 0 0 ED Lon so 1 1600 0,031 4 64 1 1000 0.034 0 54 1 1600 0.034 0 S4 1 1600 0.034 0 54 1 1600 0.034 ED Thm 147 1 1800 0.141 12 159 1 Iwo 0.152 0 150 1 im 0.152 0 150 1 illao 0.02 • 0 W 1 1000 0.162 ED Right to D 0 6 94 0 0 0 84 0 a a ell a a a 54 a a WD Lan 38 0 a 0.000 3 411 0 0 0.000 0 41 0 a 0.000 0 41 a a 0.000 • a 41 0 a 0.000 Wb Thm 77 1 im 0.099 a 93 1 160D 0.107 0 83 1 1600 0.107 a 83 1 1600 0.107 a 83 1 1600 0.107 WD Right 43.....0...... 0 3 40 0 0 0 46 0 a a 46 0 a a 46 0 0 ly - 0.417 CA49 DA49 OAK OASS 1ICU LOB A A A A A • Key conflicting mDument as a Dart Of ICU. Fmalafts as a "Mato tum I• htw w. Is Tmi striped as Wch Proled ICU Impact 0.007 Area Treffic MIVItatlon; Camteconductedby: Nm*nslDwa&SumayIn9Svrvlws SIgnificant IMPOO: NO CVPWIV wl'obsed In vehidev per tmv at gm", Ta"I VOL 1 2035 1 fas 2998 a 218 a; 1 20 2298 2216 W W LINSCOTT, LAWS GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1550 COMOnOte 00m. SuBe 122, Cosh Mesa CA 92620 (714) 841.1587 Intersection: 17. N•S SD NOWport Boulevard &W St Industrial Way "am Hop Master Plan EIR Fps: N.1260012052652UCUY8ef2015.tls Comrm Type: 30Trage Signal Mb Leg 78 1 1500 0.048 NO Than 1804 3 4800 0.380 Nb RNM 10 0 0 1600 Sb Leg 114 1 1800 0.071 S0 Um 1311 3 4800 0.288 8b Right 04 0 0 1 ED Leg 90 0 0 0.000 ED TOM 95 1 1600 0.110 ED Right 100 1 IWO 0.083 Wb Leff 3 1 1800 0.002 WbTfm1 70 1 1600 0.044 Wb night 51 1 1600 0.032 8 02 1 1600 0.051 144 1948 3 4800 0.410 2 21 0 0 1600 9 123 1 1600 0.077 106 1416 3 4800 0.309 5 69 a 0 1 7 97 0 0 0.000 8 103 1 1800 0.125 • 8 108 1 1600 0.088 0 3 1 1600 0.002 • 9 78 1 1600 0 -.047 4 56 1 1600 0.034 Newport Boulevard m InOusvWl Way Peek Hour. AM Annual OmW1n: 1.00% 0 02 1 1600 0.051 0 1946 3 4800 0.410 0 21 0 0 1938 0 123 1 1600 0.077 0 1416 3 4600 0.309 0 68 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0.000 0 103 1 1600 0.125 0 109 1 1600 DOSS 0 3 1 1600 0.002 0 76 1 1600 0.047 0 as 1 1600 0.034 OIL* MAUD? Date of Count 2007 Pm)adgn Year. 2015 0 82 1 1800 0.051 0 82 1 16DD 0.051 •10 1938 3 4800 0.408 ' 0 1938 3 4800 0.408 0 21 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 123 1 1800 0.077 0 123 1 1600 0.077 -90 1328 3 4800 0.281 0 1328 3 4800 0.291 0 89 0 D 0 89 0 0 0 97 0 0 0.000 0 97 0 0 0.000 0 103 1 1600 0.125 0 103 1 1800 0.125 0 108 1 1800 0.088 0 106 1 1000 0.088 0 3 1 1600 0.002 0 -3 1 1600 0.002 0 76 1 1600 0.047 0 76 1 1000 0.047 0 55 1 1600 0.034 0 55 1 1600 0.034 ICU 0.600 0.614 0.614 0.912 0.012 Lae A S B B 11 • Key connecting movement as a part of ICU. •• Functions as a eepsreh turn none, however. Is hot alfipe6 as such. Pra)e ICU Impact 4.002 Area TMM MI119900n: CW1a4 C011mJdea py'. Natbne 0ano 613uNrym9 SaMean - Smnmcam lmpem: NO Capedly expressed M "hides per how of green. ranif VOL 1 3707 1 204 4161 1 0 4101 1 100 4001 0. 1001 LINSCU". LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1500 Corporate Drive. Sure 12; Cc* Men CA 02626 (714) 641-1507 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: 17. Newport Boulevard at Indusinal Way NS at: "on Bouremam pea "Our PM Date: all E-W St Industrial Way Annual Ganda: 1.00% Dam of Count 2007 Project: Hoag Mesta Plan EIR Ismocton Year 2016 Fla; "125=062662cuyeu2015.)ft Control Type: 30TMfft Signal • Kay connecting movement as 0 Pon Cd 101). FUnetionS as a separate turn lone. ha never, IS not "ad as Won, PrQ;VV ICU impact: -0.00 Area Traffic lifillprVon: CounMwndUCWby: NallonSI Dale &SUmaylMoSeNkrals Slanilmanlimpact NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per how of green. sit 4241 0 4245 .0 4265 0 4265 ................. .............. Nb Left 87 1 1600 0.042 5 72 1 1400 0.045 0 72 1 1600 0.045 0 72 1 1600 0.046 0 72 1 lelto 0.045 Nb Thru 1551 3 4600 0.327 124 A676 3 45DD 0.353 0 1875 3 40DO 0.353 40 1835 3 4800 0.344 0 1635 3 4800 0,344 Nb Right 17 0 0 1 is 0 D 0 18 D D a to 0 0 0 Is 0 0 SO Left ?A A 1400 0,044 5 77 1 law 8.048 D T7 I 1600 0.048 D T7 I 1600 0.040 0 77 1 tape 0.043 Sb Thru lose 3 4600 0.397 148 logo 3 4800 0.426 D 1098 3 41100 0.428 40 less 3 4800 0.420 0 lose 3 4800 0.420 So Right as 0 0 4 so D D 0 58 D D 0 so 0 0 0 so 0 0 - Elp Left so 0 0 able a as D D 0.11110 D 85 0 D 0,000 D so 0 0 0.000 0 a 0 0 0.000 Eb Thm as 1 14100 0.001 5 70 1 tape, 0.090 D 70 1 1800 0.099 D TO 1 1400 0.090 a .70 1 im 0.1:199 Eb Right 105 1 1600 0.066 9 113 1 1600 0.071 D 113 1 IWD 0.071 D 113 1 leal) 0.071 0 113 f 161)(1 0.071 W!, Left 31 1 1600 0.019 2 33 1 1000 D.D21 0 33 1 16CD 0.021 a 33 1 let* 9.021 0 as i leca 0.021 Wb ThN 42 1 1600 0.028 3 45 1 1500 0.028 D 45 1 1600 0.028 D 45 1 face 0.028 0 45 1 1600 0,020 Wb Right 90 1 1600 D.058 7 97 1 loop 0.01 0 97 1 16M 0.031 D 97 1 1600 0.001 0 97 1 1600 0,051 ....................... :.: ....................... ......... ........ ..... ....................... ....... ..................... .. .... . ........ I ....... AQQ ICU 0.540 0.402 0.602 0.504 0.684' LOS A A A A A • Kay connecting movement as 0 Pon Cd 101). FUnetionS as a separate turn lone. ha never, IS not "ad as Won, PrQ;VV ICU impact: -0.00 Area Traffic lifillprVon: CounMwndUCWby: NallonSI Dale &SUmaylMoSeNkrals Slanilmanlimpact NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per how of green. sit 4241 0 4245 .0 4265 0 4265 VII UNSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, SNWNIIIRS 1580 COMOFM Oft SURD 122, Costs Men CA 92626 (714) 841-I387 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION intersection: tO. N&MM Boulavam at 18th Street N.S St Nseqmn Boul"and Peak Hour. AM caw: OSM4107 E•VV St. tail, Street Project: Hoag Meow Plan EIR Annual Gnh,,th: 1.00% Oslo of Count 2007 Fie: N.V000V052852VCUY4Q,201 6xis Pre,)acton Year: 2015 CWm Type: 50 Traffic Signal - Atl .... . .. . . . 04 1W, 0 16 1 1500 omg 0 15 1 1611113 0.009 0 15 1 1600 0,009 Ng Left 14 1 1600 OJ000 1 16 1 16130 0.009 Ng Thru 1027 3 4800 0.391 - 146 1973 3 4800 OA22 • 0 1973 3 400 0.422 .10 1983 3 4300 0.420 - 0 1903 3 4800 0.420 Ng Right 60 0 0 .4 64 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 54 0 0 Sib Los 72 1 1600 0.045 - a 79 1 1600 0.049 - 0 7B I 1600 0,049 0 78 1 1600 0.049 - 0 70 1 1600 0.049 SbThru 1423 3 4800 0.290 114 1537 3 400 0.320 0 1537 3 4800 0.320 -90 1447 3 4800 0.301 0 1447 3 4800 0.301 Sb Rl9M 23 f 1600 0.014 2 25 1 1000 0.016 0 25 1 1600 0,018 0 25 1 1600 0.016 0 25 1 1600 0.016 Eb Lots 21 1 1600 0.013 - 2 23 1 1800 0.014 - 0 23 1 1000 0.014 0 23 1 1600 0,014 - 0 23 1 600 0014 Eb Thm 21 1 1000 0.021 2 23 1 1000 0.023 0 23 1 1800 0,023 0 23 1 1600 0.023 0 23 100 0,023 Eb Right 13 0 0 1 f4 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 WE Left 37 1 1000 0.023 3 40 1 tool) 0.025 0 40 1 WOO 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 M025 Va Thru 34 f 1600 0.040 - 3 37 1 1000 0,049 - 0 37 1 1800 0.048 0 37 1 1800 0.049 - 0 37 1 1000 0.049 VVb Right 39 0 0 3 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 ............. ICU SASS 0.634 OA34 0.632 OA32 LOS A A A A A • Key mnWft movement as a part of ICU. FUnMM as 8 Somagnse turn lane, harammr. 10 Ot SWO84 as suCh. . Fraoct ICU (Mipact -0.002 Area Traffic Mitigation: Counts canduCted by: Na80nal Data & Surveying Services Slilf9writirripect NO Caped"xpressed In vahlehe per hour of green. Tom# VbL 1 J574 286 3800 1 0 $1160 -1 -100 3760 0 2760 -1 LiNscorr, LAW Is GREENSPAN, EOIGIN69RS 1500 Co"hite Drive. 304 122, Care Mega CA 92626 (714) 041-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILMATION Intarsiornon: 10. NOMW Boulayin at 1661 Street N4 SL Newport Bowlevera Peak Hour PM Data; 06J24107 EM St 16th Street Annual Gmsth-. UD% On, of COWL 2007 Project Hog Matter Plan EM PmJecdon Year. 2015 no: N' MO012052652VOUY49201 BAs Control Type: 50 Tristift Signal • Key con flofing movement as a part of ICU. Functions as a separate tum 1806. however, Is not sulped as such. Protect ICU Impact .0.008 Area TMMC 611119119M Ceufft MIUM" ty; National Dais 16 skrvirying Servicez, SIDTHICOMIMPaCt NO Cond"Xprealred In ahkin per how of green. MQUIVOK 1 402 1 320 4322 0 -451- 1 .80 4242 1 0 4242 .4KYAITA ........... NO Left 13 1 1600 0,008 1 14 1 1600 0.009 0 14 1 IBCD 0.009 0 14 1 1600 0.000 0 14 1 WOO 0.009 NO Thor 1700 3 4800 0,303 • 136 1036 3 4800 0.392 0 1836 3 4BOD 0.392 -40 1796 3 4800 0.384 • 0 1T% 3 4600 0.304 - NO Rot 44 0 0 4 48 0 0 0 40 0 0 a 48 0 0 0. 48 0 0 SO Left so 1 1606 0.060 • 6 as I iSOO 0.054 0 86 1 1600 0.054 0 85 1 IBM 0.054 • 0 as 1 1600 0,054 - SO TIN 1907 3 4800 0.397 153 2060 3 4800 0.429 0 2060 3 4600 0-429 40 2020 3 4800 OA21 0 2020 3 4800 0.421 BD Right 25 1 1600 0.016 2 28 1 1600 0.018 0 20 1 1600 0.018 0 28 1 1600 0.010 0 20 1 1600 0.018 ED LGA 20 1 1600 0,013 ' 2 22 1 1000 0.014 0 22 1 1800 0.014 0 22 1 1600 0.014 - 0 22 1 1600 0,014 - ED TIM 41 1 1600 0.033 3 44 1 16D0 0.035 0 44 1 jeco 0.036 0 44 1 MO 0.0115 a 44 1 100 0.035 ED RIOM 11 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 a, WD Lon 51 1 Mil 0.032 4 55 1 1600 0,034 0 56 1 1600 0.034 0 55 1 I= DAM 0 55 1 Iwo 0.034 WD Thm 75 1 loop 0.068 5 811 1 1600 0.074 0 81 1 IM 0.074 0 81 1 100 0,074 0 81 1 1600 0.074 WO Right 34 0 0 3 37 0 0 0 37 0 0 - 0 37 0 0 0 37 0 0 NpWSnpl........................ ........ I ............. - ... ....... IOU 0.404 0.534 0.634 0.525 0.626 LOS A A A A A • Key con flofing movement as a part of ICU. Functions as a separate tum 1806. however, Is not sulped as such. Protect ICU Impact .0.008 Area TMMC 611119119M Ceufft MIUM" ty; National Dais 16 skrvirying Servicez, SIDTHICOMIMPaCt NO Cond"Xprealred In ahkin per how of green. MQUIVOK 1 402 1 320 4322 0 -451- 1 .80 4242 1 0 4242 LIN3CGTr. LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 COW(M Drha. Suffe 122, Calhl Were CA 92626 1714) 641-1587 Ifflamection: 10. N-S St SupmfiorAV.,. E-w St 47V, Street Project Hong matter Pum FIR F* Central Type: 80 Traffic Signal NIT ReECTION CAPACITY U71LM9'M% Superior Avenue at 17th Street Peen Haut. AM Annual0fam,th: 1.00% Data: OM4107 DOW of Count: 2007 Prpjecllon Year. 2015 • Key coniffleting mwentarit as a part of ICU. Functions as 0 separate turiff Ions. however, Is not Oped as such. project ICU impact: 0.000 Area Traft Mitloatton: Sigo"camill"Prad NO Capa*upr"mdln"hldesparhowofgreen Total VOL I Mf 1 243 3284 0 3284 1 a 2284 1 a 3284 ....... .... MbLeft 20 1 1600 0.013 2 22 1 IODO 0.014 0 22 1 1800 0.014 2 24 1 1600 0.016 0 24 1 1000 0.015 Na Thru Its 1 1600 0.072 9 124 1 1500 D.078 D 124 1 1500 0.079 5 IV I Iwo O.Dal 0 132 1 1600 0.0113 No Right 1030 1 1600 0.549 03 1121 1 1800 0.701 0 1121 1 IBOO 0.701 0 1121 1 lew 0.701 0 1121 1 1600 0.701 So Left 72 1 ISQQ 0.045 a 79 1 1600 0.049 0 7B I Iwo 0.049 0 To i iSDD 0.049 0 78 1 IODD 0.049 so Thn, 274 2 3200 0.104 22 2D8 2 3200 0.112 0 296 2 3200 0.112 -8 209 2 3200 0,110 0 206 2 32DD 0.110 So. Right 59 0 0 5 B4 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 64 0 0 - 0 54 0 0 Eb Left 11 1 1500 0.007 1 12 1 1800 0.007 0 12 1 1600 0.007 0 12 1 1600 0.007 0 12 1 1600 0.007 •yl 834 2 3200 0.208 51 885 2 3200 0.224 0 885 2 3200 0224 0 605 2 3200 0.224 0 685 2 3200 0.224 Ell Z" 31 0 0 - 2 33 0 0 0 33 0 0 .2 31 0 0 0 31 0 0 'IWWb b L." 324 1 1600 1 203 26 360 1 1600 0219 a 350 1 1600 0219 0 3m 1 MOO 0219 a 3511 1 I= 0219 Wb ll'- 436 2 3200 0.145 35 471 2 .3200 0.156 0 471 2 3200 0.156 0 471 2 32DO 0.166 0 471 2 3200 0.15e Right 27 0 0 2 29 0 0 - 0 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 :7!1: :7::: .......... 7'0.6ff '. . . 0.642 0.674 9.1074 0.174 9.974 LOS E . 9 2 E E • Key coniffleting mwentarit as a part of ICU. Functions as 0 separate turiff Ions. however, Is not Oped as such. project ICU impact: 0.000 Area Traft Mitloatton: Sigo"camill"Prad NO Capa*upr"mdln"hldesparhowofgreen Total VOL I Mf 1 243 3284 0 3284 1 a 2284 1 a 3284 OD 11"COTT, LAA 4 GREENPAR, ENGINEERS 1560 CaWnde Odo, SUN& 12; Costs Mass CA 92626 (714) 641.1607 INTERS901ION CAPACITY UTILISATION Intansedw: It SUPO"Avemeatil'thStreet N-S St Sup6ftrAvGnW4 peakViur. PM Dam: 05129107 E-WSt 17th Sheet Annual Growth: 1.00% Damotcoot 2007 poijact " Master plate EIR pw;eCv0n yw 20I5 FIN: N:%290012052SSZ000Yeaf20I5.xIs Cmed Typo: 50 Traft Signal • Key wriflidni; movement as a pan of ICU. Pra]edtCUIMpsCt: 0.06 Area TMITIC Mftation: Fwdm " a Separate am land, (a not striped as 0=11. SigntlIcant enpoa NO Counumducledbr. National Dam& Surveying SaMbOl lrdwv*L 1 3022 1 212 J265 1 0 2268 20 3285 d 3286 ..... . ... . ........ ............. Nb Left so I loco 0.000 9 104 1 000 0.085 a 104 1 lace 0.065 • a 104 1 loco 0.005 - 0 104 1 ism 0.0115 NbThm 170 1 loco 0.106 14 lu 1 1600 0.115 a lu 1 1600 0.115 a 184 1 loco 0.115 0 184 1 Met) 0115 No login 851 1 1600 0,407 52 703 1 lace 0.439 a 703 1 loco 0A39 a 703 1 lace 0.430 0 703 1 terA 0.439 So Left 87 1 1000 0,054 7 04 1 lace 0.059 0 04 1 ism 0.059 0 94 1 lace 0.069 0 24 1 lace 0L059 So Thm 317 2 3200 0,123 25 342 2 3200 0.153 0 342 2 3200 0.133 • 18 350 2 3200 0.138 • 0 350 2 3200 0.138 • So RtOt 78 0 a 6 04 0 0 a (M 0 a . I a u a 0 0 84 a 0 Fb Left 28 1 lace 0.016 2 28 1, 16th 0.018 a 20 1 lace 0.018 a 25 1 lace 0.010 0 28 1 loco 0.013 Eb Thru 543 2 3200 0.192 • 43 588 2 3200 0207 • a ass 2 3200 0.20 • a 586 2 3200 02" ' 0 596 2 3200 0206 - Eb Right 70 a a 6 76 a a a 76 a a 4 80 a a 0 so a 0 Wo Left 477 1 1800 0.220 - 38 515 1 16m 0.322 * a 516 1 1600 0.322 * 0 515 1 16CO 0.322 - 0 516 1 1600 0.322 ' Wb Ttm 427 2 3200 0.159 34 451 2 Sm 0.171 0 461 2 3200 0.171 a 461 2 3200 0.171 0 461 2 3200 0.171 WD Right at 0 a a 87 0 a a 07 0 a - 0 87 a 0 0 87 a 0 ... :::777::: Qw owelloor.: 7.: :.1. .7 "O� - -:7 ICU 0.073 0.727 0.727 0.733 6.735 i I 1 1.1011 a 0 0 0- - - • Key wriflidni; movement as a pan of ICU. Pra]edtCUIMpsCt: 0.06 Area TMITIC Mftation: Fwdm " a Separate am land, (a not striped as 0=11. SigntlIcant enpoa NO Counumducledbr. National Dam& Surveying SaMbOl lrdwv*L 1 3022 1 212 J265 1 0 2268 20 3285 d 3286 LS180CTT. LAW d GREENSPAN• ENOINEERS 1580 COrPmte 094, Sa6e 112, COMB Mega CA 92626 (714) 041-1567 Intersection: 20. N-S St N;T."Seul9verd E•W St 17th Street "Oct Hoag MaeNr Plan EM FTS: N1250W2052SS29CUYea2015a69 .Control Type: 80 TfN5c Bgnel Newporl Boulevard at 17th Street Peek Hour: AM Annual Growth: 1.00% Date: 0624107 Date of Count 2007 Projection Year. 2016 �:,:> :::::::::::::: r'.: i:':: is is y :....:..:........: i is i <:::;:;:::; •: •;.;. :. !c4wa I...........: ........ ........ .V1lI....:. ::.:.:tar, ..:....:..............: ..: ?. 1 Nb Left 48 1 1800 0.029 4 5o 1 1600 0.031 0 50 60 1 Nb Thru logo 3 4800 0,354 . 136 1835 3 4800 0.302 . 1 1600 0.031 0 50 1 160D 0.031 0;: 1 1600 0.031 Nb Right 197 1 1800 0.123 16 213 1 1600 0.133 0 1835 3 4800 0282 .9 1826 3 4800 0.380 • 0 1626 3 '4600 0.380 0 213 1 1000 0.133 .1 212 1 1600 0.132 0 212 1 1600 0.132 Sb Left 749 2 3200 0.234 • 80 009 2 3200 0.263 • 0 809 Sb TPoo 1439 3 4800 0,390 115 1554 3 4800 0,430 2 3200 0.253 0 809 2 3200 0.253 . 0 809 2 3200 0.253 ' Sh Right 472 0 0 38 510 0 0 0 1554 3 4800 0.430 .83 1471 3 4800 0.413 0 1471 3 4800 0.413 0 510 0 0 0 510 0 0 0 510 0 0 Eb 834 3 4800. 0.130 53 717 3 4800 0.149 0 717 ' Eb Thru Tiw 435 2 3200 0.144 35 470 2 3200 0.156 3 4600 0.149 0 717 3 41100 0.149 . 0 717 3 4800 0.149 Eb RIght 27 0 0 2 29 0 0 470 2 3200 0.156 0 470 2 3200 0.158 0 470 2 3200 0.158 0 0 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 79 0 0 Wb Left Wb Thru 136 346 2 3 3200 4800 0.043 0.072 11 28 149 2 3200 0.047 0 149 2 3200 0.047 .7 142 2 3200 0.044 0 142 2 3200 WO Right lie 1 1800 0.074 9 374 3 4800 0.070 0 374 3 4800 0.078 • 0 374 3 4800 0.078 0 374 3 0.044 - 127 1 1600 0.080 0 127 1 1800 0.080 0 127 1 6800 0.078 1600 0.080 0 127 1 1600 0.080 Yd19N�dlloaviriwi :::::::::::::: :::�•Od4 `: :: >::::: X :- :-:- :- :::-:-:V-:::: i:::O;ObQ . 1.;:;.:.;.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.:.;.;.;.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.:.;.;.;......,.....:...•...:..:......:.......,.,.,.......,....:. ICU 01798 ...0. 400.!•....... v............ v. ..•......OA90.'.........v..i:0} .•..•.:..,..................... }:•iii }iii } }ii }ii:�A447i .. .. . LOS C 0.1162 0.D 2 0.890 0.890 O C - ee7 oomecang movement as a pert M lCU. •• Funt6ons as o sapamts turn lane, hIMMuSt, 16 not gulped ae such Counts GonduCted by: Neilon9l Odra 6 Surve711tg Servlrse COPacly expressed In Whides per hour of pram. P-Ject ICU Impact 4.002 Area TmNe Mligaeon: SIgN(xaNtmpact: NO Teal VOL 1 0330 1 606 6838 8836 1 •1 6736 0 6738 O LINSCOTT. LAW A GREENSPAN. 9111011INEERS 1580 OWS01119 OM, SM 122, 0098 MM CA 02020 (714) 0414587 IntlMdon: 20. N4 St NOMM Boulevard E-W at 17M a"" Project: Hog Master Plan EIR File: Nawh2052S52MCUYm201 $As Coned Type: SO Trento Signal NBWW Boulevard at 171h Street Peak Hour. Put Annual Grovi: 1.00% Dm: 05124)07 Care of Count: 2007 pmjaciim Yaw. 2DI5 • •Functions as a separate turn lane, hinvever. Is not Billod as lurch. Cturrus conducted by. Nra5on*) Dom & Surveying FArvk;o Capacity expressed 6, vehicles per hour of own. Peeled ICU impact; -o.aoe Area Traffic Mitigation: ftnoontherita NO I TOW VOL 1 U70 --7- we 7426 1 0 7428 1 .80 7348 1 0 7846 ......... �Wlki VArA PIKOXCIT 1W. 1q: i . . ... ..... i291 UVItURAWAY101111i ... ......... . .... !!A i�!�i-% jiii sts ...... .......... .... ......... Ned: �:i - Zrw No Lan 73 I ism 0.00 6 To i iwD 0.040 D 70 1 1600 0,049 0 79 1 lose 0.049 0 79 1 less 0.069 No Thru loss 3 480) 0127 126 legs 3 480 0.353 0 less 3 4800 0.353 is 1867 3 4800 0.345 0 1657 It 4800 0.345 No "111 172 1 ism 0.105 14 ioB 1 100 DAIS D tell 1 1600 sile .2 164 1 two 0.115 0 164 1 less DAIS So Left 78a 2 3200 0.246 93 851 2 3200 021111 0 661 2 3200 0.286 0 Sol 2 3200 0286 0 051 2 3200 0.268 Sb Thm 1821 3 ASDO 0.441 14e log? 3 4600 0.477 0 too? 3 4000 D.477 -38 1029 3 4800 0.40 0 1929 3 4WD 0.469 So Right 296 0 0 24 J22 0 0 0 322 0 0 0 322 0 0 - 0 322 0 0 Sh Len 837 3 480D 0.133 at age 3 4800 0.143 0 808 3 4800 0.143 0 Sao 3 4800 0.143 0 flea 3 4800 0.143 Sit Thm 614 2 3200 0.171 41 $55 2 3200 0.104 0 666 2 3200 OASA 0 666 2 3200 0.184 0 656 2 3200 0.784 EbRIght 32 0 0 3 33 0 0 0 36 0 0 - 0 36 0 0 0 36 0 0 Wb Left 227 2 3200 0.071 18 245 2 3200 0.077. 0 246 2 320D 0.077 .2 243 2 3200 0.07B 0 243 ? 3200 0.076 ft Thru 562 3 4800 0.117 45 007 3 4800 0A24 a SOT 3 4WD 0525 0 Sol 3 4600 0.126 0 607 3 4000 0A25 WD Right 10 1 $Sao 0.114 15 199 1 1000 0.124 0 100 1 $Sao 0.124 0 sea 1 1600 0.124 0 198 1 ISIDD 0,124 .. . . .. ... ....... ICU 0.823 0.689 0.080 0.080 LOS D 0 a D • •Functions as a separate turn lane, hinvever. Is not Billod as lurch. Cturrus conducted by. Nra5on*) Dom & Surveying FArvk;o Capacity expressed 6, vehicles per hour of own. Peeled ICU impact; -o.aoe Area Traffic Mitigation: ftnoontherita NO I TOW VOL 1 U70 --7- we 7426 1 0 7428 1 .80 7348 1 0 7846 LUISCraff. LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 COPPOMM Od", Sub 12A Cows Mon CA 92626 (714) 841-1587 IntortmCdon; 21. N-S St: Newport Bouts"re E.W St 18101 ShoselfROchader Soviet PM)ect Hoso Master Plan EIR Fft; N' 00012052852YGUyea201 5.,do OunualTYPIEGOEM Split IMMAN911ON CAPACM UTILIZA11ON Newport Boulevard at 18th StmelfRomester Street Peak Flow. AM Annual Groatno 1.00% Calls' 0544107 Date of Count 2007 Projection Year 2015 MY mnalong MoveMrA as a part of ICU. FuncilOns 08 8 "Punta turn 18M. hommeer. Is no striped as such, COVIIINCOnducledby'. National Data & SumlIng Services Prcjs(rl ICU knPBCt 4014 Area Traffic Nalftatim: Capacrq expressed in vehicles per hour ot green. Slgnffimnt hnipact NO Irclattrat 1 5688 465 8147 1 0 6143 1 -92 6051 0 8051 ........ ..... . . . WGWAP is L . ... . . ..................... .... • • Nb Left Nbmm 48 2275 1 3 1600 4900 0,029 0.475 4 182 50 2457 1 IWO 0.031 0 so 1 1800 0,03, 0 50 1 1600 0.031 • 0 50 1 1800 0,031 No RI 7 0 0 1 3 4800 0.513 0 2457 3 4800 0.513 .2 2448 3 4800 0.812 0 2448 3 "00 0.612 a 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 Sit Left So Thru 72 2440 1 3 1600 4800 0.045 0.550 a 211 78 1 1600 0,040 0 70 1 1600 0.049 0 70 1 1600 0.040 0 78 1 1600 0.049 So RIpI 113 1 1000 0.071 9 2851 3 4800 0,524 0 2851 3 4800 0,594 483 2768 3 4800 0.577 0 2788 3 4800 0.577 122 1 1800 0.078 0 122 1 1600 0.075 -8 114 1 1600 0.071 0 114 1 IWO 0.071 Eb Left Eb Thru 240 102 2 1 3200 0.078 20 269 2 3200 0.084 0 269 2 3200 0.084 5 277 2 3200 0.087 0 277 2 3200 0.087 Eb Right 64 1 1500 IWO 0.004 0.040 a 5 110 1 1600 0.089 0 110 1 1600 0.069 0 110 1 1600 ODBS 0 110 1 IWO 0.069 so 1 1000 0.043 0 89 t 1600 0.043 0 ag 1 1600 0.043 0 09 1 tsoo 0.043 Wit Left WO Thru I 119 1 1 1600 1600 O.Oot 0.074 0 1 1 IWO 0.001 0 1 1 1000 0,001 0 1 1 1600 ODOI 0 1 1 1600 0.001 Wit RISht 50 0 0 a 4 76 54 1 1600 0.080 0 76 1 IWO O.Ofto 0 75 1 IWO 0.080 0 75 1 1600 0.080 I 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 54 0 0 �YA' -Ail ........... Q* pwsauur'-:.7-7 ........ ...... ICU ILOO 0.731 0 0.188 0.779 MY mnalong MoveMrA as a part of ICU. FuncilOns 08 8 "Punta turn 18M. hommeer. Is no striped as such, COVIIINCOnducledby'. National Data & SumlIng Services Prcjs(rl ICU knPBCt 4014 Area Traffic Nalftatim: Capacrq expressed in vehicles per hour ot green. Slgnffimnt hnipact NO Irclattrat 1 5688 465 8147 1 0 6143 1 -92 6051 0 8051 UNSCO", LAWS, GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1560 COTPO" Drtft, SM 122, Costs AOSAS CA 92626 (714) 64f.1597 Intemwetion! 21, We St NGWPon Boulswed E-'N St 16th SbeeUROCaeeler threat pmasco HUD mastar Plan EIR Fee: NVOGM05265211CU16=201 Exis CabolType:61BE-W SPIN Newport Sout"ard at lath StremnlRochestar Strest Peak Hour. PM Annual Gmwft. I'M Date: 0524107 Dam of Count 2007 Projection Yew. 2015 • Key MnMcUng rimment as a Pon of ICU. Fmcdons as a separsta turn lane, however, Is got striped as such. Counts wriducled by: National Date & Surveying Samloas Capacity epmmd in "hicle, per hour of green, Pmjact ICU impact: •0.008 Area TmMc MI(Illagan: 9Igr6=tImp1c1: NO I row VOL I Boos 1 529 My 1 0 7117 -T-40 7077 1 0 1077 iEiA I ; ................ opoxe.: :i::;A RPAQmT.TI.W W ... .............. iiiiiiwl jz;:: ............................. 01::!% he :4 .. . ... )Ojjjjw" 2011: Nb Lee III 1 1800 0.069 • 0 120 1 1000 0.075 • 0 120 1 1600 0.075 • 0 120 1 1600 0.075 • 0 120 1 1600 0.075 Nb Thru 2700 3 4000 0.665 216 2016 3 4800 0.810 0 2916 3 4800 0.610 38 2878 3 46DO 0.603 0 2878 3 4800 0903 Nb Right 13 a a 1 14 0 0 a 14 a 0 0 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 Sit Left 707 1 MOO 0.067 0 lie 1 1600 0.072 0 lie I 1600 0.072 0 116 t WCO 0.072 0 116 1 law 0,072 So Thor 297e 3 4800 0.599 • 230 3108 3 4800 0.847 • 0 3106 3 4800 0.047 • -M SON 3 4600 0.639 • 0 3068 3 4800 0.639 Sit Rlihd 159 1 1600 0.0" 13 172 1 1600 0.107 0 172 1 1600 0.107 18 136 1 1600 0.117 0 198 1 1600 0.117 Eb Left 287 2 3200 0.090 • 23 310 2 3200 0.097 • 0 310 2 3200 0.097 • 0 310 2 3200 0.007 • 0 310 2 3200 0.097 Eb Thm as 1 1800 0.053 7 92 1 1600 0.057 0 92 1 1500 0.057 0 92 1 1600 0.057 0 92 1 1600 0.057 Eb Rigim as I INC 0.043 5 73 1 IWO 0.048 0 73 1 IOCO 0.046 0 73 1 ISCO 0.046 0 73 1 1600 0.045 Wit Left Is 1 1600 0.009 I le 1 1600 0.010 0 111 1 1600 0.010 0 Is t WOO 0.010 0 Is 1 1600 0.010 We Thru lie 1 1600 0.117 • 9 125 1 1000 0.126 • a 125 1 1600 0.125 • a 125 1 1600 0,126 • 0 125 1 1600 0.126 We Right 71 0 0 6 77 0 0 0 77 0 a 0 77 0 a 0 77 a 0 7 .......... .............. . ....... ........... .... A.- . ........ .... .............. .. ...... ........ .. . . .4.000......... .........................9094.. IOU asM G."s 0346 0.937 0.937 LOS D a E a E • Key MnMcUng rimment as a Pon of ICU. Fmcdons as a separsta turn lane, however, Is got striped as such. Counts wriducled by: National Date & Surveying Samloas Capacity epmmd in "hicle, per hour of green, Pmjact ICU impact: •0.008 Area TmMc MI(Illagan: 9Igr6=tImp1c1: NO I row VOL I Boos 1 529 My 1 0 7117 -T-40 7077 1 0 1077 I iP W UNSCGTT, LAW 6 GRgaxBPAN, ENGINEBRa 7580 CMPOFM DrAir, SUNS 122, Cases Mesa CA 92628 (714) 611 -1587 INTBRaEDTIDNCAPACITY UTILIZATION mterseetlon: 22, N -S at NeWpwt Boulevard N8WPOn Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard E -W at Harbor Boulevard Peak Hour. AM DOW: 0524417 Project Hoeg Master Ran EIR Annual Gm%Ah: 1.00% Date of Count: 2007 File: N:12600)2052B52VCUYaa2015.be Pmlemlen Year. 2015 Cobol Typa: 80 Tra16c Signal .:..:::....:. ........: ND Left ND Thru Nb Right Be Loft Be Thru Be Right ........:.:... .::. •:.r:...:.:.:........: 177 2 3200 2419 3 4800 0 0 0 0 0 0 2329 3 4800 25 0 0 .... 0,056 0.5D4 - 0.000 0.491 • - ...... ........ 14 101 194 2613 0 0 0 0 186 2515 2 28 ........:.. 2 3 0 0 3 0 3200 48W 0 0 4800 0 . .796:::7:7 0.060 0.544 - 0.000 0.330 , - .;.::pC15;NR7Hi :na i;:;: I.i:::::::::::::::.:. 0 191 0 2813 0 0 0 0 0 2515 0 26 MVI+ATIg9y ' 6tl :i: ; ;::.: • 9:::';::: i:::.:...:....:•;:•;•;.: s:.:.:•;.: 2 3200 0.080 3 4800 0.544 0 0 0 0.000 3 4800 0.530 , 0 0 - 6: P :..;.:.;:::.:.:.:...:...,:......... 0 lei .1 2612 0 0 -85 2430 0 28 ........... 2 3200 3 4800 0 0 3 4800 0 0 .:..............:.............. 0.060 0.544 0.000 0.512 , - gob:: M .IxITA I 0 191 0 2012 0 0 0 2430 0 28 ::;. .. ... 2 3 0 3 0 > ..............: :....: 3200 4800 0 4800 0 ;...., ........... 0.060 0.544 0.000 0.512 - Eb Left Eb Thm Eb Right 27 0 530 1 0 2 1600 0 3200 0.017 0.000 0.106 , 2 0 42 29 0 572 1 0 2 1800 0 3200 0.018 0.000 0.179 , 0 0 0 29 0 572 1 0 2 1600 0 3200 0.016 0.000 0.179 , 0 0 -6 29 0 566 1 1600 0 0 2 3200 0.018 0.000 0.177 • 0 0 0 29 0 566 1 0 2 1800 0 3200 0.016 D.D00 0.177 Wb Left Wit Thm Wb Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,000 • 0.000 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 , 0.000 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0.000 - 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 - Y+aawiUlowiowi:::: 410 Loa 9.087 e . ...9 • t:•:•::::.:......•>::•:::::::<:::::::.....::.:.....:..:...•.•..•:.•.•:.•.:..:....• 709 ................ 0.708 C ................9,090......�.�. 0,709 C �.•..•.•...•... ... .... :..:...4. ..........:..•: 990.?•. 0.689 a ..•:.•.•:.•.•.....:.:.....:.... .•:. . : .....•:...::..:.... ...•:.<::b.OQb.;I.. . DA89 a may aeme®ng movement as a Pert or ICU. Functions as a separate tum Iona, however• le not atdpad as such. Pmpq ICU Impact: -0.020 Area Tmek Mitigation: Counts conducted by: National Data 8 Swvoying SeMOas a ct ICU Impact NO Capacity expressed In vehidea per lour of green. Significant P Rioly" 1 6508 1 N/ 8941 0 8941 •9 857 5857 Uli LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1380 CotMMIB Dore, SUNd 122, Cage Mean CA 02026 (714) 641.1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY WIT1.7"Ill InammocDon: 22. Newport Boulevard atHarom, Boulevard "St NewpOn BOUIevaM Peak Hour PM Date; Meal? E-W St Harbor Boulevard Annual Growth: 1.0% ortaofCount zolff Project Hoag Master Plan EIR Propectan Year. 2015 Fee: N:126D012052S62VCUYem20I5-xIs Control Type: 30TmMc Signal Kay conflicting Movement as a Pan of ICU. Functions a a soperale turn lane, hmor. Is not tuned as such PmIecticuImpact .0.005 Area TWIC N0UP1100: SignIfflicardloupsta NO Capacity expressed In vehideal per hour of green. Mai 1 0226 498 0726 1 0 8726 .60 Wsee 1 -3-6686 .... ....... . ...... ............ No Left 408 2 3200 0.153 39 527 2 3200 0.165 0 527 2 3200 0.165 •3 524 2 3200 0,164 • 0 524 2 3200 0,154 No Thm 2521 3 4800 0.525 202 2723 3 4800 0.507 0 2723 3 4800 0.557 e5 2588 3 4800 0.550 0 Me 3 4600 0.1e0 No Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 So Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 o.0D0 So Thru 2581 3 4800 0.551 Zoe 2767 3 4800 0.595 0 2707 3 4600 0,695 .20 2767 3 4800 0.591 - 0 2757 3 4000 0.591 So FrIgilat 62 0 0 - 6 67 0 0 - 0 07 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 07 0 0 Eb Laft 58 1 1500 0.036 5 63 1 ISOD 0.030 0 63 1 1600 0.039 0 63 1 1800 0.039 0 83 1 1800 0,039 Cla ThJU 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.010 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Eb Right 518 2 3200 0.182 41 559 2 3200 0.175 0 559 2 3200 0.175 -2 557 2 32D0 0.174 0 557 2 3200 0,174 Wbtaft 0 0 0 D.DDD 0 0 0 0 D.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Wb Thou 0 0 o 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Wb Right 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 71.7 7-%7.: -7.7;7-: -: :.I 0.740 0.799 0.799 0.704 0.794 �ILCOUS c c c c c Kay conflicting Movement as a Pan of ICU. Functions a a soperale turn lane, hmor. Is not tuned as such PmIecticuImpact .0.005 Area TWIC N0UP1100: SignIfflicardloupsta NO Capacity expressed In vehideal per hour of green. Mai 1 0226 498 0726 1 0 8726 .60 Wsee 1 -3-6686 iTY LINSOM, LAW GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 CDfPmb Did", Sub 122, COO A(,,, CA 92626 (714) 6414587 INTERSECTION CARAWY UTIUZATION 1AWnswicion; 23. WE St Nanort Boulevard "on Boulevard M Broadway Boulevard E-W St: Broadlval, Boulevard Peak Hour AM Dow; 0594107 Project: Hoag Master Plan EIR Anna] GmMh: 1.00% Date of Count: 2007 File: N:%25W2m2552VCUYmr20l5.4s projection Yew. 2015 Contact Type: 00 E-W Spot Key conflicting movement a a pan of ICU. Functions as a sepinne cum are, however, is not shiped as such. Project ICU "pact 0.000 Area Traffic, Mitigation: CNMWnduMdby: National Data& Surveying Services SliInificartfinpact NO CaPKI14 expressed In vehicles per hour of green. ITONIVOL 1 8060 1 464 5464 0 544 1 48 5361 1 0 $388 ................. i ...... M**i, ... . ... . ... iy iWi2h; • No Left No nn, I 2440 1 3 1000 4000 0.001 0.513 0 195 1 1 1800 0.001 0 1 1 Iwo 0.001 0 1 1 low 0.001 0 1 1 1600 0.001 No Right 24 0 0 2835 3 4800 0.564 0 2635 3 4000 0.554 •1 2634 3 4800 0.550 0 204 3 4800 0.554 2 26 0 0 0 26 0 D 0 28 0 0 0 26 0 0 SbLeft 32 1 1500 0.020 3 35 1 IWO 0.022 0 35 1 1600 0.022 0 35 1 1600 0.022 0 35 1 1SDO 0.022 So Thru 2409 3 4800 0.502 103 2602 3 4WD 0.642 0 2602 3 4800 0.542 .85 2517 3 4800 0324 0 2517 3 4000 0.524 Bb Right 3 1 lam 0.005 1 9 1 1600 0.005 0 9 1 1600 0.005 0 9 1 1600 0.005 0 9 1 loon 0.005 Ele Left a 0 0 0.000 1 9 0 0 0,000 0 9 0 0 0.000 0 9 0 0 0.000 0 9 0 0 0.000 So Thru 4 1 1000 0.008 0 4 1 1600 0,009 0 4 1 1600 0.008 D 4 1 1600 0.008 0 4 1 008 10.002 So Right 3 1 1000 0.002 0 3 1 1600 0.002 0 3 1 1800 0,002 0 3 1 1600 0.002 0 3 1 11:mm Wb Left 31 1 Iwo 0.019 2 31 1 1600 0.021 0 33 1 1600 0,021 0 33 1 1600 0.021 0 33 t logo 0.021 Wb Thn, a 1 1600 0.055 0 5 1 100k0 0.001 0 5 1 1600 0.061 0 5 1 1600 0.061 0 5 1 1600 0.001 We Right 85 0 0 7 92 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 92 0 0 .......... ............ ICU 0.607 0.646 0.046 63" 0.446 LOS A 0 0 0 a Key conflicting movement a a pan of ICU. Functions as a sepinne cum are, however, is not shiped as such. Project ICU "pact 0.000 Area Traffic, Mitigation: CNMWnduMdby: National Data& Surveying Services SliInificartfinpact NO CaPKI14 expressed In vehicles per hour of green. ITONIVOL 1 8060 1 464 5464 0 544 1 48 5361 1 0 $388 UNSCOTT, LAW A ORPOMBPAR, ENGINEERS 1680 CoWntle DIM, Safe 122, Costs Mass CA 92626 (1141641.1587 INTERSECTICK CAPACITY UTI=TION hifterseclicki: 23. NavvIxxt Boulevard at Broadway SoulasaM N-S St Ne"Ch Boulevard Peak Hour PM Date: 06124107 E•W St Smsetayeoula"rd Arutual Gro : 1,00% Data of Count 20D7 Project: Hong Master Plan EIR Projection Year 2016 File: 14:00012052552II00Nte2DI l Control Type. 00 F-W SoR Key corifficling Movement as a l 01 ICU. Functions as a sepal turn lam. livesver. (a not ibliped Be SuCh. Pmjoct ICU finpoct 407 Area Traffic MINsfion: ODUMSCOndudedbr. habitat Date& Sumillng Services Slilrdflualut IMPOCt NO Call evressel In Wool" per hour of grow. Mogul 1 $556 1 444 6000 1 0 6000 1 .65 5945 1 0 5945 'Als, ............ is A h �lm a qohm:*giigw %-S ti ;:Wp* Nb Left 19 1 1600 D.D12 2 21 1 160D (1.(113 D 21 1 IWO D.D13 a 21 1 160D D.013 D 21 1 1600 0.(113 Nb Thr, 2507 3 480D 0.636 - 201 2708 3 4800 (1.678 - D 2708 3 480D 0.678 - -36 2673 3 480D D.671 - D 2673 3 4000 0.571 Nb Right III D D 5 6e D a D 66 D D 0 66 a D D so D 0 Slb Left Ill I 160D (1,059 - D 12D 1 1600 D.D75 • D 120 1 1630 D.D75 • 0 12D I 160D (1.076 - D 120 1 1600 0.075 Sh TON 2569 3 JISM 0.639 207 2796 3 4800 (11.583 D 2796 3 480D D.503 .20 2776 3 4800 (11.678 D 2776 3 4800 D.678 So Right so I 160D D.D38 5 66 1 100D D.041 0 65 1 WOD D.041 0 66 1 1600.0.041 D 06 1 1600 D.041 Eb Left 15 D D 000D 1 16 D D (11.00) D is D D (l D to D D (11.00D D 16 D D (1.00D Eb Thru 26 1 1600 D.025 ' 2 27 1 1600 D.D27 - D 27 1 1500 (1.027 - D 27 1 1000 (1.027 ' D 27 1 1800 (1.027 Eb Right III I 140D 0006 1 ti 1 1600 OA07 a 11 1 1600 0.037 a 11 I loco 0.007 0 11 1 1800 0.007 Wb Left 46 1 160D DA29 4 SD 1 1600 D.D31 D SD t 1600 D.031 D so 1 1600 0031 D 50 1 1600 D.D31 Wb Thin, 22 1 16DD D.071 - 2 24 1 1600 DWS - D 24 1 1600 D.D76 • D 24 1 1600 D.D76 - D 24 1 160D D.006 Wb Right 91 D D 7 go D D D 98 0 D D so D D D as 0 D ........................ ............ ........................ ........................ ....... ........ I . . . .. . ....... ...... . •. . . . ::V ICU 0.700 0.760 a.?$$ 0.745 0,740 LOS a C C C C Key corifficling Movement as a l 01 ICU. Functions as a sepal turn lam. livesver. (a not ibliped Be SuCh. Pmjoct ICU finpoct 407 Area Traffic MINsfion: ODUMSCOndudedbr. habitat Date& Sumillng Services Slilrdflualut IMPOCt NO Call evressel In Wool" per hour of grow. Mogul 1 $556 1 444 6000 1 0 6000 1 .65 5945 1 0 5945 I J LINSCOTT. LAW d ORGGNSPAN. ENOINENIIS 1580 Corporate Or9.e, SuOe 123. Coate Mesa CA 92616 (714) 641.1597 Inter»eean: 24. N-S St Newpon Boulevard E -W Sc t904Street Project H089 Meader Plan EIR Flo: N:126DD120S2652VCUYsa2015.ads Control Type: 00 E•W Sp0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILMATNIN Newport BOWWen at 19111 SI VW Peek Hour. AM Annual Growm: 1.00% Odle'. 0524107 Dare olCoum: 2007 Projac0on Yea, 2015 Key Wnfdcdng movement as a pen of ICU. Fund ons as a eperete hall lane, however. Is not strlpea as such COume conducted by; National Data d Sumayln9 Semioss Capadly evmmed in vehicles per hour of grebe. Pr*d ICUkaAw.. 0.000 Area ITeNomkiga6on: Slgnifiant Impact NO ate 6 SB 7536 1 0 7616 1 .86 7460 1 0 7460 NO LeB NO Thru 37 2430 1 3 1601) 4800 D.023 0.506 3 194 4D 1 1600 D.025 D 40 1 1800 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 NO Flight 18 1 1600 0.010 2524 3 4800 OA47 ' 0 2614 3 4000 0.541 ' A 2823 3 48M 0.547 0 2823 3 4800 0.547 1 17 1 1500 0.011 0 17 1 1800 0.011 0 17 1 1800 0.011 0 17 1 1600 01011 SO Left SOThm 181 1 1600 0.113 14 195 1 1600 0.122 0 195 1 1800 0.122 0 195 1 1600 0.122 0 195 1 1600 0.122 ' S0 Right 2369 505 4 0 6400 0.449 190 2559 4 6400 0.485 0 2559 4 6400 0.485 -83 2476 4 6400 0.472 0 2476 4 6400 0.472 0 - 40 545 0 0 0 545 0 0 - 0 545 0 0 0 545 0 0 - E0 Len E0 Thm 776 0 0 0.000 62 638 0 0 0.000 0 838 0 0 0.000 0 838 0 0 0.000 0 638 0 0 0.000 E0 Right 192 13 4 1 8400 0.151 15 207 4 6400 0.183 0 207 4 6400 0.163 0 207 4 6400 0.103 0 207 4 6400 0.163 ' 1600 0.006 1 14 1 1800 0.000 0 14 1 1800 0.009 0 14 1 1800 0.009 0 14 1 1600 0.009 VVY Left 36 t 1800 0.024 3 41 1 1500 0.028 0 41 1 1600 0.026 •2 39 1 1600 0.024 0 39 1 1600 0.024 W0 Thm 142 4 6400 0.088 11 153 4 6400 0.071 0 153 4 6400 0.071 0 153 4 6400 0.071 0 153 4 8400 0.071 WY Right 279 0 0 22 301 0 0 - 0 301 0 0 - 0 301 0 0 0 301 0 0 YOhaiA11oTiavii : ?::::::: >::::::: § qay,:. 1.;;.;.:• .. :•::::::•:•:::::•::•:•::::::•., .... ........................ ,... : t:•:•:•:•:•::::..•.•.:.;..:..•.•...•.•.;.:.•.•:....,......•..•....•:.•.: Q. OQQ...........•.•:...•..•..•:..•.......•.. A. pOQ..:.:.:..:..•..:.•:::::.::._.::::. .:..:..:..:..•.•.:.:..........•.•.•.•..•.:.: RA90::::::.:: .:::::::::::::::::::::.:.Q•QQb: ..:..:.•...•:.•.:.•. :.:..•:.... . :4•.: ICU 0.839 0,003 0301 0.603 0.903 LOS O E E E. E Key Wnfdcdng movement as a pen of ICU. Fund ons as a eperete hall lane, however. Is not strlpea as such COume conducted by; National Data d Sumayln9 Semioss Capadly evmmed in vehicles per hour of grebe. Pr*d ICUkaAw.. 0.000 Area ITeNomkiga6on: Slgnifiant Impact NO ate 6 SB 7536 1 0 7616 1 .86 7460 1 0 7460 0 LPISOCII'll LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS ISOO Corporate Wine, Suite 122, COO MUO CA 112628 (7141641.1387 Intela CON: 24. WE St Na"Ort Boulevard E•W St 19th Street Project Hoag Mager Plan EIR FW. H: N11100120525529CUYead011 5.)ds Control Type.'80 E•W Split Newport Boulevard at 19th Shag Peak Hour. PM Annual Gmenit: 1.00% Date: OSC4107 Date of Count 2007 pialactionyear. 2015 • Key conflicting movement as a pan of ICU. Functions So a saparkta, ban lane, hotaver. IS not Wood AS such. Countaconductardby; NeflonalDimASuiveyingServIcat Capacity expressed In Vehichn, per how of green. Project ICU Impact •0.007 Area TridliC Mitipation: Significant Impact No 2.q/ a1. 1 7667 607 8194 a 8194 1 46 also 1 0 8139 vto 0 66 1 1600 0.041 0 68 1 1600 0.041 No Left 61 1 100 0.038 6 its I IWO 0.041 0 as 1 1600 0.041 No Thou 2466 3 4800 0.514 - 197 zm 3 4800 0.565 0 2683 3 4800 0.555 - •34 2629 3 4800 0,648 - a 2029 3 4800 0.548 No Right 48 1 1600 0.029 4 50 1 1800 0.031 a 50 1 1800 0,031 •1 49 1 1600 0.030 0 49 1 1600 0.030 So Left 209 1 1600 0.131 - 17 220 1 1600 0.141 0 226 1 1600 0.141 - 0 226 1 1600 0.141 - 0 226 1 1600 0.141 So Thm 2697 4 8400 0.521 208 2005 4 8400 OA03 a 2606 4 0400 0.663 .20 2786 4 6400 0.559 0 2785 4 8400 0.559 So Right 737 0 0 59 798 0 0 0 798 0 0 0 7911 0 0 0 798 0 0 Eta Left 740 0 0 0.000 69 799 0 0 0.000 a 799 0 0 0.000 0 790 0 0 0.000 0 799 0 a 0,000 Sic TAN 200 4 SAM 0.147 - is Ills 4 5400 DASS 0 218 4 8400 0.169 - 0 216 4 6400 0,150 - 0 216 4 6400 0.159 Eb Right 24 1 1000 0.0115 2 26 1 1800 0.016 0 28 1 1800 0.016 0 26 1 1600 0.016 0 26 1 1800 0.018 Wb Left III I ieoo 0,038 6 as 1 1600 0.041 0 66 1 1600 0.041 0 as 1 1000 0.041 0 66 1 1600 0.0141 Wb Thru 283 4 6400 oom - 23 308 4 6,100 0.075 0 308 4 6400 0.075 - 0 306 4 0400 0.075 - 0 30 4 11400 0.075 Wb Riot 1113 0 0 13 178 0 0 0 178 0 0 0 176 0 0 0 176 a a : ... ... .... .. .... .. a04 .*..... ". ... ::: • :: : ICU 0.1192 2.030 0.00 0.923 0.923 LOS 0 a a a a • Key conflicting movement as a pan of ICU. Functions So a saparkta, ban lane, hotaver. IS not Wood AS such. Countaconductardby; NeflonalDimASuiveyingServIcat Capacity expressed In Vehichn, per how of green. Project ICU Impact •0.007 Area TridliC Mitipation: Significant Impact No 2.q/ a1. 1 7667 607 8194 a 8194 1 46 also 1 0 8139 YEAR 2015 ALTERNATIVE IINSCOTT. LAW & GREENSPAN, BnglneaTS LLG Ref. 2 -05 -2652 Hoeg Hospital Master Plan EIR 5:2500'.'_03255T:RcWrf.Appendlx Cmxr NneesJe: 110 i t .............. . ..... ............. . ...... ; "Y ZU !;4 gig" Nb Laft 13 0 o Ottialo • 0 13 0 0 0.000 • 0 so 0 0 0.000 • 0 so 0 0 0.000 • 0 so 0 0 0.000 Nb Thru 2 1 1600 0.010 0 2 1 1600 0.010 0 0 1 1800 0.031 0 0 1 1600 0.031 0 0 1 1600 0.031 No Right 58 1 *00 0.035 0 50 1 1600 0,036 0 so 1 1600 0.031 0 so 1 1600 0.031 0 50 1 1600 0,031 Sb Loft 31 0 0 0.000 0 31 0 0 0.000 0 60 0 0 0.000 0 so, 0 0 0.0110 0 50 0 0 OLD00 Sic Th1, 0 1 1600 0.029 • 0 0 1 1600 0.029 • 0 0 1 1600 0.044 • 0 0 1 1600 0.044 • 0 0 1 1600 0.044 - Sic Right! Is 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Eb Left 19 1 1600 0.012 0 to I ISDO 0.012 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 ISDO 0,019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 Eb Thn, 2894 3 4800 0.606 • 0 2894 3 4800 0,605 • 0 3580 3 4800 0.750 • -20 3550 3 4800 0.746 • 0 3560 3 4800 0.746 - Eb fttd 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 20 0 0 - 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 - lD UNSCOTT. LAW & ORMSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive, Suffe 122, Costa Aftual CA 92626 (714) 441-1597 [NtgltSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: I. orange $"M at West Comm Highway WS St: orange airew Peak Hour: AM Date: 052410I E41 St. WaIICMMHIghwey Annual Grosih: 1.00% Case of Count No? Project Hoag Masew Plan SIR Promotion Year. 2015 File: N.V6001205265211CUrYea201 SAXAs Control Type: SO Traffic Signal • Key conflicting imaninted So a earl M ICU. Fullethan, so a separate turn [an, however, Is nor strkpod as Such, Project ICU Impact -D.MM Area Traffic MitilialI NO Capacity asprammed in veffieles per hour of green. MINIMA 1 4101 1 0 4101 1 0 Slip .10 atill 1 0 $160 Wit Left 12 1 1600 0.008 • 0 12 1 1600 3.0011 • 0 20 I ISM 0.013 • 0 20 A 1600 0.011 • a 20 1 ISO D.OIS - Wit Thn, 1032 3 4800 0215 0 1032 3 4800 0,215 0 020 3 4800 0,275 10 1330 3 48D0 0.277 0 1330 3 4800 0.277 WD Right 11 I two 0.007 0 11 1 1600 0,007 a 20 1 1600 0.013 a 20 1 1600 0.013 a 20 1 1500 0,013 ................ ICU L642 0.642 0907 0 U103 0.512 LOS 0 0 D D D • Key conflicting imaninted So a earl M ICU. Fullethan, so a separate turn [an, however, Is nor strkpod as Such, Project ICU Impact -D.MM Area Traffic MitilialI NO Capacity asprammed in veffieles per hour of green. MINIMA 1 4101 1 0 4101 1 0 Slip .10 atill 1 0 $160 to dD 11.1118COrr. LAW Is 01191111SPAN, ZINGINEERS 1580 Corporate DM, Sufte 122, Come UM CA 92626 0 E E E 0 E iT-j J tT.)-L Jq;LT.Tj e7R I JV7 's, tnmmecuon: 1. Change Street M West Camet Highway H-S St Clar.09 Stram Peak Hour. PM Date: 05!24107 G-W $I: West Coast Highway Annual Crowlh: 1.00% Date of Count 2007 Project: Hoag mom" Pon EIR Patlemion Year. 2015 Flo: N:1280DM2S5211CUYo&20I6M-ma Count Type. 50 Traft Signal • Key conflicting M*VdMOM Io 8 Pon Of ICU, Purictlami Be a separate turn Who, however, is ftOt4WpQd U Won, pmlem IOU IMPSM A004 Ama Tnufc Witigallon; Counts conducted by. CRY Of NOWPM BOOM SIgntimot unpeol: NO Cap" onmumed in vehimme per Mur of green. ITOWVOL 1 4526 0 4620 0 6300 40 4talro 1 0 to ftlyt:::2 .. ...... ..... ..... .. gwW.- No I.Oft 24 0 0 0.000 0 24 0 0 0.004 0 40 0 0 D.DDD 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 do 0 0 0.0110 No Thor 5 1 1600 0.018 0 5 1 1800 0.018 0 10 1 1600 0.031 a 10 1 1600 0,031 0 10 1 HIM oA31 No Right 38 1 11100 0.024 0 so I 1600 0.024 0 50 1 1800 0.031 0 so I IEDO 0.031 0 50 1 Isoo 0.031 Bb Left M a 0 0.000 0 31 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0,000 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 So Thru 3 1 1600 0.031 0 3 1 1000 0.031 0 0 1 16DO 0.031 0 0 1 1600 0.031 0 0 1 1600 0.031 St, Right is 0 0 0 is 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 Eb Left 38 1 Ma 4024 0 38 1 1600 0,1124 0 40 1 1800 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1800 0.025 ED Thru 1246 3 4WD 0,262 0 1245 3 4000 0,262 0 1680 3 4900 0.358 0 logo 3 JB00 0.359 0 1690 3 4800 0.398 EP Right 11 a 0 D 11 0 0 0 30 0 a 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 Wb Left 37 1 teol) 0.023 0 37 1 1600 0.023 0 40 1 1600 0.025 a 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 We ThIv 3037 3 4800 0.6" 0 3037 3 4800 0.033 0 3320 3 4000 0.692 -20 3300 3 4500 0.08 0 3300 3 4600 0.660 WI, Right 41 1 1800 0.020 0 41 1 100 0.D2B 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.0% x :.:.: j . .:.:; . . . . . . - - . . Pvp:", , : , ICU P.008 0,740 01744 0.7" LOS B 0 C C C • Key conflicting M*VdMOM Io 8 Pon Of ICU, Purictlami Be a separate turn Who, however, is ftOt4WpQd U Won, pmlem IOU IMPSM A004 Ama Tnufc Witigallon; Counts conducted by. CRY Of NOWPM BOOM SIgntimot unpeol: NO Cap" onmumed in vehimme per Mur of green. ITOWVOL 1 4526 0 4620 0 6300 40 4talro 1 0 10 lT LINSOOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1500 CWPOrft DOM, State 122, Caere Mesa CA 92828 (7141641.1587 2. N-S St prospect Street PrOsPed Street at West Coast HJ9hWY E-W St: Walt coast High"y Peek Hour. AM Date: 06124W prolact F4080 Water Pan EIR Amual Growth: 1.OD% Data of Count: 2007 Re: N.VOOMD626529CUYew2ol SAR.As Pmjecaon Year. 2015 Dental Type: 50 TINIfic Sig"] Key wnfgcfiftg movement as a part of ICU. I'snetkuls he a separate own lane. however, Is not sniped as such. Project ICU Impact -O.OD6 Area Tmfflc Mifigation: Courds conducted by: National Data A Surveying Services sionfficantimpam, No Capacity expressed In vehows per how of Oman. Ito"IIAN, 1 4352 1 0 4262 1 0 SJ20 1 -20 52" 1 0 5200 la No Left No Thm No Right 13 2 se 0 1 1 0 1600 1400 0.000 0.009 0.024 0 0 0 13 2 39 0 1 1 0 1600 1500 O.ODO MODS 0.024 0 0 0 20 10 40 0 1 1 0 1800 loco 0.000 0.019 0.025 0 0 0 20 10 40 0 0 1 1800 1 1600 0.000 0.019 0.025 0 0 0 20 10 40 0 1 1 0 1600 1600 0.000 0.019 0,025 So Left SD Tim So Riot 223 0 17 0 1 0 0 1600 0 0.000 0.150 0 0 0 223 0 17 0 1 0 0 1600 0 0.000 0.150 0 0 0 ISO 0 0 0 1 0 0 1800 0 0,000 0.094 0 0 0 ISO 0 0 0 0 1 1600 0 0 0.000 0.094 0 0 0 ISO 0 0 0 1 0 0 1600 0 0.000 0.094 ED Left ED Thnu ED RIImt 11 2920 a 1 3 0 1600 4800 0 0.007 0.012 - 0 0 0 11 2929 8 1 3 0 1000 4800 0 0,007 0.1112 - 0 0 0 20 3700 10 1 3 D 1800 4800 0 0.013 0.773 0 -30 0 20 3670 10 1 1000 3 4800 0 0 0.013 0.707 - 0 0 0 20 3870 10 1 3 0 1600 4800 0 0.013 0.767 WD Left Wblbm VM RIPI is 1071 24 1 3 0 1000 48DO 0 0.010 0.228 0 0 0 is 1071 24 1 3 0 1600 4000 0 0.010 0228 0 0 0 10 1350 10 1 3 0 Iwo 4800 0 0,006 0.283 a 10 0 10 1360 10 1 Iwo 3 4WD 0 0 0.003 0.285 - 0 0 0 10 1360 10 1 3 0 ism 4800 0 0.0116, 0205 ............ ......... ........... ......... . . ICU LW 0.772 a 0.772 a 0.873 D 0.897 D 0.09 D Key wnfgcfiftg movement as a part of ICU. I'snetkuls he a separate own lane. however, Is not sniped as such. Project ICU Impact -O.OD6 Area Tmfflc Mifigation: Courds conducted by: National Data A Surveying Services sionfficantimpam, No Capacity expressed In vehows per how of Oman. Ito"IIAN, 1 4352 1 0 4262 1 0 SJ20 1 -20 52" 1 0 5200 UNSC(YrT, LAW 11, GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1500 COIPMM DAW. SURs 122, COSH Alen CA 92026 (714) 641.1507 INTERSECTION CAPACITY U111LUTION Intersection; 2. Prospect Street At West Coast Highway WE St Prospect Since Peak Hour. PM DAN; 0512407 E-W St Went Coast High" Annual Gravon: 1.00% Data of Count 2007 Pmject Haag Master Plan EIR PrONdbn YnaC 2016 Film N' .280OM205NCUYNr2Ol5A)t)dl Control Type: 50 Treffic Signal • Key conficang mmment as a pan of ICU. FUrK*M 63 8 58pannO WAA IN&. hOft"f, 13 Wt WP@d as 3=11. Project ICU "Pea. -0.002 Area Trance Malgation: Counismonjoteogy: National Detect SurvoyingSemloon, Signutogntimpact: NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per how of green. MID) VOL 1 4101 1 a 4101 0 5280 -20 5260 1 a 6260 PRO WITH 2 Nb Left 5 0, 0 0.000 0 5 0 0 0.000 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 10 0 0 0.000 NbThru 2 1 1600 MOON 0 2 1 1600 0.004 0 0 1 1600 0.006 0 0 1 1600 0.006 0 0 1 1600 0.008 Nb Right 26 1 1800 0.016 0 26 1 1600 0.016 0 30 1 1600 0,019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 tWo 0.019 Sin Left 62 0 0 0.000 0 82 0 0 0.000 0 90 0 0 0.000 0 go 0 0 0.000 0 90 0 0 0.000 SID Thm I I Iwo 0.0" 0 1 1 IWO 0.044 0 0 1 1600 0.089 • 0 0 1 ISDO 0.060 • 0 0 1 1600 0.089 SID RNNI a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Eb I-Oft 36 1 1600 0.024 0 38 1 ING 0.024 0 20 1 1600 0.013 • 0 20 1 1600 0.013 • 0 20 1 1600 0.013 Eb Thru 121: 3 WO 0254 0 1215 3 OW 0.254 0 1740 3 450D 0.3B7 -10 1730 3 4000 0.385 0 1730 3 4000 0.W5 Eb Right 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 WD Left 26 1 1600 0.016 0 26 1 ION 0.016 0 30 1 1600 0.010 0 30 1 1800 0,019 0 30 1 1600 0019 WD Thru 2752 3 4600 0.582 0 2752 3 ODO 0.582 0 3300 3 4800 0.692 • •10 3290 3 4800 0.690 0 3290 3 4800 0.690 WD Rlghl 41 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 9W01,99 x xx : .............. X ........... ICU DAN DAN 0.774 0.772 0.772 LOS a B C C C • Key conficang mmment as a pan of ICU. FUrK*M 63 8 58pannO WAA IN&. hOft"f, 13 Wt WP@d as 3=11. Project ICU "Pea. -0.002 Area Trance Malgation: Counismonjoteogy: National Detect SurvoyingSemloon, Signutogntimpact: NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per how of green. MID) VOL 1 4101 1 a 4101 0 5280 -20 5260 1 a 6260 10 LINSOM, LAW GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1580 COWlift) 0114, Sub 122, CONII Mesa CA 92626 (714) 641.1587 Intersoclion: & N-S III: 800>08 SWWSUPerl" Ave E•W at wow coast Hsghwsy Pmjeet: 11009 Master Plan 5IR F116: N:12QD0I2052552UCUYoS20I SAR.918 Control Typer. 60 N•S Split WON Btvdruponz, Ave at West Ones% Kghasy Peak Hour. AM Annual Groeltv 1.00% Date: 0545107 DEW ot count: 2007 Patisogen Year. 2015 ...... M�i 0T .IC!: . :;iiwlcwl, ... ..... .. . ..... .. .. ..... . . a 210 1 1000 0.131 0 210 1 160D 0.131 a 210 1 1600 0.131 Nb Left 204 1 1600 0.128 0 204 1 1800 0.128 Nb Thm 327 2 3200 0.130 0 327 2 3200 0.130 0 430 2 3200 0.163 10 440 2 3200 0.163 0 440 2 3200 0.163 NO Right go 0 0 0 90 0 0 - 0 go 0 0 .10 so 0 0 0 90 0 0 So Loft 172 1 1600 0.107 a 172 1 1600 0,107 0 210 1 1000 0.131 10 220 1 1600 0.130 0 220 1 1600 0.138 So Thnu 122 2 3200 0.038 a 122 2 3200 0.038 0 190 2 3200 0.059 0 190 2 3200 0.052 0 180 2 3200 0.059 Se R01 IWO 2 3200 0.059 0 leg 2 3200 0.059 0 120 2 3200 0.038 0 120 2 3200 00313 0 120 2 3200 0.038 Elp Left m 2 3200 0.312 a oge 2 3200 0.312 0 Iwo 2 3200 0.313 30 Iwo 2 3200 0.322 0 1030 2 3200 0.322 Elp Thru 2264 3 4800 0.472 a 2264 3 4000 0.472 0 2640 3 4800 0.550 60 2580 a 4800 0.536 0 2580 3 4800 0.538 SID Right 240 1 1600 0.150 0 240 1 1600 0.150 0 no 1 1600 0.144 0 no 1 1000 0.144 0 230 1 1600 0.144 WbLeft 62 1 16M 0.039 0 62 1 1600 0.039 0 70 1 ISW 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0.0,14 WD Thm 688 4 WOD 0.124 0 Sys 4 6401) 0.124 0 550 4 6400 0.117 0 550 4 6400 0.117 0 550 4 6400 0117 we Right 208 0 0 0 208 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 200 0 0 ............ ..............•....•.... ...... . .. .. . ............. u 0.748 0.748 O.IdS 0.883 os LC C C . a D 0 • Key confleflng M"ment ad a pad of ICU. Functions as a separate Urr, land, hdmtqvds is not stripso as itch. CUurdscandutiodby'. C8y of NewpOn Beals, Cadusty expressed In "hiclards per how of grew, Pm)ecI ICU Impact -O.005 Area Thuf4c Mitigollon: VgnHCeffl Impact. NO frovirvoL I "m 1 0 8404 1 0 511411 -r •20 5920 1 0 592 to A LINSCOTT, LAW 8 GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1580 CO0OMW 06va, Sube 122, Coera Mesa CA 92626 (714) 641.1567 Inbrsecoom 3. N-S St Selene Blv"UPBAWA" E -W St: Weal COMM Highway Protect: Hoag Master Plan SIR Flo; N:72B0012052$52VCUYaan1015A1L,% CCnirel type:6O N-S Split INTER=Qbl CAPACITY UTILIZATION BA4ea BlvdlSuperiar Ave at West Coast Hlghwey Peak Mow: PM Annual Growth 1.00% Dale: 006107 Data a Count: 2007 Protection Yaw.. 2015 : i:: isisi:::';:;: ...... ;::: No LM NoThru NO Right Se Lah S6 Thlu So Right Eb Leh Eb Tixu Eb Right Wb Leh Wh ThIU Wb Right isi::;•:.: � .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:............. � .. ......:.. 209 88 165 237 745 258 1187 227 148 2167 135 :..:.:.::: �.:.:.:...:.:.:...:...:..:.:...:....:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.: 1 1800 2 3200 0 0 1 1600 2 3200 2 3200 2 3200 3 4800 1 1600 1 1600 4 8400 0 0 0.185 0.080 - 0.103 0.074 0,233 0.080 0.246 0.142 0.093 0353 �i:::;: 71WUP74. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;...;.::.:.:.::;�;:;:;:;:;::::: .....:.:.:.::.,:.:.:::.:<:NC;.: VbWMS... 284 208 W 185 237 745 258 1181 227 148 2187 135 i': tea.. CA sot 1 1800 2 3200 0 0 1 1600 2 3200 2 3200 2 3200 3 4800 1 1600 1 1600 4 6400 0 0 i::::::: i::i:i:i :.;. .:.Katie �.:.:. 0.188 0.088 - 0.103 0.074 0.233 0.080 0.246 0.142 0.093 0.383 - :i ::..p .:...:.......:. :;wtlaa:.:..: :. IUrae::::UM7mn:::Gnea::?0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UM Total.:.:.:.:.:........: 400 250 90 160 380 020 300 1380 320 210 2740 140 .:.........P 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 4 0 .9.. ............. 1000 3200 0 1800 3200 3200 3200 4500 1600 1600 64W 0 .:.:..: .., :::{Fitlti;i::::: 0.250 0,105 - 0.100 0.113 0.258 0.094 0.288 0.200 0.131 0.455 - ,. . 8:: .Voi'Y' "t; i;>;+ylGii(i 10 10 -20 410 0 30 0 0 0 .10 -30 -30 410 280 70 130 380 850 300 1380 320 200 2710 110 ia9iltli>`C:.: a::':AaH➢ 1 1600 2 3200 0 0 1 1600 2 3200 2 3200 2 3200 3 4800 1 1600 1 7800 4 6400 0 0 ii 0.255 0.103 - 0.081 0.113 0.288 0.094 0.288 0.200 0.125 0,441 - ... !iYrtrUGi9i: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QN. .,....,:...:.:........,..:..... d Yi`ai!iaClli"Fi:'! iii: „i 410 1 1800 260 2 3200 70 0 0 130 1 1600 380 2 3200 850 2 3200 300 2 3200 1380 3 4800 320 1 1600 710 4 1800 2110 4 8400 110 0 0 1a254 0.256 0.103 0.081 0.113 0.266 0.094 0,288 0,200 0.125 O.d47 - pTnpk::::::•:::•:::::•::::e ICU LOB 01781 O 0.781 C 0,858 E 7:::4•EBB::Y;:;::::? O.EBI as ............ ;: ;::• ........... .. ..... bi20,:'; 0,883 E Kay anmwvng mevam8nl as a pert a ICU. " Functions as a separate turn lens, however, Is not s1BpBb as such. CauMSCOnEUOle0by: CRY of Newport Beach Capacity expressed In wehlcie8 per hour of green. Prafecticulflipat: 0.007 Area Traffic M01gation: SlgniOCarx Impact NO otolva 1 61121 0 5821 1 0 7170 .70 7100 a 7100 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive, SVft 122, Caere Mesa CA 92626 (7141641.1597 Irmanswoon: 4. N-S St RWorside Avems E-w St. %NWCoWKtSh." Project HMO Water Plan SIR Foe: N:12000 '20526521CUYMf20l5Aft.Aa Control Type: 5OTypioc Signal RN4mide Avenue At Wag COW Highway Peak Hour: AM Annual 0mw%h: 1.00% Data: 05(24107 Date of Count 207 Projection year 2016 Key mnrMng movilinfrit as 0 Part Of ICU Functions as a separate turn IBM, however. Is not striped as such. Project ICU IMP&= -0.003 Area 7ramo MuOution: Cwtawftdualaaby: CAtiolmewponearch signicourumpact NO Capacity tntpressed In "Iticies, per hour of ii 17�qwovai' 1 441 1 0 4151 1 0 4560 1 40 4520 1 0 Mir 11Y - wdift 0 a a a 0�000 a a a 0 0.000 No Left 2 a a 0,000 a 2 0 0 0.000 0 0 a a 0.cw NbThm 0 1 1800 0.005 a a 1 1600 0.005 0 0 1 1600 OXV) a a 1 1600 0.000 a a % 1690 0.000 No MOM a a a a a 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a a a a a Bb Left as a a 0.000 0 86 0 0 o.m 0 70 0 0 0.000 0 70 0 a 0.000 a 70 a a mcco Slo Thm Is 1 1600 0.063 0 16 1 1600 0.063 0 10 1 loco 0.050 a 10 1 1800 0.060 - 0 10 1 1600 0.050 So 8119111 104 1 1600 0.190 a 304 1 1601) 0.190 0 310 1 1600 0.190 .10 300 I ago 0.188 a 300 t 1500 0.189 Eb Left 203 1 1600 0.177 0 283 1 16011 0.177 0 250 1 1600 0.156 10 260 1 1600 0.163 a 260 I 1600 0.153 Eb Tim 2115 2 3200 0,687 0 2115 2 3200 0.667 0 2410 2 3200 0.759 .10 2400 2 3200 0.753 a 2400 2 3200 0Y53 Eb Right is a 0 0 Is 0 0 0 10 a a 0 10 a a a 10 0 a Wb Left 0 1 1600 0.006 0 9 1 1600 0.005 0 0 t %wo 0.000 0 0 1 $900 " 0 0 1 loco 0.000 WE Thm 1244 3 40D0 0.259 0 1244 3 1500 0.259 0 1460 3 4860 0.304 -30 1430 3 4800 :2. 0 1430 3 4600 0,258 WE Right 09 1 1800 0.043 0 so 1 1600 0.043 0 40 1 1600 0.025 a 40 1 IBM a 0 40 t 1800 0.025 ........ .... ........................... teu 0.739 1:1.736 0.806 0.803 0 -007 LOS C C D D Key mnrMng movilinfrit as 0 Part Of ICU Functions as a separate turn IBM, however. Is not striped as such. Project ICU IMP&= -0.003 Area 7ramo MuOution: Cwtawftdualaaby: CAtiolmewponearch signicourumpact NO Capacity tntpressed In "Iticies, per hour of ii 17�qwovai' 1 441 1 0 4151 1 0 4560 1 40 4520 1 0 Mir Ul m LINSCOTT, LAW OREENSPAN, INOWEEKS 15110 Corporate Drive, Sish 122 Costs Mesa CA 92626 (714) 641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: 4. RiversIda Avenue at Warp Coast Highway NS St Riverside Avenue Peak Hour. PM Dole: 05124W E•W St West Coast Highway AnnualGravan: 1.00% Data of Count: 2007 Project Hoag Master Plan EIR Projection Yew. 2015 File; N126001205265211CUtfedr201 SAW5 Control Type: 50traffic, Signal • Key Conflofing movement an a part of ICU. stalwarts, as a separate him tons, hinvown'• Is net sniped as SUM. Prqwl ICU IMF= -0.002 "a Traffic Mitigation: Counts conducted by: Cityof Newport Beech Slgniacem Impact NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. 11bual W. 1 41100 1 a 4560 1 0 54150 T 40 540 1 0 6430 0 26 0 0 ODDO 0 20 Un' 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 :No A 0 20 0 0 0.000 No Left 20 0 0 0.000 Nit Thn, 7 1 1500 0.030 0 7 1 1000 0.030 0 10 1 ISOO 0.025 0 10 1 11100 0.025 0 10 1 /ODD 0,025 No Right 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 a 0 0 10 0 0 50 Left 85 0 0 0.000 0 85 0 0 0.000 0 110 0 0 0.000 0 110 0 0 0.000 0 110 0 0 0.000 SO Thou 7 1 1600 0.057 0 7 1 law 0.057 0 10 1 1600 0.075 0 10 1 1600 0.075 0 10 1 1800 0.075 SD Right 437 1 1600 0,273 0 437 1 1600 0.273 0 420 1 1600 0.263 a 420 1 1600 0.293 0 420 1 1600 0.283 Eli Laft 271 1 logo 0.169 0 271 1 low 0.169 0 290 1 1600 0.1a1 -10 280 1 IGOD 0,175 0 260 I logo 0.175 Eb UN 1543 2 3200 0.489 0 1543 2 32M 0,1811 Q 1670 2 3200 0.583 .10 low 2 3200 0.596 0 1680 2 3200 0.584 Eb Right 21 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 Wit Left 28 1 1600 0.018 0 28 1 1600 0.018 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 160.7 0.006 We Thm 2454 3 Alacto tioli 0 2454 3 4800 0.511 0 2650 3 4800 0.552 .10 2640 3 480D 0.550 0 2540 3 4000 0.550 We Right Ito 1 1600 0.041 0 66 1 law 0.041 0 w I Imo 0.031 0 50 1 1600 0.01 0 50 1 1600 0.1131 Y014ii 7: 7 ICU 0.784 0.7114 0.815 0.013 D.813 LOS C C 0 D D • Key Conflofing movement an a part of ICU. stalwarts, as a separate him tons, hinvown'• Is net sniped as SUM. Prqwl ICU IMF= -0.002 "a Traffic Mitigation: Counts conducted by: Cityof Newport Beech Slgniacem Impact NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. 11bual W. 1 41100 1 a 4560 1 0 54150 T 40 540 1 0 6430 Ln -1 • Key conflIC11119 MWORlant a$ 8 Pan Of ICU. - Propect ICU lampaCt O.ODO Ame Traou; MitIpaGan: FufX*m as a separsto turn lone. h"War, IS not SWP*d So BUCh. NO Counlv=ducledby: CttyofNmpWR"eh Capacity BXPMSSed In vehicles per hour of green. ITeMPY&L 1 3631 1 0 is 31 1 0 4260 -20 42" a 1270 1580 Cofpoalft Oliva, SM 122, Coate Alan CA 92820 (114) 641-I587 INT99SECTION CAPACITY UTILIZAMQN Intersecam; 6. Tustin Awma at Won Coast Highway N-S St TusMAvwuo Peak Hour AM Dow 0612407 E-W St West Coati Highway AMMIGrowth: 1.00% Date of court 2007 Pmjod: Hoag Maher Plan EIR Projection Year 2015 FQW. CoMmITyps:30TIalfic ftnal • Key conflIC11119 MWORlant a$ 8 Pan Of ICU. - Propect ICU lampaCt O.ODO Ame Traou; MitIpaGan: FufX*m as a separsto turn lone. h"War, IS not SWP*d So BUCh. NO Counlv=ducledby: CttyofNmpWR"eh Capacity BXPMSSed In vehicles per hour of green. ITeMPY&L 1 3631 1 0 is 31 1 0 4260 -20 42" a 1270 4�1 1A :b Ism �i, iowiw NO Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 NbThm 0 1 IBOO O.DDD 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 NO P4hI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a SD Left 36 0 D 0.000 0 36 0 0 0.000 0 00 0 0 OODO 0 60 0 0 0.000 0 60 0 a 0,000 Sb Thm 0 1 IWO 0.033 0 0 1 RIDD 0.033 0 0 1 ISM 0.056 0 0 1 1600 0.053 0 0 1 1600 0.056 Sb R19M IQ 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 30 a a . 0 30 0 0 . 0 30 0 0 Eb Left 27 1 1600 0.017 0 27 1 1000 0.017 0 10 1 IWO 0.006 •10 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 IWO 0.000 Ell Thru 2233 2 UOO 0.700 0 2263 2 3200 0.707 0 2540 2 3200 0,794 0 2540 2 3200 0,794 a 2540 2 3200 0.794 5b Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 Wb Lao 0 0 0 0.000 a 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 O.DOD 0 0 0 0 DODO 0 0 Wb Thm 1248 3 4800 0.250 0 1248 3 4800 0.0 1570 3 4800 0.327 -20 1550 3 4800 0.323 0 1550 3 4WD 0.323 Wb Right 39 1 1600 0.025 0 39 1 1600 0.026 26 0 so 1 1600 0.031 0 50 1 IBOO 0.031 0 50 1 ISOD OX01 PPRpiLIIPwi qvyqv-7-� ............. ........... ............ ...... 7 77777774;OfA:7t` ...... 0.740 0.740 0.860 Disc 0.660 Iless LOS c D 0 - • Key conflIC11119 MWORlant a$ 8 Pan Of ICU. - Propect ICU lampaCt O.ODO Ame Traou; MitIpaGan: FufX*m as a separsto turn lone. h"War, IS not SWP*d So BUCh. NO Counlv=ducledby: CttyofNmpWR"eh Capacity BXPMSSed In vehicles per hour of green. ITeMPY&L 1 3631 1 0 is 31 1 0 4260 -20 42" a 1270 lP LIN SCOTT. LAW GREENSPAN, 9111141111181111111 1580 Careafflfa OdW, Suite 122, COM Moo CA 92628 (714) 641.1597 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILISATION Intameafion: 5. Tustin Avenue at WOW Coast HignWay N•S St TusanAwnue Peak How POW Date: 0624107 6•W St West Cmd Highway AmuslGrewft 1.00% Detualcamt 200 project: Hmg Master Plan EIR Pru)acdon Year. 2015 Fee: N;12800V0S28S29CUYav2016A1t.xIs CmvdTvc36Tfsft stoat • Key =Mdft§m ntUAWOtICU, FientIffame 08 a separate furl 11i hGAIM001r, is 1101 OtrIPOd 08 Sudl Projea ICU Impact 0.000 Also TraffIc MRigailan: Courts conducted bf. Cry of Newport SO=h SIGniflMnOmpact. NO Ceplift GXpfV15WI In vehicles per hear of green. 1*1111 Val 4230 1 0 4230 c 4940 1 .20 4920 0 4920 i i "fil !WIN T,rA,1-1-QN MITI . ... ....... . . . . . .. * * i?:Mi .......... .... NO Loft 1 0 0 0.003 0 1 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 NO Thru 0 1 1600 0.004 0 0 1 1800 0.004 0 0 1 less 0.000 0 0 1 1800 0.0110 0 0 1 logo 0.000 NO Right 6 0 0 0 6 a 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - SO Lon 46 0 0 0.000 0 45 0 0 0.000 0 70 0 0 0,000 0 70 0 0 0.000 0 70 0 0 0.000 Sb Tbru 0 1 1800 0.054 D 0 1 two 0.054 0 0 1 1600 0.009 0 0 1 1600 0.069 0 0 1 1600 0.059 Its Right 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 Eb Lae 32 1 1800 0.020 0 32 1 1800 0.020 0 too 1 1600 0,063 0 100 1 1600 0.063 0 100 1 1600 0,063 Eb Thin 1563 2 3200 OA91 0 1563 2 3200 0,491 0 1910 2 3200 0.697 -20 logo 2 3200 0.591 0 logo 2 3200 0.591 Elt Right 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 We Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 We Thin 2467 3 4600 0.6111 a 2487 3 4600 0914 0 2720 3 4800 0.567 0 2720 3 4600 0.657 0 2720 3 4500 0.557 We Right 47 1 1600 0.030 0 47 1 1600 0.030 0 100 1 1600 0.0153 0 100 1 1600 0.0110 0 100 1 loco 0.053 ........... 1 GAS2 OAS2 0.6" . 0.6119 0.61111 rLoos A A a 6 0 • Key =Mdft§m ntUAWOtICU, FientIffame 08 a separate furl 11i hGAIM001r, is 1101 OtrIPOd 08 Sudl Projea ICU Impact 0.000 Also TraffIc MRigailan: Courts conducted bf. Cry of Newport SO=h SIGniflMnOmpact. NO Ceplift GXpfV15WI In vehicles per hear of green. 1*1111 Val 4230 1 0 4230 c 4940 1 .20 4920 0 4920 Ln w 1D 1SNSCOTT, LAWS GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 CmpOmte DrNe. Sub 122, Coati Mean CA 92626 (714) 641.1587 Intemacgon: 5. NS SC Boy Shan DnvmDever Dri E-W St West Cast Highwoy Pmlect Hoeg Master Plan BIN F118: N: 126001205205211CUYeaf2015A1t.de Control Type: 8O NS Spit INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Bay Shore DnvelDaver Dnw at Weal Coati Highway Peek Haut. AM Annum Grov the 1.00% e 51 1 1800 0.032 0 51 1 1600 0.032 0 ThN 55 2 3200 0.037 0 55 2 20 1 1000 0.073 0 20 1 1000 0.013 'Rlpllt 64 0 0 0 04 0 3200 0.037 0 60 2 3200 0.038 0 80 2 3200 0.030 0 60 0 0 0 60 0 0 LM 1077 3 480D 0.224 • 0 1077 3 4800 0.224 Thru 74 1 1600 0,046 0 7050 3 400D 0.219 • .10 1040 3 4800 0217 0 74 1 1600 0.046 0 5) 1 1600 0.05) 10 90 1 1600 0.056 Right 173 1 1800 Od08 0 173 1 1800 0,100 0 70 1 7800 0.044 0 70 1 7800 0.044 Left 129 2 3200 0.040 0 129 2 3200 OA40 0 170 2 3200 0.053 0 170 2 3200 0.053 Trull 2196 3 4600 0.464 • 0 2188 3 4800 0.484 • p Right. 32 0 0 - 0 32 0 0 2280 3 4000 0.473 0 2280 3 4800 0.479 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 !Thm 1283 3 4600 0.289 0 1293 3 4800 0.269 0 1510 3 4800 0.315 -20 1490 3 4800 0.310 Rye 678 Free 9898998 IL 0 - 070 Free 8989999 0.000 0 710 Free 9999999 0.000 0 710 Free 8904088 0.000 .�. 0.743 ................... I. -. -.- ...ririi:L• ? ?.•. LOS C 0.7/7 0.751 O C 0 7Es C ' Key eaANWIp movement e8 a pen of ICU. " Fur ftm It 0 separate turn lens. however, N not Striped as sulk COUINanaCte6ey: COYOINeWpon Seacil PM1801 ICU 9npeCt •0.002 Capacity e»mesa6 it vehicles per hour of preen. Sgmncmt fmpat NO Data: 05,24/17 Date of Count: 20137 Pmpaon Year. 2016 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 60 2 3200 0.038 0 60 0 0 0 1040 3 4800 0.217 0 90 1 1600 0.058 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 170 2 3208 0.053 0 2260 3 4800 0.473 ' 0 19 0 0 D 50 1 1600 0.031 0 1490 3 4800 0.310 0 710 Free 9999999 0.000 Area Traffic Mi0gaor: C O LUISOOM LAW & ORRENSPAN, ENGINOERS 150 Copomfis DIM, Suite 122, Case Mass CA 92626 (714) 6414587 "emetmom. 5. N•S St Bay Shoe Ddvwmu Drive E•W SL Wad Coast Highway Project Hug Matter Plan EIR File: N:%2000120526528CUYnr201 6AILss CoolimiType;SON4 Split Say Shady DrIvelOwer Drive at West Coast Highway Peak How. I'm AAMMIGTOVA' 1.00% Date: 05124107 Date of Count 2007 Projection Year 2016 Key Radiating MMMWt as 0 Pad Of ICU, FUnelMs as a aspOnsts tudl lam, 110WOW, Is not Strip" as such. Counts conducled by. City of Newport Beach Capedly OK)Maaed In voiddes par your of queen. PM)ectICUhnpsa. 4,002 Area TraftIO Negation: NO llRmJVbL 1 7053 1 0 7-01 1 0 7260 1 40 7930 a Too 1% .............. .... .. .... .. Zwi;W;� i:40 No Left 29 1 IWO 0.017 a 28 1 1600 0,017 0 20 1 leCO 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 7 1500 0,013 NO Thm 83 2 3200 0,034 • 0 63 2 3200 0.1134 • 0 so 2 3200 0.047 • 0 so 2 3200 0.047 0 so 2 320D 0.047 - No Right 46 0 a a 46 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 so 0 0 Sb Left 993 3 4800 0207 • 0 293 3 4890 0207 • 0 7050 3 4800 0219 • -10 1040 3 4900 0.217 0 1040 3 4800 0.217 - SO Thm 66 1 1600 0.041 0 fle 1 1600 0.041 0 to 1 1600 0.050 0 so 1 1600 0.050 0 so 1 1600 0.050 Sb Right 196 1 1600 0.122 0 196 1 1600 0.122 0 110 1 1600 0.069 0 110 1 1600 0.00 a 110 1 1600 040 Eb Left 156 2 3200 0.049 • 0 165 2 3200 0.049 • 0 130 2 3200 0.041 • 0 130 2 3200 0.041 0 130 2 3200 0.041 • Eb Thm 1765 3 4000 0.372 0 1755 3 4800 0.372 0 1760 3 4800 0.371 •20 1740 3 4900 0.367 D 1740 3 4800 0.387 EIR Right 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 20 0 0 - 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 WIR Los 60 1 1600 0.038 0 60 1 1600 OA38 0 70 1 1600 0,044 0 TO 1 ISOD 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0,044 WO Thm 2394 3 4800 0.490 - 0 2394 3 4600 0.499 - 0 2650 3 48DO 0.652 - 0 2650 3 4800 0.552 0 265D 3 4000 0.552 Wb Right 1287 Free 9909999 0.000 0 1267 Free 9099999 0.000 0 1220 Fm 9998999 0.000 0 1220 Free 9998999 0X00 0 1220 Fnes 9990999 0.000 m Op ICU bass bin 0'855 0.857 0.967 Loll c c D 0 0 Key Radiating MMMWt as 0 Pad Of ICU, FUnelMs as a aspOnsts tudl lam, 110WOW, Is not Strip" as such. Counts conducled by. City of Newport Beach Capedly OK)Maaed In voiddes par your of queen. PM)ectICUhnpsa. 4,002 Area TraftIO Negation: NO llRmJVbL 1 7053 1 0 7-01 1 0 7260 1 40 7930 a Too UNSOVIT, LAW It QUINSPAR. ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate 0*0, Sub 122, Co* Was CA 92626 (714) 641-1597 UMSECTION CAPACITY UTIMATION IntmeMn: 7. Bayakis Ofte at East Cost Highway ws st 8411tweadve Peak How AM Dan: 06424167 E-W St East COW Highway Annual Growth: 1.00% Date of Cunt 2007 Project Hong Water Plan EIR Pm)acWn Year. 2015 File: NA260012032652MCUY@s20I5Aftx1s Control Type: 60 NA SPOI Key conflicting movement an a part of ICU. FuncUcirs as a separate bitn lane, hoW er, Is not ShIpad on flec;h. Project ICU Impact 0.011 Area Trafft MlEgailion; Cwnhicanductmaby. CityroftimponSeach slilnflIcarl impact NO Capacity expressed In WhLM5 per h0er01tirean. 17611dVal. I lif" a 5198 1 0 6020 1 0 0020 1 0 8029 Y a 410 0 a 0.000 10 420 0 0 0,000 0 420 0 a oom No Left 390 0 0 0.01310 0 398 0 0- ,0.000 No Thm 17 3 4800 0.094 • 0 17 3 4800 0.094 - 0 30 3 4000 0.108 • 0 30 3 4800 0.110 - 0 30 3 4000 0.110 - No Right 35 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 so 0 0 Sb Left 19 1 1000 0,012 0 to 1 1600 0.012 0 so 1 1800 0.031 0 50 1 1860 0.031 0 60 1 1600 0.031 Sb TAN 9 1 1000 0.017 • 0 0 1 18100 0.07 - 0 10 1 1800 0.033 • 0 10 1 1600 0.030 - 0 10 1 1600 0.038 - Sle R19M Is 0 0 0 is 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 50 0 0 Eb Left 26 1 IGOD 0.018 0 26 1 1800 0,018 0 so 1 1600 Me 0 60 1 ISOD 0.030 0 so 1 1000 0.1118 Eb TIM 2028 3 4800 0.589 • 0 2828 3 4800 0.589 - 0 3070 3 4800 0.640 • 10 3080 3 481)) 0.642 ' 0 3080 3 4500 0,642 - Eb Right 347 1 1800 0.217 10 347 1 1600 0.217 0 300 1 1600 0.238 Ao 370 A 1600 0.231 0 370 1 180 0.231 We Leh 83 1 1000 0.039 • 0 83 1 1600 0.039 • 0 90 1 1800 0.056 • 10 100 1 Me 0.00 - 0 100 1 High 0.083 - We Thru 1421 4 6400 O.E24 0 1421 4 WO 0.224 0 1710 4 0400 0,200 40 lego 4 6400 0.277 0 1690 4 64M 0.277 Win Right 14 0 0 • 0 14 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 00 0 0 ICU 0.738 0.739 DA42 PATS 0.863 LOS C C D D D Key conflicting movement an a part of ICU. FuncUcirs as a separate bitn lane, hoW er, Is not ShIpad on flec;h. Project ICU Impact 0.011 Area Trafft MlEgailion; Cwnhicanductmaby. CityroftimponSeach slilnflIcarl impact NO Capacity expressed In WhLM5 per h0er01tirean. 17611dVal. I lif" a 5198 1 0 6020 1 0 0020 1 0 8029 UNSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, rMdMGFAS 1580 CONDONIM DdM, SUffie 12; COW A(M CA 92620 (714) 641.1507 XTERSECTICILCAPACITY UTILISATION Intolvaction: 71 Bayslae ON" at Eau coast Highway N-S St Sayside advs Peak Hour Pat Due: M24107 S•W St test Conan Hlghay Annual Gm�: 1.00% Dom of count: 2007 Project, Hong Mauer down SIR prjecilo. yea" 2015 File: NA26OM052052VCUYmar2OI5Aut.As .. . . ......... Con"I'Tilpl: 00 N-5 SPIN ......... • Key conflaing movement as a port of ICU. Fun011ons as A micturato hum [one. havolver. Is not Wiped AS Well. Project ICU Urged AM Area Treffic MiNguan: Counts conduclul by: City of Newport BOOM Significant Impea NO Capadly exprommad In vehidel, Par Um of green. ITOMM 1 $200 1 0 8200 1 0 8 ma 0 Stop .. . . ......... ......... NON mjjijl:i j No Left 482 0 0 0.000 0 482 0 0 0.000 0 320 a a 0.13(0 0 No 0 0 O.ODO 0 320 0 0 0.00 Nb TM 17 3 40DO 0.110 0 17 3 4800 0.110 0 10 3 4600 0.069 0 10 3 4WD O.GST a 10 3 050 0.057 HID Right 20 0 0 a 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 -10 -10 0 0 0 -10 0 0 Sb Lee 27 1 Iwo 0.017 0 27 1 low 0.017 0 100 1 1600 0.063 0 100 1 low omz 0 too 1 103 0.053 So Thru 11 I IBM 0.026 0 11 1 1600 0.026 0 10 1 1600 0.056 0 10 1 1600 0.1356 0 10 1 IGOD 0.05e SID Right 30 0 0 0 W' 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 So a 0 ED Left 48 1 leco 0.030 0 48 1 IWO 0.030 0 so 1 1600 0,058 0 so I IGOD 0.056 0 So I logo 0.056 Eb ThM 1966 3 4000 0.410 0 less 3 4800 0.410 0 2130 3 4800 0.444 0 2130 3 4600 0.444 0 2130 3 4600 O."4 ED Right 428 1 1600 0.266 0 426 1 loco ales 0 OOG 1 1600. 0.375 -iQ 590 1 1600 0.369 0 Soo 1 1000 0.3E9 Wb Left 75 1 1600 0.047 0 76 1 1000 0.047 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 so I 1800 0.019 0 W I 1600 0.019 Wb Thh, 3056 4 0400 0.482 0 Wes 4 6400 0.482 0 3540 4 5400 0.554 0 3540 4 6400 0564 0 3540 A 8400 0,554 WIN Right 29 0 0 0 20 0 a 0 70 0 a 0 TO 0 0 0 TO 0 0 .......... ICU 0.448 0.048 0.752 0.750 0.750 LOS a a C C C • Key conflaing movement as a port of ICU. Fun011ons as A micturato hum [one. havolver. Is not Wiped AS Well. Project ICU Urged AM Area Treffic MiNguan: Counts conduclul by: City of Newport BOOM Significant Impea NO Capadly exprommad In vehidel, Par Um of green. ITOMM 1 $200 1 0 8200 1 0 8 ma 0 Stop Ch W UNSOOTT. LAW GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1500 Corporate Orke, Suite 127, Costs sense CA 92626 (714) 641-1597 IntersectIon: S. "St: Jarabonew Road m-W St East CORM Highway PrOJGM: Hong Master Pin SIR AW N-.QGD=057852%ICUY"20I5AtLd% Control Type: 80 Tattle Signal INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Jamboree Road at East Coast MIONW&Y Peak. Hour. AM Annual Growth: 1.00% Data'. 0512AMT Dole of Count: 2007 Projecdon Year. 2015 • Key coracting 01"Onno"It as a part of ICU. Funclam as a $gpamtg lum lane, however, is not striped as such. Cw,aftcWWftdbV; CRyalhitempongeach Cape* expressed In whicles per hour of green. Pr*ct ICU Impact: •01000 AM Illift MKINOMM Stintocant"Pea NO lTattivel. 1 "36 - 1 4 6136 1 0 6280 1 -70 -6260 11 a 0 0 ;mi4jwkw4 .:k:... .: -A :W. .4d1 :A*(& i Nil' No Left 30 1 logo 0.010 0 so I ISOD D.DIS 0 2D 1 1600 SAO D 20 1 IOOD 0.1113 D 20 1 1800 D.013 NbThm 439 2 3200 0.193 0 439 2 3200 0.193 0 BOO 2 3200 0.108 - .10 490 2 320D 0.184 • 0 40D 2 3200 0.194 ND Rlghl In 0 0 0 177 0 0 . . 0 too 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 Loft ,, 1 1600 0.198 0 221 1 1600 0,198 I% I 16M 01114 ' 0 150 I IWO 1,194 ' 1 110 1 1601 3200 1,194 0.075 SD Thru 311 2 3200 0.097 0 311 2 3200 0.097 0 240 2 3200 0.075 0 240 2 3200 0.1715 0 0 240 740 2 I'm WOODS 0.000 �,b St, Right M FF69 9999DOU 0.000 0 W Flue 9999999 0.000 0 750 Free 9999909 0.000 .10 74D FMO 9999999 0.000 ED Loft 1222 3 4800 6355 0 1222 3 4800 0355 0 1230 3 46DO 0.258 - .10 1220 3 4600 0.254 - 0 1220 3 4WD 0.264 ED Thou 1941 4 13400 04108 0 1991 4 6400 0.308 0 1930 A 6400 0.3115 10 1940 4 5400 0.306 0 1040 4 0400 0.300 Eb Right 31 0 a a 31 a 0 a 20 0 a 0 20 .0 0 0 20 D a WI) Left 138 2 3200 0.043 0 138 2 3200 0.0" 0 go 2 3200 0.028 0 so 2 3200 0.028 0 90 2 3200 6400 0.028 0.177 WD TAN 1049 4 6400 0.164 0 1049 4 0400 0.164 0 1130 4 6400 0.177 * 0 1130 4 6400 0.177 ' 0 1130 120 4 1 1600 0.075 Will Right 210 1 1600 0.135 0 218 1 1600 0.135 0 120 1 logo 0,075 0 120 1 IODO 0.075 0 .......... X.: .......... ....... ... ICU 0.704 0.760 0.719 0.701 0.700 C :LOS C C C • Key coracting 01"Onno"It as a part of ICU. Funclam as a $gpamtg lum lane, however, is not striped as such. Cw,aftcWWftdbV; CRyalhitempongeach Cape* expressed In whicles per hour of green. Pr*ct ICU Impact: •01000 AM Illift MKINOMM Stintocant"Pea NO lTattivel. 1 "36 - 1 4 6136 1 0 6280 1 -70 -6260 11 a 0 0 Oy Gt LINSOM, LAW A GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Goloduraft On", Suft 122, Coate Mesa CA 926" (714) 641-1587, hm"Its'sion a. N-S St Jamboree Road E-W at BAN Coest filghway project Heap Maw Plan EIR Fael N:W0012()528528CUYea20 I SAILAS Control Type: 80 Thalia alone; Jamboree Road W East Coast Highway Peak Hour: Ism Anmsfl(tmwdr. 1.00% 081W. 0524107 Data of count: 2007 Prolectlon Year. 2015 Key corindclul) thovarnent as a pan of ICU. Functions so 4 separate turn IBM, however, IS no striped as Bush. CountSCOnductedby: City of Newport Beach Cooeltye*muodlnvehldes per hftrofpreen. Project ICU Impact O.Coe Area Traffic Wgatlon: Signiftcantoopsm No Iraftiveit I IF3-0 1 0 7730 1 0 7690 1 3 1 0 7670 1 Nb Lee so 1 1600 0.031 0 50 1 1800 0.031 0 40 1 IWO 0.025 0 40 1 16110 0.025 a 40 1 loop 0.025 No Thm 280 2 3200 0.117 0 288 2 3200 0.117 0 360 2 3200 0.147 -20 340 2 3200 0,141 a 340 2 3200 0,141 Nb Right 65 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 110 a 0 0 Ila 0 a a Ila a 0 Be Left 255 1 1600 0.150 0 265 1 1500 0.160 0 150 1 idea ojm 0 ISO I IBM pass a ISO 1 1000 0.094 So Thm 727 2 3200 0.227 0 727 2 3200 0,227 0 550 2 3200 0.172 0 550 2 3200 0.172 a 550 2 3200 0.172 So Right 1322 Free 9999099 0.000 0 1322 Fred 9909099 0.000 0 1650 Fred, 9999890 0.000 0 1650 Free 9992999 0.000 a 1650 Free 9999999 0.0110 Els Lon ago 3 4800 0.103 0 ago 3 4800 0.183 0 740 3 4800 0.154 0 740 3 4600 0,154 a 740 3 48110 0.154 Eb Thm 1026 A 6400 USE 0 1820 4 8400 0.258 0 1530 4 8400 0.244 a 1530 4 6400 0-244 a 1530 4 8400 0244 ED Right 28 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 30 a 0 0 30 0 a a 30 a 0 We Left 189 2 3200 0.069 0 lag 2 3200 0.059 0 210 2 3200 0.068 a 210 2 3200 0.066 a 210 2 3200 0.089 We Thm 2040 A 6400 0.320 0 2046 4 $400 0.320 0 2090 4 6400 0.327 0 2090 4 0400 0.327 a 2090 4 6400 0.327 Wit Right 234 1 1500 0.148 0 234 1 1600 0,146 0 130 1 leco 0.081 0 130 1 loco 0.061 OL 130 1 1600 0.081 ............ IOU 4.771 4272 0.722 0.719 0.719 LOS C C C C C Key corindclul) thovarnent as a pan of ICU. Functions so 4 separate turn IBM, however, IS no striped as Bush. CountSCOnductedby: City of Newport Beach Cooeltye*muodlnvehldes per hftrofpreen. Project ICU Impact O.Coe Area Traffic Wgatlon: Signiftcantoopsm No Iraftiveit I IF3-0 1 0 7730 1 0 7690 1 3 1 0 7670 1 URSOOTT, LAW 116 ORKINSPAN, 11"101119105 1560 COMO" Dt". Sub 122, Cufs Also CA 92626 (714) ul-f587 Intersection; 9. NS SC Newport Boulevard E-W St: Via Lida Pr*cc Hug Master Plan EIR FW N: 1 Control Type: 30 Traffic Signal INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Newport Boulevard at Me Lido Peak Himr. AM Annual GrOwth: 1.00% Oats: =241117 Date of Court: 2007 Projectieut Year 2015 - Key confilcIfing movement as a pen of ICU. Project ICU Indeed .0.001 Am Treffic M10goWn: 66 FUnciloni, 88 8 separate sent land. turnover. 18 net Value! as sum. Significant Mpacl: NO CountScondUatedby: C4QfNWP0rtB"cft Capacity expressed In vohddas per hour of green. irotsivot 1 3010 1 0 Wily 1 0 3376- 1 .10 330 1 0 ... .................. 0 :- 0 0 0 0.000 ...... 0 0 0 0 0.000 Mile Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Nb Thru 1308 3 4800 0.277 ' 0 1308 3 4800 0.277 • 0 1690 3 4800 0,356 10 1700 3 4800 0.358 • 0 1700 3 4800 0.358 Nte Right 23 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Ste Loft 415 2 3200 0.130 • 0 415 2 3200 0.130 • 0 510 2 3200 0.159 •10 SOD 2 3200 0.150 • 0 600 2 3200 0.156 Ste Thu 853 3 4800 0.178 0 853 3 4800 0.178 0 730 3 4800 0.152 0 730 3 4800 0.152 0 730 3 4800 0.15 SE %M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 Ete Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 a 0 0 0 0.000 Elp Thn, 0 0 0 olwo 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.010 ED Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wte Left 9 1 1800 0.006 0 9 1 1600 0.006 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 Wtc Thru 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 a 0 ago 0 2 a 3200 0.000 0.122 Wb ftht 402 2 3200 0.126 0 402 2 3200 0.126 a 400 2 3200 0.125 •10 390 2 3200 C.122 ICU 0,11113 DA13 0.628 0.527 L527 A LOB A A - Key confilcIfing movement as a pen of ICU. Project ICU Indeed .0.001 Am Treffic M10goWn: 66 FUnciloni, 88 8 separate sent land. turnover. 18 net Value! as sum. Significant Mpacl: NO CountScondUatedby: C4QfNWP0rtB"cft Capacity expressed In vohddas per hour of green. irotsivot 1 3010 1 0 Wily 1 0 3376- 1 .10 330 1 0 UNSCOTY, LAW & GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate D*V• S0111 122, CONS UM CA 92626 (714) 841.15U INTERSECTION Inuarsamon: 9. 145"on Boulevard at Via Wo NS St Newport Boulwarol Peak Hour Pm Dole: 05124107 E•W St. Me Lida Annual Growth: 1.00% Dole of count: 2007 Project 14000 MOStar Plan SIR Pm)ectw Year. 2015 File: N.V6OWO526fi24CUY8W2OI SAILYJa Control Type: 30Tnoric Signal Functions as a separate turn Iwo, homydr. le not ovilipal as such. Pm:eci ICU Impact: 0.000 Area Traffic Mitgabon: CounlBOOnduebadby. Ckyof Newport Beech Signtricantimpact No Capacity expressed In vehicles per hourotgrian. ioYl 1. "31 a 449 0 307 0 3570 1 0 . $510 VAX 8 1. 011 :,:44 sea NO Left 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 DOGO 0 0 0 0 0.000 NO ThM 1197 3 4000 0.200 0 1107 3 4000 0.250 0 990 3 4600 0-213 • 0 goo 3 QGO 0213 • 0 am 3 4600 0.213 NO Right 49 0 0 0 49 0 , 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 SO Left 527 2 3200 0.166 0 527 2 2200 0.166 0 580 2 3200 DAM • 0 580 2 3200 0.181 • 0 Soo 2 3200 0.181 80 Thm 2104 3 4800 0.43e • a 2104 3 4800 0.430 0 1460 3 AaM 0,304 0 1460 3 4800 0.304 0 1460 3 4600 0.304 SO Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 SO Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Eb Thru 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 a 0 0.000 9 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Eb Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Wb Left 29 1 1800 0.018 0 29 1 1600 0.016 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.026 0 40 1 IBM 0.025 We Thm 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 a a 0.000 0 9 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Wb Right 524 2 3200 0.164 0 524 2 3200 0.104 9 470 2 320 0.147 0 470 2 3200 0.147 0 470 2 3200 0.147 xx ............ C ILOUS OAGS GAG$ 9.411 0.410 0.41 9 A A A A A Functions as a separate turn Iwo, homydr. le not ovilipal as such. Pm:eci ICU Impact: 0.000 Area Traffic Mitgabon: CounlBOOnduebadby. Ckyof Newport Beech Signtricantimpact No Capacity expressed In vehicles per hourotgrian. ioYl 1. "31 a 449 0 307 0 3570 1 0 . $510 tT LINSOOTIf, LAW 6 GRIMMM% ENGIVIVERI 1580 CoWrobs DdW, Suffis 122. 0011111, MOSS CA 92026 (714)641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILMATION IntarstasSan: 10. Ne"curl 8whOwn! at 1108001 Road N-S St Ne"cul Boulevard Peak Hour: AM Date. E-W SL Hospital Road =4107 Project Hog MISW Plan EIR Annual(InDwtiv. l.DO% Done of Count: 201)? Flo: N.000120526529CIVOW201 MAxis Projection Year 2015 Control Type; So Traft Signal • Key conducting movement as a pad 0 ICU. Functions as a Depends had lam. hamsever. Is not striped as ouch. Project ICU IMPOM .0.041 Area Traffic MrigatIM: Cwmbcakugad b/: Chytimewpotiltoom 81grufficantimpea NO Capadly GVM$Sed in vMicles per hour of green. 111001 *4 1 4209 1 0 4309 1 0 4040 1 .10 4570 --7-0 4570 tt Nb Left 128 1 1800 0.080 0 129 1 1600 0.080 0 Im A IFAO 0.100 -30 130 1 1800 0,001 0 130 1 1600 0.081 No That, 1555 3 4800 0,324 0 INS 3 4800 0.324 0 2000 3 4800 0.417 -20 1980 3 4800 0.413 0 1960 3 4800 0.413 Nle Right 74 1 1500 0.046 0 74 1 1800 0.048 0 20 1 1800 0.013 0 20 1 1800 0.013 0 20 1 loco 0.013 Sb Left 52 1 160 0.032 0 52 1 1600 0.032 0 110 1 1000 0.069 0 110 1 1600 0.069 0 110 1 1600 0.069 Sb Thru 1152 3 4800 0.323 0 1152 3 4800 0.323 0 1150 3 4600 0.290 -130 1020 3 4800 0281 0 1020 3 4000 0281 Sea Right 400 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 240 0 0 90 330 0 0 0 330 0 0 Eb Left 162 2 3200 0.051 0 162 2 3200 0.051 0 210 2 3200 0.066 10 220 2 3200 0.089 0 220 2 3200 0,069 Eb Thru 132 1 1600 0.083 0 132 1 1600 0.083 0 250 1 1600 0.156 .60 190 1 1800 Mill 0 190 1 1600 0.119 Eb Right 262 1 1600 0,163 0 262 1 1600 0.163 0 160 1 1600 0,094 70 220 1 1600 0.138 0 220 1 IGDO 0,138 We Left S4 1 1600 0.052 0 04 1 1600 0.062 a so 1 1600 0.050 0 80 1 1800 0.050 0 so 1 1600 0.050 Wb Thru 224 2 3200 0.096 0 224 2 3200 0.096 a 220 2 3200 0.004 0 220 2 3200 0,084 0 2M 2 3200 0.084 We Right 84 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 so 0 0 - 0 30 0 0 0 so a 0 ICU died 0,56111 OA92 0.441 OA61 Los A A a 0 0 • Key conducting movement as a pad 0 ICU. Functions as a Depends had lam. hamsever. Is not striped as ouch. Project ICU IMPOM .0.041 Area Traffic MrigatIM: Cwmbcakugad b/: Chytimewpotiltoom 81grufficantimpea NO Capadly GVM$Sed in vMicles per hour of green. 111001 *4 1 4209 1 0 4309 1 0 4040 1 .10 4570 --7-0 4570 W LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Commit Dfim, Sug, 122, Costs Man CA 92626 (714) 641-1581 Intersecton: 0. NS St Newport Boulevard S-W St Hoopul Rood project Hoag Masuar Plan SIR FRO: N' MO O%2O52(I52VCUYQW2OI5AAJdB C0nhWTVPO: SO Traffic Signal INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTIMATION Ne.p0n Bou;.aM at Hwpftol Road Peakhour. PM Mnual Gnc,,Ot; 1.00% Dow: 05024107 Data Of count 2007 Projection Year 2015 • Key tonlitceng mKnMIMrA So a part 19 CU. Functions as a separate turn lam, hoodiver, Is mot Striped as such. Counts conducted by: City OfNewponBeach Capacity expressed In "hides par hour of green. Pm;a(gICU Impact: -0.025 Area Traft M111gation: Signiftcowit Impact: NO lroulv" 1 4854 - I a 4864 1 a 4380 -T v nev 1 0 4590 -V..: .. �W.Vqrv*i - ...... ............ jjtiji�ii� ................... .......... 0 210 1 1600 OAM No Left 149 1 1500 0.093 0 146 1 WOO 0.093 0 220 1 1000 0.13a -10 210 1 1800 0,131 No Thru 1511 3 4800 0.316 0 1511 3 4800 0.318 a 1160 3 4500 0.242 -10 1150 3 4800 0.240 0 1150 3 JISOO 0.240 No Right 112 1 1800 0.074 0 119 1 1600 0.074 a 70 1 IGOO 0,044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 TO 1 1600 0,044 So L&A 45 1 1600 0,028 0 45 1 1600 0.028 0 So I AGOD OJO31 0 50 1 Iwo 0.091 0 50 I 1500 0.031 So Thru 1755 3 4600 0.410 0 1755 3 4000 0.410 0 1880 3 4800 OA27 .50. 1800 3 4800 0.421 0 1800 3 4000 0.421 Its Right 214 0 0 0 214 0 0 0 ISO 0 0 30 220 0 0 - 0 220 0 0 Eb Lad 300 2 3200 0.094 0 300 2 3200 0.094 0 too 2 3200 0.059 0 190 2 2200 0.050 0 190 2 3200 0.059 Eb Thru 135 1 1600 0,084 0 136 1 1600 0.064 0 270 1 1000 0.109 -10 260 1 1800 0.163 0 260 1 1800 0A63 Eb Right 260 1 1900 0.162 0 260 1 IWO 0.162 0 .10 1 1600 -0.00 00 50 1 IEOO 0.031 0 SO 1 1600 0.031 WO Lad 1S0 1 1800 0.094 0 150 1 16110 0.004 0 330 1 1600 0.205 -10 320 1 1600 0.200 0 320 1 loop 0.200 We Thru 181 2 3200 0.067 0 181 2 3200 0057 0 170 2 3200 0.078 10 180 2 3200 0,081 0 180 2 3200 0.081 Vito Right 34 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 go 0 0 a Go 0 0 - 0 80 0 0 ly0i4m ... X I. 1 .1 ............ X.: ... ........... ......... X ICU 0.681 OASI 0j40 0.915 0.316 LOS 8 a It E B • Key tonlitceng mKnMIMrA So a part 19 CU. Functions as a separate turn lam, hoodiver, Is mot Striped as such. Counts conducted by: City OfNewponBeach Capacity expressed In "hides par hour of green. Pm;a(gICU Impact: -0.025 Area Traft M111gation: Signiftcowit Impact: NO lroulv" 1 4854 - I a 4864 1 a 4380 -T v nev 1 0 4590 UNBOOTT.IAW a. GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate On", Sul(e 122. Costa Mesa CA 92626 (7f4) 641.1587 Intersealbn: 11. N3 SL' Placentia Avenue E•W St SupomrA"MI, Protect Hoag Master Plan EIR FIN: N:@BOM20S26SnCUYedr201SAILxIB Control Type: 50TraMa signal Left 12 0 0 0.000 Thru 232 2 3200 0.091 Right 41 0 0 1600 Lett 12 1 1600 0.000 Thm 326 1 1600 0.205 Rlghl 236 1 1000 0.148 Left 382 1 1600 0.228 Thm 1133 1 2 3200 0.382 Right 26 0 0 0 8 Left 52 1 1600 0.033 Thfu 280 2 32M 0.064 Right 6 0 0 . . 0 12 0 0 0.000 0 232 2 3200 0.081 0 47 0 0 300 0 12 1 1600 0.008 0 328 1 1600 0.205 0 236 1 1WO 0.140 0 382 1 1600 0.226 0 1133 2 3200 0.382 0 26 0 0 •10 0 52 1 1800 0.033 0 280 2 3200 0.084 0 8 0 0 INTERSECTION CAPACRY UTILIZATION Placentia Avenue at Supedor Avenue Peak Hour. AM Dale: 0$124107 Annual Growth: 1,00% Oeto Of Count 2007 Projection Year 2015 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 320 2 3200 0.119 0 50 0 0 300 D 10 1 1600 0.000 0 400 1 1600 0.250 0 280 1 1600 0.176 0 370 1 1600 0.231 0 1160 2 3200 0.384 • 0 50 0 0 •10 0 40 1 1600 0.025 • 0 410 2 3200 0.134 0 20 0 0 0 10 0 0 0,000 0 320 2 3200 0.119 0 50 0 0 0 10 1 1000 0.000 40 360. 1 1000 0.238 20 300 1 1800 miss 0 370 1 1800 0.231 10 1190 2 3200 0.366 0 50 0 0 2 0 40 1 IWO 0.025 •10 400 2 3200 0.131 0 20 0 0 0 10 0 0 OADD 0 320 2 3200 0.119 0 60 0 0 0 t0 1 1600 0.006 0 380 1 1600 0.238 0 300 1 1600 0.188 0 370 1 1600 0.231 0 1190 2 3200 0.388 0 50 0 0 0 40 1 1600 0,025 0 400 2 3200 0.131 0 20 0 0 ICU 0.600 4300 6A6s OA61 0.661 LG8 A A B e B • Key confliphlg movement as a part of ICU. "FunaBpns ea a separate turn lane, htme nrr, N not sulped N Such. Propel ICU Impact: -0.008 Area Traffic Mitigation: CeuMe0011dYCted9y: Cftyaf Newport Beach sw4ownttmpect NO Come* expressed m"Moles per hour of green. 7601 2100 0 2708 0 3140 0 3140 214 O UNBCOTT. LAW A ORRINSPAN.611GINGERS ISW Comorah, DOW, Sage 122, Ccoffa Moo CA 92620 (714)641.1687 Interseclum If., NS St Placentia Avenue E•W st SupartorAveme Project HOSOMMINFIllnEIR His. N028O120520=UYear20I5A64ds C4WcVfVpv.SZT1MM Signal INTERSECTION CAPAWY UTILIZATION PlacerdlaAWdue 818UPOWAWMB Peak How. PM Maud Orvath. 1.00% DA16: 05024101 Date of Count 2001 Projection Year. 2015 Key wflMg movement as a pad of ICU. FUnctlons as a Separate Mm [an, however, Is hot DOW As SuCh. Capadlyaqm3udln"hiclesPwhwrotgmen. PmJectICUknpact 0.006 Area Traffic Mirigation: slordficarnunpact NO irmovat 1 2570 1 0 2576 1 a "lla 20 Sim a stop at ;: d Nb Left 37 0 0 0.000 0 37 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 a 20 0 0 0.000 Nb Thm 320 2 3200 0.137 0 320 2 3200 0,137 • 0 420 2 3200 0.175 • 0 420 2 3200 Val • a 420 2 3200 llilti Nb Right so 0 a 0 so 0 0 0 120 0 0 20 140 0 0 0 140 0 0 Sb Left Is 1 1600 0.000 0 16 1 1600 0.009 • 0 io I IWO ONS - a 10 1 ADO Ows - 0 10 1 IGDO 0.005 Sb Thm 231 1 11100 0.144 0 231 1 MOO 0.144 0 240 1 1600 0.150 20 260 1 1600 0.163 0 260 1 1600 OAM Sb Right 423 1 1600 0.254 0 423 1 IWO 0.264 0 450 1 1600 0.281 -20 430 1 lew 0269 0 430 1 IWO 0269 Eb Left 320 1 1600 0200 ' 0 320 1 1600 0.200 - 0 250 1 1600 0.166 • -10 240 1 1600 0.160 - 0 240 1 1800 0.150 Eb Thm 436 2 3200 0.140 0 436 2 3200 0.140 0 610 2 3200 0200 •10 wo 2 3200 0.197 0 wo 2 3200 0.197 Eb Right 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 - 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 Wit, Left 68 A Iwo 0.036 0 56 1 ilsoo 0.036 0 50 1 IWO 0.031 0 so 1 1600 0.031 0 50 1 1600 0.031 Wb Thm 630 2 3200 0.201 ' 0 630 2 3200 0.201 • 0 870 2 3200 0275 ' 20 890 2 3200 0.281 - 0 890 2 3200 0.281 Wb Right 13 a 0 0 13 0 0 - 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 ............ ....... IOU OA47 %547 0.412 0.610 0.619 LOS A A a 8 a Key wflMg movement as a pad of ICU. FUnctlons as a Separate Mm [an, however, Is hot DOW As SuCh. Capadlyaqm3udln"hiclesPwhwrotgmen. PmJectICUknpact 0.006 Area Traffic Mirigation: slordficarnunpact NO irmovat 1 2570 1 0 2576 1 a "lla 20 Sim a stop I J I-+ UNBCOTTr, LAW 6 GREENSPAN. ENOtNEBRS 1590 Corporate Dow, Sun 127, Costa Mesa CA 92678 (714) 041.1687 transaction: 12. N•S St Newport SNOSSOT -ROmp E•W St WeatCOastHlgtway Project: M009 Meslar Plan EIR Fla: NO2B00170526679CI'Yea2016ANtaa Central Type: 2O Tre18o Sgnal 01TERSECTION CAPACITY UTILMATION Newport SMI BB Off-ROMP at West Coast Highway Peek Hour. AM Annual Growth: 1.00% Dare: 0524107 Dare of Count: 2007 Pr0jection Year, 2015 ::.:: i;.,.,.,.;• a R,IIFQi: ..: :: ........... ii.. ... .iEW..: .:....:..:.....:... :....[.....: iN:E:fil;::::;:i:;::i::: .....: .......: .... ... 81S:NN; ........ MV' .... C' E JC #E ::ii:ii:i i:E:.�i.?N iEO.. )YBil ::i:::::::i::: 8i P i:;::: :::[:: :: 914..NIIT,7 137,... x ;: ;• � .:..... :....:.. ... ....:.::.:.:...:: ": �'�" ^':::..,;.::ii: :...:.:.::....:.:.:�.�... ' 1bti ......:....::<.:..:.:.:...:.:. .. IhC.:...... lidd[ a.:•:- LaMI..:.::....:....,.:....:... Ar:::::.::: i�.:....:...! ' :...: 1ddld....: ::::::::::::;::;:::::::<:::.:: 4` QNii....:. �..:....:....:......:.. ::,:.:... Yjl` i.......:. :,:, ...:.. Af BAii:..:.t'OIN......:.:.�:....: ...,:ION:i;:;:i:i:::Eiii:;::i:: .. ..............:................ ..... ..:::.:. ae :; i::; :..i:iiiiii i ilitiS:;U ...,.. i .:.:.:........:iijysj " iii:i i..... ..'.k:9AS'::.:::'irid:,;,•,..;.i 'iiiii: :; ::.:::....;: ....: ....: ....::.:.. ....,.,......:Yk.'..;.,.;.; :.:.;.:...:.:.:..;..:;;;;;; 0 .0 0 0 0.000 ' 0 0 0 0 0.000' ND Left 0 0 0 0.000 ' 0 0 0 0 0,000 ' 0 0 0 0 0.000 ' Ni TMI 0 0 0 Olow 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 UAOU 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 ND Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SD Left 454 2 3200 0.142 0 454 2 3200 0,142 0 240 2 3200 0.075 70 310 2 3200 0.097 0 310 2 3200 0.087 SDThru 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 OA00 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 ' 0 0.000 SD Right 284 1 1000 0.177 ' 0 284 1 1600 0.177 ' 0 SW 1 IWO 0.238 ' •140 240 1 1600 0.150 ' 0 240 1 1500 0.150 EO Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 11000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Ea TON 1986 2 3200 0.623 ' 0 1995 2 3200 0.623 ' 0 2360 2 3200 0.738 ' •30 2330 2 3200 0.728 ' 0 2330 2 3200 0.728 ' ED Right 645 Free 9098989 0,000 0 645 Free 9998898 0.000 0 170 Free 9999999 0.000 0 170 Free 9999999 0.000 a 170 From 9809999 0.000 Wla Left 0 0 0 0.000 ' 0 0 0 0 0,000 ' 0 0 0 0 0.231 0 0. 00' ' 0 0 0 0 0.000 ' WO TMU 1098 / 3 500 OS2 B 0 1098 3 48 00 0. 228 0 1110 3 4800 0.231 -10 1100 3 /800 0.229 0 1700 3 4800 0.229 WO RIBM 496 Free 9888998 OA00 0 488 Free 8999898 0.000 0 450 Free 9989889 11000 0 430 Free 9989898 0,000 0 460 FM 9998999 0.000 e1rmPIVICTii'ar ��:: :: as ......... :;:::::�:i�i ........ �: i•: �: 4ALa................................ �: �: �:; �: �:•:• is�: �: �: �: �: �: �i: �: �: �:; �: �:: �: �: �:•:.....;. y :.:.:.:.:.:.:.: n, gBa.......... �:. �. �:. �. �. �:.:.:. �. �. �. �. �. �:..:. �. �. �::. �:. �. �:..,..._..._......,:.:.:. �.•:. �. �. �:. �. 8• aga�:.... �. �. �:. �. �:. �. �. �::. �::.•. �. �. �. �. �. �:.•.•:. �. �.•. �:::::. �. �.:.:. �:.:. �::....... �..::.:::. �. �. �. alwg:. .::. �. �.•.•. �. � .�.�.�.:.�:.�.�.�.�.�.�.�:.�.•: .:::::::. :::::.�::.•::::::::.::.n9na�: ..,.,....:,...: ... ... +> ICU 0.600 ta00 0.070 0.876 0.878 Los a C E 0 D • Key conNding movement as a part of ICU. Func0 sm as a separate turn lane, however. N not stripes es Such. Project ICU hopad: -0.088 Area Treble Mitigator: CouIMSCOMuMadtp: COyof Hewpon8each Slgnncent snpad: NO Capacity exprene0 in vel0des par hour of green. 17-01WVCL 1 40 4970 0 47 .110 4600 1 0 4000 LINSOOTT, LAW GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 CoMomfo DrIns, Suke 122, Carter MasaCA 92626 (714)641.1587 Intersection: 12. "St Newport Blvd Be cff-ltremp S-W St WasnCoastlighway I'Mfect Hoeg Master Plan SIR File. N4260012052562MUYew20I SAN.As Central Type: 20 Traffic Signal Newport SI,,d 5800 -Ramp at West Coast HIgnmay Peak Hour. PM AnnualGrowm: 1.110% Date: 0SMOUT Date of count 2007 Protection Year. 2015 • Key consming movement as a part of ICU. Furrollons as a salamis turn lent, however, is net Wilted as such. Prqed ICU IMPRet -0.046 Area Tmft Miggafon: CaLaft COMIUCtOd by'. City Of NOWPOrt 1366Ch Slimfficent Impels: NO Capadly MVM" In OMM Pat hour of 211181t. Irchervalt 1 480 1 0 46" r 0 653 1 •120 5590 - 1 0 6600 1 A IN, QUM ......... . ........... ... ...... W .::it Nb tell 0 0 0 0.060 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0=0 0 0 0 0 0.000 N!, Thn, 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.00o 0 0 0 0 0.000 Nb Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - Bit Left 532 2 3200 0.166 0 532 2 3200 0.166 0 380 2 3200 0.113 50 410 2 3200 0.128 a 410 2 3200 0.126 SbThm 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.0110 0 0 0 0 0=0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Sit RPM 394 1 low 0146 0 394 1 1600 0.248 0 Soo 1 1600 0.313 .70 430 t 1500 0.269 0 430 1 1600 0.269 ES Left 0 0 0 M000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0,090 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Eb Tilm 042 2 3200 0.295 0 942 2 3200 0.295 0 1670 2 3200 0.491 40 1490 2 3200 0.466 0 1490 2 3200 0.466 Ed ftM 257 Free 0221990 0000 0 267 Free 0999999 0.000 0 120 Free 8999149 0=0 .20 100 Free S%SVM 0.1100 D IDD I" 9989999 0.000 We Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00o 0 0 0 0 0.000 Wb Tt" 1148 3 4500 0.400 0 teas 3 4800 0.405 0 2540 3 4900 0.529 -10 2530 3 4800 0.577 0 2530 3 4WD DMIF Wit Right SOS Free 9999999 0.000 0 585 Free 0999889 0,000 0 630 Free 9999999 0.000 0 $30 Free 9999999 0.000 0 630 Free 9999999 0. Will 0.462 0.662 0.842 0.709 0.756 LOS 8 B D c c • Key consming movement as a part of ICU. Furrollons as a salamis turn lent, however, is net Wilted as such. Prqed ICU IMPRet -0.046 Area Tmft Miggafon: CaLaft COMIUCtOd by'. City Of NOWPOrt 1366Ch Slimfficent Impels: NO Capadly MVM" In OMM Pat hour of 211181t. Irchervalt 1 480 1 0 46" r 0 653 1 •120 5590 - 1 0 6600 1 LINSCOTT, LAW & GRIVENSFAM, ENGINEERS 1580 Corponife, DM, Suffis 122 Comes All CA 926M V4) 841.1597 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Inwhadon: 13. Supedor Avenue at Hospital Road WE St Supwria'A"mm Peak Awr AM Dew: 05)2407 E•SI: HONAMI ROW Annual Gmvdh: 1.00% Datoolcau"t 20D? Pmjem H009 MBBMf Plan EIR pmjechom yew. 2015 File: N*.1260M2052052VCUYQ82015ALX18 Corim Type: 20TMffic Signal • Key conflicting movement as 0 pad of ICU. Functions as a separate tum law, lim"r, is not edited as wch. Plqw ICU Impact 0.020 Ama Tmffic MhWallon; COUIMADMINUCIAl National DaUI& SUN" SOMMS SIP&AMImpam NO Capacity GXPMBed In "NOIN Per how of gneen. Irobalw 1 082 —7-3 2313 1 0 20M I ad 2690 -T-0 2690 . ................................ W,Al 0 041�ii;: 0 1 .; ll 1600 III :::,:, 0.000 0 0 . . 1 . ........ 1600 0.000 .......... Nb Left 0 1 1800 0.000 0 0 1 1601) 0.0110 0 0 1 1600 0.000 Nb Thru 1523 2 3200 Odds 0 1623 2 32DD 0.804 • 0 1520 2 3200 0.600 fo 1520 2 3200 0.013 0 1530 2 3200 0Z13 - Nb Right 410 0 0 0 410 0 0 0 400 0 0 30 430 0 0 0 430 0 0 Ed Led 79 1 1600 0,049 0 79 1 1600 0.042 - 0 90 1 1600 0.056 10 100 1 1600 0.03 0 Ico 1 1600 0.063 - Ed Thm 476 2 3200 0,142 0 470 2 3200 0.149 0 530 2 3200 0.166 10 540 2 320D 0.169 0 $40 2 3200 0.169 Sb Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Eb Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 D.000 - 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 GOOD - EbThm 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 O.00D 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.00 0 0 1 1600 O,ODD Ed Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Wb Left 35 0 0 0.000 0 35 0 a 0.000 0 30 0 0 0.000 0 30 0 0 0.000 0 30 0 0 OLOG WbThm a 2 3200 0.030 0 0 2 3200 0,030 0 0 2 3200 0.028 0 0 2 3200 O.D28 0 0 2 3200 0.028 Wb Right so 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 60 a 0 0 60 0 0 .................. ICU CA83 dim 01114 ILT04 .0304 I LOS a a 0 C c • Key conflicting movement as 0 pad of ICU. Functions as a separate tum law, lim"r, is not edited as wch. Plqw ICU Impact 0.020 Ama Tmffic MhWallon; COUIMADMINUCIAl National DaUI& SUN" SOMMS SIP&AMImpam NO Capacity GXPMBed In "NOIN Per how of gneen. Irobalw 1 082 —7-3 2313 1 0 20M I ad 2690 -T-0 2690 UNSCOTT, LAW & GREONSPAH. ENGINEERS 1680 CQIPQMM OnW. Sued, 122. Cam Man CA 02626 (714) 6414387 INTERSECTION CAPArTY UTILIZATION Intersection: 13. SundorAuenue at HospMal Road " St SupeftrA"mm Peak Hour. PM Date. 05024M7 S-W St Hospital Road AnnualOrwoth: 1.00% Date at count 2007 Project Meg Master Plan SIR Projectlon Year. 2015 File. NA2S0(h2OS2652YCUYmr2OI SAII.XIS CcrdmlTyoe:20TMft Signal Furictlatia as a saparmto turn Iva, hmwr, 13 not atitited as such. "act ICU Impact 0.005 Area Trend Mitlindlon: Counts OnduCed by. Naflonal Data a Sumong Services Sirftsat impact No Capacity expressed in whIcies per hour of green. ITO&R1 VOL 1 1919 1 0 29811 1 0 2420 1 T-2420 0 2420 'p T. 0 0 1 teoo 0.000 No LOA 0 1 1600 0,000 0 0 1 1800 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 leoD 0.000 Nb Thm ilSo 2 3200 0.311 • 0 050 2 3200 Ull 0 590 2 3200 0253 40 1670 2 3200 0247 0 670 2 3200 0.247 Nb Right 144 0 0 0 144 0 0 0 120 0 a 0 120 0 0 0 120 0 0 - Sb Left 108 1 loco 0.067 • 0 108 1 1600 0.087 0 so 1 1600 0.050 0 so 1 1600 0.050 0 80 t lem 0.060 Sit Thru 1120 2 3200 0.353 0 7129 2 3200 0.353 0 970 2 3200 0.303 10 980 2 3200 0.3116 0 ago 2 3200 0.308 So Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eb Left 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 SIR Thou 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 leco 0.000 0 0 1 leco 0.000 0 0 1 leco 0.000 a 0 1 1600 0.000 ED Right 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 Wb Left 034 0 0 0.000 0 634 0 0 0.000 0 480 0 0 0.000 0 480 0 0 0.000 0 480 0 a 0.000 Wb Thru a 2 3200 0.237 0 0 2 3200 0.237 0 0 2 3200 0.175 a 0 2 3200 0.178 0 0 2 3200 0.178 VAR Right 125 0 0 0 126 0 0 0 80 0 0 10 Do 0 0 0 911 0 0 X ............ NNT 0.816 0.0111 0,474 0,454 ILDS 0 B A A A Furictlatia as a saparmto turn Iva, hmwr, 13 not atitited as such. "act ICU Impact 0.005 Area Trend Mitlindlon: Counts OnduCed by. Naflonal Data a Sumong Services Sirftsat impact No Capacity expressed in whIcies per hour of green. ITO&R1 VOL 1 1919 1 0 29811 1 0 2420 1 T-2420 0 2420 v N U1100017% LAW & ORU6RSPAN, EMOMSfiRS 1550 Ceryemm Dew. Sate 122, Coda Mess CA 92626 (714)647.1687 Intersection: 14. N4 St Hoag DnvelP18ca116a Ava E -w St Haap8el Road Project Hap M88t8rPlen EIR FOa: MV600120626628CUYea2016AILAS Cancel Type: 30 N-8 Spot SO Left So UN So R19N YO Thm YO Right 16 0 0 0.000 22 1 1800 0.024 , 75 1 1800 0.049 341 0 0 0.000 45 2 3200 0.131 34 0 0 0 67 1 1600 0.042 289 2 3200 0.104 44 0 0 156 1 1500 0.089 159 2 3200 0.173 395 0 0 0 18 0 0 0.000 0 22 1 1680 0.024 , 0 78 1 1000 0.049 0 341 0 0 0.000 0 45 2 3200 0.131 0 34 0 0 0 0 07 1 1800 0.042 , 0 269 2 3200 0.104 0 44 0 0 1600 0 138 1 1600 0.099 0 169 2 3200 0.173 , 0 395 0 0 330 INT9RSECTION CAPACITY UTILRAMN Hoag DOvelPlecen0e Ave at HospM1 Read Peek Hour. AM Date•. 052487 Annual Gmwlh: 1.00% Date of Count: 2007 Projection Year. 2015 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 o 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 40 1 1800 0.038 • 0 40 1 1600 0.038 • 0 40 1 1600 0.036 ' 0 120 1 1800 0.075 20 140 1 1600 0.086 0 140 1 1800 0.058 0 330 0 0 0000 0 330 0 0 0.000 0 330 0 0 0.000 0 80 2 3200 0.134 ' .20 60 2 3200 0.128 , 0 60 2 3200 0.128 0 20 0 0 - 0 20 0 0 - 0 20 0 0 0 80 1 1600 0.030 ' 0 60 1 1800 0.038 0 60 1 1600 0.039 0 270 2 3200 0.001 0 270 2 3200 0.108 • 0 270 2 3200 0.106 ' 0 40 0 0 30 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 - 0 120 1 1600 0.075 70 190 1 1800 0.119 , 0 190 1 1800 0.119 , 0 140 2 3200 0,184 • -10 130 2 3200 0.181 0 130 2 3200 0,181 0 450 0 0 0 450 0 0 - 0 450 0 0 IICU 0,370 0.370 1 O.Se1 0.096 LAS A A A A - A J • Wy conflicting mowmem es a part of ICU. ^ Fenctlons as a aeparele Wm tons, hox er, la not aMped to such. Ported ICU Impact .0.003 Ama Traffic Mitgagon: Counts conducted ay. National Dam a SUrveyng Serwtaa SI9niAeanllmpaet NO Capacity expressed In vsh1cws par hour of green. 7etel Npl. 0 1647 1 0 1690 1 00 77110 1 0 1780 LINS00117, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS IWO COMOVIde Oft SU" IZZ Comic Mesa CA 92626 1714) 641-1587 lntemoc000: 14. N-S St Hoag DdvalPtwwft Ave E-W it Hospital Road Protect Hog li Plan EIR FW. WMQQ0526520CVYovr20I5ArLsdo ContrOlType:30" Soft Hoag Dfive/Placentha Ave atHoSpftal R084 Peak Ko". FM "ValGrowth: 1.10076 Data: 05124107 Damol Count 2007 Project" year. 2015 • Key ocraffictIng movement am a part or ICU. Function as a separate bunn tone, fameaver. III not striped a such Protect ICU IMPact 0.013 Area Ironic Millgalson: CourbsCondUCtfidloy: National Date 6 Surveying SwWws sigAlficantImpea NO Copeelty expressed In VOINCIOS per hour of green. 1IM0811101, 1 2200 1 0 2206 1 0 logo t to logo 1 0 1080 .......... . ..... 'Aw Mjolii "11W v0plift; 11"llb: jj;1 i NO Left 38 0 0 0.000 0 M 0 0 0.000 0 30 0 0 0.000 10 40 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0,000 NbTtft By I IBM 0.085 0 57 1 1600 MOBS 0 too I loco 0.081 20 120 1 160D 0,100 0 120 1 1000 0.100 NO Night 139 1 1600 0.087 0 139 1 1600 0.007 0 150 1 loco 0.100 20 too 1 1000 0.113 a too I Isco 0.113 SO Left 43a 0 0 0.000 0 435 0 0 0.000 0 360 0 0 O.CTO 30 390 0 0 O'cDO 0 390 0 0 o.GD1) So Ttwu So 2 3200 0.160 0 35 2 3200 0.160 0 So 2 320D 0.156 •10 40 2 3200 0.103 0 40 2 3200 0.103 SO Right 108 0 0 0 106 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 go 0 0 . 0 90 0 0 Eb Left 140 1 1600 0.088 0 140 1 1600 D.080 0 110 1 leco 0.069 .10 100 1 1600 0.053 0 100 1 1000 0.063 TIN 292 2 3200 0.102 0 202 2 3200 0.102 0 220 2 3200 0.075 0 220 2 3200 0.015 D 220 2 me 0,075 Right 34 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Left dL� 153 1 1600 0.096 a M I IM O.M 0 140 1 1&00 0.055 so ISO I isto 0.119 0 too I late 0,119 T W, Thru 246 2 3200 0.240 0 249 2 320D 0.240 0 170 2 3200 0.191 •20 ISO 2 3wo 0.104 0 ISO 2 3200 plod tIll Wim Right 521 0 0 0 521 0 0 0 440 0 0 0 441) 0 0 0 "a 0 0 ............ ::' 7 ':1'1: M scd U 2.6711; OAST 0.111 0.101 LOB LOB A A A A • Key ocraffictIng movement am a part or ICU. Function as a separate bunn tone, fameaver. III not striped a such Protect ICU IMPact 0.013 Area Ironic Millgalson: CourbsCondUCtfidloy: National Date 6 Surveying SwWws sigAlficantImpea NO Copeelty expressed In VOINCIOS per hour of green. 1IM0811101, 1 2200 1 0 2206 1 0 logo t to logo 1 0 1080 LINSCOTT, LAW A GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1580 COMM10 06% Sub 122, Costs West CA 92620 (7I41641-1587 Intervacgon: 15. " Sr. Hoag Drive E•W St Wool Coen Hghway propect: 11012 Mastar Plan Efft PRO: N;12800120525529CUYaar201 SAMAS COMMITYPI:61011-6 Split INIMASHMOR CAPAWY UTILIZATION Hoeg D'veat Weal Coast Highway Peak How. AM Annual Growth' 1.00% Date., 05a4M7 Date of Count 2007 PMISCW Year, 2015 • Key comilicting movement as a pan of ICU. Project ICU impact: -0.011 Area Truffic Miligallon: curettona as a Bapsmarts turn line, humawr. Is not salipe4 as such. Couthiscomptopidby; Ne0onal0at683urvaytng SerNOas Sigriftaretmiract NO Capacity expressed In "Itclu per hour of green. 4140 0 un 4270 4140 allied... :101,411aft 0 10 1 1600 0.006 NO Loft 4 1 low 0.003 0 4 1 less 0.003 0 10 1 1600 0.00a 0 io 1 1600 0.000 t4bThru 0 A 1000 0.004 • 0 0 1 1600 0.004 0 0 1 less (YOM 0 0 1 1600 O.DDS 0 0 1 1600 0.006 NO Right 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 Sbuft 27 2 3200 0.008 • 0 27 2 3200 0.008 0 70 2 3200 0.022 •30 40 2 3200 0,013 0 40 2 3200 0.013 $is Thru 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0-000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.00 SO Right 43 1 1000 0.027 0 43 i lsoo 0.027 0 80 1 1600 0.050 -10 70 1 1600 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 Eb Left lei I low 0.101 0 181 1 IWO! 0.101 0 290 1 isoo 0.181 •0 250 1 1800 0.156 0 250 1 1600 0.166 O Thru 2159 3 41100 0.450 • 0 2189 3 4800 0.469 0 2630 3 4840 0.560 -10 2620 1 ASOD 0,541 0 2620 3 4400 0,546 Eb Right 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 O Laft 13 A TOGO 04011 • 0 13 1 low 0.006 a 0 1 is% 0.000 0 0 1 Iwo 0.= 0 0 1 Iwo 6000 b Thru 755 4 5400 0A52 0 765 4 8400 0.162 0 970 4 0400 0.198 20 goo A 6400 0177 0 ODO 4 6400 0.177 Wb Pight 209 0 0 0 205 0 0 0 300 0 0 -160 140 0 0 0 140 0 0 7.77:77: ICU QA?b 0475 0.578 0.567 06567 LOS, A A A A A • Key comilicting movement as a pan of ICU. Project ICU impact: -0.011 Area Truffic Miligallon: curettona as a Bapsmarts turn line, humawr. Is not salipe4 as such. Couthiscomptopidby; Ne0onal0at683urvaytng SerNOas Sigriftaretmiract NO Capacity expressed In "Itclu per hour of green. 4140 0 un 4270 4140 00 LINSCOW, LAW GREENSPAK ENGINEERS 16SO Corporate Or",SuR9122. Coats lMoseCA $2828 (714) 64141187 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intearsachan! 15, Hogg Ofte at Went Coal Highway N-S St Hoag Cdva Peak Hour PM Date: 05124J07 E-W St Wag Coat Highway Annual Gmwm: 140% Dalsolcolfift 2007 PTC40ft HMO What Plan EIR Projection year. 2013 Flo: N'.WOOUO5202VCUYMr2Ol5Alp,xIa Control TYPQ:60N-S Split • Key cocillkelng InwHinhant 0 a part DI ICU. Functions 93 a separate him lane, however, to not 11105 Rich. Projod ICU Impau .0.031 AMS Traffic Millgation: Counts conduchg1by. National Date & Surveying $mvicas Significant Impact: NO Capacity expromed In vehicles per youroftimen. IWVK 1 3734 1 0 3734 0 4470 T- -too 4280 1 0 4240 No +. .. He Left 3 1 160 0.002 0 3 1 1600 0,002 0 10 1 1500 0.006 0 10 1 1600 O.DDS 0 10 1 1600 0.006 NbThM 0 1 1600 O.O08 - 0 0 1 low 0.006 • 0 0 1 loop 0.013 • 0 0 1 1600 0.013 • 0 0 1 low 0.013 - Nit Right 12 0 0 0 12 a 0 - 0 20 0 0 a 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Set Left IOD 2 3200 0.031 0 IOD 2 3200 0.031 0 260 2 3200 0.0811 • .70 190 2 3200 0.069 - 0 190 2 3200 OASO - Sit Thru 0 0 0 OOOQ 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 a a 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.090 0 0 0 0 0.000 Sb Right 114 1 1600 0.071 - 0 114 1 1600 0.071 • 0 200 I ISDO 0.125 -30 170 1 ISDI) 0,108 0 170 1 1600 0.106 Sle Left is 1 1600 0.012 0 19 1 1600 0.012 0 so 1 1600 0.056 • 0 DO 1 1600 0.086 - 0 go 1 1600 0.056 - Eli Tin 1075 3 4800 0.226 0 1075 3 4800 0228 0 1270 3 4800 0.267 -30 1240 3 4800 0.260 0 1240 3 4800 0.260 Eli Right 12 0 0 - 0 12 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 We Left 59 1 1600 0.037 0 59 1 180D 007 0 10 1 160D 0.006 0 10 1 160D 0.000 0 10 1 1600 0.006 Wit Toru 2301 4 41400 0.366 0 2301 4 540 0.356 0 2470 4 0400 0.406 • -30 2440 4 6400 0.397 • 0 2440 4 6400 0.397 Wb Right 39 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 13D 0 0 -3D IOD 0 0 0 100 0 0 ............................ ................. I ....... ��W::!:7 ..... : ::7-7-7 I : 7-:-7 lICU 0.446 OA45 CAGO 0.626 0.625 [Los A A A A A • Key cocillkelng InwHinhant 0 a part DI ICU. Functions 93 a separate him lane, however, to not 11105 Rich. Projod ICU Impau .0.031 AMS Traffic Millgation: Counts conduchg1by. National Date & Surveying $mvicas Significant Impact: NO Capacity expromed In vehicles per youroftimen. IWVK 1 3734 1 0 3734 0 4470 T- -too 4280 1 0 4240 I J UNSCOTt• LAW 6. GREENSPAN, SN4t1NEER8 1580 Corporate 06W, Suite 122, Caere Mean CA 91828 (714) 8414587 intersection: 16, N•S SC Superior Avenue E•W St. 1601 SU0alandusirlal Way Pnom Hang Master Plan EIR FIO: NA2600052552NCUYear2015A0.kb Ccmrol Typa:3OTraMC Signal' NO LON 77 1 1600 0.048 NO Tbu 700 2 3200 0.255 ' Nb Right 57 0 0 0.052 SO LOB 26 1 1600 0,018 ' SO Thm 420 2 3200 0,169 51) Right 120 0 0 0.286 • Eb LON 25 1 1600 0.016 ' Eb Tbu 150 1 1800 0.111 Eb Right 27 0 0 Wb Left 27 0 0 0.600 Wb TIM 125 1 1600 01119 ' Wb RI9ht 39 0 0 INTERSECTION CAPACrrY UTILIZATION Superior Avenue at 1S01 Su istAndusbiel Way Peak Hour. AM Deb: 0524107 Annual Oroerin: 1.00% Dab of Count 2007 Protection Year. 2015 6 83 1 1600 0.052 0 83 1 1600 0.052 0 83 1 1600 0.052 0 03 1 1600 0.062 63 553 2 3200 01285 • 0 853 2 3200 0.286 • 10 663 2 3200 0,289 ' 0 863 2 3200 0.289 5 62 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 62 0 0 2 28 1 1600 0.018 • 0 28 1 1600 0.018 • 0 28 1 1600 0.018 • 0 26 1 1600 0.018 ' 34 454 2 3200 0.182 0 454 2 3200 0.182 .10 444 2 3200 0.179 0 444 2 3200 0.179 10 130 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 130 0 0 2 27 1 1000 0.017 • 0 27 1 1800 0.017 • 0 27 1 1600 0.017 • 0 27 1 1600 0.017 12 102 1 1600 0.119 0 182 1 1600 01119 0 162 1 1800 0.119 0 162 1 1600 0.119 2 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 2 29 0 0 0.000 0 29 0 0 0.000 0 29 0 0 0.000 0 29 0 0 0.000 10 135 1 1600 0.120 ' 0 135 1 1600 0.129 ' 0 135 1 1600 0.129 • 0 135 1 1600 0.129 ' 3 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 1 U 0.416 0.460 0.460 MAI 0.466 8 A A A A A Functions as movamemW apM 01ICU. " FUnctbne ea 9 eeperele bin bn0, howwef, Is net eldpad as such. Preleq ICU hnpact 0.0W Are9 Tic MltlgetlOn: Counts conducted by. National Date B Surveying Somices SlgniAwnt WPQM NO Cepadly expressed In vehicles per flour M green. 0 1609 1 161 2074 0 1034 1 0 2034 1 0 2034 110 00 0 LINSCO", LAW & GIRPENSPAR, ERMOVIERS 1580 Corporate Dow, Sooke 122, Costs Mesa CA 92628 (714) 841-1587 INTERSf GMON CAPAC Intersection: 16. Superior Avenue at 15111 SMOVIndUsbial Way " st SuporlorAverme peek HOME FM Date: Qgt207 E•W St IBM Stmedindustral Way Annual Om th: 1.00% Dole of Count 2007 Project Hoag Master Plan SIR Projection Yee. 2015 File: N:126=052Q62000Yaa20I5Aft.A% Combat Type: 301'raffic Signal • Key Milaaho RN)"MOM as a PRO of ICU. Functions Be 8 scipumme turn lane, hovrover• to not Striped as suclI. PM)GU ICU Impact: 0.007 AMD Traffic MINgedurt Counts conducted by. National Data A, Surveying Services Significant knima. No Cepac#y e*mBBW In volioleo per hour of own. ITOW VDL 1 2036 r fa- 2190 0 2100 1 30 2ua 0 -929 AWW:Pilot ....... ND Left 81 1 1000 0.032 4 65 1 1600 0.034 0 55 1 1600 0.034 0 55 1 1600 0,034 0 55 1 180111 0,034 He Thm 709 2 3200 0.235 57 785 2 320 D.254 0 Too 2 3200 0.254 10 776 2 3200 0.257 0 778 2 3200 0.257 Nt, Right 44 0 0 4 48 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 411 0 0 0 48 0 0 Sla LOA 18 1 1800 Moll 1 19 1 1600 0.012 0 19 1 1500 0.012 0 19 1 1600 0.012 0 19 1 1600 0.012 SD Tom 721 2 3200 0244 as 779 2 3200 0.263 0 770 2 3200 0.253 20 799 2 3200 0.270 0 799 2 3200 0.270 SD Right Be 0 0 5 64 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 Be 9 0 0 04 0 0 ED Left so 1 1600 0.031 4 64 1 1600 0.034 0 54 1 1600 0.034 0 54 1 leoo 0.034 0 54 1 1600 0.034 ED Thm 147 1 1600 0.141 12 159 1 1600 0.162 0 159 1 1SDO 0.152 0 159 1 1600 0.152 0 159 1 IWO 0.152 ED Right 78 0 0 a 04 0 0 0 04 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 84 0 0 WD Left 38 0 0 OM 3 41 0 0 0.000 a U 0 0 0,000 0 41 a 0 0.000 0 41 0 0 0.00 WD Thm 77 I Iwo 0.099 a 83 1 IODD 0.107 0 83 1 1600 0.107 0 83 1 1600 0.107 0 03 1 1800 0.107 WO RqM 43 0 0 3 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 46 0 0 lt►. 4W AID . sea . F . .... ...... ......................... ....... ............. ............ ......... ....... ... ............... ....... tcu GAIT oJuss DA49 0.450 0.460 L09 A A A A A • Key Milaaho RN)"MOM as a PRO of ICU. Functions Be 8 scipumme turn lane, hovrover• to not Striped as suclI. PM)GU ICU Impact: 0.007 AMD Traffic MINgedurt Counts conducted by. National Data A, Surveying Services Significant knima. No Cepac#y e*mBBW In volioleo per hour of own. ITOW VDL 1 2036 r fa- 2190 0 2100 1 30 2ua 0 -929 IUNSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1560 Corporate DAVID, SUft 122, COO Master CA 92626 17141641.1587 Intersection: 17. N-S St Newport Boulevard E-Wst' . Industrial way Project Hug master Plan EIR File: N.1760017052662VCUYsar20I5A0.,k, Control Typw. 30 Theme Signal Newport Boulevard M Industrial Way Peak Hour. AM Annual Grown 1.00% Data: 05124JD7, Dow of Count 2007 Prolockno Year. 2015 * Key coafficifing movement as a pan of ICU, •• Funcilknue as a separate turn lane, however, Is not striped as such. Comma conducted by: National Dew & Surveying SeervIces Capacity expressed In vehices per how a gramn. PmJ&ctICU Impact: .0.002 Area Traffic Mitinafflon: Sfgnfflwnt Impact: NO 1`12111111 VOL 1 3797 1 J04 4101 1 0 4101 1 -60 4061 0 4061 6, 0 02 1 1600 0,051 0 82 1 1600 0.051 No Left 76 1 1800 0.040 6 82 1 1600 0,051 0 82 1 1600 0.051 Nis Tom 1804 3 4000 0,380 144 INS 3 4600 0.410 0 1948 3 4800 0,410 -10 1930 3 4800 0.408 0 1938 3 4800 DAIDS No R19M is 0 0 2 21 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 21 0 0 St, Left 114 1 1800 0.071 9 123 1 1600 0J077 0 123 1 1600 0,077 0 123 1 1000 0.077 0 123 1 1600 0.077 Be Thou 1311 3 4000 0.288 106 1416 3 4800 0.309 0 1415 3 4800 0.309 40 1376 3 4800 0.301 0 1378 3 saga 0.501 So Right 04 0 0 5 69 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 69 0 a - "LM go 0 0 0.000 7 97 0 0 0.0130 0 97 0 0 0.000 a 97 0 0 0.000 0 27 0 0 0.000 So Thnu 03 1 1000 0.118 8 103 1 1000 0.125 0 103 1 1800 0.125 0 103 1 law 0.125 0 103 1 1600 0,125 I So Right 100 1 IBM O.DO3 a 105 1 1000 O.M 0 1011 1 1800 0.088 0 106 1 1600 0,088 0 108 1 law 0.068 We Loft 3 1 raw 0.002 0 3 1 18130 OIDD2 0 3 1 1800 0.002 0 3 1 IODO 0,002 0 3 1 1600 0.002 We Thim 70 1 1800 0.044 6 78 1 1800 0.047 0 78 1 1800 0.047 0 76 1 IODD 0.047 0 78 1 1600 0.047 We Right 51 1 1800 0.032 4 55 1 IBM OD34 0 65 1 1600 0.034 0 65 1 1600 0.034 0. 56 1 1600 0.034 IrA 0 ICU Ojos 0.614 OA14 Mail 0.912 LOS A 0 a a a * Key coafficifing movement as a pan of ICU, •• Funcilknue as a separate turn lane, however, Is not striped as such. Comma conducted by: National Dew & Surveying SeervIces Capacity expressed In vehices per how a gramn. PmJ&ctICU Impact: .0.002 Area Traffic Mitinafflon: Sfgnfflwnt Impact: NO 1`12111111 VOL 1 3797 1 J04 4101 1 0 4101 1 -60 4061 0 4061 00 K) UNSCOrr, LAW& CRINERSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Coritaiste Drim, Sub 122, Costs Men CA 02626 1714) 641-1587 INTERSECTI InterpecOom. I?. Newport Buwvam at industrial way NS St Newport Boulevard Peas tfour: PM Dam: 05024107 S-W St Industrial way Annual Growth: 1.00% Offlo of count. 2007 preeci:. Mosg Master Plan EIR Proaction Year. 2015 File: N42800120526529Cl.Yssr20I5Afl.xIs Control Type: 30Tm" Signal • ons as sep o. Funcl a arate tun tw farelfw0f. Is not SlyPed 85 such. Project ICU tmpsd: .0.008 AMO Tnft lAdgadon: Cotinalconctuotedby. National Data& Suntlyingisersim Signirmistimpm* NO Capadkyexpmssadlnvabldasp6rhoUrCtgroan. 11110fid VOL 1 4022 1 J22 4345 F 0 4346 1 40 4305 1 0 4305 , liwill , A 0 72 1 1800 0.045 No Left 57 1 1800 0.042 5 72 1 1600 0.045 0 72 1 1600 0.045 0 72 1 1600 0,045 NbThm 1851 3 4800 0.327 124 1675 3 4800 0.353 0 1675 3 4600 0.353 .10 1665 3 4800 0.351 0 1665 3 4800 0.351 Nb Mort 17 0 0 1 Is 0 0 0 Is 0 0 a is 0 0 a is 0 a Sb Leh 71 1 IWO 0.044 5 77 1 1600 0.048 0 77 1 IWO 0.048 0 77 1 IWO 0.046 0 77 1 1600 0.048 SIC Thn, 1650 3 4800 0.307 148 1998 3 4800 OA28 a leas 3 48M 0.426 -m less 3 4906 0.422 0 198$ S 4800 0.422 Bb lugm 54 0 0 - 4, so 0 0 0 50 0 0 a so 0 0 0 so 0 0 Eb Left so 0 0 0.000 6 85 0 0 0.000 0 05 0 0 0.000 0 as a 0 0.000 0 Be 0 0 0.000 Eb Thm 55 1 1600 0.091 6 70 1 low 0jo98 0 70 1 1600 0,098 0 70 1 low 0.098 0 70 1 1800 0.098 Eb Right 105 1 Isoo 0,066 a 113 1 1800 0.071 0 113 1 ISM 6.071 0 113 1 1600 0.071 0 113 1 tew 0,07t INC 1.611 31 1: 1600 0.019 2 33 1 1800 0.021 0 33 1 1600 0J021 0 33 1 IWO 0.021 0 33 1 1600 0.021 INC Thint 42 1 IWO 0,026 3 45 1 1600 0426 0 46 A 11100 0.029 0 AS I IBM 0.028 0 45 1 1800 0.028 INC Right go 1 1600 0.068 7 97 1 1800 0.051 0 97 1 1600 0.061 0 97 1 1800 0.081 0 97 1 1600 0.061 Y41" X.: X ICU 0A49 0.592 OA92 0.586 CA$$ Los A A A A A • ons as sep o. Funcl a arate tun tw farelfw0f. Is not SlyPed 85 such. Project ICU tmpsd: .0.008 AMO Tnft lAdgadon: Cotinalconctuotedby. National Data& Suntlyingisersim Signirmistimpm* NO Capadkyexpmssadlnvabldasp6rhoUrCtgroan. 11110fid VOL 1 4022 1 J22 4345 F 0 4346 1 40 4305 1 0 4305 110 LINSCOTT. LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 COM01008 Calls, SUO 122, Caere Make CA 92626 (714) 641.1587 INTERSECTION lmtmocuon: Is. Nepall Boulevard at Wall street WE St: Nwmport Boulevard Peak How. AM Date: =4407 E•W St lam Sbam Annual cacmth: lam Date at count- 2007 projea H089 Master Plan EIR File: NV60QQ052652VCUYmvr20 I SAUH, Prcj�n Year. 2015 conval Type: 50 Trathe Signal CO Wb LeA 37 1 logo 0.023 3 40 1 loop 0,025 0 Q I loco 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 looll) 0.028 We Thm 34 1 16010 0.0646 3 37 1 1600 0.049 0 37 1 1500 0.049 0 37 1 1600 0.040 0 37 1 logo 0.049 Wb Right 30 0 0 3 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 •0 42 0 0 •.................. ...................... ... .................. ........ ........................ ........ IICU 0.416 0.934 0.534 0.532 0.532 LOS A A A A A Key confloting monument as a pan of ICU. Furldwo as a separate tum lone, Moomovar, Is net striped as awl. PmloCl ICU tmpeCt .0.002 Area Traffic Millgailm: CoWtiClunduCletifty: National Date Surveying Somims SIgniocant Impact NO Capacity expreamed In "Mcles per hour of green ITMIVQL 1 3574 1 286 3860 1 a =80 -fio 2110 0 Sato :j;j;wjft::W I IMP No Left 1 14 1 1 1 1000 0 0.009 1 1 i is I I l logo 0 0.009 0 0 1 15 1 1 l loco C Coca 0 0 1 16 1 1 1 1600 0 0.009 0 0 1 15 1 1 I IWO 0 0.09 No Night 5 1827 3 3 4 4500 0 0.391 t tae 1 1973 3 3 4 4800 0 0.422 0 0 1 1073 3 3 4 4800 0 0.422 - -10 1 1063 3 3 4 4600 0 0A20 0 0 1 1963 3 3 4 4800 0 0.420 0 4 4 5 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 54 0 0 0 0 - - So Left 7 72 1 1 1 1600 0 0.045 6 6 7 78 1 1 I IBOO 0 0.040 0 0 7 76 1 1 l loco 0 0.049 0 0 7 78 1 1 l loco 0 0.049 0 0 7 70 1 1 1 1600 0 0.040 III, Thm 1 1423 3 3 4 4800 0 0.298 1 114 0 037 3 3 4 4800 0 0.320 0 0 1 1537 3 3 4 4800 0 0,320 A Ao 1 1497 3 3 4 4600 0 0,312 0 0 1 1497 3 3 4 4800 0 0.3;2 So FUGM 2 23 1 1 1 1600 0 0.014 2 2 2 25 1 1 1 1800 0 0.016 0 0 2 25 1 1 I IBM 0 0.016 0 0 2 25 1 1 1 1600 0 0.016 0 0 2 25 1 1 1 1600 0 0.018 Eb Loft 2 21 1 1 l loop 0 0.013 2 2 2 23 1 1 1 1600 0 0,014 0 0 2 23 1 1 1 1600 0 0.014 0 0 2 23 1 1 l laco 0 0.014 0 0 2 23 1 1 l loco 0 0.014 Eb Thru 2 21 1 1 1 1600 0 0.021 2 2 2 23 1 1 1 1600 0 0,023 0 0 2 23 1 1 1 1600 0 0.023 0 0 2 23 1 1 1 1600 0 0.023 0 0 2 23 1 1 1 1600 0 0.023 Eb Right 1 13 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 14 0 0 0 0 . . 1 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 Key confloting monument as a pan of ICU. Furldwo as a separate tum lone, Moomovar, Is net striped as awl. PmloCl ICU tmpeCt .0.002 Area Traffic Millgailm: CoWtiClunduCletifty: National Date Surveying Somims SIgniocant Impact NO Capacity expreamed In "Mcles per hour of green ITMIVQL 1 3574 1 286 3860 1 a =80 -fio 2110 0 Sato UNSCOTT. LAW Is ORKENSPAR, 1111011111HEIRS 15110 OWNCM Ortwe, Suffe 122, Calls Mesa CA 92626 (714) 641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION tm�dlM. is. 14"ort So.levM at 16M Saver N•8 St Neerportliatilevard Peak Hwr PM bass: 0524M7 E•W St loth Street Annual Growth: 1.00% Dew of cuum 2007 prolam Haag Water PIN ERR Preaknion Year 2015 File: N;1260W1)52652VCUY"r20I5Aft)dm, Coned l"Yps;501roaffla Signal Furiftris as a separate turn lane. hoRever, Is no: 31*od as such. Project ICU IMPSM -0.002 Area Traffic Mitigation: County ionductedby: National Date & Suneaying Services Siglifilont IMPACt NO Capadty expriessed In wriscilea per hour of green I row VOL 1 4002 1 32V 41M 1 0 1322 1 •0 $282 0 4282 M i:�V ik f4m 0 14 1 1600 0.009 Nb Lalk Ill I loco 0.008 1 14 1 1600 0.008 0 14 1 1600 0.01D9 0 14 1 loco 0.009 NO ThM 1700 3 4600 0.363 • 138 1836 3 4800 0.392 • 0 1836 3 4600 0.392 • -10 1028 3 4800 0.390 • 0 1826 3 4600 0.390 ' III Right 44 0 0 4 48 0 0 0 48 a a 0 40 0 0 0 48 0 0 St, Left so I IGOD 0.060 • 8 so 1 1601) 0.084 • 0 Be I 160D 0.054 • 0 Be I 1600 0.054 • 0 ea 1 1600 0.054 - SbThnj to07 3 4800 0.307 153 2060 3 MO CA29 a 2050 a 4800 0.429 •30 2030 3 480D 0.423 0 2030 3 4800 0,423 SO Right 26 1 1600 0.016 2 28 1 1600 OA18 0 28 1 1800 0.016 0 28 1 1000 0.018 0 28 1 1600 0.019 ED Left 20 1 leol) 0.013 - 2 22 1 1500 0.014 • 0 22, 1 IWO 0.014 • 0 22 1 1600 0.014 • 0 22 1 1600 0.014 - Eb ThM 41 1 1000 0.033 3 44 1 1600 0.035 0 44 1 1600 0.035 0 44 1 160N0 0.035 0 44 1 1600 0.035 Eb, Right 11 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 12 a a 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 Wb Left 51 1 1600 0.032 4 55 1 1600 0.034 0 65 1 IBW 0,034 55 1 1600 0.034 0 56 1 low 0,D34 WO Trull 75 A Ito 0.068 • 6 51 1 It)) 0.074 ' 0 111 1 1600 0.074'• 0 at I 1600 0.074 • 0 81 1 low 0.074 Wit Right 34 0 0 3 37 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 37 0 a . ........ . ........ . .... X .. 7.1-7 7-7-7.7.7-�-7 . .... 7- . . ....... •.... x1i ..... x .................. ICU M494 0.624 0,534 0.632 5.632 LOS A A A A A Furiftris as a separate turn lane. hoRever, Is no: 31*od as such. Project ICU IMPSM -0.002 Area Traffic Mitigation: County ionductedby: National Date & Suneaying Services Siglifilont IMPACt NO Capadty expriessed In wriscilea per hour of green I row VOL 1 4002 1 32V 41M 1 0 1322 1 •0 $282 0 4282 I W In UNBCOTT. LAW E GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1660 COWAN, D&O. Suile 122, Coats Was CA 92626 (714) 641.1587 Intsre¢CtlOn: 19. WE St Supanor Avenue E•W St 17M Street Pmjecl: NOeg MaaMr Plan SIR Fee: N:1280 012 0 52S52VCUYN2015AfLW8 COMrc Typo; 80 Traffic Signal Sb Left SD Thm SD Right Eb Lao Vb Leo Vb Thru Vb Right 20 1 1600 0.013 115 1 1600 0.072 1038 1 1600 0.849 72 1 1600 0.045 . 274 2 3200 0.104 69 9 9 11 1 1600 0.007 834 2 3200 0.208 31 0 0 324 1 1600 0.203 435 2 3200 0.145 27 0 0 2 22 1 16DO 0.014 9 124 1 1600 0.078 93 1121 1 1600 0.701 . 8 78 1 1600 0.049 22 296 2 3200 0.112 5 64 0 g 1 12 1 1600 0.007 81 685 2 8200 0.224 . 2 33 0 0 28 350 1 1600 0.219 35 471 2 3200 0.156 2 29 0 0 INTERBE"ON CAPACITY U SupedcrAvenue at 17th Strew Pack hour. AM Date: 05124107 Annual GmrAh: 1.00% Data of Count - 2007 a 22 1 1608 0.014 0 124 1 leco (1.078 0 1121 1 16x0 0.701 0 76 1 1600 0.049 ' 0 298 2 32xO 0.112 0 64 0 a 0 12 1 1800 0.007 a 685 2 3200 (1224 0 33 a 0 0 350 1 1600 (1119 0 471 2 32 (10 0.156 0 29 a a 2 24 1 18x0 0.015 8 132 1 logo 0.083 a 1121 1 1880 0.701 . 0 78 1 16CO 0.049 • •8 288 2 3280 0.110 a 64 a o a 12 1 I xO O.g07 a 685 2 3280 0.224 . -2 31 0 0 a 350 1 ISM 0.219 0 471 2 3280 0.156 0 29 0 0 pmle08on Year. 2015 0 24 1 1500 0.015 0 132 1 1600 0483 0 1121 1 1000 0.701 ' 0 78 1 16DD 0.049 0 285 2 3200 0.110 O 64 O 0 0 12 1 1500 0407 0 5S5 2 3200 0.224 0 J7 0 0 0 350 1 toDD 0.219 0 471 2 3200 0.158 0 29 0 0 1w5 E _.! ' v E a a.B7/ 0.97/ E 8 •• Fun66mle 88 E aaperefe turn MM, however, is net ¢tripa0 as such, Pmj¢q ICU ImpeIX: O.0gO Area Trafie Mitlpatlon; COunb aMucle6 bT; National Data d Surveying Semkaa SIgnIB lcu impact NO Cepecay e�reeee0 M vehlcee per hmrorGreen, ts/ 9041 217 7284 1 6 928/ 1 0 3284 1 0 998/ LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 CO(POnth? DdW, SUNd 122, Coal, Mesa CA 92626 (714) 641-1507 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION lieverseclon: 19. SupaslorAversueatl7thStreet : i;,:::: N-S St SuperlorAvents Peak Hour. Plus Date; 05124107 E-W St l7th street PMjeM: Hoag Manor Plan EIR Annual growth: 1.00% Data of Count 2007 File: NV6Q(y20S28S2VCUYsaf2OI SAsxN PM]scuon Year 2015 Control Type: SO Traft Signal FunMons as a separate turn lane. Morrill Is not stripes as such. Prayer ICU Impact 0.007 Area Trallic Mitigall Counts canducted by: National Oita & Surveying Samos SIgnincent Impact: NO Capeefty intervened In vallficin per hour of green. IMCM-Vol, I 0023 1 242 2205 0 3286 1 30 3295 1 a 3295 : i;,:::: i:!:i: !:j; � i "d ... M 0, Nb Lee 28 1 1000 0.060 • s 104 1 low 0.065 • a 104 1 1600 0.085 • 2 106' 1 1600 0.085 • 0 105 1 1600 0.006 Nb Thru 170 1 1600 0.106 14 184 1 1600 0.115 0 184 1 1600 0,115 a 102 1 1800 0A20 0 192 1 1600 0.120 NO Right 661 1 1600 0.407 52 703 1 1600 0.439 0 703 1 1800 0.439 0 703 1 1800 0.439 0 703 1 1600 0A39 Sew ST 1 1600 0.054 7 94 1 1600 0.059 0 94 1 IGDO 0.059 0 94 1 loge 0.059 0 94 1 1600 0,059 SID Thru 317 2 3200 0.123 • 25 342 2 3200 0.133 • 0 342 2 3200 0.133 • 16 358 2 3200 0.130 • 0 3:8 2 32130 0.136 - SO Right 70 0 0 a 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 4 0 0 Eb Loh 26 1 1500 0.016 2 28 1 1800 0.010 0 28 1 1600 0.018 0 28 1 1600 0.010 0 28 1 1600 0.018 �11 Eb Thru 543 2 3200 0.192 • 43 M 2 3200 0.207 • 0 see 2 3200 0.207 • 0 585 2 3200 0208 • 0 666 2 3200 0.209 - I BID Right tx 70 0 0 a 70 0 0 0 70 a 0 4 80 0 0 0 00 0 0 tp W b Lee 477 1 1600 0298 • 38 Big 1 1600 0.322 • 0 $15 1 1800 0.322 • 0 515 1 16130 0.322 • 0 515 1 1600 0.322 - We Thru 427 2 3200 0.159 34 461 2 3200 0.171 0 461 2 3200 0.171 0 461 2 3200 0.171 0 461 2 3200 0.171 Wb Right at 0 0 6 87 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 87 0 0 ICU 0.173 0.727 0.727 0.734 0.734 Los N C C C C FunMons as a separate turn lane. Morrill Is not stripes as such. Prayer ICU Impact 0.007 Area Trallic Mitigall Counts canducted by: National Oita & Surveying Samos SIgnincent Impact: NO Capeefty intervened In vallficin per hour of green. IMCM-Vol, I 0023 1 242 2205 0 3286 1 30 3295 1 a 3295 I W J LINSCOTT. LAW t OREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1500 COMO"WM, Sub f22, COMB Men CA 92026 (714) 641 -9587 InnneWOM 20. NS St Newpon Soul"ard E•W St. 17th Swet PMIEM Hoeg Mannr Plan E02 Fee: N,9280D12052652VCUVea2015AAAs Control type; SO TnNC Signal Newport 80uleVen at 17th Street Peek Hour, AM Annual Dnwm: 1.00% Date: 0624107 Data of Count 2007 Protection Yeat 2015 :: ';:i:;:i: iii: iiii::. ::ii i ADZ isi:::::::: 1091 1N0;....... i :::::::::::.:.:.:.:::.:.:....:. �.:.i �iiii iiii:: •: �: Eiti?�Aii :. . Xlli.... :7th N:::;:i:i:ii�i:;:;:;::•:�: .........743 .i: F' Ei}3 .NO :T ... Y .... ... Y... .. sk:. a ... ......: ..... ...:.:.......................:............:.....! ..... .. .... ...... fC? I+ 4........ nb...:..::...... .:.:.:::.:.: �:.:..:.....::..r:•.:.:.:.:.:.: .......::Yr.C:[:::t:::?4detls�:: ... .s:;.:.::::::::.::::.::.:.:::. 444E:.:..::; :.::.e:.::.:•:.:..::{fN,`;::::� :. .. ......' � ..::..:: ..,.::...:.:.:[:.::.:.:s:[sf::t .:. ......: .... .... { a....4a :.. : a.•: :. a t::R ::::::: .. 1wrw�s:4 ::::..... :......: .. ...........�;.. :..:... :. ::; #:. :..•:..:..,...: :.�...�..::::::::�............. ... .::.,.:.:....:.•:...��: ..... Nb Lea Nb Thm 45 1899 1 J '1800 4000 DAN 0.354 4 138 50 1 1eDD 0.031 0 60 1 1800 D.wl 0 50 1• 1800 0.031 0 50 1 1800 0.031���� Nb Right 197 1 1800 0.123 1835 J 4WD 0.302 0 lam 3 4600 0.382 .9 1826 J /800 0.980 0 1825 3 4800 0.380 18 213 1 1600 0.133 0 213 1 1600 0.133 .1 212 1 IWO 0,132 0 212 1 1800 0.132 5b Lea St, Thm 749 1439 2 3200 0.234 80 1109 2 3200 0.253 0 809 2 3200 0.253 0 809 2 3200 0.253 0 608 2 3200 0.253 SD Right 472 3 0 4000 0 0.380 115 1554 3 4800 DA30 0 1554 J 4800 0.430 .38 1518 J 4600 0.422 0 1615 J 4600 0.422 38 510 0 0 - 0 510 0 0 0 510 0 0 - 0 510 0 0 - Eb Lea ED Thm 664 /35 3 2 4800 0.138 53 717 J 4800 0,148 0 717 3 4800 0.149 0 717 3 4000 0.1 /9 0 717 3 4600 0.149 ED Right 27 0 3200 0 0.14/ 35 470 2 3200 0.156 0 470 2 3200 0.156 0 470 2 3200 0.156 0 470 2 3200 0.156 2 20 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 29 0 0 - Wit Lea Wit Thm 138 348 2 3200 0.043 11 149 2 3200 0.047 0 149 2 3200 0.047 .2 147 2 3200 0.048 0 147 2 3200 0.046 Wb Riot 116 3 1 4800 1800 0.002 0.074 28 374 3 4800 0.078 0 374 3, 4800 0.078 0 374 3 4600 0.008 0 374 3 4600 0.078 ' B 127 1 1800 0.080 0 127 1 1600 0.080 0 127 1 IWO 0.080 0 127 1 1600 0.080 ...... �..:::•:... ...:......................._.._ 4644; r:•::: :.......:.:::........::.::.:•:...•...:...:......:.::. ::..:.•:.:•:.::.::.:•.....:.:.. ... . ......... •:.:: ?:::i:::::•:i::ii.>:::4, 900.:::.:.:.:• ..:::. ::.:.:::..4.tP94.!:.:•:.:•:.•.• .:...:.::....:....::.•:.41044 -:. ICU LOB 0,708 C 0882 0.8is 0.890 0.660 D 0 0 D Ne5' conikling movement as a pen of ICU. Functions as a Separate am here, novnver• Is not Wped as such. Ceuns tondueted by: N6110r1a10ate 6 Surveying SanBoen CepecSy e3Presead M vehicles per hour of linen. Protect ICU Impact: .0,002 Area Traffic M111gWan: Sgrillcan11mp60t NO flrotslloblt 1 033a 1 Slid 6636 0 6836 40 6786 1 0 6786 UNSCOrr. LAW & GREENSPAN. ENGUIEGIRS 1580 Commit, Dfift, Sulso 122 Castle mew CA 92626 (7101641.1587 metal 20. N-S St Newport Boulevard F1W st: 17th St PMIOM Hoag Master Plan SIR File: N:128001Y052S52000Yaar20I8A1txI3 Con"I Typac. 80 Traffic Signal Newpon Olovwd at 17m Servat Peak Hour PM Annual GnWh! 1,00% Data: 05124VT Daloolcount 2007 Pm3edon Year. 2015 Functional as a separate Cum lane. hovirver. Is Ad "ad as shch. PM10CHCUmpal -0.002 Area Trefflo Mgakn-. Cistrdsconducaadbr, National Data & Surveying SarvWes $vftwompact NO Cap" expressed In Vehicles per hour of green. I raw VOL I sill 1 560 7429 1 0 742d 1 .40 T386 1 0 lies . . ..... . . ....... Hit Left 73 1 1000 0.040 5 79 1 1600 0.049 0 n 1 1600 0.049 0 79 1 1600 0.040 0 To I IODO 0.049 His Thin, 1569 3 4800 0.321 - 126 Idea 3 4800 0.363 ' 0 take 3 4800 0.353 • -9 Was 3 4800 0.351 • 0 leas 3 4800 0,351 - His Right 172 1 low 0,108 14 188 1 1600 0.116 0 let 1 1600 0.116 .11 155 1 1600 0.115 0 185 1 ISO 0.115 SO Left 700 2 3200 0.240 • 83 851 2 3200 0.286 • 0 851 2 3200 0.260 - 0 851 2 3200 0.260 • 0 8et. 2 3200 0.260 - Slb Th"Ll 1821 3 460 0.441 145 1967 3 450 0,477 0 19e7 3 4800 0.477 -28 INS 3 4800 0.471 0 1939 3 4800 0,471 Sts Right 296 0 0 24 322 0 0 0 322 0 0 0 322 0 0 0 322 0 0 b Laft 637 3 4800 GASS • 51 sea 3 4800 0.143 ' 0 688 3 4800 0.143 - 0 688 3 4800 0.143 • 0 688 3 4600 0.143 - b That 614 2 3200 0.171 41 555 2 320D 0.184 0 555 2 11200 0.184 0 555 2 3200 0.184 0 555 2 3200 0.164 EB Right 32 0 0 3 36 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 35 0 0 - 0 35 0 0 b Left 227 2 3200 0.071 Is 245 2 3200 0.077 0 245 2 3200 0.077 .2 243 2 3200 0.078 0 243 2 3200 0.076 W 4 Thm 4 562 a 4M 0.117 • 45 607 3 41100 0.126 • 0 so? 3 49DO 0,128 - 0 607 3 4900 0,125 ' 0 GOT 3 4600 0.128 it W , RVM 183 1 IWO 0.114 Is ISO 1 1600 0.124 0 ISO 1 1600 0.124 0 ISO I IWO 0.124 0 198 1 1600 0.124 qu, ,cc 0.623 0.850 mass 0.868 0.9111,11 Los 0 0 D D D Functional as a separate Cum lane. hovirver. Is Ad "ad as shch. PM10CHCUmpal -0.002 Area Trefflo Mgakn-. Cistrdsconducaadbr, National Data & Surveying SarvWes $vftwompact NO Cap" expressed In Vehicles per hour of green. I raw VOL I sill 1 560 7429 1 0 742d 1 .40 T386 1 0 lies UNSCOTT, LAWS, GRIENSIRAN, ENOINEERS 1580 CoOomfiff 0". SUNG 122, Costs MM CA 92628 (714) 641-1587 transaction: 21. NS St Newport Boulevard Ill Sc lam amoukoetle" S"Ok project: Most Manor Plan EIR Fre: N: 12 SAILAR COMMITYPS:60EV Split KYESSECMCN CAPACITY UTILIZATION No"on Boulevard at titan Strooblitochester Street Park How, AM Annual Ghm,th: 1.00% Dote: OW24MI DBMOFCOWL 2007 Pmjectlon Year. 2015 • Key conflochig miummunt as a pan of ICU. Functions as I separate rum lane, hmmever. Is not striped as such. Project ICU Impact: -0,005 Area Traffic MitiprWill: Down OCHUTUCtodby: NetMnel Dat B Surveylnq SarvNea Sigraneminpact. NO COPACHY UPnseaed In WhIOIN Par hour of Oman. Crew VOL 1 6688 1 465 6143 T- 0 6-14J I T7 6006 1 0 6096 I lit: 4: 1: it :j: it i:::. ....... No Left 46 1 1000 0.029 4 so 1 1600 0.031 • 0 60 1 1000 0.031 • 0 so 1 1600 0.031 • 0 so 1 1600 0.031 Nb Thru 2275 3 4800 0.475 182 2457 3 4800 0.513 a 2457 3 4000 0.513 •9 2448 3 4800 0.512 0 2440 3 4800 0.512 Nto Right 7 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 . . SD Loft 72 1 1600 0.1745 6 78 1 1600 0.049 0 78 1 1600 0.049 0 78 1 1600 oza 0 78 1 1000 0.049 SD Thrill 2640 3 4800 0.550 211 2851 3 4800 0.594 • 0 2061 3 4600 0,594 • •30 2613 3 4800 0.586 • 0 2813 3 4800 0.556 SD Right 113 1 1600 0.071 9 122 1 Iwo 0.076 0 122 1 1600 0.070 .8 114 1 1600 0.071 0 114 1 1600 0.071 ED Let 249 2 3200 O.U70 20 269 2 3200 0.084 • 0 269 2 3200 0.1184 • 8 277 2 3200 0.007 • 0 277 2 3200 0.087 D Thm 102 1 1600 0.004 a 110 1 1600 0.069 0 110 1 1600 0,059 a 110 1 1600 0.069 a 110 1 IGDO O.D69 b Right 64 1 1600 0.040 5 69 1 1600 0.043 0 89 1 1600 0.043 0 69 1 1600 0.043 0 so I 1600 UDO Wit Loft I 1 1600 0.001 0 1 1 1600 O'DOI a I I IGOG GAGI a 1 1 1600 0.001 a I I ism 0.001 Wb Thru so 1 1600 0.074 6 75 1 1600 0.080 0 75 1 1600 0.080 0 75 1 1600 0.080 0 75 1 1600 0.080 WD Right 50 a a 4 54 0 0 0 54 a a a 54 a a 0 54 a 0 ICU 0.721 Gies 0.780 0.784 0.734 LOS C a a C a • Key conflochig miummunt as a pan of ICU. Functions as I separate rum lane, hmmever. Is not striped as such. Project ICU Impact: -0,005 Area Traffic MitiprWill: Down OCHUTUCtodby: NetMnel Dat B Surveylnq SarvNea Sigraneminpact. NO COPACHY UPnseaed In WhIOIN Par hour of Oman. Crew VOL 1 6688 1 465 6143 T- 0 6-14J I T7 6006 1 0 6096 I UNBCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1590 Corporate 04M $Use 122, Coml MM CA 92926 (714)641.1587 intersection: 21. N-S St NowportBouleVard ff-W let 18th 69oa0ROclue5tor Street Project: Hoag Master Plan EIR File: Control Type; egifi.w Split NOYOW Bouavard M IMh Straft-Rothavior Street Peek Hear: I'M AMBI GTVWm: 1.00% Data; 0624107 Date of Count 21107 PraleclitnYear. 2016 • Key wroutang movement as a Pon of IOU. Fundwe a a separate tarn lam, however, Isom BbVed as sum. Counts conduched by. Namnal Dam & Smveying Sembee Capacity extues"d In Vehicles per hour of preen. PrOjeatCUMPact -0.04 Arw Tral ffc Millgamn: sclulcurn Impact NO I rotel VOL 1 6000 - 1 529 713Y 1 0 7127 1 •$ 715 1 0 7124 VjIWP :% V61 -.0y ...... No Len III 1 1600 OM 9 170 1 1600 0.075 0 120 1 low 0V5 0 120 1 loco 0.075 0 120 1 law 0.075 Nb Thru 2700 3 4800 0.665 218 2918 3 4800 0,610 0 2919 3 4800 OJIIIO .9 2907 3 4600 0.629 0 2607 3 4800 0.6139 Nle Right 13 0 0 1 14 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 1 So Left 107 1 1600 0.087 0 lie 1 1600 0.1172 0 116 1 1600 0.072 0 lie 1 1600 0.072 0 lie 1 1600 OW2 Sic Thru 2878 3 4900 0.599 230 3105 3 41600 0.647 0 3106 3 480D 0.647 .28 3078 3 46110 0.641 0 3078 3 4600 ozil Sic Right 159 1 1000 0.099 13 In I lew 0.107 0 112 1 1600 0.107 is Ise I low 0.117 0 las I toaa 0.117 Eb Left 287 2 3200 0.090 23 310 2 3200 0.091 0 310 2 3200 0,097 a 310 2 3200 01199 0 315 2 3200 0,099 b Thm so I IND 0.053 7 92 1 1600 0.057 0 92 1 1600 0.057 0 92 1 1600 0,057 0 92 1 law 0.057 b Right as 1 1500 0.043 5 73 1 IWD 0.046 0 73 1 loco 0.046 0 73 1 1600 0.046 D 73 1 low D.040 �Vls Left 15 1 1800 0.009 1 16 1 1600 0.010 0 18 I low 0.010 0 16 1 1609 0.010 0 18 1 1600 0.010 WoThru lie I IWO 0.11 0 125 1 1600 0.126 0 125 1 loco 0.126 0 125 1 1800 0.126 0 125 1 loco 0.128 We Right 71 0 0 6 77 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 77 9 0 9 17 0 0 tcu 0.876 0.046 0.946 0.6411 Meal LOS D 9 0 a E • Key wroutang movement as a Pon of IOU. Fundwe a a separate tarn lam, however, Isom BbVed as sum. Counts conduched by. Namnal Dam & Smveying Sembee Capacity extues"d In Vehicles per hour of preen. PrOjeatCUMPact -0.04 Arw Tral ffc Millgamn: sclulcurn Impact NO I rotel VOL 1 6000 - 1 529 713Y 1 0 7127 1 •$ 715 1 0 7124 LOISCOTT, LOW & CIMtNSPM, SHOINE&RO 1590 Cotponale Difive, Sufte 122, Coats Mass CA $2626 (714) 641-1587 enterSeCOM: 22 N-S St Newport Siniftyarci E-W St HOrbOrBoutlevarc! prolett Hoag Master Plan EIR Flic N:12S0W052852000YO9a0I flaga COMMITypeclIeTraft signal Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard Peak Hour. AM Annual Growth: 1.00% Date: 0=4107 Date of count 2007 Pri4action Year 2015 Key c9nAk6np mevameM as a pan of ICU. Functions as a separarls turn lam, however, is not Otoped as Own. Project ICU Impact .0.010 Area Tffiffic Mitigation: COUM candiuchud by: National DOW & SuNfi SOMINS 61h01lloarthapaw NO Capacity exilItessed In "hides per hour of grew. Irbalur VOl 1 56" 1 441 5949 1 --r-sug 1 47 sm 0 5002 Orr ioi ij! 240. ­Q: N ';ICY Y:::! ul NO Left 177 2 3200 0,055 14 191 2 3200 0.080 a lot 2 3200 QZVQ 0 lot 2 3200 O.M a 191 2 3200 0.060 No Thru 2419 3 4800 0.504 194 2613 3 4800 0.544 0 2613 3 4600 0.544 .1 2612 3 4800 0.544 0 2612 3 4000 0.544 No Right 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 So LOA 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 a 0 0 0.000 Sb Thru 2329 3 4800 0.491 tee 261S 3 4000 0.530 0 2515 3 4800 0.530 43 2472 3 QCO 0.521 0 2472 3 4600 0.521 SO Right 26 0 a 2 28 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 28 0 0 . 0 28 0 0 �Eb Lon 27 1 IGOO 0.017 2 29 1 1000 0.018 0 29 1 1600 0.010 0 29 1 low 0.010 0 29 1 1600 0,018 Eb Thru 0 0 0 0.000 0 a 0 0 eow a a 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 a 0.000 0 a 0 a 0.000 Eb Right no 2 3200 0.188 U 572 2 3200 0.179 a $72 2 3203 0.179 4 559 2 3200 0.178 a No 2 3200 0,178 Wb Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 D 0 0.001) 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 9 0 0 0.00D b a a 0 0 0.000 Nye Thru 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 a 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 a a a 0 0,000 We Right 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 . 1 0 0 0 a X ............ -:-7.7-1 7 7,7 7-7-: MU 0.967 0.709 0.709 D.919 0.609 LOS a c c a a Key c9nAk6np mevameM as a pan of ICU. Functions as a separarls turn lam, however, is not Otoped as Own. Project ICU Impact .0.010 Area Tffiffic Mitigation: COUM candiuchud by: National DOW & SuNfi SOMINS 61h01lloarthapaw NO Capacity exilItessed In "hides per hour of grew. Irbalur VOl 1 56" 1 441 5949 1 --r-sug 1 47 sm 0 5002 kO LVISCOTT. LAW & GRERNSPAN. ENGINEERS IWO CoMmle Ddw, Suk, 122, Costs Man CA 92626 (714) 641.1587 011OWSWOR! 22. NS St No"On Boulevard lf•W St Project Hoag Master Plan SIR Als: NA2600G052S52VCUYN20I6AIVds CordrolTym SO Trestle; Ghtinad Newpon Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard Peak Hour, PM "met Glovvn 1.0% Date: 0524;17 Date "Cum 2007 P,Wocslon Year. 2DI5 FunWons as 0 asphalt to lone, how"ver, 13 net 817"d as won. Pm;WICVImpact -0.003 Area TMft Wtlgaflon: Coots conducted by National Data A Sumitomo Services Slind)(lard IMPACI: NO Capactly exprokesed In "Iddis per how of green. IrogriVoL 1 6220 1 406 6720— 1 0 We 1 •13 $713 1 0 $713 ....... Niii am —IQ askliv NO Lon 488 2 3200 0.153 30 627 2 3200 0.165 • D 527 2 32DD D.105 • D 527 2 32DD 0.165 0 527 2 3200 0.165 Nb Thou 2521 3 4800 0325 202 2723 3 40D0 0.557 a 2723 3 480) D,567 •1 2722 3 48DD 0.50 0 2722 3 4000 0.567 NO Night a 0 0 0 a a D D D 0 D D 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Sb Loh 0 0 0 0.000 0 D D D DADD D D D D D.DDD D 0 0 0 D.DDD 0 0 0 0 0.000 Sun Thw 2551 S 4900 0.551 • 205 2787 a 4800 D.595 • D 2707 3 4800 D.5% • •11 2778 3 4900 0,592 0 2776 3 480D 0.502 St, Right 82 0 0 6 87 D D D 67 D D D 67 0 0 0 07 0 0 St, Left 56 1 1600 0.036 5 63 1 IfiDD D.030 D 63 1 IGOD D.D39 D 63 1 IODD 0,039 0 63 1 IEDD 0.039 St, Thm 0 0 0 0.000 D D D D DODO D D D D D.DDD D 0 0 0 BAD 0 0 0 0 0.00) Eb Right 518 2 3200 0.182 41 559 2 3200 D.1175 a 569 2 3200 0.175 •1 VA 2 3200 0,175 D 558 2 3200 0.175 Wb Left 0 0 D MOOD D D D D D.DDO D D D D D.00D D 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00D Wh Thru 0 0 0 D.000 D D D 0 D.DDD D D D D D.000 D 0 0 0 D.DDD 0 0 0 0 OWD Wit Right 0 0 0 D D D 0 D D D D D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ........ ....... ICU 9.74D D.7a5 0790 0.786 OT, Los 0 c c c FunWons as 0 asphalt to lone, how"ver, 13 net 817"d as won. Pm;WICVImpact -0.003 Area TMft Wtlgaflon: Coots conducted by National Data A Sumitomo Services Slind)(lard IMPACI: NO Capactly exprokesed In "Iddis per how of green. IrogriVoL 1 6220 1 406 6720— 1 0 We 1 •13 $713 1 0 $713 LINSCOTT, LAW & GR99NSPM, ENGINEERS 1580 C01"At D&O, Sub 122, COSM MOSM CA 92626 (714) 641-1587 Intersection: 23. WE St Nawpon Boulevard E•W St Broacivvey soulavani Project MOD MQ$tU plan EAR Fite: NA260St120626529CLlY0al20I6A1WB CMMTYPS:60E•W SPEC INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTIMAVON Nfi.pon Boulevard a Broad," Soueevans Plak How. AM Annual Gm : 1.00% Dmm: W24M7 Dun" Count 2DO7 Projection Yoor. 2015 Key MM-k*g movement as a pan of ICU. FudolkiWaSS sepamte tum lane, lunSeimr, IS noittriped me won, Project ICU Impact SODD Area Traffic Wdpdw: Count$ Mductld b1f. National Data a SN yhg Sen,loaa Signticant Impact NO Cape" expressed In vehicles per hour of green. ircouvoL I Soso 1 404 6464 1 0 6464 -44 5410 a 5410, S 9R 0 Nit Left I 1 1600 0.001 0 1 1 1600 0.001 0 1 1 IND 0.001 a I 1 1600 0.001 0 1 1 ISDO 0.001 NO Thu 2440 3 480D D.513 • 195 2835 3 480D 0,554 • D 2635 3 400D D.554 • •1 2614 3 480D D,554 D 2634 3 480D 0.554 Nb pjglw 24 D D 2 26 D D D 26 D D D 26 D D D 26 D D St; Left 32 1 1600 D.02D • 3 35 1 IWD DrD22 • D 35 1 16" D.022 - D 35 1 150D MD22 D 35 1 16DO D.022 Sb Thm 24DO 3 4110D D.5D2 193 ZOD2 3 480D D542 D 2802 3 480D D.542 •43 2559 3 48DD D.533 D 2559 3 4800 D.533 St, RIght a I ISOD Dr005 1 9 1 1600 D.DD5 D 9 1 160D D.D05 D 9 1 IODD MODS D 9 1 1500 D.005 ED Left a 0 0 0.000 1 9 D 0 D.DDD D 9 0 D 0.000 0 9 0 0 0.000 0 9 0 0 D.DDD new 4 1 Iwo 0408 - 0 4 1 1600 D.008 - D 4 1 1600 0.008 • 0 4 1 1600 0.000 0 4 1 1800 0.008 ,Eb Right 3 1 1600 0.002 0 3 1 1600 0.002 0 3 1 1600 0,002 0 3 1 IWO 0.002 0 3 1 1600 0.002 Wb Left 31 1 1600 0A19 2 33 1 1600 0.021 0 33 1 1900 0.021 0 33 1 1800 0.021 0 33 1 1600 0.021 Wit Thnu 5 1 1600 0.050 0 5 1 1600 SDSI • 0 a 1 1600 0.061 • 0 5 1 1600 0.061 0 5 1 1600 0.061 Wit Riot 85 0 0 7 02 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 92 0 0 . ........................ ......................... ICU 0.1197 0.546 0.646 0.046 0.445 .Los A 0 0 Key MM-k*g movement as a pan of ICU. FudolkiWaSS sepamte tum lane, lunSeimr, IS noittriped me won, Project ICU Impact SODD Area Traffic Wdpdw: Count$ Mductld b1f. National Data a SN yhg Sen,loaa Signticant Impact NO Cape" expressed In vehicles per hour of green. ircouvoL I Soso 1 404 6464 1 0 6464 -44 5410 a 5410, UNSCOTT, LAW A GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1600 Corporate DM, Sub 122, Costs Mean CA 92626 (714) 641.1687 INTERSBCTION CAPACRY UTILIZATION Intersection: 23. Nmvpod BOUIeWrd M 6r0edwey Boulevard N-S at Newport Boulevard Peak Hour PM Date: 06124107 &W at Broadway Bw"*td Annual Crowlh: 1.00% Date of Count 2007 Project Hoeg Master Plan EIR Propetion Year. 2015 file: N:12S0012052B6280UYea2015AE1ds Control Type:60E•W Wt • Key connlC6ng movement e6 a part of ICU. •• Functions at a separate tun lane, howeuar, Is rot striped as such. ProjeOt ICU Impact: 0.000 Area Traffic Midpatlon: Counts conducted by: Nations! Dole 6 Sunreein9 SaMcaa 5i9ntik:anthnpect: NO Capacity eepreesed In rehitles per how of preen. TObI HI 8000 1 0 save 1 4 888 1 0 6886 Oi ::91 :OR ::: 16iNYNN; kpilrE4 TSi�+i:i:�f`::: @:; :::iii::•:: :i;':�2916i;WDTt 11ONiiij:;ii:::i�i >i::•.::': .'... ;.:ii:is fib;:! : .::::.::.:....:.:::::::::.:.::: :... ...:.: �..:..;...:.:.: .:...,..::::::::::F:::::::::::: �iiiii::::: iiiiii:.": ��.:.::: �::...:.:.:::::::::::::::::::;:::::::.::.:.::.: 5.;.:..:...:::;::.:.::.::..:.:.:.:.: .TiOiEOT:; :::::::.::::::iiiii.:..:.;:::ii :.:.:;...•.:..,.:. �:.:...:..;::.:.:.:: .;..:..;..:::::i::ii:.:ii:ii::i Nb Left 1E 1 1800 0.012 2 21 1 1600 0.013 0 21 1 1800 0.013 0 21 1 1800 0.013 0 21 1 1600 0.013 Nb TIM 2507 3 4800 0.635 ' 201 2708 3 4600 0.678 • 6 2706 3 48M 6.578 • •1 2107 3 4800 0.578 • 0 2707 3 4800 0.576 N6 Right 61 0 0 5 66 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 so 0 0 Sb LM 111 1 1600 0.069 ' B 120 1 1600 0.075 ' 0 120 1 1600 0.076 • 0 120 1 1600 0.075 • 0 120 1 1600 0.075 ' Sit Thm 2569 3 4800 0.5$8 207 2790 3 4800 0.683 0 2798 3 4800 0.583 •11 2785 3 4800 0.680 0 2785 3 4800 0.580 SO Right 60 1 1600 0.038 6 66 1 1800 0.041 0 65 1 1600 0.041 0 85 1 1600 0441 0 Go t 1600 0.041 Eb Left 16 0 0 0.000 1 18 0 0 0.000 0 16 0 0 0.000 0 16 0 0 0.000 0 18 0 0 0.000 ,b Eb Thru 26 1 1800 0.025 2 27 1 1600 0.027 0 27 1 1600 0.027 • 0 2T 1 1800 0.027 • 0 27 1 logo 0.027 I Eb Right 10 1 1600 0.008 1 11 1 1600 0.007 0 11 1 1800 0.00 0 11 1 1600 0.007 0 11 1 1600 0.007 ko 'p Wb Leg 46 1 1660 oA29 4 So 1 logo 0.031 0 50 1 1800 0.031 0 50 1 1600 0.031 0 50 1 1600 0.031 Wit ThN 22 1 1800 0.071 2 24 1 1600 0.076 ' 0 24 1 1600 0.078 0 24 1 logo 0.078 0 24 1 1600 0.076 ' Wb Right 91 0 0 7 98 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 96 0 0 YNI4'/iIUIYP'itwii:�:�:�: �: �:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:O.C64�:h: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: � :�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:b:p'09�:':�:�: �:�:�:�:�:�:�: �:•:�: �:�:�:�: �:�:�:�:�:�:�: �:�:�:�:�:�:•:O.90i�:r�: �:�:�:�:•:�:•:�:�:�: �:�:�: �: �: �: �: �: �: •:•::�:�:�:�:�:�;�:-0.990.�.�.�. �.�.�, �.�.�. � :............... . � � � � � � � � � IM) Von 0.766 0.766 0.769 0.765 1.08 N C C C C • Key connlC6ng movement e6 a part of ICU. •• Functions at a separate tun lane, howeuar, Is rot striped as such. ProjeOt ICU Impact: 0.000 Area Traffic Midpatlon: Counts conducted by: Nations! Dole 6 Sunreein9 SaMcaa 5i9ntik:anthnpect: NO Capacity eepreesed In rehitles per how of preen. TObI HI 8000 1 0 save 1 4 888 1 0 6886 Ln UINSCOTT, LAW & GRAIEWSPAW, MERGERS 1580 C01Pt1Vo CAP^ Sub 122, Costs Men CA 22620 (714) 60-1587 InIOMOMn: 24, N$ SO "aman, Boweard ff-W SL In Screw protect Hoeg Matter Plan EIR File: N:128001 W852VCUYear2oIWxlS CMUSITY09:60EM Spe NOW11180ulavardatl9th Strost Peak Hour. AM Annual Gmwth: 1.00% Date; 0612407 DotoofCaunt: 2007 Protection Yew. 2015 • Kay oonflicting movement as a Pon of ICU. Functions a & separate mm lane, homnnhir, to not Sniped as SuCh. Counts conducted bf. National Data It Sumeong Semoss Copmelly expressed in vehldos per hour of green. FrojectICUunpa 0.000 Area Ttaffic Malcolm: signifloontimpsa NO IT'611 1VOL 1 6978 1 558 Isys- 1 0 7630 1 7492 1 0 7492 .. .. ............ Will 0 40 1 1609 0.025 40 1 18D0 0.025 0 40 1 1800 0.025 N6 Left 37 1 1600 0023 3 40 1 1600 0.025 He Thm 2430 3 4800 0.600 • 104 2824 3 4800 0,547 • 0 2624 3 4800 0.547 • •1 2823 3 4800 0.547 • 0 2623 3 4800 0.547 Nb Right 18 I IND 0,010 1 17 1 1600 0.011 0 17 1 16D0 0.011 0 17 1 1600 0.011 0 11 1 1600 0.011 SD Left 181 1 1800 0.113 • 14 195 1 leDQ 0.122 • 0 195 1 1600 0.122 • 0 195 1 1600 0.122 • 0 195 1 loco 0.122 $bThnj 2369 4 6400 0.440 100 2559 4 6400 0.485 0 2559 4 6400 0485 42 2517 A 6400 GAIS 0 2517 4 640C QA78 so Right 505 0 0 - 40 545 0 a - 0 545 0 0 0 545 0 0 . 1 0 Sa 0 0 ED Left 776 0 0 0,000 62 838 0 0 0.000 0 839 0 0 0.000 0 638 a 0 0,000 0 038 0 0 0.000 ED Thm 192 4 6400 0.151 • 15 207 4 6400 0.163 • 0 207 4 6400 0,163 • 0 207 4 UN 0.187 • 0 207 4 0400 0.163 ED Right 13 1 MDO 0.000 1 14 1 100 0.109 0 14 1 IBCO 0.009 0 14 1 IeW 0i009 0 14 1 Me 0.008 Wls Loft 38 1 1600 O.D24 3 41 1 IBGO 0.026 0 41 1 1600 O.D26 40 1 11300 M025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 We Thm 142 4 6400 0.065 - 11 153 4 Sao 0.071 - 0 03 4 6400 0.071 - 0 153 4 6400 D-071 - 0 163 4 6400 0.071 We Right 279 0 0 22 301 0 0 0 301 0 0 0 301 a 0 0 301 0 0 ICU 0.834 0.803 0.903 0.203 0.903 LOS D a E a E • Kay oonflicting movement as a Pon of ICU. Functions a & separate mm lane, homnnhir, to not Sniped as SuCh. Counts conducted bf. National Data It Sumeong Semoss Copmelly expressed in vehldos per hour of green. FrojectICUunpa 0.000 Area Ttaffic Malcolm: signifloontimpsa NO IT'611 1VOL 1 6978 1 558 Isys- 1 0 7630 1 7492 1 0 7492 1.111180017, LAW 6 OKEIVISPAN, MOLKESRS 1580 COFPOAVO Od", SUN 122, Costs MOSO CA 92626 f714) 041-1587 Intersection: 24. N.S at N6WpM boulevard E-W St 19111SITER1 Project: Hoag Matter Plan EIR FIM! NA2600120526520CVY*sr20I5AILM Con"Typer.60iii-val SPIN Newport Owlevard at I Sth Street Facet, Hour. PM "mal Gnmeth: 1.00% Date: 05124107 Dow of Count 2007 PfoloaWn Year. 2015 Functions as a separate tum lane, however, 10 not Urged NO suell. Counts conducted by; National Date & Surveying Services CApachy Wqns%d in "Nd" pm hour 61 9111011. Pfc4ectlCuImpact 0.000 AmaTillffiClillilgallon: S"Ifizeal Impans: NO MARYK 1 7567 1 Sol 8194 1 0 8194 1 -12 8182 0 8182 1 ................ '.14 Vwiti a a, Nb Leh 61 1 1600 0.036 5 as 1 1600 0.041 0 so I IWO OMI 0 66 1 1600 0.041 0 NO I ISDO 0.041 Nb MM 2466 3 4800 0.614 • 197 2883 3 4000 0.555 • 0 2863 3 4800 0,555 • .1 2882 3 4800 0.555 • a 2882 3 450 0.555 No Right 46 1 100 0.029 4 50 1 1000 0.031 0 50 1 1600 0.01 0 NO I IGOO 0.031 0 50 1 MCI) 0.031 Sin Leh 209 1 1800 0.131 • 17 228 1 IeOO 0.141 • 0 220 1 1600 0.141 • 0 226 1 1600 0.141 • 0 226 1 1600 0.141 SE Thru 2597 A am 0.521 200 2605 4 6400 0.563 0 2805 4 8400 6.563 -11 27114 4 6400 0.561 0 2794 4 6400 0.501 Sin Right 737 0 0 50 706 0 0 0 798 0 0 0 796 0 0 0 795 0 0 Eb Left 740 0 0 0.000 so 799 0 0 0.000 0 789 0 0 0,000 0 799 0 0 0.000 0 799 0 0 0.000 Eb Thm 200 4 0400 0.147 • 16 218 4 6400 0.159 • 0 216 4 8400 0.159 • 0 216 4 6400 0.159 • 0 216 4 8400 0j69 Eb Right 24 1 1600 0.016 2 28 1 1600 0.016 0 28 1 1800 0,016 0 26 1 ISOO 0.016 0 26 1 ME) O.Ois Wb LON at 1 1800 0.030 a as 1 1800 0.041 0 66 1 1600 0.041 0 66 1 1600 0.041 0 as 1 1600 0,041 WIN Thu 283 4 6400 0.070 • 23 me 4 6400 O.OT5 • 0 305 4 6400 0.075 • 0 ZCS 4 64110 0.075 • 0 308 4 e400 0.075 Wb Right 163 0 0 13 176 0 0 0 176 0 0 - 0 176 0 0 - 0 176 0 0 ......................... ......................... ........................ . ICU 0.1162 0.930 0,930 0,930 0,010 Los 1) Is B E E Functions as a separate tum lane, however, 10 not Urged NO suell. Counts conducted by; National Date & Surveying Services CApachy Wqns%d in "Nd" pm hour 61 9111011. Pfc4ectlCuImpact 0.000 AmaTillffiClillilgallon: S"Ifizeal Impans: NO MARYK 1 7567 1 Sol 8194 1 0 8194 1 -12 8182 0 8182 1 YEAR 2025 UNSCOTf, Law 6 GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.05 -2652 Hoeg Hospital Master Plan EIR N9 ?in ?01'_9RL5 ?RCROtl 4PPaidu Cott -.r ucycs rkc kD J LIMSCOTT• LAW & GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1500 Corporate Curve. Sub 122, Costs Men CA 92626 (714) 641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION immacdon: 1. Onlinge Street etwestcontHighway N-S St Orange $vmat Peak Hour. AM Date: 05024107 E-W St: Weal Coast Highway Annual Growth: 1.W% Data of Count 2007 Project HN9 Ififialor Plan EtR FPO: NAl2600k2052&52MCUYear202S.ms Pmjacdon Year. 2025 Control Type: 50 Traffic Signal .'::Fllnjja . • Key canfilcting movement as a pan of ICU. Functions all a sepainfla, turn lone, however. Is not Wpod as such. Project ICU latlect .0.011 Area Traffic MWgaWA: Courritsconducten1by. City0fNewportBeach Significantimpact. NO Capacity arprommad In "InIchas per how of green. I 7W VOL 1 4101 0 4101 0 5290 as 5240 0 5240 .'::Fllnjja . ...... ........... . 0, ... Phi W% 1;44 .,V . ..... Vic Nb Left 13 0 a 0.000 • 0 13 0 0 0.000 • 0 so 0 0 OjODO • 0 50 0 0 0.000 0 50 0 0 0.000'• Nb Thm 2 1 1500 0.010 0 2 1 1600 0.010 0 0 1 1600 0.031 0 0 1 1600 0,031 0 0 1 1600 0.031 Nb Right 68 1 1600 0.036 0 58 1 IGDG 0.036 0 60 1 16GD 0.038 0 60 1 1600 0.038 0 so 1 1600 0.038 So Left 31 0 0 0.000 0 31 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0.000 So Thnu 0 1 1600 0.029 • 0 0 1 16DO 0.029 • 0 0 1 1600 0.038 • 0 0 1 two 0.038 0 0 1 1800 0.038 - $0 Right 16 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Eb Leh 19 1 1600 0.012 0 IQ I 1600 0.012 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 IWO 0.013 Eb Thm 2894 3 4800 0.605 • 0 2894 3 48DO 0.806 • 0 3420 3 4800 0.715 • -50 3370 3 4800 0.704 0 3370 3 4600 0.704 - Eb Right 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 Val Left 12 1 1600 0.008 • 0 12 1 1600 0.008 • 0 10 1 1600 0.006 • 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0,006 Wb Thm 1032 3 4800 0.216 0 1032 3 4800 0.215 0 1640 3 4800 0.342 0 1640 3 4800 0.342 0 1640 3 4800 0.342 Wb Right 11 I IBOD 0.007 0 11 1 1600 0.007 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 ICU 0.642 0.441 0.769 0.748 0.748 LOS B 0 C C C • Key canfilcting movement as a pan of ICU. Functions all a sepainfla, turn lone, however. Is not Wpod as such. Project ICU latlect .0.011 Area Traffic MWgaWA: Courritsconducten1by. City0fNewportBeach Significantimpact. NO Capacity arprommad In "InIchas per how of green. I 7W VOL 1 4101 0 4101 0 5290 as 5240 0 5240 I LINSCOTT, LAW 8 GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1380 CQtMmt@ DM, Suet 122, CM Mesa CA 92626 (714)641.1697 Intemedlcm I. NS 3t Orange Street E•W 3t: Met Coen Hignemy Project Hoag Master Plan EIR File: N:12 60 012 062 8 62VCUYeeR026.gs Can" Type: 60 Traffic signal INTER ECTION CAPACITY UPI IZMN Orange Sblot at Welt Coast Highway Peak Hour, PM Annual Growth: 1.00% Date: O6R4M7 Data or count: 2007 Projection Year. 2026 ND Leg NO Thm 24 6 0 1 0 1600 ... 0.000 • 0.016 .;ddRi......'Ymal 6 0 :.. 24 »•.. :. �....: .....:.:.:.:.... 0 ...:...... 0 , ...... 0.000 • i!;i,Y023:1i9Ai1D. 0 40 U' .I : W!i VE..RG : 44CT3:;:;:: . :. :. ; : : : : : : : : : : : : :: ...........:..:......... .,wj 0 0 0.000 • 42? WQH P .. W .............. p ............. :........ 0 0 :........ .. :. .;:•; ipy .: AL B .41Ciiiii I HiNgil >TLtiiliiii[iiEiiii T ': :i :: •:::::.:.:ii iilVlCif i;fii NO Right 38 1 1600 0.024 0 8 1 1600 0.018 0 10 1 1600 0.031 0 10 0.030 0 40 0 D O.ODO 38 1 1300 0.024 0 40 1 1600 0.026 0 40 0 1 1300 0.0331 1 SO Left 31 0 0 0.000 0 1 1S00 0.026 40 40 1 1800 0.026 SO Tmu 3 1 1800 0.031 • 0 31 3 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0,000 p 40 0 0 SO Right 18 0 0 1 1300 0.031 • 0 0 1 1800 0.098 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 D 0 18 0 0 0 20 0 0 1 1600 0.038 0 0 1 1800 0.038 0.038 ED Left 36 1 1600 0.024 • 0 38 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 EDThm 1246 3 4800 0.262 0 1246 1 3 1000 4800 0.024 • 0,262 0 80 1 1600 0,031 • 0 60 1 1800 0,031 • 0 S0 ED R1ghl 11 0 0 0 11 0 0 1700 3 4800 0.366 0 1700 3 4BOO 0.366 0 1 1600 0.031 - 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 1700 3 4800 0.366 WD Left 37 1 1600 0.023 0 37 1 1600 0.023 0 40 0 0 10 0 0 Wb Thm 3037 3 480D 0.633 • 0 3037 3 4800 0.633 • 0 3600 1 3 1800 0.026 • 0 40 1 1600 0.026 0 40 1 1600 0.026 WbRight 41 1 1800 0.020 0 41 1 16DO 0.026 0 60 1 4800 0.729 40 3460 3 4800 0.721 • 0 3460 3 4800 0.721 - IWO 0.031 0 60 1 1000 0.031 0 60 1 1600 0.031 y1tleW11ddaTgidOYi}:::'.} ii :. }i :i.y } :V.00§ :!� :iiyy } : : } }i? 2311111: ii : : :iiy }ji)j;§60;.!.;iy :; : } :; :;ii>i :' ?;;i ... ICU 0.888 : :;i: :iii ii'i : { iii: :iii :• :ii :''''''..': ..•: .. : ......... .. ..... ..... ...... .......... wS N o 863 o.a 708 0.790 D.no • Kav mnaine,n mno.en..., .. e..w..,n„ c c " Functlons as a separate tum ins, however, Is Trot Wiped as Weh. Pretep ICU Impact: A.00B Area Traffic hatl0elon: COunlaaglapded Dy: Cayal Newpo03eech 31gatICU hnpacC NO Cepadty eeplaeee0.ln Yehidea perhow M green. eM/VOl 1620 0 4820 _ 6500 6460 0 6000 LINBCOTT, LAW 8 ORSENBPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122, CNM Um CA 02626 (714J 641.1587 Intersection: 2. "EC Protpecl Etroel E•W St: Wort Coast Highway Project Hoag Master Plan EIR Fie: NV11001205285211CLIYea2025AS Control TWO: SO Traffic Signal INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION PMSPecl Ernest n West Chat Highway Peek Hour AM Annual Gnlwlh: 1.00% Date: Dmeol C0un2 Projection Year NO Left NO Thou NO Right 13 2 38 0 1 1 0 1600 1600 0.000 0.000 0.024 0 0 0 13 2 38 0 1 1 0 1800 1800 0.000 0.009 0.024 0 0 0 50 0 40 0 1 1 0 1800 1600 0.000 ' 0.03t 0.025 0 0 0 50 0 40 0 t 7 0 1600 1800 0400 ' 0.031 0 .076 0 0 0 50 0 40 0 1 1 0 7600 1800 sow SD Thou SD Right 223 0 17 0 1 0 0 1800 0 0.000 0.150 0 0 0 223 0 17 0 1 0 0 1800 0 0.000 0.150 - 0 0 0 230 0 20 0 1 0 0 1800 0 0.000 0.156 0 0 0 230 0 20 0 1 0 0 1800 0 0.000 0.166 0 0 0 230 0 20 0 1 0 0 1600 0 E0 Left 4O Thm 1 0 Right W 11 2920 6 1 3 0 1800 4800 0 0.007 0.612 - 0 0 0 11 2929 8 1 3 0 7800 4900 0 0.007 0.812 0 0 0 20 3480 10 1 3 0 1800 Saint 0 0.013 0.723 0 .60 0 20 3400 10 1 3 0 1600 4800 0 0.013 0.710 0 0 0 20 3400 10 1 3 0 1600 4000 0 kOVb Left WO ThIU W0 Right 16 1071 24 1 3 0 1800 4800 0 0410 0728 0 0 0 1e 1071 24 1 3 0 1600 4800 0 0.010 0.228 0 0 0 20 1040 30 1 3 0 1800 4800 0 0.013 0.348 0 0 0 20 1640 30 1 3 0 1800 4800 0 0.013 0.348 0 0 0 20 1640 30 1 3 0 1800 4800 0 0.772 CLASS 05/74107 2007 2025 0.000 0.031 0.028 0.000 0.158 0.013 0.710 0.013 0.348 - D D D • Key conNNng movement me a pan of ICU. Fwcdons as a separate Wm taro, however, Is not Smpe0 as Such. Projem ICU Impaa: •0.073 Area iremc M61pe1Wn: Umbe con0ucte0 by: National Data 6 Surveying Services Signl9cem Impaq: NO Dspeclry 0e0reSSee In vshkles par hour of green. e11/ VOL 1 4362 1 0 4362 1 0 652 -60 $460 1 0 6460 LUISCOTT, LAW IS GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1680 C01POINA) 060, Sub 122, Costs MM CA 92626 (714) 641.1587 KTURSECTION-CAPACITY UMIZAT MhuSIC11011: 2. Pinsited Stem at West Coast Hlgtr*w i � ii i ii!: i i i 13i NS St: praspem Street Peak PM Cate: 052407 E•W At West Cow Highway Annual Gm ; 1.00% DamotCount: 2007 purled: Hmg Mainer Plan SIR Prajecdon Year. 2025 File: N:126MOS2652VCLJYame2025.xI8 Cwbvt Typc 60 Tftft Signal Key cariffleting movement as a pan of ICU, Functions 28 a separate tum to", hommilva, is not striped as such. PMIBCI ICU Impact .0.005 Ania Tmft Mitigation: Counts conducted by; National Data & Sunvying Servioas Signmeent hipam NO Cape" S)Pmntd in vithmes Pat hwrofom*n, 1701411VOL 1 4181 0 4181 0 5160 •0 silo 1 0 silo :::ii 17IX MINTIRMTKAFM i � ii i ii!: i i i 13i i i: MUM Akwor. 01ROAM : ii iii !i*i- ::0 .. ..... ....... .... :�.: ... ii! "-4ii�iii 44W*I.iwwiiiiiP ' �6 �. " NO Left 5 0 a 0,000 • a 5 0 0 0.000 • 0 30 0 0 0.000 • 0 30 0 0 0.000 • 0 30 0 0 OODO No Thm 2 1 1600 0.004 0 2 1 1600 0.004 0 0 1 1600 0.019 0 0 1 1600 0.019 0 0 1 1600 0.012 NO Right 20 1 1600 oma 0 26 1 1800 0.018 0 30 1 1800 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 SO Left 62 0 0 0.000 0 62 0 0 0.000 0 70 0 0 0.000 0 70 0 0 0,000 0 TO 0 a 0.000 So Thm I I low GO" - 0 1 1 IWO 0,044 • 0 0 1 1600 0.060 • 0 0 1 logo 0.050 • 0 0 1 1600 0.050 So Right a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 to 0 0 fib Ltd 38 1 1800 0.024 • 0 38 1 1600 0.024 • 0 60 1 1600 0.031 • 0 so 1 1600 0.031 • 0 50 1 1600 0.031 SO Thm 1215 3 4800 0.254 0 1215 3 4800 0.254 0 1690 3 4800 0.352 •10 long 3 4800 0.350 0 Ion 3 4800 0,350 SO Right 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 C Wb Left 26 1 1800 0.016 0 26 1 1600 0.018 0 30 1 1500 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0,019 c wb Thm 2752 3 4800 0.682 0 2752 3 4800 0.682 0 3190 3 4e00 OATS .30 3160 3 4000 DASS 0 3160 3 4800 0.669 W1b Right 41 a a a 41 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 so, 0 0 0 so 0 0 ........... ..... ......................... . ....... .... .. ............ ......... ICU CASE 0.660 0.789 0.780 0.750 Log S It C C C Key cariffleting movement as a pan of ICU, Functions 28 a separate tum to", hommilva, is not striped as such. PMIBCI ICU Impact .0.005 Ania Tmft Mitigation: Counts conducted by; National Data & Sunvying Servioas Signmeent hipam NO Cape" S)Pmntd in vithmes Pat hwrofom*n, 1701411VOL 1 4181 0 4181 0 5160 •0 silo 1 0 silo UNSOOM LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corponshl DrIft, Sufle 122, Code Mesa CA 52526 (714) 641-1587 IMareedlOR 8. St Strauss BrodlftporfiorAvo E-W St wbaccatmighway Project: Hoogmal"Ple"9111 Far. N128001205285211CL[Year2026.kh, Cord"DITYP".62" SPIA Balboa BWI$Weftr Ave st.Wast Coast HlghWay Pea Hour. AM Annual Growth: 1.80% Dow: 05124107 Dote of count: 2007 ProjectIon Year 2025 Fund ono as 8 separate turn kno, however, Is not striped as such, Counts MduCted by. CRY Of NeWpod Sestell Capacro "pressed In voirldes per hour of preen. Proadicubripact .0.017 Ares Traffic MoNstion! SigniNcentlimpect NO lrctilvaL 1 54" 1 0 "414 0 $660 1 •30 6810 1 0 5830 UU 09k:* Nb Loft 204 1 1600 0.128 0 204 1 1600 0.128 0 240 1 1600 0.150 10 250 1 1600 0.158 0 250 1 1600 0.150 No ThrU 327 2 3200 0.130 - 0 327 2 3200 0.130 - 0 370 2 3200 0.159 ' 10 380 2 3200 0.159 - 0 380 2 3200 0.159 No RIqr4 go 0 0 Q so 0 D 0 140 0 0 -10 130 0 0 0 130 0 0 51; Lell 172 1 1600 oJor - 0 172 1 1600 0.107 - 0 130 1 1600 OrOol - 0 130 1 low 0.081 - 0 139 1 Iwo 0.951 So Thm 122 2 3200 0.035 0 122 2 3290 0.038 0 100 2 3200 0.031 0 100 2 3200 0.031 0 too 2 3200 0.031 as Right too 2 3200 0r059 0 189 2 3200 0.059 0 50 2 3200 0.0111 0 50 2 3200 0,015 0 so 2 3200 0.016 Eb tan 965 2 3200 0.312 0 998 2 3200 0.312 0 650 2 3200 0.203 40 690 2 3200 0.216 0 Sao 2 3200 0.210 Eb Thm 2284 a 4000 0.472 • 0 2204 3 4800 0.472 • 0 2630 3 4800 0.648 - .80 2550 3 4000 6.531 - 0 2550 3 48DO 0.531 Eb Right 240 1 1800 0.150 0 240 1 1600 0.160 0 290 1 1800 0.175 a 280 1 1600 0.175 0 280 1 1600 0.175 Wb Left 62 1 1600 0.030 - 0 02 1 low 0.098 - 0 80 1 1600 0.050 - 0 so 1 1600 0.050 - 0 80 1 1600 0.050 MTM 580 4 6400 0.124 0 Sao 4 5400 0.124 0 760 4 6400 0.155 0 750 4 6400 0.155 0 760 4 6400 0.155 Wls Right 208 0 0 0 208 0 0 0 230 0 0 a 230 0 0 0 230 0 0 .................. .. .. .. . ...... . .• . ..... ICU 0.748 0.748 0138 4421 0.621 11.011 c c 0 0 0 Fund ono as 8 separate turn kno, however, Is not striped as such, Counts MduCted by. CRY Of NeWpod Sestell Capacro "pressed In voirldes per hour of preen. Proadicubripact .0.017 Ares Traffic MoNstion! SigniNcentlimpect NO lrctilvaL 1 54" 1 0 "414 0 $660 1 •30 6810 1 0 5830 UNSCO", LAW & QRSENSPAR, KNOINGERS 1580 CO PMm DAIM, Sidtf 12Z Cosa AIM CA 92828 (714) 641-1587 Intersection: 3. N-S St Balboa BlvdSuporlor An E-W St Wastcoastieg" Project Hoag Master Plan EIR Flle: N.A28001205285211CUYsar2025.xW Con"TIP0:60• Uth BOM011 OlvdiSUPOW&AVe at West Coast HIghway Peak Hour. PM Annual Growth: 1.00% Cast. MIMI` Dam Of count 2007 Pm;OcUcn Year. 2025 • Key conflicting movement as a pan cMU. Functions as a separate turn Ime• homenr• Is not striped as such. CountsconductsobT City0lNewpualSeats Capadty axpreenved In vardemS per hour of green. Pmfect ICU impact. -0.031 Ares Traffic MidgaVoke SlOnIficam Imp": NO I TMI Va 1 6821 1 0 6021 1 0 Wo 1 -120 dwo 1 0 woo I .............. 10 310 1 1600 0.194 0 310 1 1800 0.194 No Left 264 1 1600 0.105 0 264 1 1600 0.166 0 300 1 1600 0.188 No Thru 209 2 3200 OASS 0 209 2 3200 0,066 0 lee 2 3200 0.091 10 170 2 3200 0.088 a ITO 2 3200 0.088 No Right so 0 0 0 as 0 0 0 130 0 a -20 110 0 0 1 0 110 0 0 So LIA M I WO 0A03 0 155 1 loco 0.103 0 260 1 1600 0.163 40 220 1 1600 0.138 0 220 1 loco 0.138 So Thru 237 2 3200 0.074 0 237 2 3200 0.074 0 290 2 3200 0.091 a 290 2 3200 0.091 a 290 2 3200 0.091 So Right 746 2 3200 0.233 0 745 2 3200 0.233 0 410 2 3200 0.128 20 430 2 3200 6A34 0 430 2 3200 0.134 Eb Lon 258 2 3200 0.080 0 268 2 3200 0.080 0 so 2 3200 0.010 a so 2 3200 0,016 0 so 2 3200 0.016 ED Thru 1181 3 4800 02AO 0 list 3 4690 0.246 0 Inc 3 4300 0280 -10 1300 3 4800 0.288 0 1380 3 4840 0.288 Eb Right 227 1 1600 0.142 0 227 1 1600 0.142 0 260 1 1600 0,163 a 260 1 loco 0.163 a 260 1 1600 0.163 Wit Loft ift 1 1503 0.093 0 148 1 IBM 0.093 0 200 1 1600 0.125 •10 ISO 1 1600 0.119 a 190 1 loco 0.119 WbThru 2187 4 0400 0.303 0 2187 4 0400 0.363 0 2460 4 6400 0.417 -40 2420 4 6400 0.405 0 2420 4 8400 0.405 Wb Right 135 0 0 0 135 0 0 0 210 0 a -40 170 a a a 170 0 0 ............. ICU 0.761 0.791 0.784 0.763 011113 LOS C C C C C • Key conflicting movement as a pan cMU. Functions as a separate turn Ime• homenr• Is not striped as such. CountsconductsobT City0lNewpualSeats Capadty axpreenved In vardemS per hour of green. Pmfect ICU impact. -0.031 Ares Traffic MidgaVoke SlOnIficam Imp": NO I TMI Va 1 6821 1 0 6021 1 0 Wo 1 -120 dwo 1 0 woo I UNSCO", LAW & GREENSPAN• ENGINEERS 1580 CCMMfB D*@, 81,1110 12Z COW Men CA 92626 (714) 641.1597 Intersection: 4. N-S St Rivensidt,Awanam RiuMids Avenue at West Coast, Highway E-W St Wasoccestligeway Peak Hour. AM Date. OS124107 Prolect. FINE MOSIN Plan EIR Annual GrowIn: 1.013% Data of Count 2007 Fft: NVII001052662000year2025.,os Projecdon Year, 2025 0011bVi Type: liaTraffic Signal • Key conAssIng movement as a part of ICU. •• Functions as a separate turn lone• however. is Wit stripes as such. Pmjadtcu Impact -om Ares TralloNtilliallon: Courts conducted by: CRY of Newport Beach 3190AMUMpact: NO Capsol"xismseed In "house per hour of green. IrbeUm 1 4151 1 4151 0 5310 1 -70 6240 aug VINN A"WAROW.- R414SOV C6 .,:,..•:.: .. !It . . .. 4 0 . 0 . 0 No Left No Thru 2 a 0 0 O.ODD 0 2 0 0 0,000 0 10 0 0 0.00 0 10 0 0 MOOD 0 10 0 0 0.000 No Right 0 I 0 1600 0 0.01115 0 0 1 1600 0.005 0 10 1 ISDO 0.013 0 It) 1 16110 0,013 0 10 1 1600 0.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sts Left $8 0 0 O.ODO 0 the 0 a 0.000 0 IOD 0 0 0.000 0 100 0 0 0.00 0 100 a SD Thou $D Right 15 304 1 1 1000 1000 0.053 0 15 1 IGOD 0.053 0 10 1 1801) 0.009 0 10 1 1800 0.0e9 0 10 1 0 1600 0.000 0.0011 0.190 0 304 1 1600 0.190 0 300 1 1600 oze .10 370 1 IODD 0.231 0 370 1 IWO 0.231 ED Left ED ThU 283 2115 1 1500 0.177 0 283 1 16OD 0.177 0 290 1 IBDD 0.181 0 290 1 1600 0.181 0 290 I 1600 0.181 El) Right 2 3200 0A67 0 2115 2 3200 0.687 0 2690 2 3200 0.847 -10 2590 2 3200 0.844 0 2630 2 3200 0.844 Is 0 0 0 Is 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 W WD Left 9 1 1500 0.006 9 1 1600 0.066 0 10 1 1600 0,006 0 10 1 1600 0.006 Q.o 0 10 1 7800 0.D05 We Thru 1244 3 4800 0.259 0 1244 3 4800 0.258 0 1720 3 4800 0.30$ -W 1670 3 4000 0.348 0 1670 3 4600 0.3411 WD Right Be I 1600 0.043 0 all 1 1800 0.043 0 70 1 1000 0.644 0 70 1 1800 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0,044 ICU LOS 0.736 0.736 0.122 0.919 0.011 C C E E fi • Key conAssIng movement as a part of ICU. •• Functions as a separate turn lone• however. is Wit stripes as such. Pmjadtcu Impact -om Ares TralloNtilliallon: Courts conducted by: CRY of Newport Beach 3190AMUMpact: NO Capsol"xismseed In "house per hour of green. IrbeUm 1 4151 1 4151 0 5310 1 -70 6240 aug O LINSCOTT. LAW I MEENSPAR, INGINGIRS 1590 CoMovore D44, SUIR, 122, Costs Mass CA 92520 (714) 641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UELIFAT(OR tritansecdom 4. Riverside Avenue at West Coast Hfg" N-S St Mahood Avenue peak Flour. PM Date. 0544(07 9-W St West Coast Hlgh y Annual Groneft: 1.60% Date of count 2007 Project Hong Madder plan EIR projection Year. 2025 File: N:12800=52652MCUYsar2025ads CommITWa:GQ;T;vftk, Signal • Key MftgAg flutonalmorA as 6 W of CU. Functions; as a aparalts tuM land, hoNaver, is not IrMod an such. Ptoject (CU Impact 404 Ants TmMc MitigaMn: Counts 001141.111t66 by. Coal M"MI Beach SIGnticlicknPa NO Capacity expaidesed in vallides per hour of green. 11-amw 1 4#80 1 0 4980 1 0 0200 1 -711- 6220 a 6220 ............ 10aj ANT to No Left 28 0 a 0.000 a 28 0 a 0.000 0 30 a a (L000 a 30 a a 0.000 a 30 a a Loco No Thni 7 1 loco (Low a 7 1 1600 0.030 0 111 1 loco 0.031 a III I loco 0.031 0 111 1 1800 0.031 No Right 14 a a a 14 a a a to a a a to a a a to a 0 So Left 05 a 0 0.1)(10 a 85 a a 0400 a to a a 0.000 0 so 0 0 0.000 a 90 a a 0.0100 So Thru 7 1 logo 0.057 a 7 1 1600 0.057 a 10 1 1600 0.0113 a to 1 1600 0403 a to I loco 0.053 So Right 437 1 1800 0.273 a 437 1 1600 0.273 0 530 1 INC 0.331 a 530 1 loco 0,331 a 530 1 loco 0.331 Eb Left 271 1 1600 (LIN a 271 1 1600 0.189 a 300 1 1660 0.244 .20 370 1 loco 0.231 a 370 1 1600 0.231 Sb Thm 1543 2 3200 0.489 a 1543 2 3200 0.489 a 2100 2 3200 0.663 .30 2070 2 3200 0.653 a 2070 2 3200 0.653 ED Right 21 a a a 21 0 0 D 20 a a a 20 a 0 a 20 a a We Let! 28 1 1000 0.018 a 29 1 lead 0410 a 30 1 logo 0.019 a 30 1 loco 0.019 a 30 1 1600 0.019 Wb Thou 2454 3 4000 0.511 a 2464 3 4800 0.511 a 3000 3 4800 0.626 -20 2980 3 4000 0.621 a 2980 3 4800 0.621 • We Right 66 1 IWO 0.041 a M i 1600 0.041 0 ?a I loco 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0,044 0 TO 1 1600 0.044 ............. . ... ... ICU 0.7114 0.784 0,1156 0,052 5.1162 LOS 0 C E E I • Key MftgAg flutonalmorA as 6 W of CU. Functions; as a aparalts tuM land, hoNaver, is not IrMod an such. Ptoject (CU Impact 404 Ants TmMc MitigaMn: Counts 001141.111t66 by. Coal M"MI Beach SIGnticlicknPa NO Capacity expaidesed in vallides per hour of green. 11-amw 1 4#80 1 0 4980 1 0 0200 1 -711- 6220 a 6220 LINS=T. LAVA & ORSENSFAM, EtiOlNEfiRS 1580 Corcomfe D*@, Sub 122, Cases Mm CA 92626 (714) 641.1507 INTrR$GCTION CAPACITY UTIUZAMON Inagmecifion: a. Tuan Avenue N Wag Cogat Hlghmy N•S St TustInAvallia, Pea Hour. AM Data: =4107 F•w SL wasicomamp"y Annual Growth: 1.00% Dots of Count 2007 prolea. Hag Master Plan EIR "ofton Year. 2025 Fka: NAMOON201524352YMY602025.,60 Control Too: 30 TMMC SillrM • Key cbnfflcdng mOverront N 0 Pan Of ICU Project ICU Impact O-ODO Area Traffic MdPdw: Functions im, a separate turn lane, however, to not striped as such. CountsconducUldby'. Citso Newport Beach Slarmountimpact NO Capawlexpressed In vehicles per hour afghan. ly,GWVOL 1 3631 ----T It Has -ff 4440 •50 4390 0 4390 10111" am's 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 NO Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 O.DDD NO Thn, 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1800 0.000 0 6 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 No Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5b Left 35 0 0 0.000 0 Be 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0,000 0 20 0 0 0.000 SbThm 0 1 low 0033 0 0 1 1000 0.033 0 0 1 1600 0.038 0 0 1 IWO 0,038 0 0 1 1800 0.038 Sb Right Is 0 0 0 is 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 Eb Left 27 1 1600 0.017 0 27 1 low 0.017 0 go 1 1000 0.056 -10 so 1 1600 0,050 0 80 1 IWO 0.050 Eb Trim 2203 2 3200 0.707 0 2283 2 3200 0.707 0 2650 2 3200 0.828 0 2850 2 320D 0.828 0 2850 2 3200 0828 Eb Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WO Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0,000 Wit, TM 1248 3 4800 0.200 0 1248 3 4800 0.200 0 1600 3 4800 0.333 40 1660 ll 4000 8325 0 1560 3 MUDD 0.325 WO Right 39 1 1000 0.025 0 39 1 IWO 0.025 0 40 1 1800 0.025 0 40 1 vOOD 8025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 909111! I'M 0,740 0.740 0446 8860 0.044 Los C C D 0 a • Key cbnfflcdng mOverront N 0 Pan Of ICU Project ICU Impact O-ODO Area Traffic MdPdw: Functions im, a separate turn lane, however, to not striped as such. CountsconducUldby'. Citso Newport Beach Slarmountimpact NO Capawlexpressed In vehicles per hour afghan. ly,GWVOL 1 3631 ----T It Has -ff 4440 •50 4390 0 4390 LINSGOTT, LAW A, GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1680 COMWO D&*, Sulle 122. CO3V Move CA 92626 (7111641.1557 INTERSECTION Irdarsedom 5. Tustin Avenue At Was[ Coast HIS" N•S St Tustin Avenue Peak Hour. PM Date: 06124J17 E-W St wast Coast High"y Annuad Growuv. 1.0041 Date Of count 2007 Pfojedt Hoag Master Phm EIR Projecdon Year. 2025 AM: N:M=052e52VCUYM2025•x16 laii:i i: Control Typo: So Daft Signal • Key conflicting movement do a part of ICU. Functions as a Separate turn Ian• however• to not SblPed as SUM. Project ICU Impact: -0.002 Area TrOffiC iffidgation: City of Nwximn Beach Significant Impact NO Capacity expressed In vehicles par hour of green. IraftiVoIL 1 4230 1 0 4230 1 0 6200 1 40 5160 1 0 6140 rR P304w,.j laii:i i: ... ... .... ...... .. LAW: �006:::Iws: Mb Left 1 0 0 0.000 • 0 1 0 0 0.000 - 0 10 0 0 0.000 • 0 10 0 0 0.000 • 0 10 0 0 0.000 Nb Thm 0 1 IWO 0.004 0 0 1 1600 0.004 0 0 1 1600 0.013 a 0 1 1600 0.013 0 10 1 1600 0.03 No Right a 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 10 0 a 0 10 0 a 0 10 0 0 $It Left 45 0 0 0,000 0 45 a 0 (Low 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 a 0000 0 40 0 0 0.000 $It Thm 0 1 1600 0.054 - 0 0 1 1600 0.054 - 0 0 1 1600 0.069 - 0 0 1 1600 0.069 - 0 a 1 1600 0.069 Sit Right 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 1 . 0 70 a 0 0 70 0 0 0 70 a 0 Eb Left 32 1 leOO 0.020 - 0 32 1 1600 0.020 • 0 so 1 1600 0.050 • 0 00 1 1600 0.000 - 0 so 1 1600 0.050 Die EIS Thm 1563 2 3200 0.491 0 1563 2 3200 0.491 0 1900 2 3200 0.622 .30 1950 2 3200 0.613 0 IVA 2 3200 0E13 I b E b Right 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 a 10 0 0 Left 0 a 0 Q.0M a a 0 a 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 a 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Wb Thm W 2487 3 4800 0.518 0 2407 3 4800 0.818 0 2920 3 4800 0.608 -10 290 3 4800 0,606 0 2910 3 48DO 0.606 [Wb W W b b Right 47 1 1600 0.030 0 47 1 law 0.030 0 so 1 1000 0.050 0 80 1 1600 0.051) So 1 1600 0.050 10 .............. 7: 1: .,40* 7 7 7 7: 1 :7 : 7: 7 :::::000 ICU 0.192 0.602 0.727 0.725 0.726 LO LOS A A C C C • Key conflicting movement do a part of ICU. Functions as a Separate turn Ian• however• to not SblPed as SUM. Project ICU Impact: -0.002 Area TrOffiC iffidgation: City of Nwximn Beach Significant Impact NO Capacity expressed In vehicles par hour of green. IraftiVoIL 1 4230 1 0 4230 1 0 6200 1 40 5160 1 0 6140 I r 0 J UNSCOTT, UAW S GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate 044 SUN 122, C00 Men CA 92625 (714) 841.1587 interaction: 8. NS 81: Bay Shan mnw mom Ddve E -W St Wed Coast Highway Project Hoag 3e4enr Plan EIR File: NM1280012052852VCUYeaf202S.As Control Tgpa:80NS Spit INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTI oaTION Bey Shore DOWIDO ar DINO at WostCoast Highway Peak Hour. AU Annual Growth: 1.00% Dan: 05114/07 Dan of Count 2007 ProHcbn Year 2025 ::.:.:.:..:.::...:.:.: �mo;r,...:...: :�:::::VM.... "•i::::;:::::i. �.:w!,.........:. A ROIVTx:::;:i i:::i::i::::::. :WRH. :2 6.tri7 I IOA 1 :. .:........ ....: .:.........: :..•.7 :...:.:.:.:.:..:...... .. ......:.....::.....:...:.:.:.:. .... .214 86... 1,..:.........::....;.; ..,. .. .• BH"::iii':: b:::. •:;y•:.:: "i;i; " "''';;:;i:: Nb Lea 51 1 1800 0.032 0.. 51 7 1800 0.032 0 • NO Thm 55 2 3200 0.037 • 0 56 2 3200 0.037 . SO 1 1500 0.031 . 0 SO 1 1500 0.031 . 0 50 1 1600 0.031 NO RIgh 64 0 0 0 54 0 0 30 2 3200 0.019 0 30 2 3200 0.019 0 30 2 3200 0.019 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 - 0 30 0 0 BID Left 1077 3 4800 0.224 • 0 1077 3 4800 0,224 . 0 1150 • Be Thm 74 1 1600 0.045 0 74 1 1600 0.046 3 . 4800 0.240 0 1150 3 4800 0.240 • 0 1150 3 4800 0.240 ' SO Right 173 1 1600 0.108 0 173 1 1600 0.108 0 10 1 le00 0.008 10 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 190 1 1600 0,119 0 190 1 1600 0.119 0 190 1 1600 0.119 Eb 129 2 3200 0,040 0 129 2 3200 0.040 0 160 Eb ThN Th 2198 3 4800 0.484 0 2196 3 4800 O,dBd 2 3200 0.047 0 150 2 3200 0.047 0 150 2 3200 0.087 E9 Right 32 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 2770 3 4800 0.581 . 0 2770 3 4800 0.581 • 0 2770 3 4800 0.501 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 WO Lee Wb Thm 29 1293 1 1800 3 4800 0.018 • 0.269 0 29 1 1600 0.018 • 0 10 1 1800 0.006 • 0 10 1 1600 0.008 . 0 10 Wa Rgn 678 Free 9899999 0.000 0 0 1293 3 4800 0.269 0 1760 3 4800 0.367 SO 1710 3 4800 0.358 0 1710 1 1500 3 4800 0.006 878 Fme 0999980 0.000 0 760 Fina 9999999 0.000 0 780 Free 2808080 0.000 0 760 Free 8889899 0.368 0.000 :.:.;.;.;.::; ::::::::::; : >:; :::::::: >................:. :..:.....,.,.,.,.,.....,.. .............,.,.: ICU 0. .:... ,............................. . L 08 p 0 0.742 0.889 0.068 0.066 0 D D p Functions 000 "Penn hull lane, however, is not Wped as such, Pofeq ICU Impact 0.000 Aroa TrefBC Nitl98tl0n: Counts conduWd by: City of Newport Beach Capacity eepreeeed In vehicles per lour of green. Slgnacantlmpact NO ab1v06 i 8881 8 61 0 WM -10 90 0 BB80 LINSCOTT, LAW • GREEIISPAIN. 1111,3111991to 1580 COMOMfe D*o, SUMS 122, COO Mae$ CA 92626 (714) 641.158F Intersection; 6. N-S St Say ShOm (Niva/Dowr Olen, E-W St. WW C*Q$t Hlpmy Project: Haag Water Plan EIR Fos; NA2600I20626S2VCUYaa2025.)ft Ccnb0I Type: 00 N•S SPIN Say ShOm Od"Mover DKVO at West 000311 Hlghfty Feast; Hour. PU Annual GfovM: 1.00% Dam: 06124107 Date of Count 2007 Projection Yew, 2025 Key Conflksting M"(04411, as a part 94 ICU. Functims sea seponstatuarl lone, hesvilvINJI; ncft striped all such. C(sunlicanducliedBY: City 0114mitort Beach C apachy expressed In vehicles par hour of gmest. PMJW ICU Impact; -0,002 Am Tmffic Mitigation: Significant Impact: NO 17-001 VOL 1 M10 1 a VMS 1 0 8180 1 40 "is 1 0 8140 1 ii! i .. . . ............ NB Left 28 1 1600 0.017 0 28 1 1600 0.017 0 20 1 1600 0,013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1800 0.013 NE Thin 63 2 3200 0.034 • 0 03 2 3M 0.03A 0 20 2 8200 0.000 0 20 2 3200 0.009 0 20 2 3200 0.009 Nb Right 46 0 0 - 0 46 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 Bb Left 993 3 4800 0207 - 0 242 S 4800 0.207 0 1050 3 4800 0219 a lose 3 4600 0.219 0 1050 3 4800 0.219 SO Thru 66 1 1000 0.041 0 68 1 1000 0.041 0 20 1 1600 0,013 0 20 1 1GD0 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 SO Right 198 1 1800 0.122 0 195 1 1600 0.122 0 180 1 1600 0.113 0 180 1 1800 0A13 0 180 1 1600 OA13 Eb Left 156 2 3200 0.049 - 0 156 2 320D 0.049 0 140 2 3200 0.044 0 140 2 3200 0.044 0 140 2 3200 0.0" ED Thm 1756 3 4900 0.372 0 1755 3 4000 0.372 0 2320 3 4800 0.488 -30 2290 3 4500 0.481 a 2290 3 4600 CAM ED Right 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 WD Left so 1 1600 0.038 0 60 1 1000 0.038 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 AeW GAIN a 20 1 I= 0.013 We 7m 2394 3 4800 0d499 - 0 2394 3 4000 0.499 0 3070 3 4800 0,640 -10 3060 3 4800 0.638 0 3060 3 4800 0.838 wo Right 1267 Free 0999999 0.000 0 1287 Free 9999099 0,00 0 1310 Fm 9999999 0.000 0 1310 FM* 9999999 0.000 0 010 Free 999O999 0.000 ago* 1109,111, '7-7 7'; XXX.: ICU 0.789 0.789 GAIS 4,1114 OM4 LOS C C 6 E E Key Conflksting M"(04411, as a part 94 ICU. Functims sea seponstatuarl lone, hesvilvINJI; ncft striped all such. C(sunlicanducliedBY: City 0114mitort Beach C apachy expressed In vehicles par hour of gmest. PMJW ICU Impact; -0,002 Am Tmffic Mitigation: Significant Impact: NO 17-001 VOL 1 M10 1 a VMS 1 0 8180 1 40 "is 1 0 8140 1 UNSCOM LAWS GREENSPAN, EMOINGERS 1580 COMMI'd DAND, SIAS 122, COAM MON CA 92624 (714J 641-1507 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Interseci 7. Bayside Dove at East Coast Highway NS St laymbod" Peak Hour, AM Date: 0524?07 E-W St East Camel Highway Annual Growth: 1,00% Dow otcount 2007 Project: Hoag Master Plan EIR Projection Year, 2026 File: N' U60012052662MCUY*mr2025.As Conical Type. eO WE Spin ........ iiiiii! iiiit iiijo4r., T-oftlowm: .: ......... ji'ij!jiji �ii . .. . ....... .!i it 1.061141ii:m:iI, . . j:j:j:j::j jsM'jZt;::; ;;A40 • 14 At b;ll� . wb.:,! ........... aim 10 480 0 0 0.000 0 480 0 0 0.000 No Left 308 0 0 0.000 0 308 0 0 0.000 0 470 0 0 0.000 KbTm V 3 4600 0.004 a 17 a 4600 0.094 0 30 3 4800 0.10 0 30 3 4800 0J17 0 30 3 4800 0.117 No Right 35 0 a 0 35 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 so 0 0 St Left 19 1 1600 0.012 0 10 1 1600 0.012 0 40 1 1600 0.026 0 40 1 1800 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 So ThM 9 1 1600 0.017 0 9 1 low 0.07 0 20 1 1600 0.031 0 20 1 1600 0031 0 20 1 1600 0.031 So Right Is 0 0 0 is 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 Ela Left 26 1 Iwo 0.016 0 26 t 1400 0.018 0 too 1 1000 MOO 0 Igo 1 1600 0.083 0 100 1 1800 0.063 Ela Thru 2828 3 4800 0.589 0 2828 3 4800 0.689 0 3330 3 4900 0.594 10 3140 3 41300 0.096 0 3340 3 4600 Use I Eb Right 1 347 1 1000 0.217 0 347 1 1600 0.217 0 440 1 1600 0275 .0 440 1 1600 0,275 0 440 1 1800 0276 C �c WO Left 63 1 1600 0.030 0 63 1 1607 0.0" Q 70 1 Me OW 10 so i Iwo 0-050 0 to 1 1605 0450 WO ThM 1421 4 6400 0.224 0 1421 4 6400 0224 0 1740 4 6400 0288 ♦0 1700 4 6400 0.280 0 1700 4 6400 0280 We Riot 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 90 0 0 .... .: -1.. -:............ •- 1 17 •7.7 .. ... ......... ICU 6336 0.131 0.884 0.914 0.994 LOS c c D D 0 Key =r%"M0WMoldM$ap8"CfICU. FmCdWS as a separate IUM lone, "Yer. Is not Stdped a$ such. Project ICU Impact 0.010 Ainsa Traffic MINation: lapyMmImpacit NO CopeckyopmmdlnwNctespuhmrofgmen. ITCWVA I $11M 0 sloe 1 0 0410 •10 0400 YRI LINSCOTT, LAW & GREEROPAN, SHOINBERS 1580 COMMI0, 060, Sub 122, Coaft, Man CA $2628 (714) 641-1597 IRTERli CAPACITY U71L12A71ON Inavraedw 7. 98000 DlIVS Is East Coast Highway N4 IM: BaysIde Dove Peak Hour.. PIA Dam: 0624107 E-W St EAMC089111ghway Annual Grow*. 1.00% Data of CMa 2007 P"Ject: Hug Water Plan EIR PMadon Year. 2025 File: 1412810012062652MIJYM2025AS Content Type: 00 " spot K" Mftlhg MonrftWa$ a Pali 04 ICU. Fundam as a separate hern tam, IWING'Aff. Is not Wriped as such, Project ICU hviip= .0.002 Area Traffic Mitigation: Ownts conducted by. CRY of "art Wool Significant brua NO Cap" expressed In vehicles per i of timan. 6200 1 0 Mille 1 0 7900 -T -30 7630 1 0 7020 No Left 482 0 0 0,000 0 482 0 0 O.ODO 0 580 0 0 DODO -10 570 0 0 0.000 0 570 0 0 0.000 NO Thm 17 3 4800 OMO 0 17 3 4600 0.110 0 30 3 4800 0.135 0 30 3 4800 0.133 0 30 3 4800 0.133 NO Right 29 0 0 a 22 a a - a 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 So 1.811 27 1 1600 0.017 0 27 1 1600 0.017 0 120 1 WOO 0.075 0 120 1 1600 0.075 0 120 1 1600 0,076 Sb Thru 11 I IWO 0.026 0 11 1 IODD O.M8 0 30 1 1600 0.075 0 30 1 1600 0.075 0 30 1 1600 0.075 So Right 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 - 0 so 0 0 0 go 0 0 0 so 0 0 Eb Lffft 48 1 1600 0.030 0 48 1 1800 0.030 • 0 100 1 1600 0.063 0 100 1 1600 0.063 0 100 1 1600 0.063 ED Thm 1966 3 4800 0.410 0 1906 3 4800 0.410 0 2310 3 4800 OASI -10 2300 3 4800 0.479 0 2300 3 4800 0479 Q Right 428 1 1600 0.288 a 426 1 IBM 0.286 0 570 1 iSM 0.355 -10 Sao 1 1600 0.350 0 560 1 1600 0.350 Wb Left 75 1 IWO 0.047 0 75 1 1600 0.047 0 70 1 1800 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 Wb Tft 3055 4 8400 0.402 0 3050 4 6400 0.482 • 0 3020 4 6400 0.681 0 3020 4 6400 0.581 0 3020 4 0400 0.581 Wb Right 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 A 100 0 0 ICU 0.11411 0.148 0,154 OA62 4.242 LOS 8 a 0 D D K" Mftlhg MonrftWa$ a Pali 04 ICU. Fundam as a separate hern tam, IWING'Aff. Is not Wriped as such, Project ICU hviip= .0.002 Area Traffic Mitigation: Ownts conducted by. CRY of "art Wool Significant brua NO Cap" expressed In vehicles per i of timan. 6200 1 0 Mille 1 0 7900 -T -30 7630 1 0 7020 LONSCO", LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 C042=18 On". SURO 122, Costs Mesa CA 02626 (7141641.1587 Intervaction: S. N-S St imbew Road E•W Sit SwcoadWO" Project Hoag master plan EIR Flo; NVII000205265211CUlrearl(Glixim Central Type: am Yfaft signal JIM11011h, Rod at East Coast lithway Peak How. AM Annual Growth: 1.00% Dam: 0544I07 Date of Count 2007 Prajoetion Year. 2025 • Key acnifficring movement " a pan of ICU. FUnCO(ml as a separate turn [on, however, 15 not striped as sudh. CounlactcKhmbedbr, Capacly expressed In whichm per hour of green. Project ICU "PaM -0.002 Area Traffic Megaton: Signtecant hnima NO 1709d VOL I U28 1 0 We I a Z170 1 40 7150 1 a 7150 ........... .......... NO, Left 30 1 1000 0.018 0 30 1 1600 0.018 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1800 0.019 the ThrJ 439 2 3200 0.193 • 0 439 2 3200 0.193 a STO 2 3200 0234 0 570 2 3200 0.234 • 0 570 2 3200 0.234 - NO Right 177 0 0 0 177 0 0 1 . a ISO 0 0 1 . 0 ISO 0 0 0 ISO 0 0 SO Left 221 1 IODO 0.138 • 0 221 1 1600 0,138 • 0 230 1 1000 0.144 0 230 1 1600 0.144 • 0 230 1 1600 0.144 - SbThm all 2 3200 0,097 0 311 2 3200 0.007 0 320 2 3200 0.100 0 320 2 3200 0.100 0 320 2 3200 0.100 8b Right 562 Free 9902099 0.000 0 682 Free 9099099 0.000 0 850 Free 99I5999 0.000 •30 820 Free 9999999 0.000 0 820 Free OSGSQQO 0.040 91) Left 1222 3 4000 0.255 • 0 1222 3 4000 0.255 0 1310 3 4000 0.273 -10 1300 3 4000 0271 • 0 1300 3 4800 0.271 - Eb Thu 1941 4 6400 0.308 0 1941 4 8400 0.300 0 2150 4 6400 0.342 20 2170 4 6400 0.345 0 2170 4 6400 0.345 Eb Right 31 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 Wb Left 13e 2 3200 0.043 0 138 2 3200 0.043 0 140 2 3200 0.044 0 140 2 3200 0.044 0 140 2 3200 0.0" Wb Thm 1049 4 6400 0.164 0 1049 4 UOO 0.104 0 1130 4 6400 0.177 0 1130 4 000 0,177 0 1130 4 6400 0.177 Wb Right VS 1 1600 0.135 0 218 1 1600 0.135 0 220 1 IeOO 0.138 0 220 1 1600 0.138 0 220 1 1800 0.138 .............. X X ...... so .... .. ... .. . ICU 0.760 0.760 OA28 0.626 OA26 LOS C C D D D • Key acnifficring movement " a pan of ICU. FUnCO(ml as a separate turn [on, however, 15 not striped as sudh. CounlactcKhmbedbr, Capacly expressed In whichm per hour of green. Project ICU "PaM -0.002 Area Traffic Megaton: Signtecant hnima NO 1709d VOL I U28 1 0 We I a Z170 1 40 7150 1 a 7150 Uy I N N N UNSCGTT. LAW 6 GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1560 COMOraY OAva, Sl 12Z, Coate MOSS CA 92628 (714) 641.1587 tnteree06on: 8. N-S Sit Jamboree Road E-W SL East Coast Hlgheay Prelea: Hoeg Master Plan EIR File: N:VtS0012052852VCUYea2026.tle Control Type: S0 Tre5k Signal INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Jamboree Road as East Coast Higheey Peak Hour PM Annual Growth: 1.00% Date: 0624/07 Date of Count 2007 Praises" Year 2025 .:........:.......:....... ::.:- .:.:.:.::.:.::...: NO LM :::.....:.....:..:.:::::::::.:. :.:.:...:....:..:.�:.::.:....: 60 1 ..:.:.:.........:.:.:..::..:.:.:.,,::...::..:.:,.::.:.:.:,.:.:.:.:...................:........ ..: ....... 1800 0.091 .............. 0 TT�1 ....: 60 .....:....:.: 1 :.:: 1600 .. is 0.031 0 50 IS ..............:..........?AS 1 1800 0.031 @:: ... RC. 7rF .OT......IC ::....:.:.:.:.:... .....E iU 1 ......:.:................ .:.:.:.:.:....: ....:.:.:.: :.:.:::::::: 0 50 NO TTru 288 2 9200 0.117 . 0 288 2 3200 0.117 0 980 2 9200 0.158 . 1 1800 0.031 0 50 1 1800 0.091 NO Right 88 0 0 - 0 88 0 0 -20 360 2 9200 0.150 . 0 380 2 9200 0.150 . 0 120 0 0 0 120 0 0 - 0 120 0 0 - SO Left SoTnre 255 727 1 2 1600 0.169 . 0 255 1 IWO 0.168 0 260 1 1600 0.163 . 0 260 1 '1600 0.163 . 0 260 . SO Right 1322 Free 3200 8999899 0.227 0.000 0 727 2 3200 0227 0 730 2 3200 0.228 0 730 2 3200 0.226 0 730 1 2 1600 3200 0.163 0.218 0 1322 Free 9989989 0.000 0 1800 Free 9999998 0.000 •10 1790 Free 9999999 11.000 0 1790 Free 8999999 0.000 Ee Left Ee Thru 680 1626 3 4 4800 6400 0.183 . 0.258 0 0 880 3 4000 0.183 0 980 3 4800 0.183 . 0 880 3 4800 0.183 . 0 880 3 4000 0.183 . Ee Right 28 0 0 0 1828 28 4 0 6100 0 0.268 0 1630 4 8400 0.269 0 1830 4 6400 0159 '0 1830 4 6400 0258 - 0 30 0 0 - 0 30 0 0 - 0 30 0 0 - We Left We TTru 189 2046 2 3200 0.059 0 169 2 3200 0.050 0 230 2 3200 0.072 0 230 2 3200 0.072 0 230 2 3200 0.072 We Right 234 4 1 8400 1800 0.320 0.146 0 2046 4 8400 0.320 ' 0 2310 4 6400 0.351 .10 2300 4 6400 0.359 0 2300 4 8400 0.359 0 239 1 IWO 0.148 0 240 1 1800 0.150 0 240 1 1800 0.150 0 240 1 1800 0.150 KsGGwAEnl6itiaGi :::::::::::::::::: 6.. 9Y�: '::::::::::::::::::::::::::'::§ AGE :?': :'>::':•::::::':':::::::::':':: :':.:.....: :: y:.:.;.;.;..;.....'.'.'...'.'...':..,.,.,.,...,....,............... 900.......'...'.' ............................... ICU 0.779 ...... 0.778 .......... ...... ..... .....0. .'.'.•...'.'..':..:..'.'.'.•... 0490:''::':'::•:'::::'.:':'::: ::::':':::':':'::'::::QAaO':r:' LOS C C 0.683 0 0.068 OA66 O O ' Key OOnfllcOng mOwmant as a part of ICU. " Functions as a separate turn ism. hoeever, is not Ill as bum. 00111112 Ooneuptee ey: City or Naeport Beech Capatlty expressed In vehicles per hour of grew. Project ICU Impact: .0.008 Area TMft Mitigation: Manes Impact: NO eY /i/OE 7790 T 0 7730 1 0 @too 1 40 8620 1 0 as LINSCOTT, LAW GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1590 Corporate On", Suite 122, COW Allen CA 92828 (714) 641-1507 INTERSECTION CAPAWY UIDLIZATION hamead 9, N4 St Newport Soulownt Newport SOUInard W'Aa Lida (0311 * E-W at Via Udo Annual AM Date; 05124M7 Project H089 Miller Plan EIR Annual Gm�: I.oD% Date of Count: 2007 Fair N:12W012Q5N529CUYwr2o25.)ds Projection Year. 2025 Control Type: 30TMMC signal MC: • Key Conflicting inowntent as a pan of ICU. FUM01MB 08 8 46138hrok turn 12M. h0v,@W. Is not 801ped an wCh. Project ICU Impact -O.ODI Area Traffic MrJgaWn: Countsconductedby: CM/Of Newport aescil Sign[ficandInVact. NO COPUlty, Wreathed In anion per hour of grew. ITWWVOL 1 2010 1 6 2010 1 0 US6 1 0 2460 1 0 2460 06WA ivowwiwo (0311 * moo: ift "il A, , I ro iWi .' a, • MC: No Lett No Thm No Right 0 1308 23 0 0 3 411100 0 0 0,000 0.277 0 0 0 0 1309 23 0 3 0 0 4800 0 0.000 0.277 0 0 0 0 1660 10 30 0 0 4800 0 0.D00 0.348 0 10 0 0 1870 10 0 3 0 0 4000 0 0.01DO 0.350 0 0 0 0 1670 10 0 3 0 0 4800 0 G.DDD 0.350 Sla Left So Thru So Right 415 853 0 2 3200 3 4800 0 0 0.130 0.178 0 0. 0 415 853 0 2 3 0 3200 4800 0 0.130 0.178 0 0 0 400 Sao 0 2 3 0 3200 4800 0 0.125 0.1179 0 0 0 400 Sao 0 2 3 0 3200 4800 0 0.125 0.179 0 0 0 400 Ilso 0 2 3 0 3200 4800 0.125 0.179 So Lon �P Gb Thm tI Eb Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 GDOG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.000 1- Wit Left c, Wb Thm Wb Right 9 0 402 1 IODO 0 0 2 3200 GAN 0.000 0.126 0 0 0 9 0 402 1 0 2 IGDO 0 3200 0.000 0.000 0.128 0 0 0 30 0 49D 1 0 2 1000 0 3200 0.019 0400 0.153 0 0 •10 30 0 480 1 0 2 1600 0 3200 0.019 0.000 0.150 0 0 0 30 0 480 1 0 2 law 0 3200 0.019 OZOO 0.150 ICU Los 0.413 A 0,4113 A 0,1101 A C."D A 0aco • Key Conflicting inowntent as a pan of ICU. FUM01MB 08 8 46138hrok turn 12M. h0v,@W. Is not 801ped an wCh. Project ICU Impact -O.ODI Area Traffic MrJgaWn: Countsconductedby: CM/Of Newport aescil Sign[ficandInVact. NO COPUlty, Wreathed In anion per hour of grew. ITWWVOL 1 2010 1 6 2010 1 0 US6 1 0 2460 1 0 2460 Aa UNSCOIrT. LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 COMMIS DAVO. Suite 122, Costs MOM CA 02626 (7141641.1587 01TEI48ECTION CAPACRY OTILRATION intemcom: 9. Newport Owlevana at Via Lido WE St Ne"M Boulevard Peak How. FM Date: OW241107 E-W st 'As Lida Annual Gro h: 140% Date of Count 2OD7 pmjact Hoag Milater Plan EIR Pro:60an Year. 2025 File: N:V60O12052852YCUYeIr2025.)ra Control Typo: 30Tnuffic Signal Functions as a Separate Cum tons, bovenrer. Is not Wood as such. Prah0t ICU IntpeCt O.ODD Area TrOMO Mligicamn: Counts conducted by: CloofNewport8"Ch Stil"Ifflarl IMP= NO Capacftj aphroved M" Mai s Perham rA greem. ITOWYOL 1 4431 1 a 4421 0 solo 1 0 solo 1 0 Solo N ww ......... ... .. ...... :I- ...... . No Lear 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 LOQD 0 0 0 0 MOOD 0 a 0 0 O.OGD No Thu 1197 3 4800 0.260 0 1197 3 4800 0280 0 1320 2 4800 0785 a Mo z 48DO 0.2116 0 1320 3 ago 0.265 No Right 49 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 50 0 a 0 50 0 0 So Lott 527 2 3200 0.165 a 527 2 3200 0.165 0 590 2 3200 OAM 0 590 2 3200 0.184 0 SOD 2 32DD 0.1114 So Thu 2104 3 4000 0.436 0 2104 3 4900 0.438 0 2460 3 4800 0.513 0 2460 3 48DO 0.513 0 246D 3 48DD 0A13 So Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ED Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 ED Thu 0 0 6 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 O.ODD 0 0 0 0 O.ODQ ED Right 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wb Left 29 1 1600 0.018 0 29 1 1600 0.018 0 10 1 loco (LOWS 0 10 1 Iwo O'cas 0 10 1 1600 0.006 MUM 0 D 0 0 'Do 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 O.ODO 0 0 0 0 O.ODD Wb Right 624 2 3200 0.164 0 524 2 3200 0.104 0 590 2 320D 0.181 0 560 2 32DD 0.181 0 1180 2 3200 0.181 7:"gw.: :4400 :.4. ICIJI 0.468 LASO OJIS 0410 &M11 LOS A A A A A Functions as a Separate Cum tons, bovenrer. Is not Wood as such. Prah0t ICU IntpeCt O.ODD Area TrOMO Mligicamn: Counts conducted by: CloofNewport8"Ch Stil"Ifflarl IMP= NO Capacftj aphroved M" Mai s Perham rA greem. ITOWYOL 1 4431 1 a 4421 0 solo 1 0 solo 1 0 Solo UNSCOTT. LAW IS GREENVAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Co PMM DAM, Staft 122. Cuba Mess CA 92628 (714) 041.1887 INTERSEMMIN CAPACITY UTILWIDN Into ion: Ia. Ne"on ftuls,ntml at Hospital Read N-9 St.. No."d Bouka'A'd Pool, Hour. AM Dow: 0524107 M-W at Hospital Road ArmuslGraoth: 1.00% Dow of Count: 2007 Project Hug Motor Plan EIR Projection Yew. 2025 File: NA2W(h2O328529CUYew2025.,ds .... . . Central Type: BO Traffic Signal .. • Key curficOng Movement as a part of ICU. Functional as a separate turn lone, hantsver, Is M tariped a such, PmJect ICU Mpact .0.100 Anse Traffic Mil Countocanducel City of Newport each signeweantbouct NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hourof green. 17bashly" 1 4J0 1 0 41309 0 silo 1 -110 6060 0 $060 .... . . . ... ...... .. .......... War. No Lon 120 1 1800 OMO 0 128 1 1600 0.080 0 210 1 1600 0.131 -30 100 1 1600 0.113 0 180 I Iwo 0.113 No Tom 1550 3 41100 0.324 0 1556 a 4800 0.324 0 1970 3 000 0.410 .40 1930 3 4800 0.402 0 1930 3 4000 0.402 NO Right 74 1 1000 0.048 0 74 1 IBOO 000 0 60 1 ISDO 0.030 0 60 1 . I600 0.035 0 up I Iwo 0.038 So Lon 52 1 IBM 0.032 0 52 1 1000 0.032 0 SO 1 1600 0.031 0 so 1 1600 0031 0 30 1 1600 0.031 So Tom 1152 3 4000 0.323 0 1152 3 4WD 0.323 0 1830 3 4800 0.394 -190 1340 3 4a00 0.375 0 1340 3 4800 0.375 So Right 400 0 0 0 40D 0 0 0 350 0 0 100 4e0 a 0 0 400 0 0 SO Lon 162 2 320D 0.061 0 162 2 320D 0.051 0 140 2 3200 0.044 20 160 2 3200 0.050 0 160 2 3200 0.050 Eb TM 132 1 1600 0.083 0 132 1 1600 0.083 0 310 1 1600 0.194 -100 210 1 1800 0.131 0 210 1 1800 0.131 Sb Fight 282 1 IWO 0.183 0 262 1 1600 0.163 0 Im 1 1600 0.081 120 250 1 low (LISS 0 250 1 law 0.158 Wb Left 84 1 1600 0.052 0 84 1 IODO 0.052 0 80 1 1600 0.050 0 80 1 1600 0450 0 so 1 160 0.060 Wb Tram 224 2 3200 0.095 0 224 2 3200 0,095 0 270 2 3200 0.103 0 270 2 3200 0.106 0 270 2 3200 0.106 vwmb Rtgaact a4 0 0 0 as 0 0 0 60 0 0 - 10 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 xx lieu 0.660 0.540 sin OASS a,"$ JLOS A A C a a • Key curficOng Movement as a part of ICU. Functional as a separate turn lone, hantsver, Is M tariped a such, PmJect ICU Mpact .0.100 Anse Traffic Mil Countocanducel City of Newport each signeweantbouct NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hourof green. 17bashly" 1 4J0 1 0 41309 0 silo 1 -110 6060 0 $060 LINSCCTT• LAW i GREENSPAN• ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate DMe, Sulfa 122,.COM Mass CA 92621 (714) 641.1667 Inmmmon: 10. N-S St Newport Boulevard E -W St HWpltel Road Pmfcet Hoag Master plan EIR File: N.VSOO2052MVCUria2o25.ale COMmITYPD: 80 Traffic Signal INTERSECTION CAPACFry nnr 1810 Newport Buulaverd at Noeph, Road Peak Hour. PM Annual Orm h. 1.00% Date: 0824/07 Data of Count 2007 ProlaMn Year. 2025 .....:.... ........... . . NO LM 140 1 NS TIIN 1511 3 lb RgIR 119 1 BOLe4 45 1 BO Thru 1755 3 SE Right 214 0 EO Left 300 2 ED Tin 135 1 Eh RISM 280 1 WS LM 150 1 WS That 181 2 WS Right 34 0 i} ThW> �6M661-:::: :•:.::-: Los 1800 0.093 ' 4600 0.315 1600 0.074 1600 0.028 4800 0.410 • 0 - 3200 0.094 1800 0.064 • 1800 0.182 1800 0.094 • 3200 0.007 0 - �:.:{;:::::: •: �lAS 9 b,::1 :::::::::::: .8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .148 1511 119 45 1755 214 380 135 260 160 181 34 1 3 1 1 3 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 151511: •i:.:Nl�4:i:::i: 1800 4800 1800 1600 4880 0 3200 160 1600 1600 3200 0 isisisisis� 0.093 0.315 0.074 0.028 0.410 - 0.094 0.084 • 0.162 0.094 - 0.007 - ;ORG� i:I:I:15151::1511:i:i:i 6.ae1 is ... .Adds .. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •..T 1 :a:i:!:is::;:.:.;.;.•:.; au... 260 1860 150 10 2210 280 340 210 280 90 280 30 1 3 1 1 3 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 ... 6...:.......914 <;:. .. ..: 1600 0.183 • 4800 0.350 1600 0.091 ION 0.006 4800 0.502 0 3280 0.180 - 1600 0.131 1600 0.175 1600 0.066 3280 0.081 0 - 1:1::0v " 0.802 Ad' • •. -YO .20 0 O 40 .20 -10 70 .10 10 0 : :: 790180 240 1660 150 10 2240 320 280 350 6o 270 30 :ICU :: 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 ''''. ...... 1800 4800 7600 4800 4800 3200 1600 1600 1600 3200 0 ....:....... .•....:is••: 01150 • 0.346 0.091 0.098 0.194 - 0.100 - 0.125 0.219 0,050 0.094 ............ p .Sat ii. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . It>71. •:::'':: �i: isi 240 1 1860 3 160 1 10 1 2130 3 240 0 320 2 200 1 350 1 60 1 270 2 30.. ... O.. xx :.X:.: ':;::iiiE::::::::.:.: 1800 - 4800 1800 4800 18 0 0 3200 1800 1600 1600 3200 :• :.:.•:. :.:.:.•a >:;:•:..: 0.150 •• • 0.318 0.094 0.008 0.194 0.100 0.726 0.218 0.060 0.094 • b' n e, • Key conflicting movement as a pan of ICU. Functions as a "Pareie Nm 1811, however. Ie not et iptd as such. Counts conducted sy: C4 of Neepod 8aaCh Cepaehr expressed M vehicles per hour of green. PMJeC ICU Impact -0.024 Area Treme MNgmiol: SgnifiCantlmpaCt NO r fat VOL I x64 0 48ae 14 a 0 6Ya0 UNOCOTT, LAW S ORSSNSPAN,ENOINEERS :::i::::...;:� .....:..:.......: .:....::iiiiii:'•,iyj 1580 COMM10 Olive, SWfe 121, Coate Men CA 9162E : iii...: .............:...•: (714) 641.1587 INTS 39 7ION CAPAQrlY YTILI>aTIC° i Iflbre\etlorc 71. 'N.4 8t Platmab Avenue PNcentla Avelluest SuparlorAvemle E•WSt Pak Hour. AM Cate: 0684/07 HUD E1R Pak: NVII Annual Growth 1.0096 pate of Count 2007 00626len F6: N11800@062852NCUVee8026.1tie Projection Veaz: 2025 Control Type: 50 Treflk . Sl9nal . ....... .. �:..��..:. .. ... ... ��:::.:.:.::: �:: :::i::::...;:� .....:..:.......: .:....::iiiiii:'•,iyj : iii...: .............:...•: :..: ..::.:..:.....:- i i:�i9a26i:8fAT ' isi' ::::::::...:......::...:...:.:: iii:: . ....... .. �:..��..:. .. ... ... ............ "I:iii::i3:i:i:i ......:..........:...•.....:... �:i:i�:i:ii;ii:i•:..i:i;ii Mfg:.:.:...:) ii':'•'�. W71ka .:.:;t`Ahl:..:- i:iiii:i� iiiiiii >::ii::::i::::'>:�:i::i::: ..:.......g.:. o-:.:.:.. :..:.: ii":'�'�.: :::i:.. :.::::::: ::.::s:;:::;r.: �:::� ::::::.::: ::::: �jii::::: �: is :::: ::::::: ::' " :i:i:: : �:: i::: .. :..:;iii:i:i:iiiiiiii�iiii:i: i:: :::ii:::t::::;:i.::::'.....iiii .. ... t.. ..:..vat 4.:.: ►::: :: a .:. ..... .. :; ..:. 1 ";ii:ii i, 11 Y::iY6 • t:i: • \ �:: u �i:i:lk'9 NO LM 12 0 0 0.000 - 0 12 0 0 0.000 - 0 10 0 0 0.000 - 0 10 0 0 0.000 - 0• 10 0 0 0,000 ' No ThN 232 2 3200 0.091 0 232 2 3200 0.081 0 330 2 3200 0.119 0 330 2 3200 0.119 0 330 2 3200 0.119 No Right 47 0 0 - 0 47 0 0 - 0 40 0 0 - 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 SO Leh 12 1 1800 0.008 0 12 1 1800 6.008 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.006 30 ThN 328 1 1800 0206 - 0 328 1 1600 0.206 • 0 420 1 1000 0.263 - -00 390 1 1500 0.244 - 0 390 1 1600 0.244 ' 80 Rpm 238 1 1800 0.148 0 236 1 1000 0.148 0 110 1 1600 0.069 20 130 1 1800 0.081 0 130 1 1600 0.081 EO Leh 382 1 1500 0.226 0 362 1 1600 0.225 0 120 1 1800 0.076 0 120 1 1600 0.076 0 120 1 1000 0.076 EO ThN 1133 2 3200 0.3(12 - 0 1133 2 3200 0.382 - 0 1010 2 3200 0.328 - 10 1020 2 3200 0.331 - 0 1020 2 3200 0.331 ' ED Rt9h1 28 0 0 0 28 0 0 - 0 40 0 0 - 0 40 0 0 - 0 40 0 0 - Wta LM 52 1 1000 0.033 - 0 52 1 1600 0.033 • 0 30 1 1600 0.018 - 0 30 1 1500 0.019 - 0 30 1 1600 0.019 ' Wit ThN 200 2 3200 0.004 0 260 2 3200 0.084 0 220 2 3200 0.072 -10 210 2 3200 0.069 0 210 2 3200 0.069 WO Right 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 t0 0 0 - 0 10 0 0 - XP�iawldveiwii:::::>:•:•: t•::•:•:•:•:•:: hauR ... ...........................•.a. oak•:`:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: v; 9oa :':::: >::::::::::::::::>'::::: 9490..:... ...:...:..:..:.:..:.•.•:..•..•: 0000..,. ICY 0.000 0 .600 0.610 0.404 0.604 LOS A A 0 A A • Kay mnelcting movement a e pan of ICU. •• FUnclicne as a eeperete han Jana, hcwevar, la not aMpea as such. Project tCU Impact .0.018 Area Traffic Mitigation: COUntl Mn0o0la00K City Of N\wpon 8080 91gM6canllmpact NO Capaaq aaproeeee In venldaa per hpur of green. 0 1 0 2700 1 a 2350 •10 2340 1 0 2310 UNSCOrr, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS i9oti:"Iw.t 1580 C01POndt DO*, Suite 122, Coni Man CA 92626 (714) 54 I-f 587 INTERSECTION r4PAC111Y PTIUMTKIN fmantelfflon: 11. Place= Avenue at Supedor Avenue N-S St Placanda Avenue Peak How. Put Date: 0524107 E-W St Swarlor Ave mue Annual Gmwb); 1.00% Date of Count 2007 Project: Hoag Maher Plan EIR Full: NA28001205265thiCUYSIr2o2itift Protection Year. 2025 Coma] Type: SO Tnirk Sgi • Key 0011ftli1g nV:vwMWft at a Plitt of VCU. Functions ma, a IMPAMbe SAY, lane, however, IS not SmPed at Such. Protect ICU Impact 0.007 Mae Think: MWOMon: Count$ Winduthad by. City of Newport Beach Significant impact: NO Capacity summemed In vahldes per hour of Offien. I roW VOL 1 28101 1 a 2570 1 a 2280 1 .20 2360 1 0 2360 i9oti:"Iw.t i. :i:j: : � Q4 .......... " IF Alf 0 40 0 0 0.000 No Left 37 0 0 0.000 0 37 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0.000 No Thm 320 2 3200 0.137 0 320 2 3200 0.137 0 440 2 3200 0.175 .10 430 2 3200 0.775 0 430 2 3200 0A75 No Right 80 0 0 - 0 00 0 0 0 80 0 0- 10 90 0 0 0 90 0 0 So Left 16 1 1600 0.009 0 15 1 IBM O'ggq 0 10 1 1500 0.006 0 10 1 1800 0.008 0 10 1 1600 0.000 SID Trin, 231 1 100 0.144 0 231 1 1600 0.144 0 330 1 IWO 0.208 20 350 1 1600 0.219 0 wo 1 1600 0.219 SID RIgM 423 1 1000 0264 0 423 1 1600 0.204 0 240 1 1600 0.150 .30 210 1 1600 0,131 0 210 1 1600 0.131 SO taft 320 1 1000 0.200 0 320 1 low 0200 0 VO I "ISO 0.131 -20 ISO 1 1000 0.119 0 ISO 1 1600 0.119 SO Tin 436 2 3200 0.140 0 436 2 3200 0.140 0 340 2 3200 0.113 -10 330 2 3200 ajog a 330 2 3200 0.109 ED Right Is 0 0 0 13 0 0 a 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 WO Left SO 1 1600 0.036 0 so I 7800 0.036 0 40 1 1600 0.026 0 40 1 1800 0,025 0 40 1 1800 0.025 VVIO Thm 030 2 3200 0.201 0 630 2 3200 0.201 0 620 2 3200 0.197 20 840 2 3200 0203 0 040 2 3200 0.203 WO Right 13 0 0 0 Is 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 10 0 a 0 10 0 0 ................... • . .. ICU 0.1147 0.647 6.634 OA41 OA41 LOS A A A A A • Key 0011ftli1g nV:vwMWft at a Plitt of VCU. Functions ma, a IMPAMbe SAY, lane, however, IS not SmPed at Such. Protect ICU Impact 0.007 Mae Think: MWOMon: Count$ Winduthad by. City of Newport Beach Significant impact: NO Capacity summemed In vahldes per hour of Offien. I roW VOL 1 28101 1 a 2570 1 a 2280 1 .20 2360 1 0 2360 J 1,1111i LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate DAYS, Sub 12; Costs Alm CA 92620 (714) 641-1987 Iniamsecdon: Q. N-S Sit Newport Blvd SO Off-Romp Ei Gli week Como Highway Proiact: M089 Meador Plan EIR I NO2S*0{2DS28MUY9a202Ii Comm) type: 20 Traffic Signal Newport Blvd SB Off-Rarrip at West Coast Highway Paid, Hour. AM Annual Growth: 1.00% Dam: 05,24/07 Data of Count 2007 projoctian Year 2025 • my 0011111i momm" as 8 Pan Of ICU. 00 Functions as a separate turn umus. however, 16 nor striped as such. COI candI I. Cli of Newfort Beach Capacity capsulated In vehicles Par MCI Of Queen, "ecl ICU lmitact: .0.151 Area Traffic, MtUgalon: Significant impact: No T Vol 1970 0 4970 7' o two ---T--.Ioo Eggs 1 0 5800 ............ .. . ....... u Jib Left RD That, 1b Right ;b Left • Thor • Right 0 D D 454 D 264 0 D 0 2 D I 0 0 0 32DD D IODD 0.000 0.000 0.142 D.01DID 0.177 0 0 0 D D D 0 0 D 454 D 284 D D D 2 D 1 0 0 0 3200 D IODD 0.000 0.000 0.142 D.DDD 0.177 • D D D D D D D 350 D 820 0 0 0 0 2 320D D D I 1600 0.000 0.000 0.I09 D.DDD D.)Ba D 0 130 D -210 D D 48D D 410 0 D 0 0 2 3200 D D I 1600 D.D0D 0.000 0.150 D.D00 0.255 D D D D D 0 0 460 D 410 0 0 2 D I • 0 D 3200 D 1600 D.DD . D 0.000 0.150 D.DDID 0.286 I Left EbThru ED Right 0 a 1096 2 645 Free 0 3200 9899989 0.000 0.823 ).D)D 0 0 0 0 0 1995 2 645 Free a 3200 9999999 DOW 0.023 Dow 0 0 0 0 2440 600 Free 0 0 2 3200 9099099 0.000 0.763 0.000 0 .60 0 0 2380 6DO Free 0 0 2 3200 9999900 0.000 0,744 0.000 0 0 0 0 2380 600 0 2 Free 0 3200 9999999 O.ODD 0.744 0,000 Wb Left WD Thu WD Right 0 0 1090 3 495 Free 0 4800 9999999 0.000 0.229 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 1098 3 496 Free 0 4800 9999990 0,000 0.229 0.000 0 0 0 0 1550 610 1 0 0 3 4800 DgI 0.000 0.325 0.000 0 -50 a 0 1510 510 Free 0 0 3 4800 9899990 DIDDO 0.315 0,000 0 0 0 0 0 1510 3 510 Free 0 4800 9999990 0.000 0.315 0.000 ICU Los DAN C 0.800 ... 1.161 ....... X.: ................. x-:4.00I 1.000 ................ X7; :7, i7*: +I I • my 0011111i momm" as 8 Pan Of ICU. 00 Functions as a separate turn umus. however, 16 nor striped as such. COI candI I. Cli of Newfort Beach Capacity capsulated In vehicles Par MCI Of Queen, "ecl ICU lmitact: .0.151 Area Traffic, MtUgalon: Significant impact: No T Vol 1970 0 4970 7' o two ---T--.Ioo Eggs 1 0 5800 O UNSCOTT, LAWS GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS ISM Corporate Orr", Suite 122, Costa Me" CA 92626 (7I4) 641-1507 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION thborivedith: 12. Newport Slid 80 Off-Ramp 0 West Coast Highway WE St Newport Slid SS Off-Ramp Peak Hour. PM Dow: G6/2A107 E-W St West Coast Highway "AMIGumt,; 1.00% Date Of Count. 2007 "M Hoag Maine, Plan EIR pro)eddtan Year 2025 File. N:12500120626S24CUYazr2026.,da Coned Type. 20 Trope, Signal • K" mftVk)g ime"ment as a pan of ICU. FWK*M as a MPAMM turn too. MovaMr. It fall W"d of such. Counts concluded by: City of Newport Such Capacity expressed in "rides porhour of Green. Pm)Bd ICU impact: .0.060 Ares Traffic Millpeber: SlIngfrantlimpea NO ltataivoL 1 4650 1 0 4659 1 0 5780 1 -210 6570 1 0 6570 ........ .. i,: i �;A ....... . .. .......... Nle Lot 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 a 0 0.0110 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 a a 0M 0 0 0 0 0.000 No Thru 0 0 0 0.0110 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 a 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.01:110 0 0 0 0 OAQQ No Right 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 So Left $32 2 3200 0.166 0 532 2 3200 0.166 0 570 2 3200 0.176 70 640 2 3200 0200 a 640 2 3200 02M Sb Trot 0 a a a.0013 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 a 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0jow So Right 394 1 1000 0246 0 394 1 16M 0.246 a 420 1 IM 0.283 .100 920 1 little 0.200 0 320 1 16W 0.200 Eb Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 a 0 0 0.000 Eb Thru 042 2 3200 O.M 0 942 2 3200 0,295 0 1520 2 3200 0.475 .140 1380 2 320D 0.431 0 1390 2 3200 0.431 Eb Right 257 Free 9099099 0.000 0 257 Free 2904099 CAN a 240 Free 9994299 DAD .20 220 Free 9099999 0.0110 0 220 Free 9990909 0.000 Wb Lea 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 a 0.000 0 a 0 0 0.000 0 0 a 13 0.000 Wit, True 1948 3 4500 0.40 0 IM 3 4800 0.406 0 2350 3 4800 0.490 -20 2M 3 4600 0.485 - 0 2330 3 4800 0.485 We Right 585 Free 9999900 0.000 0 565 Free 9999090 0000 0 660 Free 990099 0.000 0 680 FM 0990999 0.000 0 680 Free 9990999 0.000 ................ ou 0.662 6.642 0.763 01636 0S85 I LOS 8 a C a a • K" mftVk)g ime"ment as a pan of ICU. FWK*M as a MPAMM turn too. MovaMr. It fall W"d of such. Counts concluded by: City of Newport Such Capacity expressed in "rides porhour of Green. Pm)Bd ICU impact: .0.060 Ares Traffic Millpeber: SlIngfrantlimpea NO ltataivoL 1 4650 1 0 4659 1 0 5780 1 -210 6570 1 0 6570 LINSCOTT, LAW E, GREENSPAN• ENGINEERS 1580 COWNte Drive. Suits 122, Coast Mass CA $2626 .:. . INTERSE01110111 CAPACITY U111LIZATION InIX15,01dw: 13. j WE St Superior Avenue Superior Avenue of Hospital Road E-W at Hospital Read PukHour. AM Cate: 0512407 Protect Hoag Master Plan EIR AnnuOl GmAh: 1.00% Dateofcourd: 2007 File: N:V600120S20S2MCUYss2025.,1$ Projection Year. 2025 COMI Type: 20TMfft Signal iiciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i:!;ii !Ei : ; li Is, mi. ...... ..... .:. . - - . . j iYiIii III. KWMJ , ....... L-1 M.- V. M. t No Left No Thm No Right 0 1523 410 1 2 0 1600 0.000 3200 0.604 • 0 0 0 0 0 1523 410 1 2 0 1600 3200 0 0,000 0.8114 • 0 0 0 0 1210 Sao 1 2 0 illoo 3200 0 0.000 0.559 a 20 10 0 1230 ago 1 logo 2 3200 0 0 0.001) 0.569 • 0 0 a 0 1230 590 1 1600 2 3200 0 0 0.000 0.669 - So Left So Thm So Right 79 478 0 1 2 0 1600 0.049 • 3200 0.140 0 0 0 0 79 470 0 1 2 0 1600 3200 0 0.049 • 0.149 0 0 0 100 270 0 1 2 0 1600 3200 0.033 0.034 io 10 110 200 1 1601) 2 32DD 0.069 • 0.088 0 0 110 200 1 1600 3 3200 0,059 - 0,088 Ell Left Eb Thm Eb Right 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.000 • ISDO 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ieoo 0 0.0DO • 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1603 0 0.009 0.009 a a 0 a 0 0 I 16DD 0.001) • O.COD 0 0 0 0 a 0 1 1600 0.000 - 0.000 Yflp Lell Wb Thru Wb Right 35 0 00 0 2 0 0 0.000 3200 0.030 • a 0 0 0 35. 0 so 0 2 0 0 3200 0 0.000 0.030 • 0 0 0 50 0 so 0 2 0 0 3200 0 0.009 0Z4 a a a so a 60 0 0 2 3200 0 0 0.000 0.034 • 0 0 0 50 0 60 0 0 2 3200 a 0 0.000 0.034 ICU LOS Q.603 0.6113 0 .. 0.046 B ........... 0.472 B 7:7:':': 0.672 a I Key WnfkdrV movement as a part of ICU. Functions as a separate buin [one• havener• 18 not Striped as such. Piclealculnupact 0.010 Area Traffic Midgetion: Counts con&Ctlad by: National Dats & Surveying SarvfoM Capacity expressed In vahloles per how of green. StintlointImpiml NO ITotal m I 2sal 0 2270 1 60 2320 1 0 ME I r N N UNSCOTT, LAW 6 GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 COryomM OM*, SUNS 122, Cost* Mesa CA 92625 (714) 641.1587 Imenecdnn: 13. N-S St Supedor Avenue E.W St Hospital Road PMJact Hang Master Plan EIR File: N:1280012082852VCUYeen2025.de Control Type: 2O Traffic Signal Led 0 1 1600 0.000 Thm 650 2 3200 0.311 ' Rot 144 0 0 1000 Left 106 1 1600 0.067 ' Thou 1129 2 3200 0.353 Right 0 0 0 1 Lea 0 0 0 0.000 Thm 0 1 1600 0.000 Right 0 0 0 0 125 'Leh 634 0 0 0.000 Thm 0 2 3200 0.237 Right 126 0 0 - 4816 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 650 2 3200 0.311 0 144 0 0 0 108 1 1000 0.067 ' 0 1129 2 3200 0.353 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11000 0 0 1 1800 0.000 0 0 0 D 0 0 634 0 0 0.000 0 0 2 3200 0.237 0 125 0 0 2 Key modeling movement as a part of ICU. " FmcUms 0e a "Pursue turn lane, however. H not $Wiped as such, Counts conducted IIy: National [)ate 6 Sumeyteg Somims Cepeotty @Vmmed In vehok a per hour of green. E INTERSECTION CAPACITY LITtLIZATION Superior Avenue et Mastoid Road Peek Hour. PM Annual Growth: 1.00% 0 0 1 1000 0.000 0 650 2 3200 0,247 0 140 0 0 0 110 1 1600 0.039 ' 0 910 2 3200 0.284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 780 0 0 0.000 0 0 2 3200 0278 0 110 0 0 2 F Date: 05,24407 Date of Count 2007 Projection Year 2025 0 •30 0 620 1 16aD 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 2 3200 0.238 ' 0 620 2 3200 0.236 ' 140 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 10 110 920 1 1600 0.069 - 0 110 1 1600 0.066 - 0 2 3200 0.286 0 920 2 3200 0.266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 - 0 0 1 1800 DODD 0 0 1 1800 0.000 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 - •10 TTO 0 0 0.001) 0 770 0 0 0.000 0 10 0 120 2 3200 0.276 - 0 0 2 3200 0.276 - 0 0 0 120 0 0 0.686 0.686 A A Project ICU hoped: .0.009 Area Trel0d Mitigation: Sl9mdmntlmpem NO LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1560 C01POPIN, Ddn, Sub 122, Caere Akan CA 92626 (714) 841-1567 INTERSECTION CAPACITY LIBUZALTION Intersection: 14. Hoag Dtva/Placentia Ave W Hospital Road WE St: Hoag 06ve1Placentla, Ave Peak Hour AM Date: 06724107 E-w St Hospital Road Annual Gr6wih: 1.00% Dam of count: 2007 pmjad: Hoag Master Plan SIR ProjecknYear. 2025 Film: "6O(h2O52MVCUY@ar2O25.As Contiel Type; 30 N-S Split • Key corifficting Movement 05 a pan of ICU. Functions as a separate pan Ions, ho"ver, 10 not &Wped as such. PnoJed ICU linpact -0.004 Area Traffic: Mitigation: Couidswduchadbir National DatalkSumillnOSOrytoog Signifloantimpsa NO capufty expressed in vehlows pm hour of Chan, ITOANVOL 1 1447 1 0 1047 0 200 1 70 2120 0 2120 i;i! imor'.1 i �: j: j; �::: � . . . I .. :j::-jQ2P�jRI%Nj4MG ... :!ii1Qv Yi02SiXMP MOK4TTRA"Wi ... ....... j:j: j j;j:j j:j:j j:j:j:j:j:j:j i:PA 1:j j j:j j:j:j:j-j j:j-� -j j j'j: ... j.; ii� YYiYiii:iitii�iii ii; - jW ­.: ......... .......... 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 NO Laft Is 0 0 0.000 0 16 0 0 0400 0 N 0 0 ONO NO Thm 22 1 IWO 0.024 • 0 22 1 1600 0,024 • 0 so I IWO (LOW .10 so 1 1600 0.0" • 0 so I 1600 0.044 - NO Right 76 1 IWO 0.01e 0 78 1 1600 0.049 0 so 1 1600 0.056 30 120 1 IWO 0.075 0 120 1 1000 0.076 SO 1.611. 341 0 0 O.WO 0' 341 0 0 0,000 0 390 0 0 0.000 0 390 0 0 0.000 0 390 0 0 0.000 SbThnj 45 2 INO 0.131 • 0 46 2 INO 0.131 • 0 120 2 INO 0,163 .30 go 2 3200 0A56 • 0 90 2 3200 0,158 - Sb Right 34 0 0 - 0 34 0 0 - 0 10 0 0 10 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 b Left : 67 1 ION 0.042 • 0 67 1 IGN 0.042 • 0 70 1 1600 0.044 • 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0,044 b Thm 289 2 3200 0.04 0 269 2 3200 0.104 0 260 2 3200 0,153 0 260 2 3200 0.168 • 0 200 2 3200 0.156 - Eb Rigid 44 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 230 0 0 10 240 0 0 0 240 0 0 w W Wb Left 150 1 1600 0.099 0 156 1 1600 0.009 0 110 1 1600 0.089 70 180 1 1600 0.113 • 0 180 1 1500 0.113 - WbThM 169 2 320 0.173 0 159 2 3200 0,173 0 170 2 3200 0,216 .10 160 2 3200 0.213 0 180 2 3200 0.213 Wb Right 393 0 0 0 395 0 0 0 520 0 0 0 620 0 0 0 520 0 X.: :.:.: X : : : : : : : :: :.: : : , .." ..., I ::::: . , .. ....... . ::::::: .. ........... :t IOU 0.370 OJI'a 0.473 0.400 OAOS ,LOS A A A A A • Key corifficting Movement 05 a pan of ICU. Functions as a separate pan Ions, ho"ver, 10 not &Wped as such. PnoJed ICU linpact -0.004 Area Traffic: Mitigation: Couidswduchadbir National DatalkSumillnOSOrytoog Signifloantimpsa NO capufty expressed in vehlows pm hour of Chan, ITOANVOL 1 1447 1 0 1047 0 200 1 70 2120 0 2120 LINSOOTT. LAW GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corpprtle Drive, Suite 122,Com Mew CA 92026 (714) 641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UT(LUBOR iniwssctaa. 14, Hoag Ddw/Placanda Ave at Hospital Road N4 St Hoag Oulinfialacenth, Ave Peak Hour. Pm Date: 0624/07 E-W St: Hospital ROM , mflual GWRI: 1.00% Date 01 Count. 2007 psoybot Hoag Maider Pan EIR Projection Year. 2026 Fla:. NA26=052852MCUYmr2w5.,ds Control Type: 30 N-S Split Key MAIdIft; movement Is a part of ICU. Raiders go a separate han hin, hmm. Is to striped as such. "WI ICU Impact 0.004 AJVB Tnulfic Mitigation: Counts conducted bjr. National Data & Surveying SerAms Significant fiff1pact NO CapKity expressed In v0dat per hour of 2VION, 11ratalvol. 1 2209 0 II208 0 2120 1 so 2770 277o ........... Nil No Lee 35 0 0 0.000 0 38 0 0 0.000 0 150 0 0 0.000 -10 140 0 0 0.000 0 140 0 0 0.000 No Thru 67 1 1600 0.065 0 07 1 1000 0.065 0 100 1 1600 0.156 20 120 1 1600 0.163 0 120 1 1600 0.163 No More 139 1 1800 0.087 0 130 1 180 0.087 0 200 1 1600 0.124 .10 Ito I IBM 0.110 0 wo 1 1600 0,119 So Len 435 0 0 0.000 0 435 0 0 0.000 0 560 0 0 0.000 30 580 0 0 0.000 0 580 0 0 0.000 Sts Thru 3S 2 3200 0.130 0 36 2 3200 0.180 a 84 2 2200 Olit -10 70 2 3200 0.222 0 70 2 3200 0.222 So Right 108 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 60 0 0 a Bo 0 0 0 so 0 0 So Left 140 1 1600 0.088 0 140 1 Iwo 0.058 0 ISO 1 1600 0.100 to 150 1 1600 0.094 0 180 1 1600 0.094 Eb Thm 202 2 3200 0.102 0 292 2 3200 0.102 0 270 2 3200 0.097 0 270 2 3200 0.097 0 270 2 3200 0.097 So Right 34 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 a 40 0 0 Wb Left 153 1 1600 0.090 0 153 1 1600 0.096 0 160 1 1600 0.100 50 210 1 1600 0.131 0 210 1 1600 0.131 We Thou 248 2 3200 0.240 0 246 2 3200 0.240 0 290 2 3200 0197 10 260 2 3200 0.794 0 260 2 3200 0.204 Wb Right 521 0 0 0 521 0 0 0 660 0 0 a 660 0 0 0 660 0 0 ....................... : ...... ............ I .................. ....... X ........ ....... ICU 0,673 0.679 0.765 0.773 0.773 LOS A A C C C Key MAIdIft; movement Is a part of ICU. Raiders go a separate han hin, hmm. Is to striped as such. "WI ICU Impact 0.004 AJVB Tnulfic Mitigation: Counts conducted bjr. National Data & Surveying SerAms Significant fiff1pact NO CapKity expressed In v0dat per hour of 2VION, 11ratalvol. 1 2209 0 II208 0 2120 1 so 2770 277o DID, I Ln Ln UNSCOTT. LAW & ISRSINSPAN. ENGINGIRS 1586 CoMenim, Drive. SUM 122, COSH &(&a CA 92626 (714) 641-1887 INTERSEQ711I0N CAPACITY UTIVIll Inlerverfort 15, Hoag D*8 Is Wet Coast Ifflimmay N3 St: was Drive Peak Hour. AM Draw 05124M7 9•wst Wan Coen HIP"y Annual Grown, 1.0% Oahe of Count 2007 Project Hoag Mashar Plan EIR Projection Year. 2025 Fla: NAX001205285211CUY@@2025.,d, Control Type: 60 N•S Split • Functions as a sequence, turn Ill ho%niver. a not striped as such, Pmjw ICU Impact -0.002 AM Traffic Mogall Counts conducted by National 02% 1, Surftylvit Services Sigraftosm Impact NO Capacity epresaad In ""Ades par hour of gram. OM/ VOL 1 2432 1 0 3432 1 6 4760 440 4320 1 0 4320 va itl :s 13 . ....... tn No Left 4 1 1000 0.003 0 4 1 1000 0.003 0 10 1 1000 0.000 0 10 1 1600 0,00 0 10 1 16W 0.005 No Thus, 0 1 Ill 0.004 0 0 1 1600 0.004 0 10 1 1600 (1013 0 10 1 1600 0,013 0 10 1 1600 0.013 No Right 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 1111 0 0 So Left 27 2 3200 0.008 0 27 2 3200 0.008 0 120 2 3200 0.039 •50 70 2 3200 0.022 0 70 2 3200 0M2 Sb TIM 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 a 0 0.01)) 0 0 0 0 0g00 0 0 a 0 0.01)) So Riot 43 1 1000 0,027 0 43 1 1600 0.027 0 100 1 160 0.063 •30 70 1 loop 0.10441 0 70 1 1600 0.044 Els Left Ill 1 1600 0.101 0 101 1 I= 0.101 0 230 1 IDDO 0.144 •70 160 1 1600 0.100 0 too 1 1600 0.100 Els Thav 2189 3 4800 0,459 0 2189 3 4800 0.459 0 2510 3 4WD 0.527 -90 2480 3 4000 0.521 0 2460 3 4800 0.521 go Right 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 20 0 0 a 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 WID Left 13 1 ISM 0.008 a 13 1 low O.We 0 10 1 Iwo 0.036 0 it I IBM 0.0011 a It) I ism 0.006 WID Thful 765 4 0400 0.152 0 785 4 640 0.162 0 920 4 6400 0.272 20 940 4 6400 0.231 0 940 4 8400 0.231 Wb Right 209 0 0 a 200 0 0 0 820 0 0 •250 540 0 0 0 640 a 0 IalCw 7 -: 7: ICU 0.471 0.479 0494 0.682 0.1162 LOS A A A A A • Functions as a sequence, turn Ill ho%niver. a not striped as such, Pmjw ICU Impact -0.002 AM Traffic Mogall Counts conducted by National 02% 1, Surftylvit Services Sigraftosm Impact NO Capacity epresaad In ""Ades par hour of gram. OM/ VOL 1 2432 1 0 3432 1 6 4760 440 4320 1 0 4320 LINSCOTT, LAW GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Cortical Delve, Sub 122, Costa Mass CA 92626 (714) 641-1687 InIff"amn; 15. M4 at Hoag Drive E•W St: West Coast Highway Pro": Hoag Matter Plan EIR File: NVII00120620329CUYear4i Control Typw. 00 WE Solo INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILMAWK HMO Drive W Weal Coast Highway Peak Hour. Ply! "mat c4ovilh 1.20% Date: 05*4107 Dow of Count 2007 Pro;action Year. 2025 • KaymilictingmavemantosaparldICU, Project ICU hiripact .0.043 ArosTrofecIVINVillinbri: FwWms as a s"min, tun% Ism, Wemem. Is W inroad at SuCh. Counts mmuctedby: National Data 4$umyngSemWs 5lonl7cantlinpact NO real Vet 1 3724 F 0 37 14 1 0 47 a 1 .200 4490 1 0 14a0 ............ .......... ....... ........ ........ #40 No Left a I lem 0.002 0 3 1 ism 0,002 0 10 1 1600 0.0116 0 10 1 IODD DOW 0 10 1 1600 0,000 No Thru 0 1 11800 0.008 0 0 1 1600 0.008 0 10 1 1600 0.013 0 10 1 160 0,013 0 to I 160 0.013 Nb Right 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 So Left too 2 3200 0.031 0 too 2 3200 0.031 0 350 2 320 0J13 A20 240 2 3200 0.076 0 240 2 320 0.075 So Thru 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 a oJaDo 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.00 80 Right 114 1 1800 0.071 0 114 1 18" 0.071 0 230 1 1603 0.144 30 I80 1 1600 0.113 0 160 1 1600 01113 Eb Lon 19 1 IWO 0.012 0 10 1 IGDD 0.012 0 30 1 1600 0.010 0 3D I 160 0.019 0 30 1 Ism 0.019 E4 Thm 1076 $ 4800 0,228 0 11775 3 4800 0226 D 1370 3 480 0.288 •0 030 3 4800 0.279 0 1330 3 4900 0.279 Eb Right 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 Wb Left 59 1 ISOD 0.037 0 so I im 0.037 0 so I 160 0.038 0 so 1 1600 0,030 0 W 1 1600 0.09 M Thru 2301 4 040 0.386 0 2301 4 8400 0.386 0 2560 4 6400 0.420 30 250 4 640 0.408 0 2530 4 64m 0.408 Wb Right 39 0 0 - 0 39 0 0 0 130 0 0 40 So 0 0 - 0 W 0 0 - ICU 8,445 CA46 0.677 0.534 CA34 LOS A A A_ A A • KaymilictingmavemantosaparldICU, Project ICU hiripact .0.043 ArosTrofecIVINVillinbri: FwWms as a s"min, tun% Ism, Wemem. Is W inroad at SuCh. Counts mmuctedby: National Data 4$umyngSemWs 5lonl7cantlinpact NO real Vet 1 3724 F 0 37 14 1 0 47 a 1 .200 4490 1 0 14a0 UNSCO", LAIN & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS f680 Corporate DAW, Sub 122, Costs Me" CA 92626 (714) 041-1587 IKTLpAL= CAPACITY Um=T&M Intignsweston: 16. SupwWrAvenuO at fifth Snelfindusolill Way NS St Supeft Avenue Peak Hour. AM Date: 06424107 6•W of: I" stnistAndustial Way Annual Growth: 1.00% DataofCount! 2007 Project Man Mother Plan EIR Pm�clbort Yur. 20115 Fill: N' 0DWD525S2CUY9af2025.Ws Conbvi'ryps: 30 Traffic Signal • Key WrACtIng M0V4101"t as 0 Pfft Of ICU. PmjeU ICU Inipact: 0.003 AM8Tr0ffoMWqdUOn: Fundons as a sepanna Win lank however, Is not WpBd 55 Won. ftnmentumpsOt NO Capacity wmmwd In whWas per hour of green. 170611vok 1 1883 7 a 1883 1 0 2100 1- 0 219V ?.q r GIN! . ............ ...... .......... t at; wwtz:% 9NAa��t, a 50 1 loco 0.031 a 50 1 IODQ 0.031 NO Left 77 1 1600 0,048 a 77 1 1000 0.048 a 60 1 loco 0,031 XbThru 790 2 3200 0255 a 790 2 3200 0.265 a 1160 2 3200 0.388 lo Ilea 2 3200 0.391 a 1160 2 3200 0.391 I NO Right 67 a a a 67 a a a go a a a go a a a go a a So Left 26 1 loco 0.016 a 28 1 1600 0.016 a 20 1 1600 0.013 a 20 1 1600 0,013 a 20 1 loco 0.013 SO Thn, 420 2 3200 0.169 a 420 2 3200 0.169 a 350 2 3200 CAM -10 360 2 3200 0,138 a 350 2 3200 0.138 SO Fight 120 a a a 120 0 a a so a a a w a a . 0 90 a 0 - Eb Loft 25 1 ISDO 0.016 a 25 1 loco 0.016 a 30 1 1500 0.019 a 30 1 1600 0.019 a 30 1 IWO 0.019 Eb TWu 160 1 ism 0.111 a ISO I IWO 0.111 a 140 1 IBM 0.094 a 140 1 *00 0.094 a 140 1 160D 0.094 eb Right 27 a a a 27 a a a to a a a lo a a a lo a a Wb Left 27 0 D 0.000 D 27 a a 0.000 a 30 a 0 OADO a 30 a a 0.000 a 30 a a 0.000 Wb Thm 125 1 loco 0.119 a 126 1 1600 0.119 a 190 1 1600 0.156 a 190 1 1600 0,165 a lea I face alias WO Right 30 a a a 39 a a a 30 a a a 30 0 a - a 30 a a ICU OAII 0.414 0.674 OA79 LOS A A A A • Key WrACtIng M0V4101"t as 0 Pfft Of ICU. PmjeU ICU Inipact: 0.003 AM8Tr0ffoMWqdUOn: Fundons as a sepanna Win lank however, Is not WpBd 55 Won. ftnmentumpsOt NO Capacity wmmwd In whWas per hour of green. 170611vok 1 1883 7 a 1883 1 0 2100 1- 0 219V UIM240TT. LAW a GAMSPAM. anameERS 1580 CoManshe OnW, Stiffit 122, Caere Mesa CA 92626 (714) $41-1687 Mrsectlon: 16. N-S at: Superior Avenue E•W st imsttevindustmaevilay Project: Hoag Matter Plan EIR File: N:12860120520520CUYOar2025.1d$ Comnil7i,lic-30Tratfic Signal INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILUl SUPOMf Avenue at Ift SWaWduSMI Way Peak Mow. PM Arm.81 Growth: 1.00% Oatal 0524107 Gate of Cowl; 2007 Projection Year. 2025 • Key MAfficliall mmiliffleal as a Part Of ICU. Functions at a separate turn lane. hoes"r. Is not slybied as Rich. Project ICU Impact: 0.006 Area Traffic Wootton: Counts anductO by. National Dow A Surveying Services WIficamilunpaM NO Capacity expimssard In veholas pat how of green. lTottivoL 1 0 zon 0 2130 20 2150 0 2150 Alta" iji�: :i .......... I. IA No Left 51 1 1600 0.032 0 51 1 1600 0,032 0 40 1 ISM 0.025 0 40 1 IWO 0,025 0 40 1 1600 0,025 No ThM 709 2 3200 0,235 0 709 2 1200 0.235 0 740 2 320D 0.247 0 740 2 3200 0,247 0 740 2 3200 0.247 He Right 44 0 0 - 0 44 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 so 0 0 - 0 50 0 0 So Left Is 1 1600 0.011 0 to 1 1600 0.011 0 10 1 1600 0.005 0 10 1 1600 0,0015 0 to I IWO Q.QM So Thm, 721 2 3200 0.244 0 721 2 3200 0.244 0 elo 2 MO 0-253 20 830 2 3200 0.269 0 830 2 3200 0.209 So Right so 0 0 0 so 0 0 - 0 30 0 a - 0 30 0 0 - 0 30 a 0 Eb Lea so 1 1600 0.031 0 so 1 1000 0.031 0 120 1 1600 0.075 0 120 1 1600 0.075 0 120 1 1600 0.075 Eb Thin, 147 1 1600 0.141 0 147 1 1600 0.141 0 120 1 1600 0.088 0 120 1 1600 0.050 0 120 1 1600 0.088 Eb Right 70 0 0 0 76 0 Q 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 D 0 20 0 0 We LOA 38 0 a 0.000 0 39 a 0 0,000 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0.000 Wb TIM 77 1 IWO 0.099 0 77 1 1600 0.009 0 120 1 1600 0.119 0 120 1 1600 0.119 D 120 1 1600 0.119 Wti Right 43 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 so 0 0 X xx xx .............. X : ICU 0.417 0.417 0,192 OAU OAU LOS. A A A A A • Key MAfficliall mmiliffleal as a Part Of ICU. Functions at a separate turn lane. hoes"r. Is not slybied as Rich. Project ICU Impact: 0.006 Area Traffic Wootton: Counts anductO by. National Dow A Surveying Services WIficamilunpaM NO Capacity expimssard In veholas pat how of green. lTottivoL 1 0 zon 0 2130 20 2150 0 2150 LINSCOW, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Coepomw Ddw, Steel 122, Cale Man CA 92626 J7141 641-1587 intemedon: IT. N•S St "awpon Boulevard E-W St. IndustrualWay PrAed "M MOBW Plan SIR Fqhr. NA20OOi2032B5216rUYa92O25.)dS Control Type: SO Traft Signal Newport Boulevard at Industial Way Peak Hour AM Annual Gnowth: 1.00% Date: 05124107 Data of Count 20117 Pmjecuon Year 2025 • Key COR6IM9 movannent at I part Of ICU. PrejactICUIMpact 4.002 �s TraffIc Mh12wWA; FWWMS 88 0 toperats kan lane, 11GYMM, Is not gimped ad Such. NO Counts candUCIOdbir Nalluffilbabl&SUNOYlAgSIHN1068 Capacity §Vmmd in "hides perAcur of Oman. 9 3707 1 0 4270 0 4270 . . ... ..... ... Ing NO Left 76 1 4600 0.048 0 78 1 1800 0.048 0 30 1 1800 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 logo 0.019 NO Invu 1804 3 4000 0,380 • 0 tool 3 4800 0.300 0 2150 3 4800 0.450 • •10 2140 3 4800 O."8 0 2140 3 4800 OA48 NO Right 19 0 0 0 to 0 0 - 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 - SO Left 114 1 1800 O.D71 • 0 114 1 loco 0.071 0 110 1 1600 0.069 • 0 110 1 1600 0.089 0 110 1 1000 0.069 SO Thru 1311 3 ASOO 0.286 a 1311 3 4600 0.288 0 1520 3 4800 0.354 .90 14" 3 4600 0.336 0 1430 3 4600 0.335 St Right 54 0 0 0 04 0 0 0 ISO 0 0 0 ISO 0 0 0 180 0 0 ED Left 90 0 0 0.000 0 so 0 0 0.000 0 110 0 0 0.000 0 110 0 0 0.000 0 110 0 0 0.000 ED ThN 95 1 1600 0.116 • 0 05 1 1600 0,116 • 0 100 1 1600 0.131 • 0 Ica I loco 0.131 0 too I iSOD 0.131 ED 'Right too 1 1600 0.063 0 100 1 1600 O.DS3 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 loco 0.019 0 30 1 1000 0.019 WD Left 3 1 1600 0.002 • 0 3 1 1600 0,002 • 0 10 1 1600 0.000 • 0 10 1 loco 0.005 0 10 1 loco 0.005 0.050 Wb OThru TO 1 1800 0,044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 so 1 1600 0.050 0 so I loco 0.050 0 0 BO 40 1 1 1600 logo 0.025 M Right 51 1 1600 OOZ2 0 51 1 1500 0.032 0 40 A I= O.Ms a 40 1 1600 0.025 . ........... iCU ciao 0.669 0.660 0154 0.5" L 03 A A B • Key COR6IM9 movannent at I part Of ICU. PrejactICUIMpact 4.002 �s TraffIc Mh12wWA; FWWMS 88 0 toperats kan lane, 11GYMM, Is not gimped ad Such. NO Counts candUCIOdbir Nalluffilbabl&SUNOYlAgSIHN1068 Capacity §Vmmd in "hides perAcur of Oman. 9 3707 1 0 4270 0 4270 O UNSCOTT• LAWS GROGNSPAN. ENOINERINIS IM C01POPSIO 011M. SUM 122, Calas Man CA 92826 (714) 641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 17. Newpon Boulevard at tMOUSInal Way N-S St N"pWillouloYard Peak Hour I'M Data: 05)24MT S•W St industrial Way Annual Gmn� 1.00% Date of Ccunt; 2007 PM)sa Hoag Master Plan EIR P'vh,wxn year. 2028 no: NVSMO52652VCUYuF2025.xIs Control Type; 30 Traft Sigma • Functions as a separste tum lane, homover. Is not striped es sitch. PMjw ICU Impact: •0.008 Arse Traffic MIUGGAIDn: COunISCOnductImby: NatiOnal Data 9 SUMOng SON10011 SlonlicamOmpam NO Capacity OWUNd In vehicles per hour of Wan, 11-awyo4 1 402 1 0 1-022 1 0 Sodo 1 •80 4930 4980 1204 .......... .... -: ;j Uth ....... ........ t4b Ivt 67 1 1800 0.042 a 67 1 1600 0.042 a 10 1 1600 0.000 0 lo I 1600 0.1306 0 10 1 logo 0.005 No Thru 1551 3 46GO 0.327 a loot 3 4e00 0A27 0 1030 3 4800 CAN 40 logo 3 4800 0.398 0 logo 3 4600 0.398 No Right 17 a a a 17 a 0 a 10 a a 0 to 0 0 0 10 0 0 - Sb Len 71 1 1600 0.0" 0 71 1 1600 0.044 0 so 1 1600 0,038 0 do I logo 0.038 0 so I l000 0.038 Sb Thm 1860 3 4000 0.297 a 1050 3 4800 0397 a 2660 3 4600 0.573 .40 2540 S 4500 0.555 0 21140 a 48D0 0.565 Sb Right 64 a a a 54 a 0 a 70 a D a 70 a 0 0 70 0 0 Eb Led. So a a 0.000 a so 0 0 0.000 a ISO D 0 0.000 0 150 0 0 O.Coo 0 ISO 0 a O.ODD Eb Thru 65 1 1000 0.091 0 06 1 logo 0.001 a 50 1 IODD 0.125 a so I ISGO 0.125 0 50 1 1600 0.125 - Eb Right 105 1 logo 0.066 a 105 1 1600 0.066 a 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 logo 0005 0 to I IWD Q.CD5 Wb Left 31 1 1600 0.019 a 31 1 1600 0AI9 a 10 1 1800 0.008 0 10 1 logo 0.006 0 10 1 1800 0.006 - Wb Thm 42 1 180 0.028 a 42 1 logo 0025 0 40 1 1660 0.026 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 Wb Right so 1 1600 0.060 a go 1 1600 0.056 a 40 1 logo 0,026 0 40 1 logo 0,025 0 40 1 1500 0,025 .......... ......... 7 7::::::!7 7 7bAQk:7'.:j ICU OJO 0.540 0110 0,702 0.702 LOS A A C C C I • Functions as a separste tum lane, homover. Is not striped es sitch. PMjw ICU Impact: •0.008 Arse Traffic MIUGGAIDn: COunISCOnductImby: NatiOnal Data 9 SUMOng SON10011 SlonlicamOmpam NO Capacity OWUNd In vehicles per hour of Wan, 11-awyo4 1 402 1 0 1-022 1 0 Sodo 1 •80 4930 4980 UNSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS IWO Cortgonsts &W. Suffs 122, Cases Afm CA 02626 1714) 641-1587 INTNREECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ln*mecwn: ie. "St NO"Oft BOWWWd E-W at ISM Street pm1ea. HOOD Water PIAUI SIR File; NVOCIA20526620OUY682025.X18 Content Type: So Traffic Signal Newport Boulevard at 1001 Street Peak Hour. AM Annual Goww1h: 1.00% care: DOW of Court: Projection Year. 0524107 2007 2025 Nb Left 14 1 1600 0.009 Nb Thru 1027 3 4000 0.391 No Right so 0 0 80 Left 72 1 150D 0.045 • Sb Thm 1423 3 4800 0.295 ED Right 23 1 1600 0.014 0 0 0 0 a a WNW:... 14 1027 50 72 1423 23 1 3 0 1 3 1 1600 4800 0 1600 4800 1500 0.009 0.391 • 0J046 ' 0.2D5 0.014 ii4o: 0 10 a 2120 a 63 a a a 1700 D 10 1 3 0 1 3 1 loco 4800 a 1600 4800 1600 0,006 0.454 - 0.00 ' 0.354 0.006 -10 0 0 -90 0 :,: lo 2110 60 0 1610 to 1 3 a 1 3 1 1600 4800 a 1600 4800 1600 .. ..... .i 0.000 0.452 • 0.000 - C.S35 0.006 a 10 a 2110 a 60 0 a a Iola a 10 1 1000 3 001) 0 a 1 1600 3 4800 1 loco 0.000 0.452 coca 0.335 0406 ED Left 21 1 1600 0,013 • ED Thru 21 1 1600 0.021 I ED Right 13 a 0 W Wb Left 37 1 1600 0.023 Wb Thru 34 1 1600 0.048 Wb Right 39 a a a a a a a a 21 21 13 37 34 30 1 1 a 1 1 a 1600 1600 a 1600 16DO a 0.013 • 0.021 0.023 0,046 a a a a a a a 120 20 200 90 40 I 1 a 1 1 a 1600 1600 a 1600 1600 a 0.000 0.085 • 0.125 - 0.081 a a a a a a a 120 20 200 go 40 1 1 0 1 1 a 1600 loco a 160D 1600 a 0,000 0.088 - 0.125 - 0.081 a a a a a a 0 120 20 200 go 40 1 1600 1 1600 a a 1 1600 I loco a a 0.000 0.088 0.125 0.081 ICU0.496 ....... I .......... ............. .............................. LOS SASS 0.697 0.606 Toga A A KeYconflictinommmentaulapanallCu. FUMCUOMS 08 8 "Pamle turn fans, however, 15 not striped Be sum. Counts conducted by Nalwal Dom & Surveying Services Project ICU Impact: .0.002 AM T121110 Mifigation; Capacity expressed In vOhldog per hour of green. Moroccan Impact: NO raw VOL 1 $674 a 3574 a 4370 1 •100 4210 1 0 4270 UNISCM. LAW & GRERNSPAII, ENGINEERS 158000WARRItime, Sub 122,CWMA4680CA 92826 (714) 641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACIrf UTIUMATION lnmmKwm Is, NOWPOn BoWeVard at 18th Street NS St Newport BaWevwd Peak Flour PM Data: 0SR4107 E-W St. lethstirsee AMMIGnowth: 1.00% Date Of count: 2007 Pmled Hosil Maliter Plan E94 File: N.V600I20526628CUYGa2025As Projecdon Year. 2025 COnbvITYPf:50Tnmft Signal • Key Wnladng MovIftbull as a pan of ICU, Functions be I Separate Own lone. lummenir, Is not striped as such. PMJ&M ICU IMPOM -0.009 Area Traffic Mitigation: Counts ondUMed by; National Dam & Sumaying Servicoo NO Capadly MMmd In "bid" par hour of grem. 17101*01AI1. 1 0002 1 0 4002 1 a 4000 -50 4900 1 0 4900 34iijl. 0 30 1 1600 0.018 A Loft 13 1 1600 0.008 0 13 1 1600 0.008 0 30 1 180D 0,019 • 0 30 1 1000 0.019 • Nb Ibm 1700 3 4800 0.363 • 0 MO 3 4000 0.3e3 • a 1940 3 4800 0.425 40 low 3 4800 0.417 0 1000 3 4e00 0.417 No Right 44 0 0 0 44 0 01 0 100 0 0 0 IDO 0 0 0 IDO 0 0 8b Left so I IBM 0.050 • 0 on I ISDO 0.050 • 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1800 0.003 SO Thru 1007 3 4800 0.397 0 1907 3 4800 0.397 0 2350 3 4800 0.490 • 40 2310 3 4800 0,481 • 0 2310 3 4800 0.4al 6 $b Right 20 1 Iwo 0.015 0 28 1 1800 0.016 0 30 1 1600 0.019 a 30 1 IWO 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 Eb Left 20 1 1600 0.013 • 0 20 1 1800 0,013 • 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0,005 0 10 1 1800 0.000 Eb Thru 41 1 1800 0.033 0 41 1 1600 0.03 0 110 1 iew 0.138 • 0 170 1 MOO 0.138 • 0 170 1 1600 0A38 6 Eb Right 11 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 50 0 0 . - 0 so 0 0 Wb Led 51 1 1600 0,032 0 51 1 1600 01032 a 90 1 IBOD 0.058 • 0 so 1 1600 0.058 • 0 90 1 IBDO 0.055 6 WIC Thm 75 1 1600 0.068 • 0 76 1 IGM 01068 - 0 160 1 1600 0.125 0 160 1 1600 0.125 0 160 I MD 0.125 Wb Right 34 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 ............ U114 0.464 OLIN 0.694 CAN 1ICU 1.05 A A C a Is • Key Wnladng MovIftbull as a pan of ICU, Functions be I Separate Own lone. lummenir, Is not striped as such. PMJ&M ICU IMPOM -0.009 Area Traffic Mitigation: Counts ondUMed by; National Dam & Sumaying Servicoo NO Capadly MMmd In "bid" par hour of grem. 17101*01AI1. 1 0002 1 0 4002 1 a 4000 -50 4900 1 0 4900 LINSCOTT. LAW A GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1580 COMMID D11". SUMS 122 COSM MM CA 92626 (714) 641-1597 INTERSECTION CAPACM UTILIZATION Immackw. IS SuperiorAvenue at 17th Street " St. Superior Amur Peak Hour: AM D": 0644107 E•W St IM Street mom Hug Master WIPla Plan Annum Gmwth: 1.00% DOW of Count 2007 Projection Year 2025 Con Control Type: OOTMIN signal Key madUcting movement as a partot ICU. FMC&III IS a Separate tan lane, KOMM. 18 not Wiped no Such, Project ICU Impact. -O.DOI Area Traft Mitigation: Sf9Wlcand1AVAC1: NO Cap** expressed In abides per hour of grem Iratalv" I met 1 0 3041 1 0 300 a 1040 a 2040 ND LOA 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 30 1 Iwo 0.019 2 32 1 isto 0.0" 0 32 1 ISDO 0.020 NbThm 115 1 IWO 0.072 0 115 1 1600 0.072 0 140 1 1600 0.088 a 148 1 1600 0.093 0 148 1 1600 0.093 Na Right 1038 1 1600 0949 - 0 1038 1 law 0.649 • 0 040 1 1600 0.588 • 0 940 1 1600 0.588 • 0 940 1 1800 0.586 - SbLeft 72 1 1600 0.045 • 0 72 1 IGDO 0.045 • 0 90 1 IGDO 0,056 • 0 90 4 1600 0.050 • 0 00 1 1600 0.056 - Sb Thm 274 2 3200 vclei 0 274 2 3200 0.104 0 270 2 3200 0.105 4 262 2 3200 0.104 0 262 2 3200 0.104 St, Rig" 69 0 0 0 IM) 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 ED Left 11 1 1600 0,007 0 11 1 1000 0.007 0 10 1 1000 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1600 OM(t ED Thm 034 2 3200 0,208 • 0 634 2 3200 0.208 • 0 640 2 3200 0.172 • 0 540 2 3200 0.171 • 0 $40 2 3200 0,171 - I Eb Right I 31 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 10 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 t WO Left 324 1 1000 0.203 0 324 1 1600 0.203 0 330 1 1600 0.205 0 330 1 1000 0.205 0 330 1 1600 0.205 A Wb Thm 430 2 3200 0.145 0 436 2 3200 0.145 0 500 2 3200 0.101 0 500 2 $200 0,191 0 500 2 3200 0,191 Wb MOM 27 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 110 0 0 0 110 0 0 0 110 0 0 IIA40 t ICU, 0.902 0.S02 0.818 0915 0.816 Los a a D 0 D Key madUcting movement as a partot ICU. FMC&III IS a Separate tan lane, KOMM. 18 not Wiped no Such, Project ICU Impact. -O.DOI Area Traft Mitigation: Sf9Wlcand1AVAC1: NO Cap** expressed In abides per hour of grem Iratalv" I met 1 0 3041 1 0 300 a 1040 a 2040 UNSCOTT, LAIN & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate, Orfue, So& 122, Costa Mass CA 92626 (114) 64 I-ISS? INTERSECOON CA triterseam: it, Superior Avenue at 1707 Street N-S St: Superior Avenue Peak Hour PM Dow: 05124107 E•W St 17% Sisevil Annual Gm - 1.00% Data of Count: 2007 PmJG= Hoag Mawr Plan WR Projection Year 2025 Foe: NA250012052852000Y9sr2O26.,ds CoavATYPT.807taffic Sfonal ........... • Key c0n61an9 mavam6nlaEPHta ICU. Funcoons as a separate turn lane. hmmr. Is not oulped as such. Project icuImpact 0.001 Area Tmfflc MINgstion; Countactunductedbr. National Date& Surasybig SeNbcoa signmicantimpacL NO Capsefty expressed h valildes per hmrofgmn. Irobigol. 1 3023 1 a 3023 0 3600 1 20 3420 1 0 On ........... ....... .... Its 0 70 1 1600 0.0" a 70 1 1600 0,044 Nb Left 00 1 1600 0.080 • 0 96 1 1600 0.000 • 0 70 1 1600 0.044 No T1%nu 170 1 1600 0.106 0 170 1 IWO 0.106 0 270 1 1500 0.169 0 270 1 1600 0.109 • 0 270 1 1600 0.169 Nb R[W 851 1 160 0.407 0 661 1 iWO 0.407 0 SOD i iWD 0,375 0 BOO 1 1600 0.375 0 600 1 ISOD 0.378 Sb Left 87 1 leOO 0.054 0 87 1 1600 0.064 0 140 1 low 0.060 0 140 1 1600 0.088 - 0 140 1 1600 0.088 SbTvWU 1117 2 320 0.123 - 0 317 2 3200 OAM - 0 370 2 moo 0.188 16 398 2 3200 0.193 0 380 2 3200 0.103 Sb Right 78 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 230 0 0 0 230 0 0 0 230 0 a Bb Left 26 1 1000 0.018 0 26 1 1600 0.010 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1500 0.025 0 40 1 1000 0.028 Do Ea Thm 543 2 3200 0.192 • 0 543 2 3200 0.192 - 0 770 2 3200 0.250 0 770 2 3200 0.251 • 0 770 2 3200 0.251 I Eb Right To 0 0 a 70 0 0 0 30 0 0 4 34 a 0 a 34 0 0 WD left 477 1 1600 0.208 • 0 477 1 1600 0.298 • 0 400 1 1000 0.250 0 400 1 1600 0.250 • 0 400 1 1600 0.260 WbTtWU 427 2 3200 OAFA a 427 2 Um 0.1" 0 500 2 1200 0.213 0 580 2 3200 0.213 0 580 2 3200 0.213 WID Right 111 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 ........ .... ICU iLD3 0.673 a Oin a QJV C, 0.768 0 0.768 C • Key c0n61an9 mavam6nlaEPHta ICU. Funcoons as a separate turn lane. hmmr. Is not oulped as such. Project icuImpact 0.001 Area Tmfflc MINgstion; Countactunductedbr. National Date& Surasybig SeNbcoa signmicantimpacL NO Capsefty expressed h valildes per hmrofgmn. Irobigol. 1 3023 1 a 3023 0 3600 1 20 3420 1 0 On DO I In LINSOOTT, LAW J, GREENOPAN. ENGIIIIIEER9 1580 COWmb Clue. Suite 122, Coam Mass CA 92626 0141 641-ISS7 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Ifterwaction: 20. N-3 lot: NOWPOrt Bouloyaw NewonSoulwania,17ths"al E-W St 17M Street Peak Hour. AM Dam: 05/24M7 Pmjoct: Hoag Master Plan EIR Annual Grcwln: 1.00% Dam Of Count 2007 Fl N:96(Qi20S2852VClJY*%r2o25.,dB Projection Year. 2025 Centel TYPO: SO Traffic 14pal Funckam as a separam turn lam. him m• IS not striped as Sucin. Project ICU irl 4.002 Am Traffic Miligallow Counts Nnd=ed by: N111011111 Date 4 Sum,4ing Services C*mCtIy OMMSUd In itah1clOO per sour of grew. Significantlal NO ZMARIVOL 1 6330 1 0 6330 1 0 7830 1 •100 7530 1 0 7630 - . . . ......... a4 W Nb Left No Thru 46 1099 1 3 IWO 000 0.029 0.3Z4 0 46 1 1600 0.020 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1000 0.013 0 20 1 low 0.013 Nb RIght 197 1 1600 0.123 0 0 1699 3 4900 0.364 0 1920 3 4800 0,400 -9 1911 3 480D 0,398 0 loll 3 am 0.398 197 1 logo 0.123 a 330 1 1600 0,206 •1 329 1 ISOD 0.205 0 329 1 IGDD 0.206 Sb Left Sb That 749 1439 2 3 3200 0234 0 749 2 3200 0.234 0 650 2 3200 0.203 0 860 2 3200 0,203 0 660 2 3200 0.203 Sb Right 472 0 4800 0 0.308 0 1439 3 4800 0.395 0 1870 3 4000 0,425 -83 1587 3 4800 0.408 0 1687 3 4800 0,408 0 472 0 0 0 370 0 0 0 370 0 0 0 370 D 0 Eb Left Eb TON 084 3 4800 0,135 0 e64 3 4800 0.138 0 IWO 3 4800 0.250 0 1200 3 4600 0250 D 1200 3 4800 0250 Eb Right 435 27 2 0 3200 0 0.144 0 435 2 3200 0.144 0 510 2 3200 0.175 0 510 2 3200 0.175 0 510 2 320D 0.175 0 27 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 So 0 0 D 60 a 0 Wb Left Wls Theru 138 34e 2 3200 0.043 0 138 2 3200 0.043 0 130 2 3200 0,041 •7 123 2 3200 CAN 0 123 2 320D 0.038 Wls Will lie 3 1 4800 0.072 0 346 3 4800 0.072 0 540 3 4800 0.113 0 540 3 4800 0.113 0 540 3 4900 0.113 *:::::::::::::!:::::::::i:::::�;t�.::4�:� 1600 0.074 0 lie 1 1600 0.074 0 240 1 1800 0.150 0 240 1 1800 0,150 0 240 1 1600 0.15 0,4400viii , , "qqi::::7 :: ::::::: :7!7:7XX ::.iq:ql 7:7!7!7X 7::V.007.- ICU LOS 0.798 C 0.710 OJ66 0.11,114 oild C E a Funckam as a separam turn lam. him m• IS not striped as Sucin. Project ICU irl 4.002 Am Traffic Miligallow Counts Nnd=ed by: N111011111 Date 4 Sum,4ing Services C*mCtIy OMMSUd In itah1clOO per sour of grew. Significantlal NO ZMARIVOL 1 6330 1 0 6330 1 0 7830 1 •100 7530 1 0 7630 - Lall LAW& GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 COfPMW MO. Sub 122. CWNI Mesa CA OMS (714) 641-1587 INTRIMCM0111 CAPACIMUTILIZATION Ifthersecilon: 20. Newport Boulevard at Vol straw WS at Newpon BoUlaVad Peak Hour. PM Date: 0624107 E-W at Ifts"Ot AnnualGrowth: 1.00% Data Of Count 2007 Project HMO Master Plan EtR PmjecWn Year. 2026 Fla: N:200012052652YCUYMr202SA8 Cardrd Typo: 801ru15c Signal Key conaldni; movinnent as a pad of ICU. Punellona as a separate KiM kno, however, to not will as such. Project ICU "pea -0.008 Area Traffic Mill Coup"coridocced6jr, National Date a survevins services 6kil14ownumpact No Capacity exprossod In vehIMS per hour of greem ITZIPS1 1 8818 ---7 o 3170 a am 1 .80 8120 1 a WITO .............. . ......... 0 73 1 1100 0.046 0 30 1 1000 0.019 0 30 1 1800 .......... 0.010 No Left 73 1 1800 0.046 0 30 1 1600 OXIO No Thru 1589 3 4800 0.327 0 16" 3 4800 0,327 0 Im 3 4WD 0.413 • .35 1942 3 4800 0.405 0 1942 3 4800 0.405 No Right 02 1 1600 0.106 0 172 1 IODO 0.108 0 250 1 1600 0.158 .2 248 1 1600 0.165 0 248 1 Ieoo 0,156 So Loa, 766 2 3200 0.246 0 Too 2 3200 0.246 0 ago 2 3200 0.216 • 0 ago 2 3200 0.216 0 690 2 3200 0.216 Slb Thm 1821 3 4800 0.441 0 18211 3 4800 0.441 0 2150 3 4800 0.517 -30 2112 3 4800 0.509 0 2112 3 4800 0,509 So Right 298 0 0 0 298 0 0 0 330 0 0 0 330 0 a 0 330 0 0 Sit Left 037 3 4800 0.133 0 631 3 4800 0.133 0 ago 3 4800 0.183 0 980 3 4800 0.183 0 980 3 4800 0.183 Eb Tftru 514 2 3200 0.171 0 514 2 3200 0.171 a 860 2 3200 0.222 0 WO 2 3200 0.222 0 660 2 3200 0,222 ED Right 32 0 '0 0 32 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 so a 0 Wit Left 227 2 3200 C.071 0 22T 2 3200 0.071 0 230 2 3200 0X72 .2 228 2 3200 0.071 0 228 2 3200 0.071 Wb Thru m 3 4800 0.117 0 582 3 4000 0.117 0 700 3 4400 0.146 0 Too 3 4800 0.146 0 700 3 4800 0.146 Wb Right 103 1 I= 0A14 0 183 1 000 0.114 0 260 1 1600 0.158 0 260 1 1600 0.166 0 260 1 two 0.164 C'me 0.960 0.960 L IM D a a r Key conaldni; movinnent as a pad of ICU. Punellona as a separate KiM kno, however, to not will as such. Project ICU "pea -0.008 Area Traffic Mill Coup"coridocced6jr, National Date a survevins services 6kil14ownumpact No Capacity exprossod In vehIMS per hour of greem ITZIPS1 1 8818 ---7 o 3170 a am 1 .80 8120 1 a WITO LUI LAW & GREENSPAN, 1111111104111IRS 1580 Carpenter Drina, Suft 122, Costa Men CA 92826 (714) 641-1687 Inwasellon: 21. NS St "Orl SOW"and E•W Sc IBM Sovatfitacticater Snot Project: H009 Mnlar Plan EIR Fee: N' NUON05268211110VOUN23AU Control Type: 60 E•W Spift INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Newport B0918YON at 1881 Streetfilochester Street Peak Hour. AM Annual Growth: 1.00% Date: 05124107 Date of Count 2007 Projection Year 2025 Key colifflating mowment as a pan W ICU. Functions as a sapormls, turn tem. however, Is nor solipm as sum. Pm)act ICU Impact: -ODD2 Arse home mitiopmom NstknaIDft&SvmyVngServc*s Signifiminalropect, NO Capacity mpressed In vehimis par hourolgreen. Ilrbialval, 1 50118 1 0 San a 667 42 6738 a 6738 %.............. 0 20 1 1500 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 No Left 46 1 1600 0.020 • 0 46 1 loco 0.029 0 20 1 IWO 0.013 No Tum 2275 3 4800 0.475 0 2275 3 4800 0475 0 3300 3 4800 0.090 .0 3291 3 4800 0.688 0 3291 3 4800 DAN • No RION 7 0 0 a 7 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 So Left 72 1 1600 0.045 0 72 1 IWO 0.045 0 180 1 1000 0.113 0 180 1 1800 0.113 0 180 1 1600 0.113 So Thim 2840 3 4800 0.650 • 0 250 3 4800 0.560 0 2690 3 4800 0,560 .83 2007 3 4800 0.443 0 26107 a 4600 0.642 F11 PVA III I I= 0.071 0 113 1 1600 0.071 0 170 1 1600 0.106 •8 W 1 1600 0.101 0 182 1 1800 0.101 Eb Loft 249 2 3200 0.078 • 0 249 2 3200 0.078 0 120 2 3200 0.036 a 128 2 3200 0,040 0 128 2 3200 0.040 ;p, Eb Thm 102 1 loco 0.064 0 102 1 loco 0.0B4 0 ISO 1 1800 0.094 0 150 1 1800 0.094 D ISO I IND 0.094 I ED RERIN 84 1 IND 0.040 0 64 1 loco 0.040 D 20 1 1800 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1800 0.013 Wb Left I I loco 0.001 0 1 1 1600 0.001 0 30 1 Iwo 0,019 0 so 1 1800 0,019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 wb Trim so I IWO 0.074 0 Be 1 1600 0.074 0 80 1 two O.Ow 0 so 1 1600 0.088 0 So 1 1600 0.088 we RION so 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N D 0 D N 0 0 - 0 60 0 0 ... ....... .. ........ ICU 0,791 0.731 0.086 0.913 0.003 LOS C C IS 6 E Key colifflating mowment as a pan W ICU. Functions as a sapormls, turn tem. however, Is nor solipm as sum. Pm)act ICU Impact: -ODD2 Arse home mitiopmom NstknaIDft&SvmyVngServc*s Signifiminalropect, NO Capacity mpressed In vehimis par hourolgreen. Ilrbialval, 1 50118 1 0 San a 667 42 6738 a 6738 LINSCO", LAW & (IFUUMORPAR, UGtKEERS 1580 Corporate Drive, So#@ 122, Com Afasa Q4 92828 0141 841-1587 InteraeMn: 21. N-8 St Newport awtovem E-W St. 18th 91reg6ROCI10aar Street Project Hoeg Manter Pan EIR File; NA20OW052$52VCUYGd4025.xIs CQDWTYPD:OOE.w Spin Nftpon Boulevard at IBM Streentochmster Sheet Peak Hour. Phil Annual Greenfl: I.GD% Daw. OW4107 Data of Count: 20D7 Projection Year. 2023 Fundone, as a sepationa turn lent, hanver, I$ net Wped as such. Counts conducted by: National Data A Burvall4q; Service$ Capacity expressed in vehicles per now of green. Project ICU Impact: .0.009 Area Traffic NOOSIon: Signiffoorel Impact: NO ITIOsi 1 6608 7 0 66 0 7540 -60 7490 1 0 7460 - . ............... -APAPT ...... No Los III 1 1600 0.069 • 0 111 1 1600 0.059 • 0 so I Isoo 0.058 0 so 1 1600 0.056 0 go 1 1600 DOSS No Thm 2100 3 4800 0.585 0 270D 3 4800 0.05 0 3290 3 480D 0.090 • .38 3252 3 4800 0.582 • 0 3252 a 4900 0.592 - I'ma MGM 13 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Bit Left 107 1 1800 0.067 0 107 1 1600 0,067 0 ISO I 16D0 0.094 • 0 150 1 1600 9O94 • 0 ISO I isoo 0.094 - SbThm 2076 3 48D0 0.520 • 0 2870 3 4800 0.509 • 0 3360 3 "Do 0.700 .38 3322 3 4E00 0.692 0 3322 3 4800 0.692 So Right ISO 1 1600 0.099 0 ISO I ISDO 0.099 0 TO I ISDO 0.044 16 86 1 IND 0,054 0 55 1 IND 0.054 So Left 287 2 3200 0.090 • 0 297 2 3200 0.090 0 230 2 3200 0,072 - 0 230 2 320D 0,072 ' 0 230 2 3200 0.072 - Eb Thm 85 1 1500 0.053 0 85 t 1000 0.053 0 60 1 1600 0.039 0 so 1 1000 0.030 0 so 1 1600 0.039 Eb Right 68 1 TOO OJm 0 68 1 MO 0.045 0 'm I WOO 0.044 0 70 1 11500 0C44 0 70 1 IBM 0.044 We Left Is 1 1600 0.009 0 to 1 1600 ODDI) 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 IeOO 0.013 WD Thru lie 1 1600 DAW 0 1% 1 IBM 0.117 0 140 1 ISDO 0.113 • 0 140 1 1600 0,113 • 0 140 1 1800 0.113 Wb Right 71 0 0 0 71 0 0 - 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 ICU 0.575 0.875 0.666 0.861 0.111111 LOS D D I E a Fundone, as a sepationa turn lent, hanver, I$ net Wped as such. Counts conducted by: National Data A Burvall4q; Service$ Capacity expressed in vehicles per now of green. Project ICU Impact: .0.009 Area Traffic NOOSIon: Signiffoorel Impact: NO ITIOsi 1 6608 7 0 66 0 7540 -60 7490 1 0 7460 - UNBCO", LAY! & GMIUSPAN. 911011411111VIRS 1580 Corporate DM. Sub 122• COM Men CA 92626 (714) 641.1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intentection: 22. Ne"Ori BmIevaral at Hamer Boulavaral N•S St Newport soulevam Past, Hour. W ftw. 05124I87 EM at-. Hamar scols"O Annual Growth: 1.00% Debt of Count 2007 Project Hoag Mosbar Plan EIR File; W.=OMD6M2MCUY4ffaO25.jds ProJection Yew. 2025 Control Type: 30 Theme Signal Key confilefing; movement as a part of ICU. Furmitanit 99 a Separate turn 100• however. Is not Wiped as such. PMJect ICU Impact .0.019 Area Traffic rAftliation: Counts conducted by: Nall mnsI Date &SurveyfrogSarvicat, 140 Capacity expressed in valticlas per how of green. lrowvoi 1 5508 1 0 5608 1 0 , 6500 1 •92 "a 1 0 6468 ............ . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . i t It 0 4130 2 3200 0.163 0 490 2 3200 0.153 0 490 2 3200 0.153 Nb Left 177 2 3200 0.055 0 177 2 3200 0.055 NO thm 2419 3 4900 0.504 0 2410 3 40M 0.504 0 2880 3 4800 0.500 .1 2960 3 4800 0.5" 0 28" 2 4800 0.6% His Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SO Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 SO Thou 2329 3 4600 0.491 • 0 2329 3 4800 0.401 • 0 2410 3 4WD OMS -in 2325 3 4600 0.480 • 0 2325 3 4800 0.489 SO Right 26 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Eb Left 27 1 1600 01017 0 27 1 1600 0.017 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0,044 0 70 1 1600 0,044 Eb Tmu 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Eb Right 530 2 3200 0.166 ' 0 530 2 3200 0.100 • 0 710 2 3200 0222 46 704 2 3200 0.220 • 0 704 2 3200 0.220 WO Left 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.900 Wit Thm 0 0 0 0.1100 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Wit Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOU 0.07 OAI;T kne M709 0.700 LOS N 6 C C C Key confilefing; movement as a part of ICU. Furmitanit 99 a Separate turn 100• however. Is not Wiped as such. PMJect ICU Impact .0.019 Area Traffic rAftliation: Counts conducted by: Nall mnsI Date &SurveyfrogSarvicat, 140 Capacity expressed in valticlas per how of green. lrowvoi 1 5508 1 0 5608 1 0 , 6500 1 •92 "a 1 0 6468 1 N :P O LINBCOTT� LAW 8 GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1680 CeryoMM Orlve, Sues 172, Costa Mesa CA 99696 (714) $41.1587 Imersedon: 22. WE St NewporteauMVem NaWPW Boulevard at Harbor Boulevam ......... 2 3 a E•W St HaMOr Boulevard Peek Haur. PM Annual Growth: 1.00% Date: 05124/07 Project Hoag Water Plan EIR isi:;•..:::::•;;:.::. 320E 4800 a Date of Count 2007 FIR: NVINI1205265aCUY891026,Ne :i :; :s; :; :; :; 2 3 a Projection Year 2025 Control Type: 3OTMmd Sign WC( i':'• :.:..::.:...: ::.:.::. .. .3 697 -35 3085 a a :. :.ii :. :.. 2 3 a .... NI) Le0 Nb Thru Nb Right .. 488 2521 a ......... 2 3 a 320E 480E a .� 0.163 • 0.625 j....¢i :W1iHi, ..... ...:.:::. ..... :::.:.:::..::::::::::::::: a 488 a 2621 a a :... 2 3 a isi:;•..:::::•;;:.::. 320E 4800 a 0.153 • 0.525 - ;! *j :: ..... $6, YR7 :cv i�: is . :.;. :t :i :i a 700 a 3100 a a :i :; :s; :; :; :; 2 3 a :i :i :i: :i 320E 480E a : ? : : : :: sit::: 0.219 •.. 0.646 WC( i':'• :.:..::.:...: ::.:.::. .. .3 697 -35 3085 a a :. :.ii :. :.. 2 3 a :.:...:.:. :. :... :i :i 320E 480E a �. .... : : : : :ii : :i :iii :i 0.218 • 0.839 ....� .�i18IITHQ11EtG :i :; :i.......... .. X111:1;1[:::; • a 697 2 320E a 3085 3 4800 a a a a 0,218 ' 0.839 Be Lee Sb Thru $b Right a 2581 82 a 3 a a 4600 a 0.000 0.661 • a a a a 2581 62 a 3 a a 480E a 0.000 0.651 • a a a a 280E 40 a 3 a a 4800 a 0.000 0.592 • - a •20 a a 278E 40 a 3 a a 480E a 0.000 0.588 • a a a a 278E 40 a 3 a a 480E a 0,000 0.589 Eb Lee Eb Thru Eb Right Be a 510 1 a 2 160E a 3200 0.036 0.00E 0.182 a a a Be a 518 1 a 2 180E a 320E 0.038 0.000 0.162 a a a 80 a 820 1 a 2 160E a 320E 0.05E 0.000 0.256 a a -2 e0 a 818 1 a 2 160E a 320E 0.05E 0.000 0.256 a a a 80 a 816 1 a 2 180E a 320E 0.050 0.000 0.256 Wb Leh Wb Thru Wb Right a a a a a a a a a 0.000 0.000 a a a a a a a a a a a a 0.00E 0.00E a a a a a a a a a a a a 0.000 OA00 a a a a a a a a a a a a 0.000 0.D00 a a a a a a a a a a a a 0.000 0.00E xi9b riAX wit oi1.... : M•U LO8 : : :: > : : : : : :4AtiQ : + : : 6.710 C : : : : :...... : : : : : : : : : : : :: Qq9 :. > :. b .... 6.740 C : : :• :• : : : :; .............................9, ::; : : : : : : : : : :• :• : : : : :; ... ............., 999 :' : 0.841 E : : : : :•is :. ............,................:.. : : : : : : : :: i:•: : :. : : : : :A999.• :... 6.868 D :.............................. .. ......... : : :. . .... 0.806 E may camecung movement as a pen of ICU. •• Fun00ons as a separate Mm tons, however, Is not striped as mxh. PMJeq ICU Impact •0.005 Area Traffic MBigetl0n: Coama eonduced by: National Data & $urvaying SeMCas MJeM IICU Impact: NO Capacity exproeeod In vehicles per hour of grown. TO"? WA 0720 1 0 dw 1 0 7540 1 .60 7440 1 0 7100 I N A N LINSCOTT, LAW 6OREUSPAR, RNOINNSRS 1580 COMMIS Oft Sub 122, COO Mesa CA 02526 (714) 641.1597 INTERSSCTION CAPACRY u nLQATION Intersection. 23' Newport BOUlewrd M Broa0lwy Boulevard N-S St Neww mMayud Peek Hour. AM Date: 06724/07 E•W SD SrCaNeay Boulawrd Annual GrcMh: 1.00% Dote MCOUnc 2007 Prgec4 M009 Meeter Plan EIR iii F' 06:; Fla; NN26p0120626629CUVaaQ025.Ne ProjeOBOn Veer. 2025 Contralllps:60E•W SPIN 4:' • Key conflicting movement as a pan of ICU. Fenders as 0 separate Wm lone. however, N not amPeO m ouch. Project lCll tmP6cY. .0.001 Area Tmft Maine bn: Counts conauclOd by: NeOamI DMe 6 5urveyhp SemIcas SmnMoent Impact: NO CaP8dty UPrepaO h wMtlas per how of green. 11,6141VOL F 6060 0 6060 1 0 slid 1 46 82 4 .. R6; :CUMV' .NO7E9TSi:E:EE;iiiE iii F' 06:; isisisisii:: i:::::i;::::::....t..'......... 4:' Niiii '::i:i�iii::iii::::ii:�ii:i ........:.......:...•.. ....... ...��y, .:...........•:..•...::...:,... .. :.:...., ........::..:..:..::..:.:.:.: ............................. .:.:.:::::�?c....:...a1M....... �.......:.....:....:....:.....::.......:,.......,..:..................:.....::.....:. zee......:...........:....:... :.:.:.::::::.;;::�•:::.:.::::.: :.:' :.;.r •. 0::::YL :: �: 'ibi:i;i:i Ie ..Y BM i:i: .. ;; ..... u�ii:iii "'0''t:iilio �. ...;.�...:: ....D .,.i ':ii:ii ;:Y.�...I,; .... :.•::;'...:.:I;':.:::::.::::i: �•.:t "iii:i:i Nb Leff 1 1 IWO 0.001 0 1 1 1800 0001 0 10 1 1500 0.008 0 10 1 1800 0.008 0 10 1 1600 0.006 NO Thm 2440 3 4800 0.513 • 0 2440 3 4600 0.513 • 0 2800 3 4800 0.617 • .1 2889 3 4800 0.616 • 0 2889 3 4800 0.515 NO Rt9M 24 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 Sb Left 32 1 1600 0.020 • 0 32 1 1800 0.020 • 0 30 1 1600 0.019 • 0 30 1 16DO 0.019 • 0 30 1 1600 0.019 ' Sb Thm 2409 3 4800 0.502 0 2409 3 4800 0.502 0 2490 8 4800 0,519 •85 2405 3 4400 0S01 0 2405 3 4800 0.501 SD RIDM 6 1 1000 0.005 0 8 1 1600 0.005 0 10 1 1000 0.006 0 10 1 1600 COON 0 10 1 16DD O.DDB Eb LON 8 0 0 0.000 0 8 0 0 0.000 0 10 0 0 OADO 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 10 0 0 0.000 Eb Tam 4 1 1600 0.008 • 0 4 1 7600 0.008 • 0 10 1 7800 0.013 • 0 t0 7 1600 0.013 • 0 10 1 1000 0.013 Eb Rtght 3 1 1800 0.002 0 3 1 1600 0.002 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1000 0.006 WD Left 31 1 1600 0.018 0 31 1 1800 0.019 0 20 1 IWO 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1800 0.013 D Thm 5 1 1600 0.056 • 0 5 1 1600 0.050 • 0 10 1 1600 0.100 • 0 10 1 1600 0.100 • 0 10 1 7800 0.100 Wb Right 85 0 0 - 0 85 0 0 - 0 150 0 0 - 0 760 0 0 - 0 150 0 0 K4S41PiYtPM40M:::C'•.:•: i:::: ....4 :'''b ab:;7;:::•::•:•:•: ......... ::: :::::::•: ...................4460........ i :.. :.::.... .. +... ,: ::. ;.:.:.,._..: ..... ':::':: X.: .. ..... .... :•::::•'::.i....:- .. ..... i:':::::'::': .9, 999................................ ':: :::::::•: :: :':: i'. :. i::. :. p¢ pp::': :::;::'::::�::::::::::::::::.;: ..:,�. ICU 0.607 06667 06746 0.746 0.748 LOS A A C C C • Key conflicting movement as a pan of ICU. Fenders as 0 separate Wm lone. however, N not amPeO m ouch. Project lCll tmP6cY. .0.001 Area Tmft Maine bn: Counts conauclOd by: NeOamI DMe 6 5urveyhp SemIcas SmnMoent Impact: NO CaP8dty UPrepaO h wMtlas per how of green. 11,6141VOL F 6060 0 6060 1 0 slid 1 46 82 4 'Y I N iP N UNSOOTT, LAW a GREENSPAN. ENMNBENS 1500 CmpoRle Clfue, SURE 177, Coats Maas CA 02618 (714) 641.1587 INTERSECTION CieaOiTy UTIL aTION N-S St Intersection: 73, Newport S4utevard et Broadway Boulevard E-W S Saipan y Bout erd E-WSt '8roedwy Boulevard Annual Grouts: 1.00% Cale 024107 7 PraJect Hoop Master Plan EIR Cale of Count 70007 Fee: N:W001213576629CUY"r2O2S.ps Prclaction Year. 7075 Conb01 TY9a:60 E -W Split .. .... .... ..... .. .. ..... t:: .. :�:::: :: :; ::: .:.:.: i ... ..:....: :...:ii i�. ...... :.:.::......:..:::.:. lN:ii;:;:;:i•;i;:;:: .......: :.:.: <:' ::..: �.:..::.,....:.::::::...:.:.::...:.:.:...:.......:.... ..:::::.:..........;::........: i ......... .:..: :. ...:.. :.: .: ...: ., .:......... . :...:.... .......:...................:..: is....... .+W'da7 P ....: ....: .:.:.: ....: ....:.:... ::�... .. eti:........: .....: :::::::.:::: i:Yle;iii:i:i Nb Left NO Th , NO Right 19 7507 61 1 3 0 1600 4900 0 0.017 0.535 • 0 0 0 19 7507 61 1 3 0 1600 4800 0 0.017 0.535 • - 0 0 0 70 7700 70 1 3 0 1600 4600 0 0.013 0.577 • 0 •36 0 70 7885 70 1 3 0 1800 4800 0 0A73 0.570 • 0 0 0 70 7665 70 1 3 0 1600 4800 0 0.013 0,570 SO Leh Sb Thm SO Right 111 7589 60 1 3 1 1600 4900 1600 0.069 • 0.530 0.038 0 0 0 111 7509 60 1 3 1 1600 4800 1600 0.068 ' 0.538 0.038 0 0 0 90 7790 60 1 3 1 1600 4000 1800 0.056 • 0.581 0.038 0 -20 0 g0 7T70 60 1 3 1 1600 4800 1800 0.056 • 0.577 0.038 0 0 0 g0 7770 e0 1 3 1 1600 4800 7600 0.068 0.577 0.038 Eb L9h Eb Thru Eb Right 15 75 10 0 1 1 0 1800 1600 01000 0.075 • 0.006 0 0 0 15 25 10 0 1 1 0 1600 1600 0.000 0.025 • 0.005 0 0 0 10 20 70 0 1 1 0 1800 1600 0.000 0.019 • 0.013 0 0 0 10 70 20 0 1 1 0 1800 1600 0000 0.019 • 0.013 0 0 0 10 70 20 0 1 1 0 1600 1800 0.000 0.019 0.013 Wb Leh Wb Tft Wb Right 48 22 91 1 1 0 1600 1600 0 0.029 0.071 • 0 0 0 46 22 91 1 1 0 1600 1600 0 0.029 0.071 • 0 0 0 30 30 100 1 1 0 1800 1800 0 0,019 0,081 • 0 0 0 30 30 100 1 1 0 1600 1800 0 0.019 0.081 • 0 0 0 30 30 100 1 1 0 1600 1600 0 0A19 0,061 4947..... ..... .. ... ... .. R.904 ..... •... , ., . ......: •.. •. . Pp94 : ;.:; ;.. :: .. 6Abk :i' ICU Loa 4.709 a 11.700 B 0.733 C 0.729 C 9.729 C • Key conflicting movement as a pan of ICU. '• Functions ae a separete wen lone, however. is not swited as such. PmfeCtlCUlmpad: -0.0137 Area Tm8I0 MUgation: Counts conducted by. National Cate 8 Surveying Services SIpnlACem Impact: ND Capacity eapre8ae0 M vebldea per hour of green. , 1701AIIADE I 6668 0 6668 1 6 6040 •56 6886 1 0 6886 I ,P W LINSCOTT, LAW S GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS Qrii:X •. ................ :i:iiii:i 1880 COMMA? Oft Store 122, Coale AAwe CA 92628 �........ n: i (714) 341.1587 MUNICTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ...ii ::: i i ..:..............:.::.:.:. :. sfed... Intersection: 24. ...' i:::::.:.:.::...::.... "St NewPOM Stulevard N awport Soulonn, a119e1 S1M9t ..:.. '....:...........:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:::.:.:......:.:::.:.:.:.....::..........: E•W Sh 19tH Street Peek HOW AM DOW: 0524,97 Project: H089 Meater Pan EIR Annual Gmwm: 1.00% Date W Count: 2007 Pee: N.M12300120528528CUYea2025.IOe PM)ae6on Year. 2025 Control Type: 30 E•W Split .:.:.:�:: ......: :.:.:: .� .. Qrii:X •. ................ :i:iiii:i ....:.:: ?;111:1:1;:: �........ n: i ..;1:1111 ...ii ::: i i ..:..............:.::.:.:. :. sfed... .. #..... :::::::::.:::.::::.:::::::::::: ...' i:::::.:.:.::...::.... ..:.. '....:...........:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:::.:.:......:.:::.:.:.:.....::..........: .. iN:CV61.:.. .NOxE0T8iEEl3.... i:i:E:3098} .�::.:.:.......;.......�:...... .:.:.:�:: .:.:.:....:.. ►::::.... ii.:.:..:..,....:.:.: a ..... I : 'f �: Aaaki..:..??! d>::::::::::;.,....,.,...,,..• .:[.,.,.: ...:. :...:. iii:..:.::..::.....::.... vtE...,.:.. ia�a.:...: ...........:...:.:.:.:.:.::.:.: tofd.: .:.:....:..............:....:.. :....:.:.:. '.;:i e:�:� :: O:iii;: �... �.>. isi4'....:. ::i'��:.•.:::...::• :.:::.:....: ...r.:.:..... i: i:::::..�..k;:1170`.:.ii:'....: .. iii" ::::.:.:::::.....'!:: : i:i: • i;:: No Left N6 37 2470 1 4800 4800 0.027 0.008 0 77 1 1600 0.027 0 20 1 1600 0.017 0 20 1 1600 0.017 0 20 1 1500 0.013 ND Rlmlt Right 16 1 1 1600 0.010 0 0 2470 16 7 4800 0.508 0 7100 7 4800 0.846 •1 7099 7 4800 0.646 0 7099 7 4800 0.646 1 1600 0.010 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1800 0.019 0 70 1 1600 0.019 S6 Left Se Thm 181 2759 1 4 1600 8400 0.117 0.449 0 0 161 1 1800 0.117 0 230 1 1800 11144 0 270 1 1800 0.144 0 270 1 1600 0.144 S6 R19M 505 0 0 2369 4 8400 OA49 0 2550 4 8400 0.502 -87 2467 4 640D 0.489 0 2487 4 6400 0A89 D 605 0 0 0 880 0 0 0 680 0 0 0 680 0 0 Ee Left EO TAN 778 192 0 0 0.000 0 7/8 0 0 0.000 '0 980 0 0 0.000 0 880 0 0 0.000 0 960 0 0 E6 Right 17 4 1 6100 1600 0.151 0.008 0 192 4 8400 0.151 0 220 4 8400 0.184 0 220 4 6400 0.184 0 220 4 6400 0.000 0.184 0 17 1 100D 0.008 0 10 1 1800 0.008 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.006 We Left We Thn, 78 142 1 4 1800 6400 0.024 0.006 ' 0 78 1 1600 0.024 0 40 1 1841) 0.025 Q 76 1 1000 0.024 0 78 1 1600 0.024 We Right 279 0 0 0 0 142 278 4 6400 0.066 0 240 4 8400 0.087 0 240 4 8400 0.087 0 240 4 6400 0.083 0 0 0 290 0 0 0 290 0 0 0 290 0 0 ldfdw/dlpw8l wt:!' }1111 }ii''• • •' ..... ?i:•:• }i, i }::'.':'.'.'iiiiiii }: { {'hhli'l i i' f'h.i'Y.:4iii OOb •I'iI'.'.'.': if'[':{ iii' :::: ......................b .............. � .................0, 009.. v. �. v.'. �r:. �.':. �.':. �. �::.'.':.•.•:. �.•:. �.'. M49P»: �: �: �:? �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: � >:�iiii:J7Yi }'ri:�:�i }IbA9Q�:fi OS 0.04Q' edit O edict 1.067 1.067 1.067 O F P F 'Key caMlctlnp movement aea partMlCU. " Functions se a SOPMte Ium lent, RoWever, N not Striped as weh. PMJeGt ICU Impact 0.000 AM9 Traffic, MPo9etltn: Counts conducted by: National Dale 8 SurveyNt9 Earvkas SLject ICU impacO NO CePadry OVM d In "hops per hour of groan. 8976 0 5978 1 8 8788 9 929 0. a 4 UNSCCrTT, LAIN& GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 COMOM16 DAYS, SUft 122, COW Mess CA 92620 (714)041.1887 Irdellodam 24, N-S St Newport Boulevard 11•w St, 19th Street Project Haag Matter Plan EIR FPO: NA200012052852VCUY*mr2026.xis Control Type: ao E•W Split INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Newport Boulevard at 19th Street Peak Hour. PM Annual Gammilt: 1.00% Date: OM4X)7 Date M CUM: 2007 Pmjeftn Year. 2025 Key wntHcOng movement as a poll of ICU. FINICII)AS as a mp@Mt# turn fare, however, 15 not "ad as auch. Counts Mdudedby: National Dots 9 Surveying Services Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. Pmjm ICU Impact •0,007 Area Traft Mittgatlon: Signmeant tMPa= NO ITWIVOL 1 768Y 1 0 7607 1 0 "m r 45 0025 1 0 1925 2222: 0. 4j :1NIT41M, . ...... .. . WA t: 6k W , . . ... . 0 80 1 1 600 0.038 0 60 1 1600 0.030 Nb LON at 1 1600 0.030 0 61 1 ISM 0.038 0 50 1 IWO OMB Nb Thm 2406 3 4800 0.514 ' 0 2468 3 4800 0.614 • 0 2910 3 4500 0.808 - •34 2876 3 4800 0.599 0 2876 3 4800 0.599 Nb Right 4a 1 1600 0.029 0 46 1 1600 0.029 0 20 1 1600 0.013 •1 19 1 1600 0.012 0 19 1 1600 0.012 Sb Loft 209 1 1600 0.131 ' 0 209 1 1600 0.131 • 0 240 1 1600 0.150 • 0 240 i iWO OASO 0 240 1 iWO 0A50 Sit Thru 2507 4 6400 0.621 0 2597 4 6400 0.521 0 2970 4 84DO 6.611 -20 2950 4 0400 0.808 0 2950 4 6400 0.608 Sit Right 737 0 0 0 737 0 0 0 940 0 0 0 940 0 0 0 940 0 0 Eb LON 740 0 0 0.000 0 740 0 0 0.000 0 910 0 0 0.000 0 910 0 0 0.000 0 010 0 0 0.000 Eb Thm 200 4 6400 0.147 • 0 200 4 6400 0.147 • 0 250 4 6400 0.181 • 0 250 4 6400 0.181 • 0 250 4 6400 0,151 Eb flight 24 1 ism 0.015 0 24 1 Ism 0.015 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 low 0.025 Wit Left 61 1 1600 0.038 0 61 1 IGDD 0,038 0 70 1 IWO 0.044 0 70 1 IWO 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 wit Thm 283 4 8400 0.070 ' 0 283 4 8400 0.070 - 0 320 4 6400 0.089 • 0 320 4 6400 0.089 ' 0 320 4 6400 0.089 Wit Right 03 0 0 0 163 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 250 0 0 -:-:-X-: X.; XX X.: ICU 0,8112 0.862 1.026 1.010 1.010 WE D 0 IF F F Key wntHcOng movement as a poll of ICU. FINICII)AS as a mp@Mt# turn fare, however, 15 not "ad as auch. Counts Mdudedby: National Dots 9 Surveying Services Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. Pmjm ICU Impact •0,007 Area Traft Mittgatlon: Signmeant tMPa= NO ITWIVOL 1 768Y 1 0 7607 1 0 "m r 45 0025 1 0 1925 YEAR 2025 ALTERNATIVE LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2 -05 -2652 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR vd[LB "USYb�':Rapum: \pp. »rii. l'vicer Pa_sda; UNSCOTr, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1680 cowntle Dfim, sub 122, Cosh win CA 92626 (714) 641-1587 lntemecdbn: 1. WE St orange street Em St W800085tHighway Project Hoag Master PlenEIR Fie; N02600V0520529CUYe9r2025AIUds Control Type: 50Traft Signal INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Orange Street stWe51 Cent Highway Peak Hour. AM Annual GmwM: 1.00% Data: OSQ4107 Date Of Ccuffl: 2007 Projection Year 2025 • Kay cordlednq Movement as a part of ICU. Functions as a separate sum lane, however, Is hot wriped as sum, C0unWC0hdUMdby: C1tyQf Newport Beach CapecityaXpromed In whicinn; per hour of green. Pro]= ICU hPaCt -0.0115 Area Traft Mitigation: 5190MMthpac: NO 176101 VOL 1 4161 1 0 4101 1 0 5280 - 1 •10 $280 1 0 528 ............ 0 0 0 so 0 60 0 1 1 0 1600 1600 0.000 • 0.031 0.036 No Loh t3 0 0 0.000 • Nb Thru 2 1 1800 0.010 Nb Right so 1 1600 0.036 0 13 0 0 0,000 • 0 2 1 1600 0.010 0 58 1 1600 0.038 0 0 0 50 0 Go 0 1 1 0 1600 1600 0,000 • 0.031 0.038 0 0 a 60 0 60 0 1 1 0 1600 1000 0.000 0431 0.038 Sb Left Sb Thru Sb Right 31 0 is 0 1 0 0 1800 0 0.000 0.029 • 0 0 0 31 0 is 0 1 0 0 1600 0 0.000 0,029 - 0 0 0 40 0 20 0 1 0 0 1000 0 0.000 0.038 - 0 0 0 40 0 20 0 1 0 0 1600 0 OJDDO 0.038 - 0 a 0 40 0 20 0 1 0 0 1600 0 0.000 0.038 - Eb Lan Eb Thou Eb R10t 19 2804 12 1 3 0 1000 4800 0 0.012 0.805 • 0 0 0 to 2894 12 I 3 0 IWO 4800 0 0.012 0.605 - 0 0 0 20 3020 10 1 3 0 1600 4800 0 0.013 0.715 - 0 •20 0 20 3400 10 1 3 0 1600 4800 0 0.013 0.710 - 0 a 0 20 3400 10 1 3 0 1600 4800 0 0.013 0.710 • We Lift We Thm We Right 12 1032 I I 1 3 1 1600 4800 1600 0,008 • 0.218 0.007 0 0 0 12 I= 11 1 3 1 1800 4800 1600 0.008 • 0,215 0.007 0 0 0 10 1640 20 1 3 1 1600 4800 1600 0.006 • 0.342 0.013 0 10 0 10 1650 20 1 3 1 1600 4600 1600 0,006 - 0.344 0.013 a 0 0 10 1650 20 1 3 1 1600 4800 1600 0,006 - 0,344 0.013 ...................................... .............. q ICU LOS 0.642 a 0.842 a 0.7as C 0.764 C 0.764 • Kay cordlednq Movement as a part of ICU. Functions as a separate sum lane, however, Is hot wriped as sum, C0unWC0hdUMdby: C1tyQf Newport Beach CapecityaXpromed In whicinn; per hour of green. Pro]= ICU hPaCt -0.0115 Area Traft Mitigation: 5190MMthpac: NO 176101 VOL 1 4161 1 0 4101 1 0 5280 - 1 •10 $280 1 0 528 LINSOOTr, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 24 5 38 31 3 Is 38 1245 11 37 3037 41 INO CMQMM Oft SUN 122, Costa SIGN CA 92826 0 0.000 1600 0.010 1600 0.024 0 0.000 1800 0.031 0 1600 0.024 4800 0.282 0 1600 0.023 4800 0,833 1600 0.026 (714) 641-1581 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTK=TION Intersecdont I. 0 1800 1800 0 1600 0 IBM 4000 0 1600 4600 1600 N-S St ceenge Street Orange Street at West Coast Highway E•W at West Coast Highway Psak Hour I'm Date: Pmjed: MOSS Messer Plan EIR Annual Growth: 1.00% 0544107 File: NVOOOV052852IICUY881202SAILAS Date of Count 2007 ProloclionYear. Control TW#: So Traffic Signal 2025 No Left No Thru Nis Right an Left So Thru SO Right as Left Els Thm Eb Right Wig Len Winn., We Right 24 5 38 31 3 Is 38 1245 11 37 3037 41 ........... 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 0 0.000 1600 0.010 1600 0.024 0 0.000 1800 0.031 0 1600 0.024 4800 0.282 0 1600 0.023 4800 0,833 1600 0.026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 5 38 31 3 16 38 1245 11 37 3037 41 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 0 1800 1800 0 1600 0 IBM 4000 0 1600 4600 1600 0.000 0.018 0.024 0.000 0.01 0.024 0.262 0.023 0.033 0.026 L 6*1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 10 40 40 0 20 so 1700 10 40 3500 so 0 00,000• 1 IODO 1 1600 0 0 1 1800 0 0 1 1600 3 4800 0 0 1 1600 3 4800 1 1600 0,031 0A25 0.000 0.038 0.031 0.358 0.025 0,729 0.031 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -20 0 40 10 40 40 0 20 so 1700 10 40 3480 50 0 0 1 1600 1 1800 0 0 1 1800 0 0 1 1600 3 4900 0 0 1 1600 3 4800 1 1600 0.000 0.031 0.025 0.000 0.030 0.031 0.356 0.025 0,725 0031 -A -Vl- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 10 1 40 1 40 0 0 1 20 0 50 1 1700 3 10 0 40 1 3480 3 so 1 0 1800 1600 0 1800 0 MO 4800 0 Iwo 4600 1600 0.00 0.031 0 0.025 0.000 0,036 . . 0.01 0358 0A26 0,725 0.031 ICU 11.08 a Me 8 0.798 C 77777:717:1:�:.X:::: 7 -7 0.794 C q q ... ... 0.794 C may WnTjwmmg monmem as a Pan of ICU. Functions as a SOPSMIG him [one, however, Is not striped as such. CWMCMdu*edby. OftyofNevwpcd Beach PMJOdICUIMPOa 4004 Area Treffic Milliation: COPRolly 10(pfarlmlead in vehicles per hourof Green, SIgnSicentUnpact No IT01101101. 1 4525 a 4528 1 a -To-o 1 -20 use 1 0 5480 UNISCOTT, tAVA & GREENSPAN, SHOINEERS 1580 COMOMM On". Sufts 122, Costa Areas CA 92026 (714) 641.1597 NiTlRS101011 CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection; 2. Prospect S"M at West Coast Highway N-5 St Prospect Show pea Hou" M Cover, 05124AD7 R-W St: West Cowl Highway Annual Growth; 1.00% owe of count 2007 orcisl 11109 Master Plan SIR Projection Year: 2025 NA260QQ0S26a2YCUYe,u2025Aft.xIa Control Type: SO Trial Signal Key conflicting ingament go a part of ICU. Functions as a separate tum live, however, is not striped as such. Projw ICU Impact -0.0D6 Area Triliffic Miligagon: Counts wraductind by. National Date & Surveying Ste kes Sivaricaunt impact NO Capacity eopressund In "Iticlas par hour of Omen. IYGWVGL 1 4362 1 0 4362 0 6620 .20 5600 0 6500 d ma to..... is . . . . Nb Left 13 0 0 0.000 0 13 0 0 0.000 0 so 0 0 0.0130 0 SO 0 b 0.000 0 so 0 0 gODD NO Thr, 2 1 180D 0.009 0 2 1 1600 0.009 0 0 1 I50 0.031 a a I 1600 0.021 0 0 1 iew 0.031 No RVM 38 1 180 0.024 0 38 1 1500 0.024 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1800 0,025 0 40 1 11300 0.025 SO Left 223 0 0 0,0130 0 223 0 0 0.000 0 230 0 0 MID 0 230 0 0 0.00 0 230 0 0 0.000 Sit Thru 0 1 1600 0.150 0 0 1 1800 0.150 0 0 1 11300 0.156 0 0 1 1600 0.156 0 0 1 160 0.156 Slo Right 17 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 fib Lon 11 1 1600 0.007 0 11 1 160 gODY 0 20 1 ISM 0.013 0 20 1 IeOO 0.013 0 20 1 1800 0.013 1b Trim, 2929 3 4500 0,012 0 2929 3 4800 0.612 0 3480 3 480 0,723 40 3430 3 4800 0.717 0 3430 3 4800 0,717 ED Right a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 Wb Len is I Iwo golo 0 to 1 1600 0.010 0 20 1 11100 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 100 0.013 WbTtft 10711 3 4800 0.228 0 1071 3 4800 0228 0 1540 3 4800 0,348 10 1650 3 4800 0.350 0 logo 3 4WD 0.350 Wb Riot 24 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 1:7:1:::::::::7 : 1!b . X In 0.772 0.772 clot 8466 a.110,11 LOS C C 0 D D Key conflicting ingament go a part of ICU. Functions as a separate tum live, however, is not striped as such. Projw ICU Impact -0.0D6 Area Triliffic Miligagon: Counts wraductind by. National Date & Surveying Ste kes Sivaricaunt impact NO Capacity eopressund In "Iticlas par hour of Omen. IYGWVGL 1 4362 1 0 4362 0 6620 .20 5600 0 6500 2y I N O3 LINSCOTT, LAW 8 GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 COMOMM Odm, Sub 122, Costa Mass CA p2626 (714) 641.1587 IWeroaction: 2. NS St: Prospect Straw E -W St: West Coast Highway Project Hoeg Mast(Plan EIR FIB: NV60D12 0 52 6 5 29CLIYesr2026Altala CWMType: SO Traffic Signal INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Prospect 6Deat al West Coast Highway Peak Hour PM AmualGro : 1.00% Dale: 0684107 Date of Count: 2007 Projection Year 2825 :.::::.:. :.... :l:: E10PTji : %181, :0[, MFF,,.; 111111;3::::' '.4R?4: 3MI,,:... 1'IT:iif(_ , tR'•!i ;:;:i:::t:;E:> i:�4 'i .:...$4,3!04, IV YR0.1 . .....:... .. .:......: .......:.............:......:......:..:......:....:. ....� ....... ....VI�7.:.:...:.1�1�41p....: Y I...:.:.:::.: �!.:.:.::.... :.:....... :.::a.: :...... ..... ,i... :.....:::.:.: I.: ,UkA �:.:.:.,:...........::::::.:...:.:.; ...:::.:.;....:...,;ffOT? ...,. .............::.:....:.........:................. ....IC: �ii:i::::::i::;:; :: 1::18026:: i i:i: >:::::::::::::l:i a,1:: a6 ., ' [::�' . •y .....:.:a•r;•;.;,..611}i....... : '.,;: .,:. .... .:OyjdAd...... :; :. ;::�:•i::Vi .:.:.: :...•:ii•.....;.;I. ;.:,.,..,.,.: ..:.:.:.: ..:.:.:: ..;....:..:;:i:::: ....... :... "� :.:.:,:....:.:.:... :, ..:.:::...:.::::..:: .3.:....,.,.............d.:.... :....::..I.tE!IEI...ON1[iiii:i: TOU1( iiiiiiii ;::;;::.':;;;:y:�.:.;.:. NDLM 5 9 9 9.009 • 0 5 ND Thru 2 1 1609 9.004 9 2 9 1 9 MDOO • 9 39 9 9 9.019 • 9 39 9 9 9.019 ND Right 26 1 1800 9.918 9 26 1 1619 0.0 D 08 9 1 1689 9.919 9 9 39 9 9 9 9.019 9 39 1 1609 9.919 9 39 1 1800 9.978 9 39 1 1609 9.918 $D Left 62 9 9 9.901 9 62 9 1 1600 0.019 SD Thru 1 1 1800 9.044 • 9 1 1 9 1609 0.000 9.944 , 9 70 9 9 9.000 9 70 9 9 0.019 9 79 9 SD Right 8 9 9 9 8 0 9 9 9 1 1880 9.959 1809 9.050 9 9 9.050 9 19 9 0 19 0 9 1 1899 0.960 EDL6ft 38 1 1609 9.924 • 9 36 1 1091 9.924 • 9 59 0 9 10 9 9 ED Thn1 ED Right 1216 3 4899 9.254 9 1216 3 4800 9.254 9 1689 1 3 1609 4819 9.931 • 1352 9 69 1 1800 9.031 • 9 60 1 1800 9.031 ' 6 9 9 9 5 9 9 9 70 9 9 •10 1670 3 4809 9.359 9 1879 3 4800 9350 WD Left 26 1 1000 9.918 9 26 1 1609 9.918 9 39 • 9 10 9 9 0 10 9 9 WD Thn, WD Right 2752 3 4809 9.582 9 2752 3 4819 9.682 9 3190 1 3 1809 4000 9.919 0.875 9 39 1 1609 9.919 9 39 1 1699 9.919 41 9 9 9 41 9 0 9 50 9 9 •10 3189 3 4809 9.673 ' 9 3189 3 4000 9,873 9 50 9 9 9 59 9 9 UQM^ AlI0MM911 ::::::•:•:•:•:•:::•:•:• ::QA2q :'i:•::•:::•: •:•:: :'::•::::•:•:::::::::•:•:•:Q.Wti :':::::•:•::::::::•:•:•:' '''' ':•: i::::.....: i ICU IC 0,066 : :::::.:.: .:..:...........•....•:.. .,.. ......................... . 100 E 6.860 8 0.C6B 6'Ces 0.764 C K • K. mnMCAm,nn,...,..m ....... •• FunaSans as a WISSMta turn 10110, 110""r, IS not SWped Be Such. Project ICU Counts conducted by: National Data S Surnong Samos Impact: -0.002 Area Traffic MIe0a5on: CSPSGty espreased In YehKJes per hour of green. SignlScantimpect: NO 7ab1VOL 1 4181 41si -06150 5130 0 5130 iP UNISCOTIr• LAW & GROGNSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 COMOANN, Drive, SUN 121 Costa Mass CA 92626 (714) 041-1667 Intersection: 3. WE St Barbee SlYcIllupererAw E•W st WdoccommHighway poclact Hoag Master Plan EIR File: N:12500120528529CUYear2O26AR.xis Conval Type: 60 WE Split Balboa SlydiSuparor Ave at West COW Highway Peak Hour. AM Annuml GMW: 1.00% Date: W2,1107 Date or count 2007 Prohection Year. 2025 • "y Wfiffidna mOvOm"t as a pan a ICU. Funcilons, as a separate ban IMO, however. Is not striped as SuCh. Counts conducted by: City of Newport Beach Capacity expressed in valueles; per hour of great. Pmjew ICU Impact •O.M Ares Traflfio Mitigation Signincionsimpact NO 050PA-7 -548/ - I a 6461 1 0 6690 1 6640 1 0 5640 ....... ... 0 204 1 1600 0.128 0 240 1 1600 0.150 0 ...... .. . . ... .. 4044 240 . . .. ., 1 b o0lito 1600 OiW: 0.150 0 240 Ot 1 to IGOD 0.150 Nb LOA 204 1 1600 0.128 Its ITIM 327 2 3200 0A30 • 0 327 2 3200 0.130 0 370 2 3200 0.150 10 380 2 3200 0,159 0 380 2 3200 0.159 Nb Right go 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 140 0 0 •10 130 0 0 - 0 130 0 0 Be Left 172 1 1800 0.107 • 0 172 1 laoll 0.107 0 130 1 1600 0.001 10 140 1 1800 0,088 0 140 1 1000 0.088 Sb Thu 122 2 3200 0.038 0 122 2 3200 0.038 0 40 2 3200 0.031 0 100 2 3200 0,031 0 100 2 3200 0.031 Sb Right 182 2 3200 0.059 a ISO 2 3200 0.059 0 50 2 3200 0.016 0 50 2 am 010I8 a so 2 3200 0.016 Eb Left 998 2 3200 0.312 0 gDa 2 3200 0.312 0 650 2 3200 0.203 30 sea 2 320D 0.213 0 680 2 3200 0.213 Eb Thru 2264 3 42M 0.472 • 0 2264 3 4800 0.472 0 2630 5 4800 0.50 •00 2570 3 4800 0.535 • 0 2570 3 4800 0.535 Eb Right 240 1 1600 0.150 0 240 1 1600 0.150 0 280 1 1600 0.175 0 280 1 1600 0,175 0 2B0 1 1600 0.175 Wb Let 02 1 1600 0.039 • 0 62 1 IODD 0.039 0 60 1 1000 0.050 0 80 1 1600 0.050 • 0 so 1 1600 0.050 Wb Thm 588 4 8400 0.124 0 see 4 6400 0.124 0 760 4 6400 0.155 0 780 A 6400 0.155 D 780 4 6400 0 0.155 Wb Right 208 0 0 0 208 0 a 0 230 0 0 - 0 230 a 0 0 230 0 ICU 0.748 0.748 DA38 6.832 0.832 LOS a a D • "y Wfiffidna mOvOm"t as a pan a ICU. Funcilons, as a separate ban IMO, however. Is not striped as SuCh. Counts conducted by: City of Newport Beach Capacity expressed in valueles; per hour of great. Pmjew ICU Impact •O.M Ares Traflfio Mitigation Signincionsimpact NO 050PA-7 -548/ - I a 6461 1 0 6690 1 6640 1 0 5640 In UNBC017, LAW A GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive. Suit$ 122, Coast Men CA 92620 (714)547.1587 Intersection: S. WS st Sall owsupwilm, Au! E•W 51; Wet Coat Highway Project Hug Member Pion EIR Fla: T4f0800Q05265211CUYu2025Aft.x1B Control Ty"! 60" Split Balboa SN"uperlcrA" Ift Wet Coat Highway Pearl Hour. PM Annual Growth: 1.00% Data: 0524M7 Data 0 Count: 2007 Projection Year. 2025 Key WnfllCMQ MMMOM S$ I Part Of IOU Functions so a sapanne turn lane, havot"r, Is not input 80 St Ch. Coma conduCtird by: City of Newport Beall Capacity aophrosed n" Notes per hour of gmarl Prolsol IOU IMPRM -0.022 Are Traffic Mlligallon: significant Impact: NO ITCMVGI. I Ott; I a U21 1 0 0120 - 1 -70 Saba 1 0 GWO ...... M i WL . . ...... . ... ... NO Left 264 1 1600 0.165 0 264 1 1600 0.185 a 300 1 1800 OJES lo 310 1 1600 0.194 0 MO I loop 0.194 He ThM mg 2 3200 0.080 0 209 2 3200 0.086 0 160 2 3200 0.091 10 170 2 3200 0.083 0 170 2 3200 O.DeS NO Right 86 0 0 0 66 0 0 - 0 130 0 0 -20 110 0 0 - 0 110 0 0 So Left lob I ISO() 0.103 a 165 1 1600 0,103 0 260 1 ISOO 0.163 30 2110 1 1600 0.144 0 230 1 1600 0.190 St, Thru 237 2 3200 0.074 0 237 2 3200 0.074 0 290 2 3200 0.091 0 290 2 3200 0.091 0 200 2 3200 0.001 SO Right 746 2 3200 0,233 a 745 2 3200 0.233 0 410 2 3200 0.120 30 440 2 3200 0.130 a 440 2 3200 0.110 SO Left 258 2 3200 0.000 0 258 2 3200 0.080 0 so 2 3200 0.016 0 50 2 3200 0,016 0 50 2 3200 0.016 BID Thru 1181 3 4800 0.246 0 1181 3 4800 0246 0 1390 3 4800 0390 0 1290 3 4600 0.290 0 1390 3 4600 0.220 Eb ftho 227 1 1600 0.142 0 227 1 1000 0.142 0 260 1 1600 SAW a 280 1 1600 OA S3 0 260 I IODD 0.183 Wb Loft 148 1 ISOO 0.093 a 148 1 lam 0.093 0 200 1 ASOO 0.126 -10 ISO I last 0.119 0 ISO I ISDD 0.119 Wb TIM 2187 4 6400 0.363 0 2187 4 6400 0.363 0 2460 4 6400 OAT7 30 2430 4 6100 0.408 0 2430 A 6400 OADS Wb Right 135 0 0 0 135 0 0 0 210 0 0 30 ISO 0 0 0 lag 0 0 .................... teu 4.74111 Val 0.764 0.792 0.792 LOS C C C 0 C Key WnfllCMQ MMMOM S$ I Part Of IOU Functions so a sapanne turn lane, havot"r, Is not input 80 St Ch. Coma conduCtird by: City of Newport Beall Capacity aophrosed n" Notes per hour of gmarl Prolsol IOU IMPRM -0.022 Are Traffic Mlligallon: significant Impact: NO ITCMVGI. I Ott; I a U21 1 0 0120 - 1 -70 Saba 1 0 GWO tP UNSCOM LAW A GIREENSPAN, INGINVIFts 1580 Corporate DdVO, SJUO 122, C098 Men CA 92626 77IM7W (714) 641-1587 IN1998ECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION intersection: 4. N-S St RWerskle Avenue Riverside Avenue at West Coast Hlohm E-W St West Coast Highway Peak Hour. AM Date: 05124107 Prefect M009 Master Plan EIR Annual Gn,Mh: I,CD% Date of count 2007 Fee: N'3801A20a28529CUYear2025AJt.x4 Pruiector, year. 2025 COMI TYPO: 50Traft Signal • Key conflicting mcoramont as # part of lCu. Funcibris as a separate turn Iwo, hirkne"r, is net striped as well. COuntlitlenductedity: CUyo?NwponBmh Pru)ed ICU Impact: .0.1)(13 Area Traffic MIUgation: Cap&* expressed In vallictent perhoural green. SigniflVentlinpact: NO 1 -4151 -r--T -4151 1 0 6310 1 -40 5270 1 0 5270 77IM7W .4 ; �*i:: W 'Z ZU me::yd&:'0 .... ft&;�_ - ......... ::: h•;:Z:N No Left No Thru 2 a 0 0 0.000 0 2 0 0 0.000 0 10 0 0 0.00 0 10 0 0 0.000 • 0 10 0 0 No Right 0 I 0 loop 0 oms 0 a 1 1600 0,005 0 10 1 low 0.013 0 10 1 loco 0.013 0 10 1 1600 0.000 0.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 So Left So Thru 86 III 0 1 0 1800 0.00 0.063 0 us 0 0 0.000 0 100 0 0 0.000 0 100 0 0 0.000 0 100 0 0 0,000 So Right SO4 1 1600 0,190 0 0 15 1 7600 0.0541 0 10 1 1300 0.069 0 10 1 1600 0.069 0 10 1 low 0.689 304 1 1800 0.100 0 380 1 1500 0.236 -10 370 1 160 0.231 0 370 1 loco 0.231 ED Left ED Thet, 283 2115 1 2 1600 0.177 0 263 1 1600 0.177 0 290 1 loco 0.181 10 300 1 16DO OASO 0 30D I loco 0.188 ED Ro t Is 0 3200 0 0.007 0 2115 2 3200 0,667 0 ZOOD 2 3200 0.847 •10 2890 2 3200 0.8" 0 2650 2 3200 0.844 0 18 0 0 .. 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Wit Left Will Thin, 9 1 1600 0.006 0 9 1 1606 0.006 0 10 1 loop 0.006 0 10 1 loco 0.006 0 10 1 1600 O.OD5 Wit R19M 1244 09 3 1 4800 lBoo 0.259 0,043 0 12" 3 4800 0.259 0 1720 3 4800 0.358 40 1690 3 4800 0.352 0 1690 3 4600 0.352 0 88 1 1600 0.043 0 TO I 16DO 0,044 0 70 1 1660 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 LC U OS 0.735 C O." o OA U 0.919 0.019 C E E • Key conflicting mcoramont as # part of lCu. Funcibris as a separate turn Iwo, hirkne"r, is net striped as well. COuntlitlenductedity: CUyo?NwponBmh Pru)ed ICU Impact: .0.1)(13 Area Traffic MIUgation: Cap&* expressed In vallictent perhoural green. SigniflVentlinpact: NO 1 -4151 -r--T -4151 1 0 6310 1 -40 5270 1 0 5270 I Ln w N LINSCOTT, LAWS GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS : ... L BK!8T7M.. 0 7 1 14 0 85 0 7 1 437 1 271 1 1543 x 21 0 Mail CC OMM Or1vo, $use 12Z Coats Manx CA 9282E : i::i 0.000 0.030 o 0.000 0.057 0.273 ' 0.169 0.489 - (714) 6411387 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION m. 4. *8 Riverside Avenue Riverside Avenu at W6R Coast M h va Y E-W0i t West Comm Niphey ProjeCl Heap Peak PM Annual Gro tNh: 1.00% Dae 05,24M7 Maabr Phan EIR Deb Of Count 2007 File: N:1260000528629CLYee2025AHxl3 Projection Year, 2028 Control Type: S0 Thou Signal 1 ITN1A 3o 10 10 90 10 530 380 2090 20 Nis Nit Thru ihru Nb Right Sb Lea Sb Thou Sb Right Eb Len Eb Thfu Eb Right : ... L BK!8T7M.. 0 7 1 14 0 85 0 7 1 437 1 271 1 1543 x 21 0 T...::....:EiiE:i:t 0 1800 0 0 1000 1800 1800 320D 0 : i::i 0.000 0.030 o 0.000 0.057 0.273 ' 0.169 0.489 - 'i'i`...4fiY9. x�... ...:.. 0 28 0 7 0 14 0 85 0 7 0 437 0 271 0 1543 0 21 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 P1HiR:;iii3;:ii::i':k•� 0 1600 0 0 16M 1600 1600 3200 0 0.000 0.030 O.ODO 0.067 0.273 0.169 0.489 i:::i7p �:. 0 30 0 0 10 1 0 10 0 0 90 0 0 10 1 0 530 1 0 39D 1 0 2100 2 0 20 0 7. 0 0.000 • 1600 0.031 0 - 0 0.000 1600 0.003 1600 0.331 1600 0.244 320D 0.863 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .10 .10 0 30 10 10 90 10 530 380 2090 20 .•.; i.TIb4FE. .:.:...:.:.:...........::5974.: 0 0 1 1000 0 0 0 0 1 1600 1 1600 1 1600 t 3200 0 0 0.000 0.031 - 0.000 0.083 0.331 0.238 0.659 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ITN1A 3o 10 10 90 10 530 380 2090 20 0 0 1 1800 0 0 0 0 1 1600 1 1600 1 1600 x 3200 0 0 ' O.ODO • 0.031 - 0.000 0.063 0.331 0.238 0.868 Wit Lee WO Tfuu Wall Right 28 2454 as 1 3 1 1300 4800 1600 0.018 0.611 0.041 0 0 0 28 2454 68 1 3 1 1000 4800 1600 0.018 0.511 0.041 0 0 0 30 3000 70 1 3 1 1600 4800 160D 0.019 0.625 0.044 0 .10 0 30 2990 70 1 3 1 1600 4800 1600 0.019 0.823 0.044 0 0 0 30 2990 70 1 1600 3 4000 1 1600 0.019 0.623 ' 0.044 LOS d.C9, .:-7-: : ;: -: 5:: i:: i:::::::h aoa :k :: 0.784 C ::::::::::::•:.: *00 ::' ....:.:.:.:. 0.264 E :.::.:•.•.•..:..:..:......,.,.; ......._...,..., 0.964 E .......................... 0.964 E nay ----a --Mani ae a Pert of IGO. •• Functions as a aepmaN we Imo, however, Is not Wped as such. Propct ICU Impact: A.002 area Trefec Mitigation: CounNCmductedby: CHyof Newpoll EOach MJBCt IamlepeN: NO Cap &" expressed In vehiNOS per hour of prom TOfOf VOL 1 4990 1 8 4900 1 0 4290 do $260 0 8280 to U) LINSCOTT, LAW GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1580 CoManit, Ddm, SUN@ 122, Cosh, Afose CA 92026 f714)641.1587 INTERSECTION CAPACOYIMUZA110111 IntmectIon: S. Tuagn Avenue at West Coast HIOM"Y N•S St TusYn Avenue Pont Hour AM Date: 06124t07 F•Wst Weatc*69ft0w," Annual Gr&*Ah: I.DD% Date of Count 2007 PM]Got Hoag Maser Plan EIR Projection Yew. 2025 File: N:V8OW052$825CUY0sr2O25AJtM ConIMITOW.327taft alpal • Key Mnflldng MVBMMt as 0 Pan Of ICU. Functions as a sepicals turn lane. nov,ever. IS not lblped as SuCh. Proqed ICU Impact. 0.000 Ares Tmmc Mitipallon: Courtacondmcladby CWYVINWWS63ch 51priftemimpact NO Capacity expressed im valwas per now of grew. ITotarvat 1 3621 1 a 2831 1 a 4"d 40 4410 T- a 4410 ............ .............. .......... Nb L$ft 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 OMO 0 0 0 0 0.000 NO Thou 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 HIDO 0.000 0 0 1 IGOD OVD) 0 0 1 IPAO 0.000 0 0 1 1600 OmO NO Riot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sb Left 38 0 0 0" 0 36 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 D 20 0 D 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 SO Thru 0 1 1600 0.033 0 0 1 IODO 0.033 0 0 1 low OMB 0 0 1 ISDO 0.038 0 0 1 1500 0.038 SO Right to 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 - Eb LOA 27 1 ISOD 0.017 0 27 1 ISOO 0.017 0 DO I 1600 O.D56 •10 80 1 ISOD 0.050 0 GO I 16DO 0.050 Eb TIVU 2263 2 3200 0.707 0 2263 2 3200 0.707 0 2060 2 3200 01828 0 2850 2 3200 0.828 0 2650 2 3200 0.028 Eb MOM 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 Wb left 0 0 a 0.000 a 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 DOW 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Wb Thru 1248 3 ABDO 0.260 0 1248 3 4000 0.260 0 1600 3 4600 0.333 •20 1580 3 4800 0.320 0 1580 3 4600 0.329 Wb R19fill 39 1 1600 0.025 0 39 1 IOQD 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0M5 0 40 1 1900 0.025 r ICU 0.740 0.740 0296 ME D D 144, LOS C C 0 D • Key Mnflldng MVBMMt as 0 Pan Of ICU. Functions as a sepicals turn lane. nov,ever. IS not lblped as SuCh. Proqed ICU Impact. 0.000 Ares Tmmc Mitipallon: Courtacondmcladby CWYVINWWS63ch 51priftemimpact NO Capacity expressed im valwas per now of grew. ITotarvat 1 3621 1 a 2831 1 a 4"d 40 4410 T- a 4410 Oy Un UNSCOTT. LAW A GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1500 CMMM Delve, Suffe 122, Cogs MM CA 92626 1714) 6414587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTLUIATM9 Inte"Bown: S. Tum AWN at W cal Coset Highway WS St: Tuedn Avenue Peak Hour. PM now. 0524107 E•w St West Coast Ht" Annual Growth: 1.00% DatoofCound: 2DO7 pimiset Hoag Marmar Plan EIR piviecilonyear. 2025 File: 14:1260=06285211CUIrear:20241AILkili Control Type: 307taffic Signal • K" connecting movement as a pan of IOU. Functions as a separate turn lone. homwever. Is not Striped as such. PraiwicuImpose 0.000 Area Treat: Megaton: Course conducted by'. CRY of Morison Beach SignificantImpeft NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. ITOWIM. 1- 4220 1 a 4230 1 0 6200 1 .20 5180 1 a 61 0 ............... ......... .......... 0 10 0 0 0.000 ND Left 1 0 0 0,000 0 1 0 0 0.000 0 10 a 0 0.000 0 10 0 0 0.000 NbThnu 0 1 11300 MOM 0 0 1 1600 0.004 0 0 1 1600 0.013 0 0 1 Iwo 0.013 0 0 1 1000 0.013 His Right a a 0 0 a 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 Go Left 45 0 0 0.000 0 45 0 o 0,000 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0,000 81, Thh, 0 1 leoa 0.064 0 0 1 1600 0.064 0 0 1 taloo 0.060 0 a 1 1600 0.09 0 0 1 1600 O.M So Right 40 0 0 0 40 a 0 0 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 Sic Let 32 1 1600 0.020 0 32 1 1800 0.020 0 so 1 1800 0.050 0 so 1 1600 0.050 0 so 1 1600 0.050 ED Thru 1583 2 3200 0.491 0 1503 2 3200 0.491 0 1980 2 3200 0.622 -20 1*0 2 3200 0.618 0 1960 2 3200 0.618 Eb Right 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 to a 0 WD LOO 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 O.ODD 0 0 0 0 Moog 0 0 0 0 0.00a a 0 0 0 0.000 Wo Thm 2487 3 4600 0.518 0 2487 3 48011 0.516 0 2920 3 4WD 0.808 0 2920 3 4800 0.601) 0 2920 3 4500 0.608 I Im 0.030 0 47 1 1800 0.030 0 80 1 1600 0.050 0 80 1 1600 0.050 0 60 1 1600 0450 .. . ........ ........ 77777!7� ICU SAM 0.593 0.727 0.727 0.127 LOS A A C C 0 • K" connecting movement as a pan of IOU. Functions as a separate turn lone. homwever. Is not Striped as such. PraiwicuImpose 0.000 Area Treat: Megaton: Course conducted by'. CRY of Morison Beach SignificantImpeft NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. ITOWIM. 1- 4220 1 a 4230 1 0 6200 1 .20 5180 1 a 61 0 UHSWTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1680 COMOrOMP Dom, SUM 122, Coate Men CA 92626 (714) 041-1507 Interaction: 6. N-S St Bay Shom Dil"Mover Drive E-W St West Coast Algimmy Project Hogg Mestor Plan SIR File: N:1280MO62B62UCUYeAf2O25AJt.xIz Control Type: e0 WE Spa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILVMON Bay $here DrIvii/Dover Drive at Wool Dome Highmy Peak Hour AIM Annual Growth: 1.00% Date: 050247 Date of Cowt 2007 Piojecion Year 2025 Key MMOM9 monment as a pan of ICU. Functions as a separate affin lane, however, Is not anVed a, a". COuntownductedby'. CRyolNewpon Beach Copwltyexpm&sodlnnhidea per hmraigmn. Proact ICU impact .0.002 Area Traffic lAdgetim: NO irculvaL i 58iff 1 0 5851 1- a 6930 1 -20 $910 1 0 6016 a: No Lea at 1 1600 0.032 0 51 1 1600 0.032 0 50 1 IWO 0.01 0 so 1 1800 0.031 0 so 1 1800 0,031 No Thm 55 2 3200 0.037 a 55 2 3200 0.037 0 30 2 3200 0.019 a 30 2 3200 0.019 0 30 2 3200 0.019 No Right 64 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 - $b Lon ion 3 4800 0.224 0 1077 3 4800 0224 0 1150 3 4800 0,240 -10 1140 3 4800 0.238 0 1140 3 4800 0.238 So Thm 74 1 1600 0.046 0 74 1 idoo 0.046 0 10 1 1600 0.008 10 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1800 0.013 So piqla 173 1 1600 0.108 0 173 1 ISM 0.108 0 ISO I isoo 0.119 0 ISO 1 law 0.119 0 Ago A IWO 0.119 So Left 120 2 3200 0.040 0 129 2 3200 0,040 0 150 2 3200 0,047 .0 150 2 3200 0.047 0 150 2 3200 0.047 Eb Thou 2198 3 4800 0.464 0 2190 3 4000 0.464 0 2770 3 4800 0.581 0 2770 3 4800 OAST 0 2770 3 4800 0.581 Eb Right 32 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 - 0 20 0 0 Wb Left 20 1 Iwo 0.018 0 29 1 1600 OAAS Q IQ I im 0.005 0 10 1 1000 OAOB 0 10 1 1800 0.006 Wb Thm 1293 3 4000 0,269 0 1293 3 4800 0289 0 1760 3 4800 0.367 -20 1740 3 4800 0.363 0 1740 3 4000 0.303 Wb Right 070 Free 9999999 0.000 0 078 Free 9900999 0.000 0 760 Frea 9999989 0.000 0 780 Free 0999899 0.000 0 760 Free 9099999 0.000 a : w: ::04fg: q q q- ICU OJ43 0.743 0356 2.350 0.866 LOS C C 0 D D Key MMOM9 monment as a pan of ICU. Functions as a separate affin lane, however, Is not anVed a, a". COuntownductedby'. CRyolNewpon Beach Copwltyexpm&sodlnnhidea per hmraigmn. Proact ICU impact .0.002 Area Traffic lAdgetim: NO irculvaL i 58iff 1 0 5851 1- a 6930 1 -20 $910 1 0 6016 LINSOW7, LAW & GREENSPAN, WORMERS 1500 Corpmw DM, SWO 122 Costa Mesa CA 92626 (714) 641.1587 anermcdon: S. N-S St Bay Show DrineMover Chive E-W So West Coast Highway Project Hoag Mawr Plan EIR File: NV600120526529CUY"1025kods CmIrolType:60" Spin Say Show D&e*ovw D*m at West Coast HIIII.8y, Peak Hour. I'm Annual GrooIln; 1.00% Date: 05124107 Data pfcoot 2007 Pm;ecUcn Year. 2025 • Key WnWhg movemom as a Plot Of ICU. . FunclIm 88 a Imposto turn too, hIssever• [a not 3t"Ped a$ such. Counts condoted by'. City of No"on Oaaeh CApsoftyr mxpm5ed In veWAS per hum of groan. Prolecatcutmina•. -O.m AMD Tmgc WROOZOV: Significafflimpact NO lrobivoL I ma 0 7053 1 0 Of 1 40 8160 1 0 plia) I . ..... ...... OWN .... ... .. -M Nb Left 28 1 1600 0917 0 28 1 IODD 0.017 0 20 1 1600 0.013 • 0 20 1 I600 0.013 ' 0 20 1 IOQD 0.013 - No Thor 63 2 3200 0.034 • 0 63 2 3200 0.034 0 20 2 3300 0.009 0 20 2 32D0 0.009 0 20 2 3200 0.009 Mb Right 48 0 0 0 As 0 a 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 a 0 10 0 0 So Lan 993 3 4000 0.207 • 0 993 3 4800 0.207 0 1060 3 4800 0,219 ' .10 1040 3 460D 0.217 • 0 1040 3 4800 0.217 - SO Thm 65 1 I= 0.041 0 as I IODD 0.041 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 Sb RlShl ISO 1 1600 0.122 0 lee I IODD 0,122 6 ISO I 16DD 0.113 0 ISO 1 1600 0.113 0 In 1 1500 0m3 lit) Left 166 2 3200 0.049 - 0 166 2 3200 0.049 0 t40 2 3200 9.044 • 0 140 2 3200 0,044 • 0 149 2 3200 0.044 - lit) Tin 1765 3 4800 0.372 0 1766 3 48M 0.372 0 2320 3 4800 0.488 •20 2390 3 4800 0.483 0 2300 3 4800 0.483 61) RNM 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Wb Left So I ISO() 0.056 0 so 1 1800 0.038 0 20 1 1600 0.013 D 20 1 1600 0,013 0 20 1 160D 0.013 Wb Thru 2394 3, 4800 0.499 - 0 2394 3 40DD 0.490 0 3070 3 4600 0.640 ' 0 3070 3 4500 0649 ' 9 3070 3 4600 0.640 Wb R1914 1257 Fmo MM99 O.00D 0 1287 IM 9909099 0.000 0 1310 Fraw e999999 0.000 0 1310 Free 9909999 0.000 a WO Fma 0999969 0.000 ......................... ... •........ ICU 0.139 0.781 XIII$ 0.914 0.914 Los C C E 9 E • Key WnWhg movemom as a Plot Of ICU. . FunclIm 88 a Imposto turn too, hIssever• [a not 3t"Ped a$ such. Counts condoted by'. City of No"on Oaaeh CApsoftyr mxpm5ed In veWAS per hum of groan. Prolecatcutmina•. -O.m AMD Tmgc WROOZOV: Significafflimpact NO lrobivoL I ma 0 7053 1 0 Of 1 40 8160 1 0 plia) I I N Ln J LINSCOTT, LAW A GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate OMe. Sure 122, Cade Algae CA 92626 ...: I:i:.::::;:::isi:i : i:i:::i:i:`.;ii•..::;iiiiii (714) 641.1587 INTER89CIlON CAPACRY UTILIZATION. T: K.CUM is .:.:�iii:iii:i�i:i:yi:i:: • ::YJ +:::: i:i:� :. :: �:' >;:::: i 'f �•�:i:: Intersection: 7. .:'.:.:::� ::.:..:::.:..:. "::.: : .: .: :i ' >..•� �:: :�:..:3;; : ..:�- �iiii:... N-S St N•S St Bastco06vo Beyside Ddva at East Coast H!9hway .;:ii::! 10 0 0 E•WSt HglanS Annuall Growth: Date: O6R1/07 Hoat W Project Hap MaeNr Plan SIR 1.000% Date mCounl: 2007 FIN; N:12800120526529CUYear1026A L ds 0 3 0 pm)ocdm Yew.. 2025 Cwmm TYPO OON-S Sam 10 9 18 1 1 0 1800 1800 0 ' Key conOkOnp movement as a part of ICU. " Fundwe as A separate turn IBM, hovravar, N am salpe6 as tuml. ProJetl ICU Impact 0.010 Ama Traffic MIIpmNn: Counts mllOacleO by. City m NovryoR Beach SlpAmosm Impact: NC Capadty OWM5586 In vehicles per hour of preen. ITM#va 1 6198 1 0 6780 1 0 6410 1 0 6410 0 T ...: I:i:.::::;:::isi:i : i:i:::i:i:`.;ii•..::;iiiiii i ?�`:..:.:' iii: ...:Vd T: K.CUM is .:.:�iii:iii:i�i:i:yi:i:: • ::YJ +:::: i:i:� :. :: �:' >;:::: i 'f �•�:i:: �::; :: �:::i� i:':..: .111:1711 .:'.:.:::� ::.:..:::.:..:. "::.: : .: .: :i ' >..•� �:: :�:..:3;; : ..:�- �iiii:... :.::i�.;:.: �:::: �:�..t .;:ii::! 10 0 0 480 30 50 0 3 0 0 4800 0 0.000 0.117 ' ND LM 398 0 0 0.000 ND Thru 17 3 4800 0.094 • ND Right 35 0 0 .. 0 398 0 0 0.000 0 17 3 4800 0.084 • 0 35 0 0 0 470 0 0 0.000 0 30 3 4600 0.115 • 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 460 30 50 0 3 0 0 4800 0 0.000 0.117 • So Left Sb Thru SD Rgm 10 9 18 1 1 0 1800 1800 0 0.012 0.017 • 0 0 0 19 9 18 1 1 0 1600 16W 0 0.012 0.017 • 0 0 0 40 20 30 1 1 0 1800 1600 0 0.025 0.031 • 0 0 0 40 20 30 1 1 0 1600 1600 0 0.025 0.031 • 0 0 0 40 2D 30 1 1 0 1500 1600 0 0.025 0.031 • Eb Leh EOThru ED Right 26 2026 347 1 3 1 1800 4800 1600 0.018 0.589 • 0.217 0 0 0 28 2028 347 1 3 1 1800 4800 1000 0.016 0.569 ' 0.217 0 0 0 100 3330 440 1 3 1 1600 4800 1600 0.003 0.694 • 0.275 0 10 •10 100 3340 430 1 3 1 1800 4800 1600 0.063 0.898 ' 0.299 0 0 0 100 3340 430 1 3 1 1600 4600 1600 0.063 0.696 0.269 WO Left Wb Thru Wb Right 63 1421 14 1 4 0 1600 6400 0 0.039 ' 0.224 0 0 0 63 1421 14 1 4 0 1800 6400 0 0.039 • 0.224 0 0 0 70 1740 90 1 4 0 1600 8400 0 0.044 • 0.288 10 -20 0 60 1720 90 1 4 0 16D0 8400 0 0.050 • 0.283 0 0 0 80 1720 90 1 4 0 1600 8400 0 0.050 0.283 1! O�IiiTAI! 9viiO4ii: �7: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: bA�A;(: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �' �: �: �'�'�'�'�'�'�•�':�:�:�:.;...... ............ QAOq:' :: ::::::::::::::::::::i:::::::i1; ....;�:.�.::.�::.�: 000.::..:.:..:•:.•.•::.•::.•. ::.�: :.�: :: ::.�: �:.::.::.::. :.�: :. :•:... .. R49P:' r::::: :::�::::::�:�::::::::::::::RAQb ;!: ICU LOS 0.730 C 0.738 C 0.884 0 0.654 D 0.004 p ' Key conOkOnp movement as a part of ICU. " Fundwe as A separate turn IBM, hovravar, N am salpe6 as tuml. ProJetl ICU Impact 0.010 Ama Traffic MIIpmNn: Counts mllOacleO by. City m NovryoR Beach SlpAmosm Impact: NC Capadty OWM5586 In vehicles per hour of preen. ITM#va 1 6198 1 0 6780 1 0 6410 1 0 6410 0 T LINSCOTT, LAW 8 GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1580 COrp02to Daw, Sub 177, Caste Mae CA 92626 (714) 641.1687 WE 81: tlon: Ir 7. 8t: Bryalae Dave at East Coast Highway E- EZ$tCODt HI E-W8e HoNCOea HlPionE Project Hogg Master Plan EIR Peek Hour. PM Annual Otowm: 7.00% Data: 0524m7 HIS: N:12600120528624CUYee2C25A8a06 Data of Coum 2887 ProiecOw Year, 2025 Control Type: 80 N5 Split ' • "If c 1901119 mmmem as a pas of ICU. •• Functions as a separate turn NM, however, Is not striped as such. CW pnauclee M aty of woo Boarn PSmlgfanq O ICU Impax -0002 Aa Traffic Mitigation; Impact Capacity e>GronW In vehicles per hoar a green. NO TasfvaL I am 1 0 tilde 6 zero .20 7610 I 6 2040 : :.:...:..:..: ii::.ei i:.. j j.i.i:.;:.i:: :0 :.:. : :i..i:.i:.. : :.. %:.:: . ;.�,: : T:.i:.:.N:..:: . Q : :.i:.i:.:.�,..:....:....::.:.•.:;.:.: . . :.. i.• . i i! ili':.:i:i:..::i:.i:.E:::j :. . i i:;: :: ii9P:.:i.W. IfN .:...:.. . ..:..:...;:.!.1:. . .R:.. .O..W....:.E . :.:::;:.:;:: I I:;:.;:;.:.:.i:.;: . : :. N.C4 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 ::i. : 95W IEP. 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 .:. I1�I..IiI A 1.. :.:.:.:.:.:.:: . .........:....... 8000 • I Ea Left 4 48 1 1 7 7698 0 0.030 0 0 4 48 1 1 1 1600 O OMO 0 0 1 100 I I 1 1800 0 0.059 0 0 1 100 1 1 1 1800 0 0.065 0 0 1 100 1 1 t two 8 8069 !cu o oA4e 9 :.:X::::::::C::::' . B4° ° .........: . .... ............................... . . . "If c 1901119 mmmem as a pas of ICU. •• Functions as a separate turn NM, however, Is not striped as such. CW pnauclee M aty of woo Boarn PSmlgfanq O ICU Impax -0002 Aa Traffic Mitigation; Impact Capacity e>GronW In vehicles per hoar a green. NO TasfvaL I am 1 0 tilde 6 zero .20 7610 I 6 2040 I N l)r b LINSCOTT, LAW 8 GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate lades, Suta 122, Cpste Mesa CA 92026 (2141641.1587 Intersection! 8. N41 St Jamboree Road EhV St East Coast Highway Project Hoag Metter Plan EIR File: N :1200012052052VCUYear2025A11.16e Control Type: SG Traffic signal 11119RUCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Jamboree Road at East Coast Highway Peak Hour. AM Annual OtosOh: 1.00% Date: O04/07 Data of Count: 2007 Projection Year: 2025 : 1:.•.: ND Left ND Thfu '..: E;i,?l�6.;•; ...: :::: .. 30 439 1 2 :,iFllM1f :F.9�'iiiii ii :: :ice' ::. .::::: ..;':i! 1000 0.018 3200 0.193 • ..iiWl is ;::::.::::: 0 0 #.!..."T .. •: .... .................:::.:...:.:..: ... ...:. .... 30 ....:.:.:.. .... .. .:... 1 N' :i[iE ....:......... 1000 : : :E :E :i : : : : : .:...........:.:..;......:..............:......:.:.:.:.:::: .:.:.:........:.:.:':.:... 0.018 : : :.,. . :.39 re{ 0 ?919iN:CYM :. :. :. : 30 T-1 v . .4 FRO9F :......... :... :. : : : 1 1600 i ::::.:.::: : : : : : : :. :.: ..Ril uii:iii 0.019 �: 6 :� : 209.. : : : :............. i:' 3 ''i::Yi6 :......: :......I: .tECT.7RAFp ...••' :i .' : : :b..; : :;� :... iii ' •: is " " "iii'.. 0 1 1 .... 30 " : :O'".:.I :. :;; 1 1600 ..; :.;::;;;; 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 ND Right 177 0 0 0 439 2 3200 0.193 • 0 570 2 3200 0.234 • •10 550 2 3200 0.231 • 0 580 2 5200 0.231 177 0 0 0 180 0 0 0 180 0 0 0 180 0 0 SD LM SD Thu 221 311 1 2 1800 3200 0.138 ' 0 221 1 1800 0.138 ' 0 230 1 1800 0.144 ' a 230 1 1600 0.144 ' 0 230 1 1600 0.144 SD Right 802 Free 9999999 0497 0.000 0 0 311 2 3200 0.097 0 320 2 3200 0.100 0 320 2 $200 OADO 0 320 2 3200 0.100 602 Free 9899988 0x00 0 850 Free 9999999 O.DOD •10 940 Free 9999999 OA00 0 840 Free 9899999 0.000 Eb left ED Thru 1222 3 4800 0.255 ' 0 1222 3 4800 0255 ' 0 1310 3 4800 0.273 ' •10 1300 3 4800 0.271 ' 0 1300 3 4800 0.271 ' ED Right 1941 31 4 0 8400 0.308 0 1941 4 6400 0.308 0 2150 4 8400 0.342 10 2160 4 8400 0.344 0 2160 4 6400 0.344 0 0 M 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 Wit Left DThlu 138 1049 2 3200 0.043 ' 0 130 2 3200 0.043 0 140 2 3200 0.044 0 140 2 3200 0.044 0 140 2 3200 0.044 Wit Right 216 4 1 8400 1800 0.164 0.135 0 1049 4 8400 0.154 • 0 1130 4 6400 0.177 ' 0 1130 4 6400 0.177 ' 0 1130 4 6400 0.177 0 216 1 1600 0.135 0 220 1 1000 0.136 0 220 1 1800 0.138 0 220 1 1800 0.138 Y► 9Q1iAdOtnMeii.':':':':.':•:•:•:'.•:':':' i:•. 4. 9hQ•: 4:': :' :• :'i :i :' :'.' :' :'.. :.'.; : : :;: :' :' :: :' :' ::•ii.:.... awb ;. i:.;.:.:;.:.;.;.;.;.:.;.;:.:.:.:.:.;.;.:.;.;.':.•.'::.. .......'.•.• :.'.'.'.'..' :.'.: .'.' : :.•.' :..' :..': ...'.':.'.':.'.':.'.':.•.': .: ...,.: ......... ... .... .....................• :..•.• :.. 0999...'.•..'.':.•.'... '.'.'.'.' :.•.• :.•.• .'.•::... :.'.'...'. :. 06x0..'...'.•.'.'..'.' ...,...,. .•..'.•.•.•.'.'.. :' ,. :...'..' :.•: <':9xad.,;. ICU LOS 0750 C 0.768 OJ28 0.823 0.823 C D D D ' Key conflicting movement as a per of ICU. " Funclona as a separate turn hum, h0'sr, Is not striled as such. COunto conducted bY. City of Newport Beach Capeclf expressed In vehicles per hour of green. Project ICU impact. •0.005 Area Traffic allegation; Significant Impact NO TOYIVa2 1 S436 0 0438 1 0 7170 -20 7150 0 7150 tT O UNSCOTT, LAW & GRISIENSPAS, ENGINEERS 1580 CGIPOlfla, 064• Sufte 122, COSH Mass CA 92626 (714) 641.1597 mounaction: e. N•S St Jamboree Road E•W St East Cow HIghamy Project H01119 Matter PISA EIR Fk: N.I2%0l205266=UY6V202SAItsda Consul Type: DO Traffic Signal Jamboree Road at East Coast Highway pnkmwr. PM Annual Growth: IN% Date: 0524707 Date ofCount 2007 projection Year. 2025 • Key congIvilng movalrave as a part of ICU. Functions as a separate tum fare, howaffir, Is not suiped w such. CouffisConducledby: City Of Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of preen. Project ICU Impact -0.006 Area Traffic MitigalJon: Signiffount Iml NO ITIQUIVOL 1 77" 1 0 IT30 1 0 8 1 .20 0040 1 0 0640 ..... . ... . OpAbhi:,:,Itsl on, .... .... V ....... 4w No Left So 1 1600 0,031 0 so 1 1600 0.031 0 so 1 1600 0.031 0 50 1 lam 0.031 0 so I isoo 0.031 1/e'llma 288 2 3200 0A17 0 288 2 3200 0.117 0 380 2 32W 0.156 -20 360 2 3200 0.160 0 360 2 3200 0.150 No Right 86 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 120 0 0 - 0 120 0 0 - 0 120 0 0 So UR 255 1 1800 0.159 0 255 1 1600 0.169 0 260 1 1600 0.163 0 250 1 1600 0.163 0 280 1 1600 0.163 Be Inure 727 2 3200 0.227 0 727 2 3200 0.227 a 730 2 3200 0.228 0 730 2 3200 0.228 0 730 2 3200 0.228 So ROM 1322 Free 9999099 0,00 0 1322 Free 9999999 0.000 a IBM Free 9899999 0.000 a law Free SNOWS 0.000 0 IBM Ft., SDMN 0.000 Els Left ago 3 48D0 0,183 0 880 3 4800 0.103 0 ago 3 4800 0.183 0 aso 3 48M 0.183 0 880 3 4800 0.183 Ell Thfu 1626 4 6400 0,258 0 1626 4 6400 0258 0 1630 4 MOO 0.259 9 1530 4 6400 0.259 0 1830 4 8400 0.259 Els Right 28 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 - 0 30 0 0 Wb Left leg 2 3200 0.069 0 leg 2 3200 0.059 0 230 2 3200 0.072 0 230 2 3200 0.072 0 230 2 3200 0,072 Wb Thm 2046 4 8400 0.320 0 2040 4 6400 0.320 0 2310 4 6400 0.361 0 2310 4 6400 0.361 0 2310 4 0400 0,381 Wb Right 234 1 1800 0.1441 0 234 1 1600 0.146 0 240 1 IWO 0.150 0 240 1 1600 0.150 0 240 1 100 0.150 lyl w Aptl . 0 . 9 X lcii 01779 0.776 9.81I3 0147 0.867 LOS C C D 0 D • Key congIvilng movalrave as a part of ICU. Functions as a separate tum fare, howaffir, Is not suiped w such. CouffisConducledby: City Of Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of preen. Project ICU Impact -0.006 Area Traffic MitigalJon: Signiffount Iml NO ITIQUIVOL 1 77" 1 0 IT30 1 0 8 1 .20 0040 1 0 0640 I N O1 N Lt11SCOTT, LAW 8 GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Oft Suite 122, COM Mesa CA 94626 (714) 641.1687 Mtemseeon 9. WE St Newman 80ulevers E -W 51: vie Lido Project Hoag Master Plan EIR RIe: N025001205285251CUYear2026ANtls Control Type: 30 Traffic Signal INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Newpon 8nulavara at Via Ud0 Peek Hour. AM Annual Gr*Mk 1.00% Nb Lee 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 D 0.000 Nb Thlu 1305 3 4800 0177 0 1148 3 4800 0.277 0 1660 3 4800 0.348 Nb Right 23 0 0 - 0 23 0 0 - 0 10 0 0 - as Leh 415 2 3200 0.130 0 416 2 3200 0.130 0 400 2 3200 0.125 $a ThM 853 3 4800 0.178 0 853 3 4800 OATS 0 860 3 4800 0.179 Sb Right 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91, Lan 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 O.ODO 0 0 0 0 0.000 Eb Thm 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Eb Right 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Wb Leh 9 1 1600 0.008 0 9 1 1600 0.008 0 W 1 1800 0.019 Wb Thm 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 O.WO Wb Nigh 402 2 3200 0.128 0 402 2 3200 0.126 0 400 2 3200 0.153 Date: 052407 Date of Count 2007 Projection Year. 2025 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 10 1670 3 4800 0.350 0 1670 3 4800 0.350 0 10 0 0 - 0 10 0 0 -10 390 2 3200 0.122 0 390 2 3200 0.122 0 880 3 4800 0.179 0 860 3 4800 0.179 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 1 1800 0.019 0 30 1 1800 0.019 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0.000 -10 480 2 3200 0.150 0 480 2 3200 0.150 ' LICU - OA13 OA13 0101 0.60 0.600 OS A A A A A Key W111C Drg movement as a pen of ICU. Functions a a UPIMM turn lane, hnveVer. Is not striped as s,ch. Proyrd ICU Impaq: -0.001 AM Traffic Mitigation, Courdsconducudbp: City of Newpon Seagi CMatDY expresae6mvehkkaper hour of preen, SlpnBkem lmPeq: NO OId vu I J-did 0 2010 1 0 34S -10 0 0 7440 LINSOOTT, LAW S, GREENSPAN, ENGINEER$ 1500 Corporate Drive,, SO& 122, Cocoa Man CA 92626 (714) 641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZAMN Ildbrabcdon, 9. Newport Boulevard al e Lido 8090010 N4 Stc Newport Boteovand peak Hour PM Date: OWVDT E-W St. Me Lido Annual Grcvvfr: IJOD% Dwoolecunt 2ODT Project H009 M98W Plan Big protection year. 2025 Fee: N.12800i2D52862YCUY*s2025A6.xls Control Type: 301ra0ol ftnal Key conflogno moveri U a Part of CU. Functions a a separate turn fans, hisferever. Is not striped as such. Project ICU Impact OrOW Aha Traffic Mitigation: Cauntactanducledby CRYONOWPOMBOACh significant Impact: NO Capacity expressed In vahW85 per Maur of green. IF00111006 1 4431 1 6 4431 1 0 solo 0 solo 0 folo NT"i 4111111111EA.M.1i 8090010 Mii 0 0 0 0 DODD "b Let 0 0 0 Dow • 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 DOOD • Nb Thru 1197 3 4800 0,260 0 1197 3 4000 DalsO 0 1320 3 4600 0295 0 020 3 4600 0285 0 1320 3 40DD 0,283 No Right 49 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 so 0 a - 0 so 0 0 0 So 0 0 Sle Left 627 2 3200 0.166 0 627 2 3200 0.166 0 690 2 3200 0.184 0 690 2 3200 0.184 0 SOD 2 3200 0r184 sty Thim, 2104 3 4800 0A38 - 1 0 2104 3 41100 0.434 • 0 2460 3 4WD 0.513 • 0 24BO 3 480D 0.513 • 0 245D 3 000 0.613 $is Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eb Left 0 0 0 Dow 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 DODD 0 0 0 0 DODO ED Thera 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 O.ODO 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 DODD 0 0 0 0 0.000 ED Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 Wb Left 20 1 1800, 0.018 0 29 1 1600 0.018 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 to I 16DD 0.006 Wb Thru 0 a a 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Wb Right 624 2 3200 0.164 0 524 2 3200 0.164 0 680 2 3200 0.181 0 680 2 3200 0.101 0 58D 2 320D 0.181 ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . ..... . . ....... . . . . . . . .. .... . . . . •. . IOU OAS@ OASO 0.619 0.619 0.618 LOS A A A A A Key conflogno moveri U a Part of CU. Functions a a separate turn fans, hisferever. Is not striped as such. Project ICU Impact OrOW Aha Traffic Mitigation: Cauntactanducledby CRYONOWPOMBOACh significant Impact: NO Capacity expressed In vahW85 per Maur of green. IF00111006 1 4431 1 6 4431 1 0 solo 0 solo 0 folo 0% W LINECOTT. LAW & GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 18W COIP=ft Or". Sub 122, Costs, Mew CA 92628 (714) 641-1597 noomembri: 10. N•8 SI: Nepon Boulevard E•W St Hospital Road Ismea. HUD Mastor Plan SIR File: N:1260012052652VCUYaar2026AILd8 CwhW TYPO: BOTmfflc Signal N5Wpoft Boulevard at Hospital Road Peak Flow. AM Annual Gmwth: 1.00% Data' WNW Datso(Courit 2007 Projection Yeac 2025 Key coni movement as a part of ICU. Functions as a WFAMN) turn INS, however, to not wAped as such. Counts conducted by: City of Nompon Ration Cape* OrWamsed In vehicles per hour of green. Project ICU Impact: -0.065 Area Traffic Mitigation: SignifiCarlt Impact NO IT0411VOL 1 4309 1 0 4"S 1 0 5170 -7-6-306--- 1 0 sidd ............... a 0 0 210 1970 60 1 3 1 1600 4800 1600 0,131 0.410 0.038 Nta Loft 128 1 1600 0.080 No Thm 1556 3 4800 0.324 Nis Right 74 1 1600 0.046 0 126 1 1600 0.080 0 1556 3 4900 0.324 0 74 1 1600 0.048 .30 -20 0 180 1950 60 1 1600 3 4800 1 1800 0.113 • 0.406 0.038 0 0 0 180 1950 so 1 3 I 1600 4800 IODD 0.113 0.400 0.038 So Left Sta Thm Sb Right 52 1152 400 1 3 0 1600 4800 0 0.032 0.323 0 0 0 52 1152 400 1 3 0 1600 4800 0 0.032 0.323 0 0 0 50 1530 300 1 3 0 1600 4800 0 0.01 0,394 0 -130 go 50 140D 450 1 1600 3 4800 0 0 0.031 0.305 0 0 0 so 1400 450 1 3 0 1500 4800 10 0.031 0.385 Eb Left Eb Thm Eb Right 162 132 292 2 1 1 3200 1000 1600 6.051 0.083 0.103 0 0 0 162 132 202 2 1 1 3200 1000 1600 0.051 0.003 0.163 0 0 0 140 310 130 2 1 1 3200 1800 1800 0.044 0.194 0.081 10 •60 70 150 260 200 2 3200 1 1600 1 1600 0.047 0.158 0.125 0 0 0 150 250 200 2 1 1 3200 1600 1600 0.047 0,156 0.126 Wb Left Will Thm Wit Right 04 224 84 1 2 0 1000 3200 0 0.052 0.096 0 0 0 64 224 94 1 2 0 1800 3200 0 0.052 0.096 0 0 0 80 270 so 1 2 0 1500 3200 0 0.050 0.103 0 0 0 80 270 60 1 1600 2 3200 0 0 0.050 0.103 - 0 0 0 80 270 so 1 2 0 1600 3200 0 0.050 0.103 the 0WjfiQ4i:'7 7w f 0,660 A 0.660 A 0.762 0 0.704 0 0.704 0 Key coni movement as a part of ICU. Functions as a WFAMN) turn INS, however, to not wAped as such. Counts conducted by: City of Nompon Ration Cape* OrWamsed In vehicles per hour of green. Project ICU Impact: -0.065 Area Traffic Mitigation: SignifiCarlt Impact NO IT0411VOL 1 4309 1 0 4"S 1 0 5170 -7-6-306--- 1 0 sidd ay LIN8ID07T, LAW & GRIRNSPAN, ENCIIIIIIERS 1680 Corporate Oft Suke 122, COW Mass CA 92626 (714) 041.1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY 1111,12AIMN pramedon; 10. Newpon Boulevard M Hospital Road N•S St 1,10"Ort Boulevard peak V4001'. Pull Date: 05124107 Emu Hospital Road Annual G rowm: 1.00% Date of Count: 2007 project Hong theater Plan SIR ProjecuanYw, 2026 Flic N'.12800I205255VCbYear2D25Ah.As Coland Type: 90 Traffic Slprai Key congeal movainard as S Pan Of ICU. Projectleu Impact: .0.010 Area Traffic Mtegu= Fmcilona an a operate Cum lane, hoanywor. IS not $Oped as SUM. Catudeconductudbr. Chlottlewoo"BeOM Signeawntunpam NO Capadtye"soedlnvahkies per hour ol2mn. obi Vet 1 4054 1 0 4654 0 6120 1 0 5720 1 0 6720 i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;( W: Oil - a NO Left 148 1 ISM 0.003 • 0 148 1 1800 0.003 0 260 1 1e00 0.163 - .10 250 1 1600 0.156 • 0 250 1 1800 0.156 NO Thru 1511 3 4800 0.315 0 1311 3 4600 0.315 0 1680 3 4800 0.350 .10 1870 3 4800 0,348 0 1870 3 4000 0.348 No RIght 119 1 1600 0,074 0 119 1 16M 0.074 0 ISO 1 1600 0.094 0 ISO I IBOD O.OD4 0 160 1 1600 0.094 So Left 45 1 IBM 0.028 0 45 1 1600 0.028 0 la I ISIM 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.008 0 10 1 1600 0.005 So TIN 1755 3 400D OAIO • 0 1755 3 4800 0.410 0 2210 3 4500 0.502 • -60 2150 3 4800 0.496 • 0 2150 3 4800 0.498 So Rlghl 214 a 0 0 214 0 a a 200 0 0 w 220 a 0 0 230 0 0 SO Left 300 2 3200 0.084 0 300 2 3200 0.094 0 340 2 3200 0.106 • a 340 2 3200 0.106 • 0 340 2 320D 0.106 ED Thru ISO I 1800 0.094 • 0 136 I low 0.064 0 210 1 ism 0.131 -io 200 1 1500 0.125 0 200 I IBM 0.125 Ed Rtgal 250 1 11600 0.162 0 260 1 1600 0.182 0 280 1 1600 0,175 60 340 1 IOOD 0.213 0 340 1 ISM 0.213 van Left ISO 1 1600 0,094 • 0 150 1 15M 0.094 0 go I IBM Use, -10 SO 1 1600 0.080 0 so 1 1800 0.050 WO Thru lei 2 320D 0.067 0 lal 21 3200 0.067 0 280 2 3200 0.091 - 10 270 2 3200 0.094 ' 0 270 2 3200 0.094 WO Rlgrd 34 0 0 0 34 0 0 - 0 30 0 0 - 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 IYAwkwo4ows .... .......... . . . . ..................... 4*10:t: ICU 6151 113311 11,1182 D.862 ftSJ2 LOS 0 0 0 Key congeal movainard as S Pan Of ICU. Projectleu Impact: .0.010 Area Traffic Mtegu= Fmcilona an a operate Cum lane, hoanywor. IS not $Oped as SUM. Catudeconductudbr. Chlottlewoo"BeOM Signeawntunpam NO Capadtye"soedlnvahkies per hour ol2mn. obi Vet 1 4054 1 0 4654 0 6120 1 0 5720 1 0 6720 0) 4.11 LINSOOTT, LAW 4 GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 COMORD&I 060. SUft 122, Costs Man CA 82626 (7141641.1687 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION intersection: 11. Placanfla Avenue atSupe6crAvenue H•S St Placards, Avenue peak Hour. AM Date: WWI E•Wst Supwor Avenue Annual Gmwth: 1,00% Date Of coum 2001 Prefect KM19 Masker Plan EIR Projeclion Year 2025 Fall; N'V8=052S5211CUYW2025AILXI5 Cannot Type: WITraft Signal Functions as a sepa" Wn, line, haven". Ie not striped as such. PIVINI ICU impact -0010 Area Treble NODRUM: CmmwndumdbT. C1q 011fewp0n Seatlr ElgniSCanlimpeat NO Cep" OMMIMOdaivaiddes Per hourolpreen, ITeal VOL 1 27" 1 0 Hos 0 2350 0 2350 1 0 2360 0 It a a 0,000 0 10 0 0 0.00 0 io 0 0 0.000 No OR 12 0 0 0.000 0 12 0 0 0,000 Nb Thru 232 2 3200 0.091 0 232 2 3200 0.091 0 330 2 3200 0.119 0 330 2 3200 0,119 0 no 2 3200 0.119 No Righl 47 0 a 0 47 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 a 0 40 0 0 ED LOR 12 1 1600 0.008 0 12 1 1600 ONE 0 10 1 1600 0.005 0 10 1 Iwo toca 0 10 1 leOD 0.006 So TIM 328 1 1600 0.205 0 328 1 1600 0.205 0 420 1 law 0283 • -20 400 1 1600 0.20 0 400 I IND 0.250 So Night 236 1 IWO 0A411 0 234 1 law 0A45 0 ito 1 1000 0.0119 20 130 1 1600 0.081 0 130 I law oxal ED Let 362 1 IBM 0226 0 362 1 1600 0.228 0 120 1 1600 0.015 0 120 1 1600 0.075 0 IZO I IND 0,075 ED Thm 1133 2 3200 0.302 0 1133 2 3200 0.3122 0 1010 2 3200 0.320 10 020 2 3200 0.331 0 1020 2 3200 0,331 ab Riam 26 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 Yob Left 52 11 IND 0.033 0 52 1 1600 0.033 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 IND 0.019 0 so I 1600 0.019 vvb Thm 280 2 3200 DAM 0 280 2 3200 0.084 0 220 2 3200 0.072 •10 210 2 3200 0,069 0 210 2 3200 0.069 We Right 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 D ID D 0 Yo*04�iAO0�Oi[Woi::::;::,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::6,44k:.i. '* -, .. ........ *'-' ..... ... .............. 77': 4 kmjl: IOU 0,600 OAGO 0.910 IND DAN LOS A A a A A Functions as a sepa" Wn, line, haven". Ie not striped as such. PIVINI ICU impact -0010 Area Treble NODRUM: CmmwndumdbT. C1q 011fewp0n Seatlr ElgniSCanlimpeat NO Cep" OMMIMOdaivaiddes Per hourolpreen, ITeal VOL 1 27" 1 0 Hos 0 2350 0 2350 1 0 2360 ON ON LINSCOTT, LAW • GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Cancomla Drive, Suft 122 COO Mara CA 92626 (714) 641-1687 Intemomn: 11. WE St PlacanUm Avenue E•w St; SupeftrAvenuo Project Hag Master Pion EIR File. N;Q50D2062SMCUYaa2026A8.vds CwWI`Vpe: SO Tmfftc Sir,[ INTERSECTION CAPACITY/ UTILIZATION Placentle Avenue at Supedo, Avenue Page Hour. PM Ann.mGmv,ft 1.00% Date: 06124107 DOW 0 COU"t 2007 PMJ,mn year, 2025 • Key conmaling mm"m as a pwm Of r-U. FuMcdOne a a UPAMIO turn lane, IMINInver. Is not obliped as such. Pmjoct ICU impam 0.013 Area Tmffic Mitigation: Counts conducted b)r. City Of Newport Beach SlgrdOcantnpact NO CepachyexpM$sedlnvahtcloo per horofpreen. ITO1,11106 1 2576 --1 a 2576 1 a 2380 1 20 2400 1 0 2400 Cw i.T iii a 40 0 a 0.000 NO Left 37 0 0 0.000 a 37 a 0 ILOOD a 40 0 0 0.000 a 40 a a 0.000 NO Twu 320 2 3200 0.137 • a 320 2 3200 0.137 • 0 440 2 3200 0.175 a 440 2 3200 0.1181 0 440 2 3200 0.181 NO Right so 0 a a so 0 a 0 80 a 0 - 20 100 a 0 a too 0 0 SO Left 15 1 1600 0.000 • 0 Is 1 1000 0.009 • a III 1 1600 0,006 a 10 1 1800 0.006 a 10 1 1600 OXOS SO TOM 231 1 IWO 0.144 0 2211 1 Isw 0.144 a 330 I ISO() 0.208 20 350 1 1500 0.219 • 0. 350 1 1600 0.219 SO Right 423 1 1600 0.284 a 423 1 1600 0.264 a 240 1 1300 0.150 -20 220 1 1000 0,138 a 220 1 1600 0.135 Eb Left 320 1 ME 0.200 • a 320 1 1600 0.200 • a 210 1 1600 0.131 • -10 20D 1 1600 0.125 • a 200 1 ISOD 0.125 Eb TOM 438 2 3200 0.140 a 436 2 3200 0.140 0 340 2 3200 0.113 •10 320 2 3200 0.109 0 330 2 3200 0.109 Eb Right is 0 a a 13 0 0 a 20 a a 0 M 0 a a 20 a 0 WO LOR so 1 1600 0.038 0 58 1 1600 0.036 D 40 1 1800 0.025 a 40 1 1600 0.025 a 40 1 1600 0.025 -WO TRIO 630 2 3200 0.201 • 0 630 2 3200 UZI • a 620 2 3200 0.197 • 20 so 2 3200 13:203 • 0 640 2 MUD 0.203 WO Right 13 a a 0 13 a 0 0 10 a a a 10 0 0 a to a 0 ICU 0.647 0.547 0.524 0.547 O'B47 LOS A A A A A • Key conmaling mm"m as a pwm Of r-U. FuMcdOne a a UPAMIO turn lane, IMINInver. Is not obliped as such. Pmjoct ICU impam 0.013 Area Tmffic Mitigation: Counts conducted b)r. City Of Newport Beach SlgrdOcantnpact NO CepachyexpM$sedlnvahtcloo per horofpreen. ITO1,11106 1 2576 --1 a 2576 1 a 2380 1 20 2400 1 0 2400 UNSCOTT. LAW & GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1680 COMMAD DO", Suft 122, Costa Men CA 92026 (714) 641-1507 Ifflemischn: 12. WE St: NeuVROrt HiNd SS Off -Ramp E-W St weaccastKilth" Project: HOOD master Plan EIR File: N.'V60(A2052852000YOA2025AX1d3 COn"ITYPO.'201fraft Signal Newport SWO 98 Off-Ramp at WeM Coast Highway Peak Hour. AM Annual 0ro ; 1.00% Date: 05124W DOW of Count 2007 projewon Yev. 2025 • Key Wriffitifing movement as a part of ICU. Fundoets as a separate tum 1400, however, IS not Striped as such. Project ICU Impact: -0.096 Area Traffic Mitigation: COMIsconductedby. City0f Newport Beech S6gnNlcantlmPeof. NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. ircuivoL 1 4970 a 4970 T a gate 1 -110 5970 a 5070 ii*.�l :j:;:j ....... i4 . 044 .......... . V* . 4;166 NID Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.090 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 NbThm 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000. 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 mb Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 ED Left 434 2 3200 0.142 0 454 2 SM 0.142 0 350 2 3200 0.109 70 420 2 3200 0.131 0 420 2 3200 0.131 SID Thru 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.0100 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 ED Right 284 1 1800 0.177 0 284 1 1600 0.177 0 620 1 1600 0.368 • -140 480 1 1600 0.300 0 480 1 IWO 0.300 - ED Len 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 01 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 ED Thru lots 2 .3200 0.623 0 1926 2 3200 0.623 0 2440 2 3200 0.763 - -30 2410 2 3200 0.753 - 0 2410 2 3200 0.753 - Eli Right 045 Free 0999999 0.000 0 045 Free 9909089 0.000 0 WO Free 9909990 0.000 0 60D From 9999909 0.000 0 6DO Free 9099999 0.000 Wb Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.0110 - 0 0 0 0 0.0100 - 0 0 0 0 0.000 - Wb Thm 1098 3 4800 0.229 0 1098 3 4000 0229 0 1560 3 4800 0.325 -10 1550 3 48M 0.323 0 tallo 3 4WD 0.323 Wb Riot 496 Free 0909099 0.000 0 428 Free 9999999 0.000 0 510 Free 9999999 0.000 0 510 Free 9999990 0.000 0 810 Free 9999999 0.000 ..... . ..... X.: ICU 0.8181 9.690 IASI 1.04 im LOS C C F F F • Key Wriffitifing movement as a part of ICU. Fundoets as a separate tum 1400, however, IS not Striped as such. Project ICU Impact: -0.096 Area Traffic Mitigation: COMIsconductedby. City0f Newport Beech S6gnNlcantlmPeof. NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. ircuivoL 1 4970 a 4970 T a gate 1 -110 5970 a 5070 UINSCOTT, L4M & QMMSPAKI INMEER$ 1590 Corporate D•, Suke 122, Cosh Men CA 92626 (714) 641.1507 tritareso90n: 12. N-S St: "art Blvd 60 MRamps E•W St West Cost Ifignoy Project Hog Master Plan EiR lsltq; N.MMOMMUPYearnmAhms Control Type: 20TMfFc Signal Newport Blvd Be OMRMP at Welt Cost HIghany Peat How, PM Annual GmMh: 1.00% Date: 0SM4MT Data of COMM: 2007 PM]FICNOn Year. 2025 • Key wil movement as a part of ICU. Fundom as a separate bum here, howowr• is not shod as such. Project ICU Impact -0.048 Area Traffic Mal Counts conducted by: city of No"M each Significant impact NO Capacity expressed In "I idea per hour of green. ItatidVol. 1 4652 1 a 4659 a 5780 1 •120 5050 1 0 5060 A Len a a a 0.000 a a a a 0,000 a a a 0 O.D00 a a a a 0.000 a a a a 0.000 Nb Thru a a 0 0.0110 a a a a 0.000 a a a 0 0.1)(10 a a a a 0.000 a a a a 0.000 No Right a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a So Len 532 2 3200 0.168 a 532 2 3200 0.166 a 570 2 3200 0.178 50 620 2 3200 0,194 a 620 2 3200 0.194 So Thru a a a 0,000 a a a a 0.000 a a a a 0.000 0 a a a 0.000 a a a 0 0.000 Sb Right 304 1 ism am a 394 1 1600 0.246 a 420 1 IM 0263 •70 350 11 1600 0.219 a 350 1 lead 0119 Eb Left a a 0 0.000 0 a a a 0.000 a a 0 a 0.000 a a a a 0.000 a a 0 a 0.000 Eb7hru 942 2 3200 0295 a 942 2 3200 0.295 a 1520 2 3200 0.475 -80 1440 2 3200 0.450 a 1440 2 3200 0.450 Eb Right 257 pro 9999009 0.000 a 257 Free 9999999 0.000 a 240 Fro 9999999 0.000 •20 220 Fro 9990999 0.000 a 220 Free 9999999 0.000 Wb Len a a a 0.000 a 0 a a 0.000 0 0 a a 0.000 0 a 0 a 0.000 0 a a a 0.000 Wb Thru 1948 3 48D0 0.408 a 1948 3 4800 0.48 0 2350 3 4800 0.400 -10 2340 3 4800 0.488 0 2340 3 4800 0.488 Wb Right 505 Free 9099999 0,000 a 585 Fail 9999999 0400 a FAQ Free 6999990 I).= a GM Free SMSM 0.000 0 680 Fro Milan 0.000 ftig:. . ICU 0.962 0.652 0.70 8.1417 0.701 LOS 0 S 0 0 • Key wil movement as a part of ICU. Fundom as a separate bum here, howowr• is not shod as such. Project ICU Impact -0.048 Area Traffic Mal Counts conducted by: city of No"M each Significant impact NO Capacity expressed In "I idea per hour of green. ItatidVol. 1 4652 1 a 4659 a 5780 1 •120 5050 1 0 5060 I N Ol LINSCOTT, LAW 8 OREENBPAN, ENGINEERS 1380 Corporefe Odve, Sint# 122, Costa M9se CA 92626 (714) 641.1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTIUZATION IntameWon: 13. SuP9fW Avenue at Hospital Road NS at Supencr Avenue Peek Hour AM Date: 0624107 E-W at Hoepltal flood Project Hoag Masler Plan EIR Annual Growth: 1.00% Dare Of Count: 2007 Foe: N:%2S00%2052667VCUYeer2025AWAe Projection Year. 2025 Control Type: 20TmMD Signal • Nay conak8ng movement as a pert of ICU. •• FaMlana as a sepanb tum Isne, however, Is not taped as sum. Project ICU Impart 0.019 Area TmNC Mhigallon: Counts conducted by! Nagonal Date a Surveying 8"ces Slgn6ceni Ynpaq: tW Capacity expressed avehkae perhour elgrsen. ebl VOL 1 2583 1 6 2583 0 2270 1 60 2320 0 2]]0 :xll � I to i:i;:� :: gad.... iifi""'::::::::::: N4. . ii: isiiii""'>::'; r':' r;:.: �:::•.:.:.:; T ::i:::i:::t ....fi ::::::::::::::r:::': .........:........... •'::: :;::::::.:.:::::::..:.:.: �:::: n' �::::.:.:.;; a:.::.:.:.::::.::::::..:.., ..:.:.:.:..;;.:.:.:.:::.:::..: .:.:.::::::: :........:. me :.. e:.:' :• ea .:.J ::.............................................:......:......:....:......:...::...... .......: ;.y..;.. eilEi:[ .................:............. i,...... F:: tua':.:•:...::;:' .:.:..:.......:::::..:-• i[ i1"..:.':,,' ...:.:;.....:.:..:.;:;'.....;.: ND Left 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 MOOD 0 0 1 1800 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 ND Thm 1523 2 3200 0.604 • 0 1523 2 3200 0.604 • 0 1210 2 $200 0.559 ' 10 1220 2 3200 0.572 0 1220 2 3200 0.572 ' ND RIgM 410 0 0 - 0 410 0 0 - 0 580 0 0 - 30 610 0 0 - 0 610 0 0 - SD Lel1 79 1 1600 0.049 • 0 79 1 1600 0.049 , 0 100 1 1800 0.063 ' 10 110 1 1600 0.089 0 110 1 1600 0.059 ' ED Thru 476 2 3200 0.149 0 476 2 3200 0.149 0 270 2 320D 0.084 10 280 2 9200 0.088 0 280 2 5200 0,086 SD Right 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - ED Left 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 ' ED Thru 0 1 loop 0.000 0 0 1 1500 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 ED Right 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - WD Leo 35 0 0 0.009 0 95 0 0 0.000 0 60 0 0 0.000 0 50 0 0 0,000 0 60 0 0 0.000 We Thm 0 2 3200 0.030 • 0 0 2 3200 0.030 • 0 0 2 3200 0.034 0 0 2 3200 0.034 0 0 2 3200 0.034 ' We Right 60 0 0 - 0 60 0 0 - 0 60 0 0 - 0 60 0 0 - 0 80 0 0 - YahlwAowee!! ..................bggq ...... ..........................g,O4g .....:..:...:...• :..•:...:...:..•.•. 4. A44....'.:.........•:..:. ..•... :..:..•:0.Ap4.:.•...•.•.•. •....•.. •:...•.......•:..•..:..gA4q..': ICU 0.963 0.983 0.860 0.675 0.676 LOO 8 U e S a • Nay conak8ng movement as a pert of ICU. •• FaMlana as a sepanb tum Isne, however, Is not taped as sum. Project ICU Impart 0.019 Area TmNC Mhigallon: Counts conducted by! Nagonal Date a Surveying 8"ces Slgn6ceni Ynpaq: tW Capacity expressed avehkae perhour elgrsen. ebl VOL 1 2583 1 6 2583 0 2270 1 60 2320 0 2]]0 O LINSCOTT, LAW & GRGAIIISPANL ENGINEERS ISSO OMMIO Drive, SUN# 122, COW Mesa CA 92626 17141641.1587 Interia0dw: 13. NS St S.P.dorAvenua E-W St. HowpavaR.64 Project: Hoag Master Plan EIR Fit.: NV000=5215521101JYW2025Aft.z Control Type: 20Traft Signal INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILMAMN Superior Avenue at Hospital Road Peak Hour: PM AnnuslGro,vtn: I.co% Date: Gsr"My Date of Count 25D7 Projection V.ar. 2025 • Key wnflk*g movement a a pad of IOU. FunoWns a a separate Wan lane, however, Is not striped as such. Project ICU Ini .0.003 Area Traffic Mitigation: Couple wducledby: National Data S"Ong Services SIgrOCIfithopara NO CapoMM)p*Ubdlnvehlelesperhourofgratin. IT"IVOL 1 291110 1 0 2989 0 2700 1 a 2740 0 2700 ..... ... . . . . •:: .............. ............ . Nb Left 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 16DO 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.060 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 Nb Thru 660 2 3200 0.311 0 860 2 3200 0.311 0 050 2 3200 0.247 -20 630 2 3200 0.241 • 0 630 2 3200 0,241 Nb Right 144 0 0 0 144 a 0 0 140 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 f40 0 0 Se Led 108 1 ISDO 0.057 0 108 1 IWO 0.067 0 Ito I 1600 0.069 0 110 t logo 0.089 0 110 1 1600 0.069 Slb Thru 1120 2 3200 0.363 0 1119 2 3260 0.353 0 DID 2 3200 0.2114 10 920 2- 3200 0.288 0 920 2 3200 0.268 Sb Flight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ft Loft 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 Eb Thru 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 IGDQ 0.000 0 0 1 1000 0.00 0 0 1 1600 0.000 0 0 1 1600 0.000 Eb Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 IND Left 834 0 o 0.000 0 634 0 0 0,000 0 780 0 0 0.000 0 760 0 0 0.000 0 780 0 0 0.000 Wb Thm 0 2 3200 0.237 0 0 2 320111 0237 • a 0 2 3200 0276 0 0 2 3200 0.291 0 0 2 3200 om Wb Right 125 0 0 0 125 0 0 0 110 0 0 10 120 0 0 0 120 0 0 ICU Wa Uls 0.694 0.601 0.691 LOS IS a A A A • Key wnflk*g movement a a pad of IOU. FunoWns a a separate Wan lane, however, Is not striped as such. Project ICU Ini .0.003 Area Traffic Mitigation: Couple wducledby: National Data S"Ong Services SIgrOCIfithopara NO CapoMM)p*Ubdlnvehlelesperhourofgratin. IT"IVOL 1 291110 1 0 2989 0 2700 1 a 2740 0 2700 r J N LINSCOTT. LAW 8 GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1560 CaFPWMe DrMe, $a0e 122, Costs Mega CA 92626 (714) 6414587 tnta zon'. 14. N3 St Hoag GWa)Plaanls A" E•W at Hospital Read Pro7eol: Hoag Meeter Ran EIR Fla: N:'20001206268211CUYezr2025AMd6 Con00l Type: 30 N•S SPIN RD Lag 16 0 0 0.000 Nb Thnj 22 1 1500 0.024 . ND Right 79 1 1000 0.049 Sb LM 341 0 0 0.000 Sb Tlvu 45 2 3200 0.131 . 50 Right 34 0 0 2 Eb LOA 87 1 1000 OA42 Eb Tim 299 2 3200 0.104 Eb RI9M 44 0 - 0 0 395 Wb LM 169 1 iS00 0.099 Wb 7100 tag 2 3200 0.173 . Wb Right 395 0 0 0 18 0 0 0.000 0 22 1 1600 0.024 . 0 78 1 1800 0.049 0 341 0 0 01000 0 45 2 3200 0,131 . 0 34 0 0 1600 0 57 1 1800 0.042 . 0 289 2 3200 0.104 0 44 0 0 0 0 156 1 1800 0.099 0 159 2 3200 0.173 . 0 395 0 0 2 Hoag DnverPlacenla Ave at 11090181 Road Peak HWh AM Annual Crowell: 1560% 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 60 1 1600 0.050 0 90 1 1600 0.056 0 390 0 0 0.000 0 120 2 3200 0.163 ' 0 10 0 0 60 '0 70 1 1600 OA44 ' 0 260 2 3200 0.153 0 230 0 a 1600 0 110 1 1600 0.099 0 170 2 3200 0.216 ' 0 520 0 0 0 Date: 05124007 Cate of Cwt*.. 2007 Projection Yeah 2025 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 20 0 0 0.000 0 60 1 1600 0.050 . 0 80 1 1600 0.050 . 20 110 1 1600 0.069 0 110 1 1600 0486 0 390 0 0 0.000 0 390 0 0 0400 4c 100 2 5200 0.156 . 0 100 2 3200 0155 . 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 260 2 3200 0.163 . 0 200 2 3200 0.163 . 30 280 0 0 0 260 0 0 70 iq 1 1600 0.113 . 0 180 1 1600 0.113 •10 too 2 3200 0213 0 160 2 3200 0213 0 520 0 0 0 520 0 0 ICU 0.770 11470 0.417 OA62 0.463 L. A A A A A • Kay con8leting movement as a pan of ICU. " Fumdom as a separme tum left, h0waver. It not at as audit. ProjedlCUlmpact: 0.000 Area Tmmc Midgatlan: Courts mndtA:ted by National Data A Surveying ServlceS Signifloid Impact: NO Capably espreseed in "tilde$ par hour of green. TOW VOL 0 1847 1 0 2 SO 7 90 2149 0 2140 UNSCOrr, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 CMMtG Dfim, Suft 122, Cash, Wall, CA 92626 (714) 641.1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Interpsollon: 14. HMO DNVeAmftb Ave at Hospital Road N-S St Hoag DNIVI'1110finfift A" Peak Hour I'm Dole: 004107 E•W St Hospital Road Annual Growth: 1.00% Data of Count 2007 Project Hoag Masser Plan EIR File: N:121100120526W%ICUYwaO25Mtx% Projection Year 2025 C0n"TV0e:30N•S So • Key contacting movement as a pan of ICU. Functions as a separate Wm lane, havammer. Is net striped as such, proles ICU Impact: 0.013 Atta Traftle Mitigation: Course conducted by. Neutral Dow & Sumylng Ser,"s Significantimpita NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour ot Own. ITMOV01. 1 2206 1 0 22-08 - 1 0 2720 1 go 2810 11 0 2810 0 160 0 0 0.000 No Left 38 0 0 0.000 0 38 0 0 0.000 0 150 0 0 0.000 10 160 0 0 0.000 NbThm 87 1 1600 0.086 0 07 1 1800 0.005 0 100 1 1600 0,150 20 120 1 11100 0.175 0 120 1 1600 0.175 • Nit Right 130 1 1600 0.087 0 132 1 1000 0.007 0 200 1 1600 0.125 20 220 1 1600 0.138 0 220 1 1600 0.138 Sit Left 435 a 0 OAW 0 436 0 0 0.000 0 550 0 0 O.m 30 580 0 0 0.000 0 580 0 0 0.000 8lb Thm 35 2 3200 0,180 0 35 2 3200 0.100 0 so 2 3200 0,216 -10 70 2 3200 0.222 0 70 2 3200 0.222 - Sit Right 108 0 0 0 106 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 so 0 0 So Left 140 1 1600 0.088 0 140 1 1600 0.088 0 160 1 1600 0.100 -10 150 1 1600 0.004 0 150 1 1600 0.094 - Elb Thm 292 2 3200 0.102 0 292 2 UOO 0.102 a 270 2 3200 0.097 a 270 2 3200 0.091 0 270 2 3200 0.017 Eb Right U 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 Wit Lon 153 1 1000 0.098 0 153 1 1600 0.090 0 160 1 1800 0.100 50 210 1 1600 0,131 D 210 1 1600 0.131 We Thm 246 2 3200 0.240 0 246 2 3200 0240 a 290 2 3200 0.297 -20 270 2 3200 0.201 D 270 2 32DD 0.291 - Wb Right 521 0 0 0 521 0 0 0 Boo 0 0 0 664 D 0 D 660 0 0 ......... .. .... go: 00:747: * 0.673 6113 0.769 0.782 0.782 IICU wo A A - C C C • Key contacting movement as a pan of ICU. Functions as a separate Wm lane, havammer. Is net striped as such, proles ICU Impact: 0.013 Atta Traftle Mitigation: Course conducted by. Neutral Dow & Sumylng Ser,"s Significantimpita NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour ot Own. ITMOV01. 1 2206 1 0 22-08 - 1 0 2720 1 go 2810 11 0 2810 LINSCOWAAW & GRAINSPAN; ENGINEERS 1660 Comonvie Oft, Sub 122, COO Mesa CA $2626 (714) 641-1587 Intersection: 15. ws st'. Hoeg arms E-W St. WastCosetHIghmi, Project Hog Master Plan EIR FRO: NV.110012052MUCUYear2026ARAS Comma Type:60 N-8 spat Hoeg Orks at West Cust Hiii1vany Peek Hour. AM Annual Grmvlh: 1,00% Date: 05124107 Dam account 2007 PMJOCdon Year. 2025 • Key confiding movement 83 a pan of ICU. Functions a a separate Win tons, however. Is not Mped 08 even. Project ICU unpea 4012 Area TMMC Mitigation: Courtm conducted by N80ABI Dam & S"yIno Services Significant Wpoot NO Capsony expreeffed in valcies per hour of green. 1TM7VbI, 1 $432 1 0 1432 1 0 4760 1 -230 4530 1 a 4630 ..................... . . . . . . . . . . �w*w:i a ci�m . ..... . 0 10 1 low 0.005 0 10 1 I= D.WS NO Let 4 1 IWO 0,003 0 A I lam 0.003 0 10 1 Iwo 0.006 NO Thm 0 1 1600 0.004 0 0 1 IWO 0.004 0 10 1 1600 0.013 0 10 1 1600 0.013 0 10 1 1600 0.013 NO Right 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 - So Left 27 2 3200 0.608 0 27 2 3200 0.008 0 120 2 3200 0.038 40 go 2 3200 0.028 0 go 2 3200 0.028 So Thru 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 a 0 0 0.000 So Right 43 1 1800 0.027 1 0 43 1 1600 0.027 0 100 1 Me 0.083 -10 00 1 1600 0.056 0 90 1 1600 0.058 ED Left lei 1 1600 0.101 0 161 1 Nice 0.101 0 230 1 1600 0.144 40 190 1 1600 0.119 0 190 1 1600 0.119 ED Thnu 2189 3 4000 0.459 0 2189 3 4800 0.459 0 2510 3 4800 0.527 -10 2600 3 4600 0.525 0 2500 3 4800 0.625 ED Right 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Wit Lee 13 1 1600 0.008 0 13 1 1600 0.000 0 10 1 1600 0.008 0 10 1 1500 0.006 0 10 1 IGDO 0.008 WbThru 765 4 0400 0.152 0 Me 4 5400 0,152 0 920 4 6400 0.272 20 940 4 6400 0.250 0 No 4 8100 0,260 Wb Right 209 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 820 0 0 .160 88e 0 0 0 660 0 0 ICU 0.479 0.479 0.684 0.572 0.672 LOS A A A A A • Key confiding movement 83 a pan of ICU. Functions a a separate Win tons, however. Is not Mped 08 even. Project ICU unpea 4012 Area TMMC Mitigation: Courtm conducted by N80ABI Dam & S"yIno Services Significant Wpoot NO Capsony expreeffed in valcies per hour of green. 1TM7VbI, 1 $432 1 0 1432 1 0 4760 1 -230 4530 1 a 4630 LIVISCOTT. LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS f580 Corporate Oft Suite 12Z COSIS *a CA 92626 (714)641.1587 Intersection: 15• N-S St: Hong Drive E-W St Met Coast Morally Project: Hoag Master Plan EIR File: N.1260012062852uCUYqs202P&Ws Control Type: 00 N-S Split INTERSECTION CAPACITY LITILUATION Hoag Ofte a( West Coast HIShMy Peak Hour, PM Annual Gr : 7.00% Date: 05024)D7 One Of count: 2007 Projection Year. 2025 Nay coafttat, movemmill apart 01 ICU. Furapars as A separate turn ]Ann, honvever• Is not striped as Won. PrOjall ICU IMPWL -0.028 Area Traffic M1119a0on: Counts conducted by: Nallormil Data 6 Surveying Semlwt Signiftous ImPaM NO Capacity "treating In valuelm per hour of great Ilro41Vol. 1 2724 0 3734 1 0 4780 1 .190 4690 1 0 4690 ..... ....... . ......... ... "W: "'N 446 0 10 1 1600 0,008 0 10 1 1600 0,006 No Left 3 1 1800 0.002 0 3 1 1600 0.002 0 10 1 1800 0.006 No Thru 0 1 two 0.008 0 0 1 1600 0.008 0 to 1 1800 0.013 0 10 1 1600 0.013 0 10 1 1800 0.013 Nb Right 12 0 0 - 0 12 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 So Left 100 2 3200 0A31 0 100 2 3260 0J031 0 380 2 3200 0.113 40 294 2 3200 0.001 0 200 2 3200 0.001 SbThm 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 a 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Sb Right 114 1 1000 0.071 0 114 1 1000 0-071 0 230 1 loop 0.144 -30 200 1 161)) 0A25 0 200 1 1600 0A25 Eb Left 10 1 1000 0.012 0 it 1 1800 0.012 0 30 1 1000 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0,019 0 30 1 1600 0.010 Eb Thm 1075 3 4800 0.718 0 1076 3 4800 0.220 0 1370 3 4800 0.288 -M 1340 3 4000 0.281 0 1340 3 480 0281 %b R40 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 - 0 10 0 0 'fibLeft 59 1 Iwo 0.07 0 59 1 1600 0,037 0 so 1 1800 0.038 0 60 1 loop 0.038 0 60 1 1600 0.038 WbThm 2301 4 6400 0.388 0 2301 4 0400 0.306 0 2550 4 6400 0.420 .30 2530 4 6400 0,411 0 2530 4 6400 0.411 Wb Right 30 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 In 0 0 .30 100 0 0 . 0 100 0 10 ............................ .. p. 00g: i.... ICU 0A46 0,446 0.677 0,649 0.649 LOS A A A A A Nay coafttat, movemmill apart 01 ICU. Furapars as A separate turn ]Ann, honvever• Is not striped as Won. PrOjall ICU IMPWL -0.028 Area Traffic M1119a0on: Counts conducted by: Nallormil Data 6 Surveying Semlwt Signiftous ImPaM NO Capacity "treating In valuelm per hour of great Ilro41Vol. 1 2724 0 3734 1 0 4780 1 .190 4690 1 0 4690 LINBCOTT, LAW GIVIENSPAN,RNOINKIRS 1500 COMMIO DOW, Sub 122, COSH Mess CA 92620 (714) 641.1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: 10. 3upe6orAvarm at 16th SMat/hIdustrIal Way ws st SupencrAwafts Peak Hour. AM Date: 0584l07 E•W St: 10th StMaInn(ludifial Way Annual Gru•ai: I.OD% DOW of Count: 2007 Project: Hoag master Plan EIR Projection Year 2025 File: N.V80012052852VCUY*xr2025Alt.,do CmMTM:30Trfffflc Signal • Key conflicang moumnent as a part oMU. Functions as a separate turn lane, homniver, Is not Opel a War. Pmled ICU Impel: 0.003 Area Traffic Mlfigadon; Countecanduatedby; NaEonN Date 63urveytep Stlrvkas Signmucentaripam NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. IWVOL 1 1993 1 0 1183 0 2100 1 0 2190 1 0 2190 ii iY T ... • 41 34001ift "WILL "timik, 0 so i Isoc, 0.031 0 so I Iwo 0.031 0 50 1 ISOD 0.031 No Left 77 1 1600 0.048 0 77 1 1600 0.048 No Thru 790 2 8200 0.265 0 700 2 3200 0.205 a 1150 2 3200 0.388 10 1160 2 3200 0.391 0 1180 2 3200 0.391 No Right 57 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 go 0 0 a go 0 0 0 90 0 0 So Left 26 1 IODO 0.016 0 26 1 160D 0,016 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 So Thou 420 2 3200 0.169 0 420 2 3200 0.109 0 360 2 3200 0.141 •10 360 2 3200 0,138 0 350 2 3200 0.138 Bb mom 120 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 go 0 0 - 0 Go 0 0 D 90 0 0 Eb Left 25 1 1800 0.010 0 25 1 1600 0.016 0 30 1 1600 0.019 D 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 Eb Trim 150 1 1600 0.111 0 150 1 tGoo 0.111 0 140 1 1600 0.094 0 14D 1 1600 0.094 D 140 1 1600 0.094 1 Eb Right 27 0 a a 27 0 0 - 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 - D 10 0 0 -.A Wb Left 27 0 0 0.000 0 27 0 0 0.000 0 30 a 0 0.000 0 30 a 0 0,000 0 30 a 0 0.000 Wb Thm 125 1 ieoci 0.119 0 125 1 1600 0.119 0 190 1 1600 0.156 0 190 1 1600 0.155 0 190 1 1600 0.156 !AT RUM 99 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 30 0 D, 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 . ..... .. .. IOU 0.419 0.416 0.676 0.579 0.879 LOS A A A A A • Key conflicang moumnent as a part oMU. Functions as a separate turn lane, homniver, Is not Opel a War. Pmled ICU Impel: 0.003 Area Traffic Mlfigadon; Countecanduatedby; NaEonN Date 63urveytep Stlrvkas Signmucentaripam NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. IWVOL 1 1993 1 0 1183 0 2100 1 0 2190 1 0 2190 1 F+ v D, LINSCOTT. LAW S GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1530 CohhMe Ddua. Sucre 122. Costa Mesa CA 02623 (71 4) 641-1587 Intersection: 1S, N-S St Supador Avenue E•W St: lath Streatteldustdal Way Project Hoeg Maetef Plan SIR Fie: N:{Y60012052652VCUYae2025Mt.als Contact Type: 30 Tref8c Slanal NO Left 51 1 1600 0.032 0 61 1 1600 0.052 Na Thru 709 2 3200 0.236 0 706 2 3200 0.235 Na Right 44 0 0 750 0 44 0 0 - SO LM is 1 1800 0.011 0 18 1 1800 0.011 Sit Thm 721 2 3200 0.244 • 0 721 2 3200 0.2" SO Right 59 0 0 1600 0 59 0 0 0.283 • Ea LM 50 1 1800 0.01 0 50 1 1800 0.01 EO Thm 147 1 1600 0.141 0 147 1 1800 0.141 EO Right 78 0 0 0 120 0 78 0 0 120 WO Left 38 0 -0 0.000 0 38 0 0 0.00 WO TON 77 1 1600 0.09 0 77 1 100 0.09 Wb Right 43 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 Superior Avenue at ISM SOasNndusmal Way Peak Hour. PM Annual Gfa : 1.00% Date: 052407 Data of Count: 2007 Projection Year. 2025 0 40 1 1800 0.025 • 0 40 1 1800 0.025 0 40 1 1800 0.025 0 740 2 3200 0247 f0 750 2 S20 0.250 0 750 2 3200 0.250 0 50 0 0 - 0 50 0 0 0 50 0 0 - 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1800 0.008 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 B10 2 3100 0.283 • 20 830 2 3200 0.269 0 830 2 320 0.268 0 30 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 30 0 0 - 0 120 1 1600 0.075 • 0 120 1 180 0.075 0 120 1 1600 0.075 0 120 1 1600 0.068 0 120 1 180 0.088 0 120 1 160 0.068 0 20 0 0 - 0 20 0 0 - 0 20 0 0 - 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 40 0 0 0.000 0 120 1 180 0.118 • 0 120 1 iS0 0.119 0 120 1 1600 0.119 0 30 0 0 - 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 - iCU 0.417 8417 CA82 8.488 DA88 LDS A A A A A Key an&Xrig movement as a pert M ICU. Functions as a separate turn lane. hanever, is at smpa0 as such. PNOjecflCU lmpau: 0.00B Arab TraI8C M1dgallom Countsanduclee 0y: NaOnal Osta a Surveying SerAces Signmram Impact NO Capacity expressed In "hide$ per hour of green. TOWI VOL 200 1 0 2120 1 30 2180 0 2160 I r V V LiNSCOTT• LAW 6 ORSENSPAN..ENOINYERS ........... 1860 C041)"1e Orlve, Sub 122, Coats Arose CA 92628 ... .. ... (714J 641.1587 LMTERSECTtON CAPACITY UTILCLA71ON 17. ..............:.........:...... N-S St S[ Nawp0rt BeuleveM Newport EOUNVard at industrial Way E- E•W SL Industrhal Way Date: 0524)07 NO F911ea: Noeg Mealer Plan EIR Annual Groxlh: 1.00% Date of Count 2007 FIN; 5211C1rvee2026A8.xN Prolectlon Year: 2026 contra type; 90 Tralflc 8igna , SO Traffic Sig . ..... ..... ........... .. ... .. ... .... ... .................. ..............:.........:...... ::::: ....::........::................,........ :.......:..........:.:.....:... ..........:....:..:i::( . + +I; .... .:.: ......:•:: .:..: .:.. :..:..:..:......... ... .. ::.:::•:.::.:.; :: _.... ..., . _...:: : >.:.:.:A ::.:.:.:..:.;.:.:.:.:.:Y(4::: r:.::.::.::.:..:.:..:.:.:.:.:.. fig! f:. :.. • � 1 ":::i is ' u i'i::Vb :......:....:....: u...;ii ....;i: .:::.:......................:.. 'iiJj.. ..iiiii M. W i '.:�..iiiii� I....;:,. ". .. �.:; ... ...:.:.:.:.:.:.:�!..:..:.... •... • .. Nb LM N6 Tim 78 1804 1 1600 0.048 • 0 76 1 1600 0.048 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1800 0.018 0 30 1 1800 0.019 N6 Right 19 3 0 4800 0.360 0 1804 3 4800 0.380 • 0 2150 3 4800 0.450 • •t0 2140 3 4800 0.448 • 0 2140 3 4800 0.446 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 t0 0 0 0 10 0 0 S6 LM 114 1 1600 0.071 • 0 114 1 1800 0.071 • 0 110 1 1600 0.069 • 0 110 1 1600 0.069 • 0 110 1 1600 0.069 S6 Tim 1311 3 4800 0.286 0 1311 3 4800 0.286 0 1520 3 4800 0.354 40 1480 3 4600 0.346 0 1480 3 4800 0.348 So Right 64 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 160 0 0 0 180 0 0 0 180 0 0 Eb Left 90 0 0 0.000 0 90 0 0 01000 0 110 0 0 0.000 0 110 0 0 0.000 0 110 0 0 0.000 Eb Thru 95 1 1600 0.116 • 0 05 1 1600 0.116 • 0 100 1 1800 0.131 • 0 100 1 1600 0.131 • 0 100 1 1600 0.131 Eh Right 100 1 1600 0.053 0 100 1 1600 0.063 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.018 0 30. 1 1600 0.019 Will Left 3 1 1000 6.002 ' 0 3 1 1600 O.002 • 0 10 1 1600 0.006 , 0 10 1 1600 0.006 • 0 10 1 1800 0.0D6 ' Wb Tluu 70 1 1000 0.044 0 70 1 1600 0.044 0 60 1 1800 0.050 0 so 1 1800 0.050 0 80 1 1600 0.050 WO Right 51 1 1000 0.032 0 61 1 1600 0.032 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 ........... .. ......................Q.000 :..... ;. i.:::•:•:•:•:•>:::::: .... .....................•:...:.:0. :::::: ::.•.,.,.•.• ............. ...:..:.........:..:..::..:...........:......:...•.•.•. 904. ?•.•.:.•.:..:..•.•: .'..:.•..: ...•....:.•...:. 0.p9P...:.•:..•.•::.... •.•....,.,.,...•.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. •...:....:..:.•.•..•:...QAQQ.4. •.,...... . ICU 0.696 0.686 a.666 0.664 0.664 LOS A A S S E Kay conflicting movement as a pert of ICU. •• FAC110113 85 a SOPm turn ISM, 11MVIr, N not striped as such. Proles ICU ImPea: •0.002 AM Traffic Mitigation: Counts con6Uaeo by: NalWnel Dale 8 Surveying Servloss Capeaq exprease6 In vendee per hour of green. SignMCem Impact NO 7aM v*L 1 32,91 3797 1 a 4370 •50 4320 1 0 4320 I N OD ii; i= .9Q,:y,1G „•; ;:i:i ::::::: ... .. .. tW0' I ii..K�.. "'I: iii; i; i;: Ei '•[!ii:i:i::i:i:iii:ii::i:iil;: .:.... .,.. RIGA IW�B ::Si::AB�.: +::: is :tiiiij!::: iii.`:! iiiiisisiiiii�i: isi:::::•....;:;;:::: r::::::. .:::; .:.a:...:...: :........:..:i::i: ii:i i:;;i:: Aa9 ::i ?ii.•n' iiii o18i ��: +;i;!ii:i:i: :i::!;!;;;: i:;... .;iii:ii:i ^.::.:.:i::::.:.:. .: :.:....:...: iii ;i;::i;i::;:::;::;;:•:;;.:.;: iii'i�::.:.::i'•'''" "'" iii" •::.:i;:i::• .:.:.:.:.:.:...:.: .....; ..:::;;...::: ;.:•: O:i :: ....::: ..::. :::'.::.::...:.:;:. :: �: iiii: ia•;.;•:::.;,,::,..,•,.:,•,.:;•: .:.::::..............:......... e 'f4taJiEiiiiiiiiiilis'� !iiiiiii:i;` .•,•.: • ND Left 67 1 1600 0.062 • 0 67 1 1800. 0.042 ' • 0 10 1 1800 0.000 - 0 10 1 1600 •0.008 ' 0 10 1 1600 0.006 NO Thru 1551 2 4800 0.227 0 1661 2 1800 0.227 0 1930 2 4000 0.404 .10 1920 2 4800 0.102 0 1920 2 4600 0.402 NO RqM 17 0 0 - 0 17 0 0 - 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 So Left 71 1 1600 0.044 0 71 1 1800 0.044 0 60 1 1600 0.038 0 60 1 1600 0.038 0 60 1 1600 0.038 SO Tom 1850 3 4800 0.397 • 0 1850 3 4800 0.397 • 0 2680 3 4800 0.873 30 2880 9 1800 0.587 0 2660 9 4800 0.587 So Right 54 0 0 - 0 54 0 0 - 0 70 0 0 - 0 70 0 0 - 0 70 0 0 ED LOS 80 0 0 0.000 0 00 0 0 0.D00 0 ISO 0 0 0.000 0 150 0 0 0.000 0 150 0 0 0.000 Eb Thn1 65 1 1600 0.091 • 0 85 1 1800 0.091 • 0 50 1 1600 0.125 0 50 1 1800 0.126 ' 0 SO 1 1600 0.125 EO Right 106 1 1600 0.088 0 105 1 1600 0.080 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 1600 0.006 OD LUIBCOTT, LAW 6 011EENSPAN, ENOINEEN8 1680 Corporate Oda, SURe 122, Coate Map CA 02626 1714) 841.1587 IMenecgon: 17. 31 12 90 31: NevryaR Boay Newport Boulevard at Industrial We E- E -W St Hoaq a t rY Project Hwp Heeler Plan SIR Peak Hour PM Date: Annual Growth: 1.00% 0524177 File: N:12800120526529Ct1Y vr2C28AILMe Date of Count 2007 ProJenron Year: Control TYPO: 3G Tm1Ae Signal 2025 Wb Left Wb Thn1 Wb Right 31 12 90 1 7 1 1600 7600 7800 0.078 - 0.028 0.066 0 31 0 42 0 90 1 1 1 1800 1500 1800 0.019 • 0.026 0.058 0 0 0 70 40 40 1 1 1 18W 1600 1600 0.006 • 0.025 0.025 0 0 0 10 40 40 1 1 1 1600 1800 1600 0.008 • 0.025 0.025 0 0 0 10 40 40 1 1 1 7800 1600 1600 0.006 0.025 0.025 o11CivAllofri00lis ICU LOS :::::::::::::: Q. 9Rb: f;:; 9.619 A :;:;::::::::: ?:: ::::::::::::::: R,00R : 9.818 A :'' :;::::•:•::::•:mxmxm:�:•: .. ::::•: •::.... ti A000 :..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: a•C1a .. .... 4.704 C ..... ::::• ::::::•::::::::::::::::::::0g44 ... 4.704 C mar .,.,..�y inrwinem ee a pen m hcu. ^ Fmc6ons as a appemte turn lane, however. Is not$blPea as such. Protect ICU Impact -O.ODB Area Traffic Mitigation: Counts conducted by: National Data 5 Sumayinp Semicea rotect ICU Impact NO Capedq expressed In vehldos per hour of Amen, Tout Vol. 1 4023 0 400 1 0 9080 1 40 50 0 5626 Will LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1890 C9Wr#feDdve,SUh122,.CWA?MSWCA 92626 (114) 041-1507 INTERS11MCIN CAPACITY UTILMUGX Interatimabon: 10. Neopon Boulevard of 16th Boost " $I: Nmpoft Boulevard Peak How. AM Date: E•W st Ift Street Annual Growth: 7.90% DamofCcuat 2907 Project: Hoag limber Plan EIR Projecilan Year. 2025 File: M126OMD52O52000Yaa2025AUW Contra[ Type: 50 Traft ftn2l • Key MAW119 MOVOMMt At 8 Pon Of ICU. FUACUM9 as a Separate turn In@• however, IS not Sniped as such. Pm]eV ICU Irnpact .0.002 And, TISTC M093VO: Capacity *xpmesed 10 whom perhourafpreen. IfermaIVOL 1 2517 ----T- a JIM 1 0 Wo 1 .60 --w2o 1 0 0320 ....... .. .. -bioloof W 0 10 .................. 1 loop 0.CD5 0 to I loco 0.006 ND LVIK 14 1 1600 0.000 0 14 1 1600 0.009 0 10 1 IDOO 0.000 mt0l"m 1627 3 4300 0.991 0 1827 3 400D 0,391 0 2120 3 4800 0,454 -10 2110 3 48DD 0.452 0 2110 3 48CO 0.452 NO Right 50 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 so 0 0 - 0 60 0 0 SO Loft 72 1 1600 0.045 0 72 1 1800 0.045 0 0 1 loco 0.000 0 0 1 loco Moo 0 0 1 loop 0.000 Sb 11tru 1423 3 4800 0.2D5 0 1423 11 4800 0,296 0 1700 3 4600 0.354 40 1860 3 4500 0.340 a 1690 3 4000 0,346 Sb RHIN 23 1 1500 0.014 0 23 1 low 0.014 a 10 1 loco 0.005 0 10 1 1000 0.005 0 10 1 told) O.M Eb Left 21 1 1600 0.013 0 21 1 16DO 0,013 0 0 1 1600 O.CDO 0 0 1 feat 0.000 0 0 1 1000 oxco IVIM 21 1 two 0.021 0 21 1 1000 0.021 0 120 1 leoo 0.00 0 120 1 loco 0.868 0 120 1 1600 0.1188 I Eb point 13 0 0 0 13 0 0 - 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 ­3 Wb Left 37 1 1800 0.023 0 37 1 two 0.023 0 200 1 loco 0.126 0 2110 1 160 0.126 0 2CO 1 1600 0.126 0 TON 34 1 1800 0.048 0 34 1 1500 0.045 0 90 1 1800 0.1187 0 so I loco OX&I 0 go 1 1600 O.csi [WWbb Right 39 0 a 0 39 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 1 - 0 7 7 m7v:v ICU CU 0.406 0.406 0,507 0.693 0 LOS OS A A • Key MAW119 MOVOMMt At 8 Pon Of ICU. FUACUM9 as a Separate turn In@• however, IS not Sniped as such. Pm]eV ICU Irnpact .0.002 And, TISTC M093VO: Capacity *xpmesed 10 whom perhourafpreen. IfermaIVOL 1 2517 ----T- a JIM 1 0 Wo 1 .60 --w2o 1 0 0320 LINBCOTT. LAW 6OREENSPAN- 1111130411609 1580 Corpaere Dace, Suite 122, CoBta Mesa CA 92625 (714) 641.1587 mtarMmon: 15. 113 SC Ne"am Boulevem E -W St 181ft80eet FMJ801: Hoeg Metter PNn EIR File: N:1280012052862VCUYear2O28AV.A, Con OITypa:5OTmMC Signal Left T4ru Right Ea left �j EOTnru I Eb Right r 0 Wb Left 076 Thm Wb Right INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Newport Boulavam at Street Peek HOW PM Annual OrowM: 1.00% Oata. 052AW Oete of Count SOW Pmjaaon Year. 2025 13 1 1600 0.009 0 13 1 180 0.08 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0,019 ' 1700 3 4800 0.363 0 1700 3 480 0.383 0 1940 3 4800 0.425 •10. 1830 3 4800 0.423 0 1930 3 48% 0.423 44 0 0 0 44 0 0 - 0 100 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 180 0.050 0 80 1 1600 0.050 0 10 1 160 0.008 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 1 11500 0.08 1907 3 400 0.397 0 1907 3 460 0.387 0 2350 3 4800 0.490 .30 2320 3 4800 0.483 0 2320 3 4800 0.40 28 1 100 0.016 0 28 1 1800 0.018 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1800 0.019 20 1 11600 0.013 0 20 1 160 0.013 0 10 1 100 0.06 0 10 1 1600 0,06 0 10 1 160 0.006 41 1 1000 0.033 41 1600 0.033 150 1600 0.138 1 160 0.138 ' 1 1600 0.138 ' 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 1 160 0.032 0 51 1 1600 0.032 O so 1 1600 0.056 0 90 1 1600 0.059 0 90 1 1600 0.066 75 1 1800 0.088 0 75 1 1600 0.089 0 1S0 1 IWO 0.125 0 1BO 1 100 0.125 0 180 1 1600 0.125 34 0 0 - 0 34 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 - 0 40 0 0 ICU OA04 0.004 0.708 . mesa 0.889 LIM A A C B B - KeycOrWrtingimommentasapartotrU - FunCVOne 856 sepemte tum IWO. hcv B r, 15 not WpeS 0 such, PmJect ICU Impact .0.007 Area Traffic MM98UOA: Countscon5uce5by: Naeonal DlIOASurveying Servine Signlllcantlmpact NO Capogy "pmaeas In Ye0ltlee perbourof gmen. Toml 02 1 0 402 A 0 48 .40 WO I 0 10 LINSCOTT, LAW 6 ORSBNSPAN, BNOINBBRB 1580 COMMIe OM, SUBS 122, Costs MOM CA 92626 (714) 641.1687 Inwrsocvcn: 19. N8 81; SOPenor Arenus S•W St 17th Street Pr*a M089 Maetar Plan EIR Fl1w N12000120526529CUTaa202SAL.M ConONTYPO: BD Trask SI9MI Lee D Lee Sb Thm D Right Eb Leh Eh Thru Eb Rlpm ,�4b Leh We Thn3 Wb Right 20 1 1600 0.013 115 1 1600 0.072 1038 1 IBM 0.649 72 1 IBM 0.045 274 2 320D 0.104 59 0 0 . 11 1 1600 0.007 834 2 320D 0.208 31 0 0 324 1 1800 0.203 436 2 3200 0.145 27 0 0 0 20 1 1600 0913 0 115 1 1600 0.072 0 1038 1 IBM 0.849 ' 0 72 1 1800 0.045 ' 0 274 2 320D 0.184 0 Bo 0 0 . 0 11 1 1600 O.OD7 0 884 2 3200 0208 ' 0 31 0 0 0 324 1 IBM 0.203 0 428 2 3200 0.145 0 27 0 0 IRM19911011 C ACIW UTILIZATION SuporlorAmnue at 17th Street Peak Hour: AM Annual Gme : t.OD% 0 3D 1 1800 0.019 0 14D 1 1600 0.089 0 DID 1 1800 0.589 0 90 1 1600 0.056 0 270 2 32DD BADS 0 70 0 0 . 0 10 1 1900 0.008 0 540 2 3200 0.172 0 10 0 0 0 330 1 1600 0.206 0 590 2 3200 0.191 0 110 0 0 2 32 1 1600 0.020 B 140 1 160D 0.093 0 940 1 16DO 0.588 0 DD 1 IBM 0.058 .8 252 2 3200 0.104 0 70 0 0 . 0 10 1 1000 0.008 0 540 2 320D 0.171 4 8 0 0 0 330 1 1600 6.200 0 500 2 3200' 0.191 0 116 0 0 Oela: 06124/07 pate Of count: 2007 Proloctlon Taar. 2025 0 32 1 1600 0.020 0 148 1 16DD 0.093 0 940 / 16DD 0.588 ' 0 9D 1 160D 0.056 ' 0 262 2 3200 0.104 0 70 0 0 0 10 1 160D 0.008 0 540 2 320D 0.171 0 B 0 0 0 330 1 1600 0.206 0 500 2 3200 0.191 0 110 0 0 LOB - E - E °f 0.616 0316 11.816 1 D D I Key conMMMp movemers 04 a Pon of ICU. Funclion6 N A "PMala turn tans, however, N not striped me such. ProjeIX ICU ImOacc -0.001 Area Tre180 MIIpeBOn: Counts Wduclod by National Data 6lh r ylnp Semims "Cl ICU ImpecC NO Cops* eNpreaeee In vehl*s per hour of preen. eMl Vol. 0 awl o 3"0 1 0 7040 1 0 7040 LINSCOTT, LAW A OREENSPAN, ENGINEERS IWO CorPOrIff DOW. Sists 122, Costa Also CA 02626 (714) 641-1597 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTRWITION (iftersecOon: 12. SuperlarAmucat17thStreet N-S fh: SupedorA"fte Peak Hour. Pis Date: 05124107 E-W St I?thsmt mnwlGmw: In% Date of count: 2007 PmItna: mm Master Plan Em Projection Yew. 2025 File: NVOON05265211CLIYOW2025AILAS Coml Type: OOTMM Signal All *IWO1, 'hi, NIb Loh GO 1 1600 0.080 0 so 1 1600 0.080 • 0 70 1 1600 O.D44 2 72 1 1600 0.045 0 72 1 1600 0.048 ND Thm Vil 1 1600 0.108 0 VO 1 1600 OADO 0 270 1 1600 0A69 a 278 1 1600 0.174 0 278 1 1600 0,174 ND Right 661 1 1600 0.407 0 651 1 Mll 0.407 0 500 1 16D0 0.375 0 600 1 1600 0,375 0 GOD 1 1600 0.375 SD Lffl 87 1 1600 0.054 0 87 1 1600 0.054 0 140 1 1600 0.085 0 140 1 law 0.066 0 140 1 1600 0.058 Sla Thru 317 2 MD 0.123 0 317 2 3200 0.123 • 0 370 2 3200 0,188 16 386 2 3200 0.193 0 388 2 3200 0A93 SD Right To 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 230 0 0 0 230 0 0 0 230 0 0 Eli I.Oft 26 1 1600 0.016 0 26 1 1600 0.016 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.1125 ED Thor 543 2 3200 0.192 • 0 543 2 2200 0.192 • 0 770 2 3200 0260 • a 770 2 32D0 0,251 ' 0 770 2 3200 0.251 Eb Right 70 0 0 0 70 0 a - 0 3D 0 0 4 34 0 0 0 34 0 0 DO Wb Left 477 1 1600 0208 - 0 477 1 1800 0.298 - 0 400 1 1600 0.250 * 0 400 1 1600 0.250 ' 0 400 1 WOO 0.250 WD Thru 427 2 3200 0.159 0 427 2 3200 0,169 0 Sao 2 320D 0.213 0 580 2 3200 0.213 0 58D 2 2200 0.213 WD Right $1 0 0 0 al a 0 0 too 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 ICU 0.11" 4.473 0.767 0.763 0.743 LOS 0 B C C 0 • Kai Wracon MwmfA as a Part Of ICU -- Functions as a separate him lane, however, 18 not Shilied as such, Project ICU Impact 0.008 AMR TMWIC Wood= Counts conducted by: NallOWIDMO&SumayingServicas Sgelacam lmpeCT. No rePacht, el*mmd In "Mclas Per how of green. Total VOL 1 8-00 0 $023 1 0 360 JO $030 1 0 $030 00 W LINSCOTT, LAW L GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1380 COWPOrSte DAW, Sub 122, CMINI Men CA 92623 (714) 641-1587 IntOMOCIM: 20. N-S Sit Nonfood soulwaa E•W III: 17th Street Project Hug Master Plan EIR PRO; N028002052S6nCUYO2f2025AIbm Control Type: 80TMMC signal Newpon Boulevard at 17th Sweet Peak How. AM Annual Growth: 1.00% Date: 024107 Date of Count 2007 Projection Yee. 2026 Key contacting movement as a pad W ICU. Functions as a sounne turn lam. lume,mr. Is not striped as Won. Counts conduChadby. National Dam Surveying Serviogs Capacity "ummumd In weltudes per hour of green. PmjectlCU Impact -0.002 Area Traft Miggation; Simillcant Impact NO Tud VIA I 030 a 6230 1 0 7830 1 .60 7560 1 a 758 alms- ... ..... 11-'0* NO 44, W"... :uAili No taft No Thm, No Rot 45 1599 187 1 3 1 1600 4800 1600 0.029 0.354 0.123 0 0 0 46 1699 167 1 3 1 1600 4000 1600 0.020 0.354 0.123 0 0 0 20 1920 330 1 3 1 1600 4800 1800 0.013 0.400 0.206 0 •9 •1 20 loll 329 1 3 1 16110 4800 1600 0.013 0.398 0.203 0 0 0 20 loll 829 1 3 1 1600 4800 1000 0.013 0,398 0.206 Se Left Se Thru SO Right 740 1439 472 2 3 0 3200 4800 0 02M 0.398 0 0 0 749 1439 472 2 3 0 3200 4800 0 0,234 0.398 a 0 0 660 1670 370 2 3 0 3200 4800 0 0,203 0.425 0 -30 0 850 1532 370 2 3 0 3200 4600 0 0.205 0.417 0 0 0 650 1532 Vo 2 3 0 3200 4800 0 0.203 0,417 Eb Left EbThmj Eb Right 664 435 27 3 2 0 4800 3200 0 0.138 0.1" 0 0 0 664 435 27 3 2 0 4600 3200 0 0.138 0.144 0 0 0 1200 510 50 3 2 0 4800 3200 0 0.250 0.175 0 0 0 1200 510 50 3 2 0 4800 3200 0 0.250 0.175 0 0 0 1200 510 50 3 2 0 4600 3200 0 0.250 0.175 Wbtaft Wb Thru We Right 138 348 118 2 3 1 3200 4800 1800 0.043 0.072 0.024 0 0 0 138 348 lie 2 3 1 3200 4800 1600 0.043 0.072 0.074 0 0 0 130 540 240 2 3 1 3200 4800 1600 0.041 0.113 0.150 .2 0 0 128 540 240 2 3 t 3200 4800 1800 0D40 0.113 0,150 0 0 0 128 540 240 2 3 1 3200 4800 1800 0.040 0.113 0.150 . ....... Q-09i i-X ........... ........ ....................... ............ ICU :LOG 0.700 C 0.700 C 0.196 E 0.964 a 0,264 a Key contacting movement as a pad W ICU. Functions as a sounne turn lam. lume,mr. Is not striped as Won. Counts conduChadby. National Dam Surveying Serviogs Capacity "ummumd In weltudes per hour of green. PmjectlCU Impact -0.002 Area Traft Miggation; Simillcant Impact NO Tud VIA I 030 a 6230 1 0 7830 1 .60 7560 1 a 758 UNSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1500 C0111MAIM Dif", SUb 122, CUM ARM CA 92626 (7141041.7587 (00135010M 20. NS St Ne"on Boulevard Em St. Amairmat Project: Moog Master Plan EIR File: N:12800I2062032VCUY"2025AK.xIs ConerolTyinw. SO Traffic Signal Nemport Boulevard at IM Solon Peak Row. PIA Annual Growth: 1.00% Data: 0524!07 Date of Count 2007 Projecom Year. 2025 • Key offnicting Movement as a Pan of ICU. Functions as a separate turn land, hovivnitir, 15 not striped an ouch. Counts cociductsift National Dote Surveying Services Capacity expressed In vehicles per tomm, of green. PIPIUCI ICU IMP$= A002 Area Traffic MItgakn; SIGMAMI"Psor NO T00111VOL 1 6879 1 a 8870 1 0 8200 1 wo -6160 1 a 8100 ........... -j ......... ........... 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0,019 Nb Left 73 1 ISDO 0.0A8 0 73 1 IBM 0.046 0 30 1 1600 0.011; Nb Thm 1580 3 4000 0.327 • 0 1569 3 4800 0.321 • 0 1650 3 4800 OA13 • .9 1971 3 48DO 0,411 0 1971 3 4000 0,411 - ft Right 172 1 1800 0.108 0 172 1 1500 0.109 0 26D 1 1600 0.1% 1 240 1 1600 0.156 0 249 1 loop 0456 So Lan 785 2 3200 0.246 • 0 780 2 32DO 0246 • 0 sea 2 3700 0.215 • 0 590 2 3200 0,215 • 0 690 2 3200 0.216 - Sit Thm 1821 3 4800 0.441 0 1921 3 4800 0.441 0 2150 3 4800 0.517 -20 2122 3 4000 0,511 0 2122 3 4900 0.511 So Right 298 0 0 0 299 0 0 0 330 0 0 0 330 0 0 0 330 0 0 Eb tan 637 3 400 0.133 • 0 637 3 4WD 0.133 • 0 ago 3 4800 0.103 • 0 680 3 4800 oAm • 0 no 3 4000 0.I83 - Eb Thm 514 2 3200 0.171 0 514 2 3200 0.171 0 Goo 2 3200 0,222 0 No 2 3200 0.222 0 660 2 3200 0.222 So Right 32 Q 0 - 0 $2 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 to 0 0 Wb Left 227 2 3200 0.071 0 227 2 3200 0.071 0 230 2 3200 0.072 -2 228 2 3200 0.071 0 226 2 3200 0.071 Wb Thm 582 3 460 0.117 • 0 562 S 4000 0.117 • 0 700 3 4000 0.146 • 0 700 3 4800 0,140 • 0 700 -3 000 0,146 Vito Right 183 1 1000 0,114 a 103 1 1000 0.114 0 250 1 1600 0.156 0 250 1 1600 0,156 0 250 1 1600 9.155 ....................... ................. .. X !ICU 0.823 0,623 0.258 0.056 0.656 I 1143 0 D E 0 E • Key offnicting Movement as a Pan of ICU. Functions as a separate turn land, hovivnitir, 15 not striped an ouch. Counts cociductsift National Dote Surveying Services Capacity expressed In vehicles per tomm, of green. PIPIUCI ICU IMP$= A002 Area Traffic MItgakn; SIGMAMI"Psor NO T00111VOL 1 6879 1 a 8870 1 0 8200 1 wo -6160 1 a 8100 Ln LINSCOTf. LAW 16 ORSIMISPAR, 11110141111111; 1580 Corporate, Drive, Suft 122, Coste Afm CA 0202a (714)641-1507 Intersection; 21. WS St Newport Soulinrard E-SY St 1581 Samourlitochoster Street project: Haag Master Plan EIR File: NA2W)=0S2852VCUY*ar2025AJI..is Control TYPer.eei Spot INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILV"N Newport Boulevard at 18th StreBURecheeter Stroh Peak Hour. AM Annual Growtn� 1.00% DOW. 05124107 Offla of Count: 2007 Projection Year. 2025 Key arfflV.*g movement as a part Of ICU. Fufm*ns a a separate turn lane, honue"r, Is not stripes as Such. Counts conducted by', National Data & Surveying SON1085 Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of amen. "W ICU Impacs: -0.002 Area Traffit Mutilation: Sigri Impad: NO (Toui Vol. I goes 0 -rose 0 6630 •47 653 1 0 6783 ................ ....... 'm"'Ap .... . ... ... a, ::W ... '.A: ... .... No Left 46 1 1600 0.020 0 48 1 1600 0,029 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0,013 MTM 2275 3 4800 0.475 0 2275 3 4800 0,475 0 33M 3 4800 0.690 4 3291 3 4800 OBBS 0 3201 3 4800 0.688 No Right 7 0 0 0 7 0 a 0 10 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 10 0 0 So Left 72 1 1800 0.045 0 72 1 1600 0,045 0 180 1 1800 0.113 0 1110 1 1800 0.113 0 100 1 IODO 0.113 So Thru 2840 3 4800 0.550 0 2040 3 4800 0.650 0 2090 3 4800 0.560 .38 2852 3 4800 0.553 0 2652 3 4800 0.553 so Right 113 1 1600 0.071 0 113 1 1600 0.071 0 170 1 1600 0.106 .8 102 1 1800 0.101 0 182 1 1800 0.101 Eb Left 249 2 3200 0.070 0 249 2 3200 0,078 0 120 2 3200 0.038 8 128 2 3200 OAM 0 128 2 3200 0.040 Elft Thru, 102 1 1600 0.004 0 102 1 1600 0.064 0 150 1 1600 0.094 0 150 1 1800 0.094 0 160 I IGDO 0.004 Eb Right 64 1 1600 0.040 0 64 1 1600 0.040 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1800 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0,013 We Last 1 1 1000 0.001 0 1 1 1800 OADI 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 isoo 0.010 0 30 1 iODO 0.019 M Thru SO 1 1600 0.074 0 N 1 1600 0,074 0 SO 1 1800 0.088 0 so 1 1600 0.088 0 so I ISDO 0.008 WID Right 60 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 Go 0 0 - 0 so 0 0 ........... ....... .. .... ............ .. .. ......... .. .... Mo. ICU 0.731 0.731 0.945 0.983 0.583 LOS a C E E E Key arfflV.*g movement as a part Of ICU. Fufm*ns a a separate turn lane, honue"r, Is not stripes as Such. Counts conducted by', National Data & Surveying SON1085 Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of amen. "W ICU Impacs: -0.002 Area Traffit Mutilation: Sigri Impad: NO (Toui Vol. I goes 0 -rose 0 6630 •47 653 1 0 6783 LING00". LAW & GROENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Ddw, Soft 122, COM Mass CA 02828 1714) 641.1687 INIMSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION tntemodon: 21, WE St: NmIconeoutovare Peak Hour. I'm Date: OWAVOT F•W St 18th StmetTlochafter Street Annual Cromh: I'GO% Data VI count 2007 Pralm Hoag Matter Pin SIR Pm�vcfon Year. 2025 Fee: N:1280012052852000Yesr2026,'ttds Control lrype:60E-W Spot T PA No Leh III I Me O.M a III I Iwo 0.009 0 so 1 1600 USE 0 so I loco 0.0.56 a so I IBOD Me; No Thm 2700 3 4800 0.605 a 2700 3 4800 0.565 0 3290 3 4800 0.690 40 3251 3 48D0 0.688 a 3231 3 4800 0.689 A Right 13 a a 0 13 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 a 2a a a SO Left 107 1 Iwo 0.087 0 IOT I 160D O.OST 0 ISO I loco 0.094 0 160 1 1500 0,094 a 150 1 1600 0,094 St) Thm 2876 3 4800 QM 0 2875 3 4800 0.389 0 3360 21 4600 STCO .28 3332 3 4800 0.894 a 3332 3 4800 0.694 SO Right 169 1 1600 CABS 0 159 1 IODO 0.090 0 70 1 1600 0.044 Is so 1 loco 0.04 a Be I loco 0,054 fib Left 287 2 3200 0.090 0 287 2 3200 0.090 0 230 2 3200 0.072 a 238 2 3200 0.074 a 238 2 3200 Sets at, Thm as I ISOD 0.063 0 85 1 loco 4053 D 60 1 1600 0.038 0 so I ISOD 0.030 a w I loco 0.038 1 Eb Right Be 1 1800 0.043 a so I IWO 0.043 0 70 1 1600 DV44 0 TO I loco 0.044 a TO I 160D 0.004 00 WO Left 15 1 1000 0.009 0 Is 1 1600 0.009 0 20 1 1500 0.013 0 20 1 loco MOU 0 . 20 1 loco 0.013 1535 1= 116 1 logo 0.117 0 its I loop 0.117 0 140 1 1600 0.113 0 140 1 1000 0.113 0 140 1 loco 0.113 Wb MOM 71 0 0 0 Ti 0 0 a 40 0 0 . 1 0 40 0 a a 40 a a 0 D E E " FUnctlom as a separate tom Im, Itswever, Is not nicM as such. Protect ICU impact 0,000 Area Traffic Mitigation: Counts oonductodbyr. National Data SurveyTB SeMOee Sgralicantim;ect: NO Capacity expressed In whIdes per how of green. robi Vat I sees 0 Pos, 1 0 7540 1 -13 7527 1 -a an LINSCOW, LAW GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 CO"Alfil Odw, Suffirl 121, C03011 Aftill CA 02628 (714) 041-1587 Intersection: 22. WE St Newport Boulevard Newport Boul"an! At Harbor Boulovens WFAMTRA F1W st Harbor Soulevaard Peak Hour. AM Date: OW4107 project. H099 Maher EIR Annual 1311 Dots Of Couffl: 2007 File: NA26001205286NCUYear202SAtuds 86 Palladian Year. 2025 Control Type: $0 Traffic, Signal 0 0 0 490 2859 0 2 3 0 iiiii ii i ii i i!i i i ii i i: ISO ii WFAMTRA ... ......... 0 0 0 490 2859 0 2 3 0 3200 4000 0 0.153 0.5108 ND Left 177 2 3200 0.055 ND Thru 2419 3 4800 0.504 ND Right 0 0 0 0 177 2 3200 0.055 0 2419 3 4800 0.504 0 0 0 0 0 400 2 3200 0.153 0 2660 3 000 0.596 0 0 0 0 0 400 2 3200 0.153 .1 2559 3 48DO 0.598 0 0 0 0 SD Loll SD Thru 51) Right 0 2329 26 0 3 0 0 4900 0 0.000 0.491 0 0 0 0 2329 '26 0 3 0 0 4800 0 0.000 0.491 0 0 0 0 2410 20 0 3 0 0 41)(10 0 0.000 WE 0 43 0 0 2367 20 0 0 3 4800 0 0 0.000 0.497 0 0 0 0 2357 20 0 3 0 0 4800 0 0.0D0 0.07 Eb Left Elb Thru ED "Irt 27 0 530. 1 0 2 1600 0 3200 0.017 0.000 0.156 0 0 0 27 0 530 1 0 2 1600 0 3200 0,017 0.000 0.168 0 0 0 70 0 710 1 0 2 1800 0 3200 0.044 O.DOO 0.222 0 0 3 70 0 707 1 1600 0 0 2 3200 0.044 0.000 0.221 0 0 0 70 0 707 1 0 2 1600 0 3200 0.044 0.000 0.221 WD Left WbThw WD Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0.000 0.000 0 a a 0 a a 0 a a 0 a a 0.000 O.DOO a 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a a OJ000 0.000 0 a a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a a 0.000 0.01)(1 ...... nVVJpa4::-7- ....... 7 - 7 - 7 7 - 7 - 7 7-. . 77777a'X7:7:7:777�7: ........................ :4.09Q � :.: ..................... .... ............... ... . . ..... . ....................... .................... . . . ... ... . 7 .;7:77 7:7:::7 7:7 k946.7:1.' 77046.7:1:1 ICU IUOS 0.657 a - 0.057 a 0,728 C 0.716 C 0.710 C Key C0115110firg; moVemeni as a part of I= Functional 88 9 "parent WM lane, however, IS not loped as Such. "ad ICU impact •0.010 Am Trade MRIAtion: CUNIA Conducted by: National Date a Sunneying Son0loes SignificantImpact NO Capa*expmosedlnwhMespwhmrofgmen. 11171,111100L 1 5"6 F a same 1 0 6660 • 6513 1 0 0612 UNSCOTT, LAW & ORSENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 CofPMV(O 011M, Soft 12Z COMB Mesa CA 92626 (714) 641 .1567 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILISATION Intervectlon: 22. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Soulnerd N•S St Newportfiftlevard Peas Hour PM Date: 051207 E•W St HarborSoulavans Annual Growth: 1.0090 Dow Of Count 2007 Project: Hoag Master Plan EIR projection Year 2025 M.. NV600=52552MC11YOWMAKAO Control TYPO: 30TMM Signal Key CoMbi movement be a PM of ICU. FMCOns as a separate turn lam, however. As not snipes as such, Project ICU Impact: •.003 Ares TraffidIffiggallon: Counts canductati by: Natlonel Oala d Surveying 8anlas Significant Impact NO Capacity OVIessard in vehicles per hour at grow. ITOWMaL 1 6228 1 0 we 1 0 7640 -12 1527 1 0 7627 .. . ........... ... ................ :Q1,111 Is V 4 ...... 140*4 *040,14111 v , , low'" 0 700 2 3200 0,219 Nb Left 488 2 3200 0.163 0 488 2 3200 0.153 0 700 2 3200 0.219 0 700 2 3200 0.219 Nb Thm 2521 3 4000 0.525 0 2521 3 4000 0-526 0 3100 3 4800 0.046 •1 30" 3 4800 0.646 0 3089 3 4800 0,646 Nb Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St, Left 0 a 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.010 0 a 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Sb Thru 2681 3 4800 0.661 0 2581 3 4800 0.651 0 2800 3 4800 0.5112 -11 2789 3 4800 0,589 0 2789 3 4800 0,589 So Flight 132 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 0 0 Ell, LOA 50 1 IWO 0.036 0 58 1 1600 0.030 0 80 1 IWO 0.050 0 80 1 1600 0,050 0 80 1 1500 0.050 Eb Thm 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.600 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Eb Right 518 2 3200 0.162 0 BIB 2 3200 0.162 0 820 2 3200 0.258 •1 Big 2 3200 0.258 0 SIB 2 3200 0.258 w 00 Wb Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Wit Thru 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Wit Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . ..................... • . '::%A0:: & ................ ............ ... ..... . . ......... ............ ....... ........ ...... f::::::::::::: 7 ................ ICU 0.740 0140 0.041 O.Bsa 0.998 LOS C C 0 0 0 Key CoMbi movement be a PM of ICU. FMCOns as a separate turn lam, however. As not snipes as such, Project ICU Impact: •.003 Ares TraffidIffiggallon: Counts canductati by: Natlonel Oala d Surveying 8anlas Significant Impact NO Capacity OVIessard in vehicles per hour at grow. ITOWMaL 1 6228 1 0 we 1 0 7640 -12 1527 1 0 7627 UNSCOM LAW i GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1580 Cirporan CM. Sub 122; Coate MINA CA 91618 (714) 641.1587 ImemooWn: 23. "at Nearpw Sou%vam E W St Bmadway 80tftV rd Pmject Hoeg Maeter Plan EIR Fie: N.' 128001205268211CUYesr2025AIt.16! Control Type:60 E•W Spit NO Len NI,TMe No Right So Len So Thou So Right as Leh ',DEG Thm I Eo Right N Tto Loft' `�� TMu WI, Right 1 1 1600 0.001 2440 3 4800 0.513 24 0 0 - 32 1 1000 0.020 2409 3 4800 0.502 8 1 1000 0.005 6 0 0 0.000 4 1 1800 0.008 3 1 1600 0.002 31 1 1600 0.019 5 1 1600 0.050 85 0 0 1 0 1 1 1600 0.001 0 2440 3 4800 0,513 ' 0 24 0 0 - 0 32 1 1600 0.020 ' 0 2409 3 4000 0.502 0 8 1 1600 0.005 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 4 1 1600 0.008 ' 0 3 1 1800 0.002 0 31 1 1600 0.019 0 5 1 1800 0.056 0 85 0 0 1 Newport BemWan at Bmado0y BOUlevefd Peak Hour. AM Almual Gmwm: 1.00% 0 10 1 1600 0.008 0 2890 3 4800 0.617 0 70 0 0 70 0 80 1 1600 0.019 0 2490 3 4800 0.519 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 10 1 1800 0.013 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 10 1 1600 0.100 0 150 0 0 1 0 10 1 1800 .0.006 •1 2899 3 4600 0.618 0 70 0 0 0 0 30 1 1600 0.019 43 2447 3 4800 0.510 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 10 1 1600 0.013 0 10 1 1600 0.009 0 20 1 1600 0.019 0 10 1 1600 0.100 0 150 0 0 0.145 C Cale: 0604107 Dam Of Count: 2007 Prolaelbn Your 2025 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 2889 3 4800 0.616 0 70 0 0 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 24d7 3 4800 0.510 0 10 1 1800 0.006 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 10 1 1600 0.013 0 10 1 1800 0.006 0 20 1 1800 =3 0 10 1 1600 0.100 0 150 0 0 - Key con6ktlng movemord ea a pan of ICU. "FuncWM all e MpamM him IBM, h~6r, 13 not etOPOd 08 aurn. Pmpha ICU Impact: -0.001 Ana TMMC MIIIgetlen: Oounle conducted og Neeunel Dam S Surveying Servkm Slgnlfram Impact: NO :oped{y expressed In vehlcMs per hour of green. 7001 VOL 1 5050 1 0 .6050 1 0 6710 •4 6868 0 6608 I N 10 O LINSCOTT, LAW It ORSEN SPAN, ENOINSERS 1580 CoWnhat OMs, Suits 122, Costa New CA 02626 (714) 601.1587 INTERSECTION CAPACRY UTILi2ATION MlemaWan'. 23, Newport Bm%.$M at Smeeway Boulevard N -S St Nowpon BauleveN Peak Hour PM Data: 05124107 E -W St Broadway BOUIMAJ Annual Gr : 1.00% Date of Count 2001 PmWM HOBO Maatal Plan EIR PmjeuVen Yeer. 2026 Foe; CW Ooe.0120526528Ct1vear1025AItba Conbd Type:6O E -W Spit 'Key wnNeBlq nwve111antae apart o/1CU. •' Functions as a separate Nm lens, htnkever. Is not dimes as such. Pm1ecl iCU Impscl: 0.000 Ares Traffic Mltlgallon: Counts Wn0ucte0 or. National Dew 6 Surveying Sawkes SlgnwAnt impact: NO Cepedly eapreeee6ln vehicles per houroi green. 1roftivol. 1 6656 1 0 5666 1 0 Sao 1 .12 6923 1 0 6928 .... iYRlI : i �iii:i:i::::::: 53 C .... ....94 .. ..�q��:, ....:. `::� 'f''y:�;:: #a e�.. :...::.::::.....,:•.. �;.:.:::- Aadad.:.::: 7vai::: ::::.:::::.:: >:.:.::.:#�:iii:ii :::. :3 :. b... .. 6 Y... y� . WIO.... :.: :.: •. ,:.. ..b ..:i...bi <ii: i � "6i "TIES; ::: .: :::lta 0 20 1 1800 0.015 0 20 t 1900 0.015 Nb LOA 19 1 1800 0.012 0 19 1 1800 0.012 0 20 1 1600 0.015 No Thm 2507 5 4600 0.535 0 2507 5 4600 0.556 ' 0 2700 5 4800 0.577 - .1 2899 5 4800 0.577 - 0 2699 5 4900 0.577 ' Nb Right 87 0 0 - 0 at 0 0 0 70 0 0 - 0 70 0 0 - 0 70 0 0 - Sit Left 111 1 1600 0069 0 111 1 1600 0.069 ' 0 00 1 1600 0.056 - 0 90 1 1800 0.055 - 0 90 1 1600 0.055 ' SO TIM 2589 5 4800 0.659 0 2660 6 4800 O.630 0 2790 5 4000 0.581 .11 2779 5 4600 0.579 0 2770 5 4800 0.579 50 Right 80 1 1800 0,058 0 60 1 1500 0.038 0 60 1 1800 0.058 0 60 1 1800 0.058 0 50 1 1800 0.038 Eb Le0 16 0 0 0,000 0 15 0 0 0.000 0 10 0 0 0000 0 10 0 0 0.000 0 t0 0 0 O.00D EO Th1u 25 1 1600 0.025 ' 0 25 1 1000 0.025 ' 0 20 1 1800 Cots - 0 20 1 1600 0.019 - 0 20 1 1600 0.019 ' Eb Right 10 1 1600 0.008 0 10 1 1600 0.006 0 20 1 1900 0.015 0 20 1 1800 0,015 0 20 1 1600 0.015 Wb LeS 46 1 1600 0.029 0 46 1 1800 0029 0 50 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 50 1 1600 0.019 Wit Thtu 22 1 1800 0.071 0 22 1 1900 0.071 - 0 50 1 1500 0.081 - 0 30 1 1800 0.081 - 0 00 1 1800 0,061 ' Wit Right 91 0 0 - 0 91 0 0 - 0 100 0 0 - 0 100 0 0 - 0 100 0 0 - .. 1......,:•:•:•:•:' }: :•:i':•:•:•:•:':: :•i•: ...... :•: ::':•:': ..........................b,Oeg :' :.:..:.:.:...:.:.:.:......:•: ... :•h:'::: ..... ::': :•:•::::: ...........................A000 :'i:::::•:•:::::: is ...:.}:.::.:......:.:.:.: ................................ :.:......: ::.:•: i:'::: .: i::::::::: Adp0............ is i:: i:: ):•: ......................O.O�iI: is :: i:: :•::•:: . >: ICU 0.700 0.700 0.735 0.715 0.705 IAS S B c C c 'Key wnNeBlq nwve111antae apart o/1CU. •' Functions as a separate Nm lens, htnkever. Is not dimes as such. Pm1ecl iCU Impscl: 0.000 Ares Traffic Mltlgallon: Counts Wn0ucte0 or. National Dew 6 Surveying Sawkes SlgnwAnt impact: NO Cepedly eapreeee6ln vehicles per houroi green. 1roftivol. 1 6656 1 0 5666 1 0 Sao 1 .12 6923 1 0 6928 LINSCOTT, LAVIA, GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate D", Suft 122, C0418 Mass CA 92828 1714) e4l.1507 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZAIMM intermcdort: 24. WS St Ne"M SWI.Ard Newport NaYMVBfd s119m Street Pea Hour. m Data: 0524107 E•W SL fill, Street Annual Graisth: 1.00% Data Of Count 2007 P"Ot Hag Master Plan EIR Proacdon Year. 21126 Fft; NA28001206205211CLIYOW026AIL,15 COMMITYP"OE•W Spit 0 20 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 IBM 0.013 ND Left ZY I HIM 0.023 0 37 1 1600 0.023 0 20 1 1600 0.013 NI) Thru 2430 3 480D 0.500 0 2430 3 4800 0.503 0 3100 3 4000 MIME •1 3099 3 4000 0.646 0 31799 3 4800 0.846 NO Not to 1 1600 D.010 0 16 1 1600 0.010 0 30 1 1600 0.019 0 30 1 HIDD 0.019 0 30 1 1500 0.010 So Left tat I 1600 0.113 P 0 lei I low 0.113 P 0 230 1 161)) 0.144 0 230 1 1600 0.144 0 230 1 law 0.144 Elf T11m 2350 4 8400 0.449 0 2369 4 640D 0.449 0 2560 4 0400 0.502 42 2508 4 e400 0.495 0 250 4 5400 0.495 St, Right 505 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 680 0 0 0 680 0 0 0 660 0 0 > Elp Left 776 0 0 0.000 0 776 0 0 0.000 0 960 0 0 0.0D0 0 No 0 0 O.ODD 0 ow 0 0 0.000 11it, Thew 192 4 6400 0.151 0 192 4 6400 0.151 0 220 4 6400 0.184 0 220 4 0400 0.184 0 220 4 6400 0.184 p.r ED Right 13 1 1600 0.008 0 13 1 IBM 0.0011 0 10 1 IODO 0.008 0 10 1 1600 0.008 0 10 1 ISQD 0.006 ko h Vvb Left 38 1 1000 0.024 0 38 1 VIDD 0.024 0 40 1 1600 0.025 •1 39 1 1600 0.024 0 30 1 1600 0.024 WD Thru 142 4 6400 0.065 0 142 4 0400 0.066 0 240 4 640D 0.003 0 240 4 6400 0.083 0 240 4 0400 0.083 Vill, Rot 279 0 0 0 279 0 0 0 290 0 0 0 290 0 0 a 290 0 0 ICU M836 0.836 1.057 1.057 1.057 Los 0 a F F P • Key cornicing movement as a pill of ICU. Functions as a separate lum lone, lunwever. Is not stdped as won. PMJeCt ICU torpid 0.000 Area Traffic: Milliation: Counts conducted by: National O0%& Surveying Services signiticaurtrinpact: NO Ciftedity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. Tool VOL 1 d"a 0 0978 0 0360 1 44 8306 1 0 8206 LINSCOW, LAW & GREENSPAN. ENGINEERS 1500 COMMU, D&D, Suffs, 122, Costa Mesa CA JIM (714) 641-1687 Inniamcdon: 24. NS St Newport Boulmrs E-W St 1991 street Project: Hoag Masiler Plan Sift File: N:I2500=525528CUYmr202SAIt.4k; Control Typo SOE-W Split Peak Hour. PM Annual GrosAN 1.00% Date: Data of Count Pm;edon Year. 05124/07 201)7 2025 II j ' il4ik �I AU061, Nlo Left 61 1 1800 0.038 0 81 1 1600 0.039 0 so 1 100 0.038 0 60 1 1500 0.038 0 so 1 1600 0.036 No Thm 2466 3 4800 0.514 0 2486 3 4800 0.514 ' 0 2910 3 4800 0.806 • .1 21109 3 48101) 0.606 • a 2909 3 48110 ONE tab Right 45 1 illoo 0.020 0 48 1 1600 0.029 0 21) 1 1600 0.013 0 20 1 1600 0.013 a 20 1 1600 0.013 So Ltft 209 1 1600 0.131 0 209 1 1600 0.131 • 0 240 1 16110 0.150 • a 240 1 1604 0.150 • 0 240 1 1600 0A60 So Thfu 2597 4 6400 0.521 0 2597 4 9400 0.521 0 2970 1 8400 0.611 -11 2959 4 5400 0.809 0 2969 4 6400 0.609 So Rot 737 0 0 0 737 a 0 0 940 0 0 . 0 940 0 0 0 940 0 0 ,,Flo Left 740 0 0 0.000 0 740 0 0 0.000 0 BID 0 0 0.000 0 910 0 0 0.000 0 910 0 0 0,000 E Eb Thou 200 4 6400 0.147 - 0 200 4 6400 M147 ' 0 250 4 5400 0.181 • 0 250 4 6400 0.181 0 250 4 6400 0.181 I �fb Rot 24 1 1800 0.015 0 24 1 1600 0.015 0 40 1 1660 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0.025 0 40 1 1600 0,026 KM Left 61 1 two 0.038 0 at 1 1600 0,038 0 TO I ISM 0.044 0 70 1 1800 0,044 0 ?U i MI) 0.044 Wb Thou 203 4 5400 DO" ' 0 283 4 6400 0,070 • 0 320 4 8400 0.089 - 0 320 4 6400 0.069 0 320 4 6400 0.009 M Right 163 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 250 a 0 0 250 0 0 ICU 10.1162 1.028 1.026 LOS D D F F separate ae a pen of ICU. Functions as a separate tum ton, ho"W. Is not striped as etch. Projeci ICU Impact) 0.000 Ana Traffic Witallon: SIgnincantlInpact NO Capacity expressed In VOhIM3 per hour of own. Toolvol. I r5117 1 0 76117 1 a 8080 1 M pom 1 0 of" APPENDIX B PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PATTERN LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engmeer5 LLG Ref. 2 -05 -2652 Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR F:gb000053652'Aiep11 - pppendi: Cnaur PaLef kc N� \ i 0 I 0TH IV " ^ _ HOSPITAL RD HOAG 4V 4A m _ o k L •x I ` 1•xJ { 'm M \ nl I p C x 1 TH ST 18TH ST I I J i Si P ` I { \ { 2{ \\ \ C04 T \ Ipp { \ — 9 / N k d `dz I +12 , 1zS- 10% \ —N / 4 1 ,xro 1 KEY B_1 ED PROJECT SITE L INBOUND % (TOTALS 100x) 0 (t.0 SCALE OUTBOUND % (TOTALS 100 %) PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN HOAC HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN EIR, NEWPORT BEACH ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 361 Hospital Road, Suite 229 Newport Beach, California 92663 Prepared by: LSA Associates, hic. 20 Executive Park Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 -4731 (949)553 -0666 LSA Project No, VN,40601 September Zoo-/ TABLE OF CONTENTS ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN................................................................................................................ ............................... 1 PROJECTDESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... ............................... I HOAG MASTER PLAN VEHICLE TRIPS .......................................................... ............................... 4 ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION ........................................................... ............................... 8 POTENTIAL CIRCULATION REVIEW GUIDELINES ................................... ............................... 16 CONCLUSIONS................................-................................................................. ............................... 19 FIGURES Figure1: Project Location ...................................................................................... ............................... 2 Figure2: Site Plan ................................................................................................... ............................... 3 Figure 3: Trip Generation Sources .......- ................................................................. ............................... 7 Figure 4: Trip Generation Destinations ................................................................. ............................... 9 Figure 5: Existing Plus Master Plan Peak -Hour Volumes .................................... ............................... 10 Figure 6: Roadway Cross Sections ............................ .........................._.... ........ ............................... I 1 Figure 7: Roadway Cross - Section. Lane Widths ................................................... ............................... 12 Figure8: Hoag Drive/Hospital Road .................................................................... ............................... 15 Figure 9: Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway ...................................................... ............................... 17 TABLES Table A: Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR Trip Generation Summary .................... ............................... 5 Table B: Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR Trip Generation and Destination Summary ......................... 6 Table C: Existing plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan Intersection LOS Summary .... ............................... 8 Table D: Existing Plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan Roadway Link LOS Summary ........................... 13 Table E: Existing Plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan Vehicle Queues At Hoag Drive/Hospital Road.. 14 Table F: Existing plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan Vehicle Queues at Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway............................................. ............................... _......................... ............................... 14 APPENDIX A: HCM SHEETS B: ENTRANCE -EXIT DESIGN AND CONTROL FOR MAJOR PARKING FACILITIES P:-AN6f0601 tTmffic\Access Ana1,SiS_revised3.doc ,,0M 1 Nb, LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. SEPTEMBER 2007 ACCESS A!VU -.111 1, CIRCIILATI114 ARAl YS1S !ICIAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) has prepared this analysis to assess the traffic operations of the site access and on -site circulation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. The Hoag Hospital campus currently has approximately 886,270 square feet (sf) of inpatient, outpatient, campus support, conference center, and child care use on site. In addition, 456,968 sf of additional inpatient, outpatient, and support uses have already been approved for the site. The campus is located north of Pacific Coast Highway and west of Newport Boulevard and is built into a bluff that divides the campus into the Upper Campus and the Lower Campus. Figure 1 illustrates the location of Hoag Hospital. The Upper Campus is made up of the main hospital, Outpatient Surgery Center, Women's Pavilion, Cardiac Services, Imaging, and Emergency Services. These uses are served by the 468 -space Dolphin parking structure, the 1,187 -space parking structure located south of the main hospital (hereafter referred to as the South parking structure), and by a handicapped parking lot located adjacent to the Dolphin parking structure. A small surface parking lot currently exists adjacent to the Emergency Room; however, this lot is likely to be replaced in the future by a patient drop- off /valet parking area. The Lower Campus consists of the Cancer Center, Conference Center, and Child Care Center; a new Child Care Center will be located to the west of the present location. Parking for the Cancer Center and Child Care Center is provided by surface parking lots adjacent to these uses. A 371 -space parking structure serves the Conference Center. The Hoag Hospital Master Plan is proposed to be updated to allow transfer of up to 225,000 sf of medical uses, currently approved for the Lower Campus, to the Upper Campus. The Hoag Hospital Master Plan site plan is shown in Figure 2. Using trip generation rates developed for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Traffic Study' (Traffic Study), this analysis will identify project and ambient traffic at the three intersections that provide access to the Hoag Hospital campus. Delay, level of service (LOS), and queuing at each intersection will be evaluated to identify any potential deficiencies to the traffic operation. On -site traffic volumes will also be evaluated to identify areas where on -site improvements may be necessary to accommodate future traffic volumes. Traffic Impact Study, Hoag Hospital Alaster Plan Update Supplemental EIR, Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, July 5, 2007. P:�4NF9D601',.Trafiii'Access Analssis_PEvised3.doc,,09 /i 1,4)7,, MMKWM 11 PoW noRLx =+2L HOSPITAL ROAD _ — C y NORiH1 ARWNG� E AN ��� SiINCIWP PLiT ♦��d10AGDRIVE� P t0 ANDr `, S ANCILLARY ) D \ \. N BDILD116G ` � 1 \ \// �_'\ ✓ yyOMEN'SPANLUDP ' \`\ WE9 OLD \ ORIDWALt952eDIlDING - 2GOCAGNEYIANE \ \LOADING DOCK i ..l _ \\ SoGLNxoAGOPIVF� . -... 2ROCACNfl IANE 230 LUTE \ I 210 PARIRLANE 21OLILLIELANE .� —— .CE55 yylmatrvw - mwvru., wma+S °"'�- — a0 GAtFDfIREAC Y. � • -�I COGENACCES RAMP ' / O : '. - . _ — — — .. f1 :. � - PPR• MFL0ppNgg 0 CANCER R � PAE ! 'YARD EHRFPCEPPRWNG C 1 CARED S ,, r r • r . PROPERIYL'ME +_ �►� r r: HDIOUR, Ij \ Q>�. OAR PACIFIC „ 1. c C0.gy7 - HIGHWAY S FIGURE2 Hoa; IG�,piml Si,, RI" I. %A ASS O CIA "I'P.F. IN (I ACC: GSS ANN ON -SI 1'1: CIHCUI.A'1'ION ANALYSIS IV."FMLIFT, Poo, 110A0 N0$P1'C A] MA9'I FN PLAN HOAG MASTER PLAN VEHICLE TRIPS Master Plan Trip Generation Trip generation rates for inpatient and outpatient services were developed by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers in the Phase 11 Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Traffic Study. These trip rates were used to develop trip generation estimates for the land uses contained in the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. The trip generation methodology and Hoag Hospital Master Plan trip generation are provided in detail in the Traffic Study, and the trip generation is summarized in Table A. The existing condition represents year 2007 traffic volumes as reported in the Traffic Study. Future Addition is the addition of previously approved but not yet constructed uses (i.e., approximately 456,968 sf of inpatient, outpatient, and support uses). Project conditions refer to transferring approximately 225,000 sf of outpatient use from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. A Project Alternative was also analyzed in the Traffic Study. The Project Alternative proposes to transfer less square footage (i.e., 150,000 sf rather than 225,000 sf) from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Because the potential impact caused by the Project Alternative to the on -site circulation system would be less than that caused by the Project, only the Project is analyzed in this on -site circulation analysis. In order to account for on -site vehicle trips generated by support uses, LSA requested specific operational information from Hoag Hospital. These support (i.e., engineering, custodial, maintenance, food service, and child care) trips would include support employees who drive from one on -site location to another while performing their job duties (i.e., deliveries and repairs). According to Hoag Hospital, hospital support has a minimum of 20 persons on staff between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Their arrivals and departures are external and are included in the trip rates. Up to 8 service calls from the Upper to Lower Campus occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. For a conservative, worst -case scenario, 8 trips (i.e., 4 inbound and 4 outbound) have been assumed during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Similarly, 20-30 daily deliveries have been estimated. For a worst -case scenario, 30 trips (i.e., 15 inbound and 15 outbound) have been assigned from the Upper and Lower Campus entrances to the delivery route along West Hoag Drive during both peak hours. Security has two vehicles that regularly tour the campus; 2 inbound and 2 outbound trips have been assumed during both peak hours. Master Plan Trip Distribution Using the 2015 and 2025 plus project traffic volumes in the Traffic Study as a general guide, traffic volumes were distributed in and out of the project site through Hoag Drive/Hospital Road, West Hoag Drive/Hospital Road, and Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway. Once traffic is on site; however, it must be treated differently than it would be in a typical traffic study. In a traffic study, it is the project site that generates the traffic, whereas in an on -site circulation analysis, vehicle trips might be generated by the inpatient use, outpatient use, Cancer Center, etc., but it is destined to and from on- site parking structures and parking lots on both the Upper and Lower Campuses. The vehicle trips for each land use were distributed based on proximity of the parking lots and structures, as well as the number of parking spaces provided at each location. Table B summarizes the destinations (parking lots and structures) of the Upper and Lower Campus trips generated in Table A. Figure 3 illustrates PAANM0601\7'raffl6AO:W AnalysiSnwisedldoc M09 /1 I/071, Table A: Hong Ilospital Master Plan EIR Trip Oema-mmu Summary Ree IAJJIiwI M n..., yt onvrvn.W ucs 71 '. nppmeimlwl 456 %H alit MPP" U-L 'I'MaKi­1f1Y 215 E.(Slig'. Future Additina, Exi,llug'+ Future Addllian2 + Prqjecl AM Pak Mer Ur t. a. - a, - - I ur Land tJ,,e Sia, Unit ADT in i out Twal I in Size Unit AD'r in Foat-I Tom T. i a.... Tj six. U.11 ADT I. ml Tom[ . tyuj-7 ta�jl U,,r Ctn,.X fiai41crannpatient 6,80 e)-, uth BuiRdint, onagRatic I (MR1 WaidoL %upjXT(F!wIgcncy6c.,Addta.) -.-436 . fotu 5.335 T§� ....... - TSF T,9 F 10,552 I . - 17 (1 376 -.1-1- 1 11 -M 0 2 0 0 1 7- 6 . 3 . 0 . .... 1 71064 - , ()Mil 533-5 TSF �Ivl 'ISIVI ;51f, - f! 01 1 1 1 T.S 12.50 ---- . ..... a.sv) "Isp 17 �6 3*1 790 5(M 747 Otup.ilat (sauth ffiukling) 'r.SP 0 0 ISF _. 0 0 11 .35 TSF 0 0 0 1) i 11 84 T�i� iZOA93 NP 0! 11 0 ttuipanienomagin CU Inosim, Ts —16. - -T-S 14.127 25 20 iS - - 14 32 121 1 _0 644271 TSF 10,5� 377 291 668 1 05 42-6 631- 7 4 9 a F IU.5-69 3-77 21)1 66H 205 416 f k1l WIA99 ]SF -1 -5iu- -4w 2222 -282 5% 87H ouflpa�'Q-Tc.nfuac s,,,. Buy. iuml L�. 4 i -Is 5 Li 17 5-544 '1 i'Slz I mo -1-10 1 12 17 5544 jll.w 16 Ill N ii -tj Stipp.a(W. turn, P..iLli .... 15.391 27.11 4 TSF TSF 526 2tl 22 56 IS - 35 - 11 2).114 -- . ...... - 27.1 Fj- �rw. 56 Tut'l • - -15 ST ­iI2.5tXt TSF -lif; 28 22 5 IF 1-5 -�a -- isr] 526- 28 -50-1 — T-! 35 ".c, - 42�116 FM T 6MI21 TSF 11,3121 416 322 718 226 d7S 1 701 76.5.349 TSF 226 47.1 701 Y�JQY I TSF 114,&54 1 558 4.13 .7113 645 948 Lower campus 611,116,111 (Cancer c'me-o- 65.(Xk) ni� 2�-M o in i6gl- -63 4 6 -iiW 'k --g 1 3 2�- -I'V� i- Mu a�ma o i7sr 2.111 -- 1 H6 - 63� - 146 -- Alfv� .hI, use', 2222 221 t)K.) Tg. 1"�691 3��7 ; .2114 I I O (Onn �,W.I.Ra (line) 49-tiij Joi 1311 fflll� i�4 1-7724 -4114- 11 o(A'a dr. -i�-�7 .95,S 1-:01 L9 i9 355 O.tp.Iie.I.(Wedi.ttl Of& ,ffiutidlu,) -36 '�JO --- 1 97 SUE7 711 90 70 16U 48 .,;a 113 L6.1 63 146 W9 456 a, 1.449 2i5.027 W4 401 317 7211 218 1 507 725 su,pwymw c,�e cenw; . 7.ww fsFl.. o 6 -6 6 Tint) -1 T147 F D 0 0 1) --. . -.- - . u, -d Care Center u I i t) Su,p �Chit T.� 2222 rir 2222. C.eel 7.8W TSF ... 513 rNF 1 0 1) 1) 12.313 it R 11 11 11 owfa 13.270 Si 45i .4 41 LI 30 43 13.270 V 454 2 i9 z� 1,3 30 -17 �71 13 M I 43 Sup" oicfwi�, Center) 7 7 H64 I�h 0 0 6 a 77� v it 0 01 —10 71,864 �-F o ol 1 (I T4p1 2222. 41 114 95F 454 24 in 43 -t 43 ul. 454 13 91.134 ISF 4.� 24 19 41 IJ 30 Sidi t oc.lzeaeicoji ili mnidino T, I it ;V ��O -�O Oe _0 4-2 fs-� Tsp i A i-A, i i.11 i 0 11 15 ta. 11 -0 1 - a Fo- I -D --I-- -o- 1 0 1 6 Twat T2,UL75 , t l 7 1, 52 f7�8" T P ri -16 1,492 A714 6.148 1 427 1 336 1 W 231 537 1 768 ML270�MFJ13,988L�� 1 433 1 M 1 302 1 01 1 9" L �3.238 1 Ts V 127,101 L246 1 975 2=1 1 675 1 ISm 1 �193 1,343ZWl TSF 1 ItLLL7 16 Ree IAJJIiwI M n..., yt onvrvn.W ucs 71 '. nppmeimlwl 456 %H alit MPP" U-L 'I'MaKi­1f1Y 215 T.I.It II: Hoog It"PlIal mi"k., Pimi EIR Trip G,.,erwlkrn xnd DAir.1muSuri.., . Orur. .... ik" In Orl -Dill I I)EF in't" 1., 01.1 AM 4) 13M o AM � - Im loi fs � Wi joy I'M 2N2 ]I W 75-4 212 447 11 1. .Am 1pm Io I'm 5 Ii P o I lan .0 o I * it I'm 1 15 35 12 I o* I) I.a.- C xn lme I I I AM 40.1 1- 48 ho. iJj mirk m* —I U-11, 4 - I" 21i 11 151S 1 m 7(, -1-45% f 40 - ]R — —0j 7 j�n AM . —o t 0 0 - 1. 0 AM P M 13 31P 11 30 11 11 0 AM 11 G 11 C, 0 Pm 0 --0 0 o nd'd I AM 99-- - 0 769 i 14; 1 A9 317 (Al W 205 W2 441, 32 '34 4 77 -, ;6.1 2s_ 2 Ili j5ii 515 152 12 51 I [f, ;IND fiGl'I:Ii. It XXNY W(1- 1-61, twt— ....... S NMW 110SPITALL ROAD J.rraq Irvine Am 1/1 Hong Hospital f1m: 1,2 AM. 519/402 ... ... PM: 2821596 ISUS and Bill Ore.. Women Is Pavillion Hoag Heart and AM: 28)22 Vascular Institute PM: 1 Si35 AM: 10/8 PM: 5/12 Kathryn G. Fishback Hoag Conference Center Child Care Center AM: 24119 N AM 60/53 ' PM: 114/55 PM: 13/30 -C,ft,gNa A L i&FfaINLFYIAfa .. 210W, q 2 to I kLjjr L� I Patty and George Hoag S" Cancer Center and -f- ACc4s Outpatient Building �• CA1tio il �1v AM: 4031317 \7- PM: 218.507 I [f, ;IND fiGl'I:Ii. It XXNY W(1- 1-61, twt— ....... S 1. %A ARY GCI A'1'1i %. IN1:. AI:I:1'%S AN It 1)N- it "1'1: [:I k[:I. LA "1'I0W ANAL Y 51.1 SI':1"I'EAthi ?k 211119 IIUAI: 1111\1'1 l'AI. MAA1I'S I'I.AN the trip generation for each land use on -site, while Figure 4 shows the assignment of these Future Addition plus Project vehicle trips to each parking structure and parking lot. The trip assignment was overlaid onto the existing year 2007 No- Project volumes at the access intersections, which were obtained from the Traffic Study. On -site vehicle trips generated by support uses, such as engineering, maintenance, etc., were then manually added to the trip assignment. The resulting existing plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan traffic volumes at the access intersections and on the project site are shown in Figure 5. Because support trips were manually added, the vehicle trips shown in Figure 5 are generally higher than the volumes shown in Table B. ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION Primary access to Hoag Hospital is provided at the signalized intersections of Hoag Drive /Hospital Road and Hoag Drive /Pacific Coast Highway (i.e., the Upper and Lower Campus entrances, respectively). A secondary access driveway is located at the unsigualized intersection of West Hoag Drive /Hospital Road. Hoag Drive, South Hoag Drive, and West Hoag Drive are two -lane undivided roadways located internal to the Hoag Hospital site. The roadway cross sections and roadway widths are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. As shown in Figure 7, these roadways generally provide standard I 1 -, 12 -, and 13 -foot travel lanes with curb and gutter. Left- and right -turn lanes are not provided: Sidewalks are provided throughout the Hoag Hospital campus (with the exception of Hoag Drive between South Hoag Drive and West Hoag Drive), providing safe pedestrian access to /from individual buildings, surface parking lots, and parking garages. As stated previously, the purpose of this analysis is to assess the traffic operations of the site access and on -site circulation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. The existing LOS at the Upper and Lower Campus entrances are discussed in the Traffic Study prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Signalized Intersection Operations methodology has been used to determine intersection LOS at the Upper and Lower Campus entrances. Roadway link LOS has been determined using the peak -hour volume -to- capacity (v /c) ratios in each direction based oil a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane. The City considers LOS D to be the upper limit of satisfactory operations for both intersections and roadway links. As shown in Tables C and D, respectively, all analyzed intersections and links are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better). Table C: Existing plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan Intersection LOS Summary AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour Intersection I Delav (sec) ILOSI Delav (sect ILOS 0 2 1 Hoag Drive /Pacific Coast Hiahwav` 1 11.5 1 B 1 15.4 1 B H sec = seconds LOS = level of service 1 Cycle length = 90 see 2 Cycle length = 120 sec; P'NNN10601\TranieUccess Anahxis_revisetl3 Joc,,0911 I M, AM: 40132 PM: 22151 111E \1) xx" 71 .11-. 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ---------- ------ IIOSPITALiio;kU 1k A AM- 142/110 Pm: 77/164 A PM: 65/152 z -.0 . , , 1. X, AM: 121195 J- - ORE CPASt 41 PACIM MGHWAV AM: 2051162 PM: 1111258 AM: 6o/49 PM: 33/76 AM: 4091317 PM: 222/471 FIWIRE t .... aIion Unain:n ion. L J A I :(',VND XX/YY AAIiPki Peak Iloor Volumes * - Driveways Combi44ed N Noce: Peak Lour voLtmna have been mamudIv adjusted to m cmmt for stpport vebide trip+ 6,-, iti AMII'M inbound /outbau nd), vnn "ha lc ,irr4it..r.0 r. IrANM1bkdlt! Iz1A4!'Vil7zadr(M11284)7) FIGURE 5 HOnp, l "lospilal PXistinR PIuS Master Plat) Driveway Peak Hour Volumes ° 17 ° L 3951521 w2441439 e�2A 1011252 �j 4 1� - 3051209 `-818 HOSPITAL AD 4141467 -► P 691142, } r 1418 -, �� 2951298 95135 -r � MIMMNI I(: NM Hoa$ Hospital Roadway Cross Sections Hoag Drive Cross Section A it it Hoag Drive Cross Section B West Hoag drive Cross Section C LL S A FIGURE 7 Hoag Hospdar soscnLe Roadway Cross Section Lane Widths 1: AM1060ItGSectionR9dthsxdr (9111/071 I I.,, 1.4A1 a,. AN, Table D: Existing plus Hong Hospital Muster Plan Roadway Link LOS Summary A rM*l Peak R k Hour Volume 1 V Volume V/C Roadway Segment Capacity I LOS northbound southbound .north of South Hoag Drive northbound southbbund south of South Hoag Drive nortfibound/castbound southbound /westbound west of West Hoag Drive eastbound westbound cast or Chid Care center eastbound Drive westbound south of Hospital Road northbound southboundl :north of Hoag Drive northbound Drive Not"; exceeds City's Level of Service criteria P:`At%'MOW]Vfmfi'wVRevigL&Fmdway 1neks.%WmXiSLi1k9fMantCr Min (x K2007) 1,600 1 459 1'.600, 598 1,600 409 1,600 504 0.29 A 700 1 0.44 037 A 319 i 020 0.26 596 0..32 f A 301 1,600 374 1 11.23 A 0.21.) A 0.17 A A A A 1,660 377 1 0.24 A 398 .. 1 0. . 25 A 1,600 383 0.24 A 350 0-22 1,600 384 4 24 i66 1 '6 i7 336 0.21 A F- - 11.28 1,600 i"q 0.01 A 25 0.02 A 1,600 22 0.01 i A 1,600 72 0.05 A A 1,660 132 0.08 0.12 A LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ACCESS AND ON S! If. CIRCULATION ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 2007 NOAG 110SP2 UAL MASTER PLA.% In addition, the 2000 HCM Signalized Intersection Operations methodology was used to determine the vehicle queues at Hoag Drive/Hospital Road and Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway. The back of the queue is the number of vehicles queued, which depends on the number of arriving vehicles and vehicles that do not clear the intersection during a given green phase (overflow). The average queue is calculated based on uniform arrival patterns, signal progression for a given lane group, random arrivals, and overflow queues that can occur even when demand is below capacity, as described in the HCM (Appendix G of Chapter 16). The average vehicle queues at Hoag Drive/Hospital Road and Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway are presented in Tables E and F, respectively. Table E: Existing Plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan Vehicle Queues At Hoag Drive/Hospital Road Turn Lane Pocket Length (ft) Average Vehicle Queue AM Peak Hour ft PM Peak Hour (ft) Northbound left 50 44 44 Northbound through 50 44 44 Northbound right 50 154 242 Westbound left 200 176 66 ft = feet Table F:. Existing plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan Vehicle Queues at Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway Turn Lane Pocket Length (ft) Average Vehicle Queue AMPeakHour ft PMPeakHour ft Southbound left 125 44 66 Southbound throu 125 0 0 Southbound fight 1 100 22 22 Eastbound left i 265 22 44 ft = feet Figure 8 illustrates the Upper Campus entrance at Hoag Drive /Hospital Road. As shown in this figure and in Table E. the existing turn pocket lengths are sufficient to accommodate the forecast inbound vehicle queues during both peak hours. Although the forecast northbound right -turn vehicle queue exceeds the length of the turn lane, vehicle stacking would only occur on site. Access and circulation would not be affected, as vehicles entering the site via Hospital Road may access the emergency vehicle /drop -off driveway unobstructed. Queuing is not a concern on the public street, as the westbound left -turn queue at Hoag Drive/Hospital Road is not expected to exceed the length of the turn lane. Therefore, the westbound left -turn queue would not impede the through movement along Hospital Road. Because Hoag Drive /Hospital Road is forecast to operate at LOS C or better during the peak hours, there are adequate residual capacities at the intersection to ensure that adequate green time is provided for all the queued vehicles making a westbound left turn to clear during each cycle. P.''ANM060 t;Tmffic�Acros Anahsis revisedldoc x. 09/1 1,1)7,, 14 t '4 HOSPITAL RD a 'al 4 r- r s tt 1 4 A,o 'cal L5A I:. \NMI16al a b.l IuJg Un @I IoHpuml kd.vJr PHA � in71 1 4 �4 Ai�tAflU z. U �... -1 .... 200'- ... .. _. q Ao4µNlW.f ... HOAG DRIVE 44 4, 4\ y �v4 eb f L FIGURE 8 ll, aq I6,ry,ar;l Hoag Drive /Hospital Road LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ACCESS AND ON SITE CIRCIII.ATION ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER ?On' DOAG HOSPI'I'AI. MASTER PLAR Figure 9 illustrates the Lower Campus entrance at Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway. As shown in this figure and in Table F, the existing turn pocket lengths are sufficient to accommodate the inbound and outbound vehicle queues during both peak hours. No on -site or off -site improvements are required at this location. POTENTIAL CIRCULATION REVIEW GUIDELINES Because the proposed project is the transfer of square footage from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus and not discrete building elements or locations, a detailed site analysis cannot be provided for the internal roadways at this time. The traffic study that was prepared for the EIR identifies and mitigates circulation impacts to roadways and intersections external to the project site. This study concludes that on -site traffic will not be significantly adversely impacted by build out of the Master Plan inclusive of the proposed project. To confirm that discrete elements of the Master Plan do not create significant adverse impacts internal to the site, the following design criteria are proposed for use in evaluating applications for individual building projects. These criteria provide guidance on the minimum distance between on -site driveways, the minimum left -turn volume requiring a turn pocket, and a method for evaluating queuing at on -site parking garage entrances. Distance between Driveways When considering individual building projects and future access onto internal roadways, the distance between driveways should be considered. On public roadways, closely spaced driveways can introduce friction into the traffic stream and create conflict areas along the roadway, thereby increasing the potential for collisions. On roadways internal to the Hoag Hospital campus, vehicle speeds are lower and delays due to turning movements are more expected and tolerated than on the public street. However, it is still necessary- to maintain some minimum separation of driveways to decrease the potential for collisions and maintain efficient traffic flow throughout the site. Many of the standards for minimum driveway spacing that are provided in resources such as the Access Management Manual' or ITE's Transportation and Land Development' are developed to provide minimum stopping sight distance or maintain vehicular speeds along an arterial. Because the lower speeds on campus would not require significant sight distance and drivers would not expect unimpeded progression, the primary function of minimum intersection spacing on the Hoag Hospital campus should be to minimize conflict points along the internal roadways. Conflict points are created when a vehicle slows to turn into a driveway or when a vehicle turns out of a driveway. Drivers traveling along Hoag Drive can identify and avoid one conflict point; however, if multiple conflict points are located in close proximity'' to one another, the risk of collisions is increased. Access ManagementiVanual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. 2003. Transportation and Land Development, Stover V. and Koepke F., Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 1988. P,ANM060FTIBffcACCess AnalyNis _�msedldoc.09 /1]W7 PACIFIC COAST HWY L b A FIGURE 9 Floag Diivc/Pacific Coast I lighway I ANN1060 I (i I D,&- 1'( 11 M, ('Y 11;1)7, LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. SEPTEMBER 2001 ACCESS AND ON SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS IIOAU HOSPITAL MASTFE PLAN The Access Management Manual provides minimum driveway spacing to reduce the collision potential due to overlapping right -turn maneuvers. An overlapping right -turn maneuver would be created when closely spaced driveways create the need for the driver on the main street to monitor two driveways at once for exiting vehicles. To reduce the potential for overlapping right -turn maneuvers, the Access Management Manual recommends a minimum driveway spacing of 185 fleet (ft) on a roadway with a speed of 30 miles per hour (mph).' The 185 -foot driveway spacing should be considered a guide when evaluating future on -site development proposals and conditions such as the location of other driveways, traffic volumes on Hoag Drive, and speed limits. Left -Turn Lanes Left turns into and out of on -site driveways have the potential to create delays and queuing on the project site. When traffic volumes are low, left turns can be made with relative ease and minimal delay. However, as the site is developed, on -site traffic volumes will increase, and the number of gaps in traffic that allow left turns may be reduced. The HCM states that `the presence of exclusive left - turn lanes is determined by the volume of left -turn traffic, opposing volumes, and safety considerations." Provision of a single, exclusive left -turn lane is recommended when the turn volume exceeds 100 vehicles per hour. When evaluating individual building projects and determining whether a left -turn lane will be necessary for future on -site driveways, the HCM criteria of 100 left -turn vehicles should be considered. In some cases, the 100 - vehicle criteria will be exceeded; however, a left -turn lane may still not be required. The opposing traffic volume should be considered, and an HCM analysis of the potential queuing at the intersection should be prepared before determining the need for a left -turn lane on site. Queuing at Parldng Garage Entrances As shown in Figure 4, most vehicles on the Hoag Hospital site are intended to use one of the several parking garages. At some parking garage entrances, vehicles must enter through a gated entry. During peak times, such as during a shift change, delays may occur at the parking structure gates and cause vehicles to queue onto Hoag Drive. As individual building projects are considered, determining the potential for queuing at proposed parking structure entrance gates should involve preparation of a gate - stacking analysis that is consistent with the methodology set forth in Entrance -Exit Design and Control for Major ParkingFacilities.2 This methodology predicts queues based on the peak -hour demand, the type of access control and service rate, and the number of lanes at the entrance. A copy of the report is provided in Appendix B. Gated entrances at all new on -site parking structures should be evaluated using the methodology provided in the Crommelin report. I Access Management Manual, Table 9 -7. 2 Entrance -Exit Design and Control for Major Parking Facilities. Robert W. Crommelin, P.E., October 5, 1972. P:vANMW11TrafreA=Ss Analysis _n isedldoc rc09111 N7n 18 I.SA ASSOCIATES. INC. S!1'TEMBER 1011-1 CONCLUSIONS ACCI:Sti %NO ON'S17E. CIRGUI.A'rION ANALYSIS H ]AC Ho5P1'r, MASTER PLAN Based on the analysis of the forecast traffic volumes, the access intersections and internal driveways will operate at satisfactory LOS with build out of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. The vehicle queues can be accommodated on site without blocking the driveways along Hoag Drive. The through movements along Hospital Road and Pacific Coast Highway are expected to be unimpeded by the forecast left -turn queues by vehicles entering Hoag Hospital. Therefore, implementation of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan will not significantly impact the operation of the access intersections and circulation on site. The project could be accommodated along the planned roadways without any modifications on site. P - ANN406O `.Trar ie'AccesS Analysis_mvisedldoc A9' 1 I:i17n 19 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. SEPTEMBER 2007 APPENDIX A HCM SHEETS P "-ANM06O15T2SCACcm Pmabsis_raeisdd3.doc 09f I 1,107u ACCESS ANI) ON SITE CIACULA11ON ANALYSIS Nt)AC IIOSPI "IAI. MASIE& YLA< Existing + Project AM Thu Sep 6, 2007 13:15:24 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Hoag Dr /Hospital Rd Cycle (sec): 90 Critical Vol. /Cap.(%): 0 -634 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y +R =4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 27.1 op*_imal Cycle: 61 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Hoag Dr Hospital Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Sound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R .. - _ - R ____________.._______________ I; _________________ _____________� --------------- .. -on trol: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 t 1_______________ ,__ _______- _____;(_______________e Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 0 0 341 0 36 69 295 0 0 165 395 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 341 0 36 69 295 0 0 i65 395 Added Vol: 5'_ 108 300 0 138 0 0 0 65 385 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 51 108 300 341 138 36 69 295 65 385 i65 395 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 -00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P--1F Volume: 51 108 300 341 138 36 69 295 65 385 165 395 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: Si 108 300 341 138 36 69 295 65 385 165 395 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 51 108 300 341 138 36 69 295 65 385 165 395 ------------ ?--------------- _______________ __ _____________- j______________ -j Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.98 0.98 0.85 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.37 0.92 0.92 0.49 0.85 0.85 Lanes: 0.32 0.68 1.00 1.50 0.40 0.10 1.00 1.64 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.60 Final Sat.: 600 1270 1615 2722 729 190 699 2878 634 933 1614 1614 ------------ --------------- I_______________(-------------------------------- � Capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.41 0.10 0.24 Crit Moves: ++ + + ++ + + ++ Green /Cycle: 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Volume /Cap: 0.38 0.38 0.83 0.55 0.83 0.83 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.83 0.21 0.49 Uniform Del: 29.7 29.7 33.4 30.8 33.2 33.2 12.7 12.8 12.6 19.6 12.8 15.2 IncremntDel: 0.6 0.6 15.3 0.7 9.5 9.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 12.3 0.0 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay /Veh: 30.3 30.3 48.7 31.5 42.7 42.7 13 -0 12.9 12.9 31.9 12.8 15.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _.00 1.01, 1.00 AdjDel /Veil: 30.3 30.3 48.7 31.5 42.7 42.7 13.0 12.9 12.9 31.9 12.8 15.5 LOS by Move: C C D C D D B B S C B B HCM2kAVgQ: = 4 11 6 12 12 1 3 3 12 3 e rr���rwrrrrrrrrrarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�r♦ rrrr�rrrrrrraxr�rr >rrrrrrrrrre :rrrr +r >rrrxrr Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Existing > Project PM Thu Sep 6, 2007 13:15:52 Page 3 -1 _________________________________________________ _______________________________ _.._______________________________________________ ___________________ ____________ Level Of Service Computacior_ Report 2000 HCM Operations Method iFUture Volume Alternative) intersection #2 Hoag Dr /Hospital Rd Cycle (sec): 90 Critical Vol. /CaD_ :X!: 0.915 LOSS Time (sec): 5 (Y-R=4.0 sec) Average Delay ;sec, /veh): 34.3 Optimal Cycle: 96 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Hoag Dr Hospital Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Sound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - - R ------------ I--------------- --------------- :i--------------- i�_______ ^_______i Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1! 0 0 _ 0 1 i 0 2 JO 1 1 0 ____________ _______________ ___ ____________�i__________-____'; �_______________• Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 0 0 435 0 108 142 298 0 0 252 521 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Co initial See: 0 0 0 435 0 108 142 298 0 0 252 521 Added Vol: 79 165 456 0 75 0 0 0 35 209 0 .. PasserBVVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 Initial Put: 79 165 456 435 75 108 142 298 35 209 252 521 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00:.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 79 165 456 435 75 106 142 298 35 209 252 521 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 79 165 456 435 75 108 142 298 35 209 252 521 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 MLF Adj: i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '_ -00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol -: 79 165 456 435 75 108 142 298 35 209 252 521 ________________: i_______________{__ _____________,i_______- _______� Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ?900 1900 Adjustment: 0.98 0.98 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.21 0.93 0.93 0.48 0.85 0.85 Lanes: 0.32 0.68 1.00 1.54 0.19 0.27 1.00 1 -79 0.21 1.00 '_.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 605 1264 1615 2759 335 482 397 3179 373 914 1623 1623 ____________ --------------- ---------------- --------------- I.--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.13 0.13 0.28 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.36 0.09 0.09 0.23 0.16 0.32 Crit Moves. * * ** *• ** . * ** Green /Cycle: 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.39 0.39 0 -39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Volume /Cap: 0.42 0.42 0.91 0.64 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.24 0.24 0.59 0.10 0.82 Uniform Del: 24.7 24.7 30.0 30.5 33.1 33.1 26.0 16.4 18.4 21.6 '19.8 24.6 1ncremntDel: 0.5 0.5 21.5 1.5 17.1 17.1 47 -8 0.1 0.1 2 -5 0 -1 5.9 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 -00 1-.00 1.00 1.00 Delay /Veh: 25.2 25.2 51.4 32.0 50.2 50.2 73.8 18.5 18.5 24.1 19 -9 30.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.Do AdjDel /Veh: 25.2 25.2 51.4 32.0 50.2 50.2 73.8 16.5 18.5 24.1 19.9 30.4 Los by Move: C C D C D D _, B B C B C HC'M2kAVgQ: 6 6 16 -8 15 15 7 3 3 5 5 16 Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. F,icensed to LSA ASSOC. 7R7VIU2, CA Existing + Project 7N. Thu Sep 6, 2007 13:15:24 Page 4 -1 _________________________________________________ _______________________________ ___ ______________________ ________________ __ _____________ Level Of Service Computation Peport 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volune Alternative! kRkRYkRkRkRR* Rk *kRRRRkkkk *RRRRRRRkkRkkkRRYkkkR kkkYRRkRRRRRRRikRRRRRkkRRkRkRRYRkk Intersection #3 Hoag Dr /PCH R* RRRkRkRY RkRkRRkkRRRRRkkkkRRRRkkkRRkRRkkkk# RRRkkRkk *RkRRRRkkRRRRRk *kRYkRR *RkRRY Cvcle (sec): 120 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.535 Loss Time (sec`: 5 (Y +R =4.0 Sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 11.5 Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: B YYYY: YYYYYYY* YY: tYY* YYY* YYYYY* YYYYYYYYYYY* YY* YY** YYi .YYYYYYYYY *rtYYYYYYYYY *YYYYYYYk Street Name: Hoag Dr PCH Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - P. L - T - P. L - - - R L - . - F. I;-______________i ______________ Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 i 0 i! 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 4 0 7 5 0 2 2 2189 14 13 765 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 4 0 7 5 0 2 2 2189 14 13 765 5 Added Vol: 0 0 0 223 0 77 98 0 0 0 C 285 Passe?ByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 Initial Fut: 4 0 7 228 0 79 100 2189 14 13 755 290 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.G. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 4 0 7 228 0 79 100 2189 14 L3 765 290 Reduct- Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 11 0 Reduced Vol: 4 0 7 228 0 79 100 2189 14 13 765 290 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 4 0 7 228 .0 79 100 2189 14 13 -65 290 ------------ :--------------- !_______________ iI--------------- _______________; Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 '_900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 -.900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.93 1.00 0.93 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.87 0.87 Lanes: 0.36 0.00 0.64 1.74 0.00 1.26 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 3.00 1'.00 Final Sat.: 620 0 1085 3067 0 2213 1805 5149 33 1805 4974 1658 ___________________________ --------------- ;--------------- ;_______________ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.43 0.43 0.01 0.15 0.17 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * *Y * * ** Green /Cycle: 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.19 0.79 0.79 0.01 0.61 0.6i Volume /Cap: 0.54 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.26 0.29 C.54 0.54 0.54 0.25 0.29 Uniform Del: 58.9 0.0 58.9 48.1 0.0 46.1 41.2 4.4 4.4 58.6 10.6 19.9 increr..ntDel: 25.0 0.0 25.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 O.i 0.1 21.4 0.0 0.0 initQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0'A 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 i.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay /Veh:, 83.9 0.0 83.9 49.1 0.0 46.3 41.7 4.6 4.6 80.3 10.6 10.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I-OC 1.00 1.00 Adj Del /Veh: 83.9 0.0 63.9 49.1 0.0 46.3 41.7 4.6 4.6 60.3 10.6 10.9 LOS by Move: F A F D A D D A A F B B HCM2xAvgQ: 1 0 1 5 0 2 = 1. 11 _ 5 5 Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRi'INE, CA Existing + Project Pn! Thu Sep 6, 2007 13:15:52 Page 4 -1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 RCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alter-.ative) Intersection #3 Hoag Dr /PCH Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol. /Cap. {W : 0.535 loss Time (sec): 5 (Y +R -4.0 sec) Average Delay {seciveh): 15.4 Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: B Street Fame: Hoag Dr PCH Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound wrest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - _ - R ------------ --------------- Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 i! 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 i 0 3 1 0 ____________ i__ _____________ _______________� !;______________ E Volume Module: PM. Peak Hour Base Vol: 3 0 12 5 0 2 2 1075 12 59 2301 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 =.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 0 12 5 0 2 2 1075 12 59 230' 5 Added 'vol: 0 0 0 347 0 118 53 D 0 0 0 154 Passer3yVO1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ., Initial Fut: 11 0 12 352 0 120 55 1075 12 59 2301 159 Use, Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 3 0 12 352 0 120 55 1075 12 59 2301 159 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 Reduced Vol: 3 0 12 352 0 120 55 1.075 i2 59 2301 159 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 ML-. Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.30 1.00 Final Vol.: 3 0 12 352 0 120 55 1075 12 59 2301 159 _______ (_______________ --------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sac /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 -.900 1900 1900 '_900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.88 0.93 1.00 0.53 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.30 0.90 Lanes: 0.20 0.00 0.80 1.75 0.00 1.25 1.00 2.97 0.03 1.00 3.74 0.26 Final Sat.: 336 0 1342 3076 0 2210 1605 5119 57 1805 6404 4 =3 ____________ --------------- I--------------- i _______________ - --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.36 0.36 Cr:t Moves: ____ Green /Cycle: 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.06 0.63 0.63 0.10 0.67 0.67 Volume /Cap: 0.54 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.25 0.54 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.54 0.54 uniform Del: 58.5 0.0 58.5 41.9 0.0 39.2 55.0 10.4 10.4 50.5 10.1 10.1 IncremntDel: 18.8 0.0 18.8 0.6 0.0 0.1 5.4 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay /Veh: 77.3 0.0 77.3 42.5 0.0 39.3. 60.5 10.5 10.5 51.6 i0.3 10.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel /Veh: 77.3 0.0 77.3 42.5 0.0 39.3 60.5 10.5 10.5 51.6 10.3 50.3 LOS by Move: E A E D A D E B B D B B HCM2kAvgQ: 1 0 1 7 0 3 3 7 7 2 13 Tra`fix 7,8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA I.SA ASSOCIATES. INC. SErIEMP};R 20" APPENDIX B ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCVI.,A'rION ANALYSIS IIOAr': HOSPITAL MA41ER PLAN ENTRANCE -EXIT DESIGN AND CONTROL FOR MAJOR PARKING FACILITIES P; lANM0601,Tratilc.Acccss An*sis reeBecildoc.09'11,07,, i a ENTRA NCE -EXIT DESIGN AND CONTROL FOR �,LkJOR PARKING FACILIT -TES Robert W. Crom nelin. P.E.. President Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. Encino, California. Prepared for Presentation at: "SEMINAR '72" Los Angeles Parkins Association, Si1.tT6re- [lotei Los Angeles, California, Cctober 5, 1972 - it hasn't been* too .many years since a 500 -space garage thought o.' as -4, Large parking Facility: :;In recent years, garages.= _ with over 4,000 spaces have been placed ir. operat;ipn and .lar5er ones are on the drawirig._boards_ Stccess.in the;ppe-rati9i-, of these major parka -ng, facilit2Ms' is dependent upon proper desig. 'aECess, to the facility, in aeid tfan to efficient management. Prc�visYo.n' . of adequate access design and control is.a significant item,�hich . must be considered as part of the.first design concept. - 'She `tra-f- sic engineer, teamed with the owner's representatives ', :'the . arckitect, and the fu -tore parking operator, mast: work ; ogethef- to. develop:'a proper access and control plan 1 have recently -read a- statement . by z natiorwide garage design consultant that reservoir space for' entrances to garages is no longer an important consideration 'be- cause of the capacity of ticket dispensers . with gate's. _This is completely untrue as, will be brought ouE later..• Thinking of type can lead to ineffective design which causes -backip. onto pub-Iic streets with the accompanying potential hazards'and.congestion_` This paper covers tii ee principal= :tress `of concern:'.(1)'de- termination of the number of entrance and exit. lanes= required based upon the parking control strategy and type of parker "served: (2) data to allow comparison of the capacities o£ the various types. of control strategies to allow selection.,o£ the one appropriate for each Eacilit::, and; (3) determinatidn .Of needed reservoir space based upon the control strategy.ze'lected. Typical capacity values -or the various methods of parkin_ control are included in this paper. A word of caution is neces- sary since there is much variation it capacity values due to physical conditions present as well as the familiarity of the parker with the parking facility itself. Each major facility requires detailed analysis of its needs and generalized factors are not always adequate. Design `tethodoloev In order to provide adequate access design and control for r.-ajor parking facilities, it is necessary to identify the probable characteristics of the future users of the facility. In this paper it is assumed that the size of the garage has been determined based upon a comprehensive parking study (general public facilities), or the amount necessary to serve a given land use (single purpose facility). The first step is to determine directional teak hour vol mes as related to the total size of the parking garage. Based upon the principal land use served, tables are included in this paper which allow the designer to prepare an estimate of peak hour volumes. In general. our research has found that it is adequate to assu,ae for design purposes that the/,'"Morning inbound peak flows are approximately . equal to the evening outbound peak flow After determining the peak volumes, a control strategy must be selected which would be appro- priate for the intended operation of the garage. Selection of whether it would be best to allow parkers to enter without charge and pay as they leave or to pay a flat fee on the way in and have no control upon exiting will have a'significant impact upon traffic capacity. Vhether to use no fee, a flat fee, a variable fee. or a combination of fees must be determined as well as whether it is possiL•1e to receive the payment in advance. or to collect individual payment of the fee. All of these alternatives should be considered for each individual parking facility in order to determine its proper control strategy. ':hen the peak Four volumes and control strategy have been dcto=ired, it is then possible to determine the number of lanes -2- ( which will be required to adequately serve inbound and outbound traffic to the parking facility. This requires knowledge of typical service rates of various methods of parking control. The next step is to deter -line the amount of reservoir space required to serve the parking control location. Following all- of these steps will lead to an efficient, well- working garage which will have minimum impact upon the surrounding street system. termination of Peak -Hour Volumes Comprehensive parking studies have provided much information concerning the characteristics of the users of major parking facilities. In general, it may be stated that the traffic charac- teristics of a garage will be principally related to the trip purpose of the user and the type of land use served by the facility. 'oth of these items relate to the Length of time the' parker is in t`e facility and the time of day during which major traffic flows occur. Table 1 was prepared which compares the trip purpose of the parker with the Length of time which he parks as observed in the Las Angeles Central Business District. Employees are considered Long -term parkers since 80 percent parked three hours or Longer; at the peak time of the day, 84 percent of the daily employee parkers were present; and, their average parking duration was 5.5 hours. A garage, which serves employees primarily, would tend to have higher peak hour volumes than would one which serves the other TsD la l TRIP PURPOSE YS LE•'Cn{ OF T141E PARKED Baste: Los Angeles C3D Psrk lob Scudy, 1967 PERCENT OF DAILY PARKERS RATIO or VMM DURATIC9 S- ..C.. H PEAK ACCIM ATION TRIP PURPOSE SIIORT -TER`! LO::C -TERM. TO TOTAL DAILY AMACE (less tyn i hrs.l (7 hrs. yr lon¢erl PARKERS DURATION (per<encl _ lPerc enJ (hwrs) York 201 80Z 0.86 5.6 ShePPing 85 15 0.26 1.6 Ca -sere lal s-us loess 86 le 0.25 1.5 Eeelet -ese reeclan 9l 9 0.26 1.2 Personal Business at 6 O.2i 1.0 Eat Ne.1 97 7 0.22 0.9 Baste: Los Angeles C3D Psrk lob Scudy, 1967 uses shown in the table. AS an example, �5 percent of the shoppers had a parking duration of less than three '-ours with an average duration of 1.6 hours. More importantly, only 26 percent of the total daily parkers with a shopping trip purpose were present at the time of peak accumulation- This indicates that the peak hour inbound or outbound volume will be less for a garage serving prin- cipally shopper packers than for a. similar sized facility serving only employees. In order to relate the type of land use served with peak hour volumes. ,.:Le term enterinz- leavinz ratio has been used.- This tern r�2r�sencs -t e- aL se of cars enter n¢ or leavin_ during a peak hour .dic•.ided b} the_maxinum_accumL L at, io-cars in the parkin - facility (taken as the size- of._the- fac_il- it;v_). <1f the inbound morning or outbound evening peak hour is equal to half the number of -paces in the garage, the entering - leaving ratio is 0 -50. Using data obtained by special counts taken by personnel of my firm, as well as information reported in various parking studies, Table 2 was prepared which shows the range of values of the entering - leaving ratio for various land uses served - it may be seen in the table that the range of values for an individual park- ing facility may vary considerably. This variation may be ex- plained 'oy the typical length of time parked as well as the variation in the ti -es when employees must start work or are let out of work. TsD la 2 L M USE SMID VS L %rEi1..nC- LaV:SO d ,Jo PRINCIPAL L+ND USE SEPVEO E1TEAt::O- LE\VE]6(a) PATIO (Ran ;e of Values) Hopei- :!ecel 0.25 -0.75 Colle-e- :niversicr 0.40 -0. Pu ce(= Cup.. —:c ial 1S -0.665 5 PVOI'.a Office Pu Lld ir; 0 0 -.45 -0.65 Pr Leace Off Leee :Silo /plc Tenant 0.45 -0.60 Pcleece Offices•SSnq le iecune 0.55 -0.75 0.0 -0.70 icoal M.d e l Office, 0.770 -0.85 Alrpa Airport (public parking) 0.70 -0.95 anu rnccurir.; Plano 0.70 -0.90 Pesuuranc (e ic-do.m) 0.90 -0.95 Dr anon De nk 0.90 -1.30 of cars entering and Leae Lp; Ln pea, hour divided by ma,., "' c -, Laclon of cars (ca YU 4y of facillcy) Source: SP-IL-L councn by Ar and A; aer laus parkin, scadLes by others -L - in locations where t`.ere is some staggering of employrent hours, the entering- leaving ratio tends to be lower. The characteristics of the potential users of the parking = acility must be studied in detail to arrive at the proper entering ratio. Once the entering- leaving ratio has been selected, it is possible to determine the actual peak hour design vole =mes to be used in decer^ining the parking control strategy and the design of access lanes. Parkinz Control Stratery Selection Selection of the proper type of parking control strategy is exceedingly important in the successful operation of a major park- ing facility. The strategy involves the method of parking control, the charge which will be placed upon the user, and the type of payme.n.c to be collected from the user. Table 3 shows the applica- tion of various control strategies as related to the type of parking facility used as well as to the type of parking control equipment. For shopper and business parkers, it is normal to allow free entry with payment of a variable fee on an individual basis as they exit the garage. In the case of employees, it is more normal to allow them to enter freely and have a prepaid monthly charge which could be checked through the use of parking permits, coded cards, tokens, or other means as they exit. Parkers at sports everts exhibit high peak volumes but have a length of time parked which can be estimated. Table 3 APPLICATION OF VARIOUS CONTROL SS TECIES CO. TROL S`Li ATECY APPL -UbI=. C01MOL METNOm TYPE [FARCE TYPE PAr.F_YT Free -In Pay -Ln Flse varcable P:c- 1ndiv Ldual I: S`1 Par�_Op,c Fre< -Out Fc< paLd Pay. ant Prcfcrrcd °a -ned To Sc�c: E- afayce x x x x Cf Ctm Aldc. VLaICar x x x Sppar" Evcnt x x x 59.0cr x x x Swdcnt x x x Alr TraVClcr x x x Contr.[ T.O. TLCkcC SPLttar x x x Genie ri ACtcndanc x x x x x x Ttm, St--n %ticc r --Lly x x x Coded Card X x x x CPI n- Up crated Cat. x x x TYS Cn -i .�cr cccd Gcc x x x x x Park LeS me :cr - - x X x For this type of condition„ it is much more appropriate to collect a flat fee inbound and to have no control outbound. This latter type of control was the one whic:^.•ae recommended for use at the Los Angeles Convention Center. Parkinz Control Operatin£ Characteristics Table 4 indicates our findings concerning the service races for variocs types of parking controls. he have taken the design service race as being equal to 80 percent of the maximum service rate. There is considerable variation in service rates and care- ful study -.,rust be given to the probable characteristics of the users of the parking facility as well as the experience of the personnel operating the facility. For the control measures normally used in entering a facility, the average headways vary from 3.6 seconds per vehicle for a clear aisle with no control to 20.4 seconds per vehicle for a coin - operated gate. In terms of design hourly capacities, the rates would be 800 per hour per Lane for clear aisles and only 140 per hour per la-,,e for coin - operated gates. The most common type of control used at maior parking facilities is the ticket dispenser with a gate. Re- search in England identified the fact that there is a significant difference in the capacity of this equipment depending upon whether the parker has an easy direct approach or if a sharp turn is required to approach the equipment. This is obvious since a straight approach allows a parker to position himself in a reasonable location to pull the ticket to.open the gate. Thus, the design of the approach to a ticket d isoenser can cause the.hourly capacities to vary between 305 and 520 vehicles per hour. Internally. the circulation pattern can affect the capacity of the inbound approach. It is very important to have a minimum of interference within the parking facility so that once a driver leaves the entrance parking control, he can do so without delaying the next inbound parker immediately behind him. This can be acco,�.- plished by avoiding situations where outbound parkers queued up from the exit control block parkers entering the facility. -6- Table 4 PARKING CONTROL SERVICE RATE TYPE OF CON730L Entering: Clear aisle, no c6r.crol Ticket dispenser, no gate Time Stamp and hand to driver Coded -card operated gate Cashier, flat fee, no gate No information given Direction -info needed Ticket dispenser w /gate Sharp turn Cc approach Easy direct approach Coin operated gate TYPICAL SERVICE RATES PER LANE(a) AVERAGE HOURLY CAPACITY HEADWAY Desien(b) Maximuri (Sec /Veh) (Veh /Hr) (Veh /Hr) Internal: Clear aisle or rang, no parking Straight ramp w /bend @ end Circular ramp, 30'R G C/L Aisle with adjacent 9 x 18' stalls Inbound Outbound Exiting: Light street congestion Moderate street congestion Coded card /toke:- operated gate Cashier, flat fee w /gate Cashier, variable fee w /gate Coin operated gate 3.6 800 1,000 5.0 575 720 8.5) 340 425 8.9 340 425 9.2 310 390 14.8 195 250 9.5 305 380 5.5 520 650 20.4 140 175 2.0 1,200 1,800 2.2 1,000 1,610 2.2 840 1,650 3.5 830 1,040 8.6 335 420 7.2 400 500 9.0 320 400 9.0 320 400 13.4 215 270 19.5 150 185 20.4 140 175 (a)Assumes no significant interference by pedestrians, other traffic, etc. (b) Taken as 807 of maximum rate; require 6 car lengths reservoir in advance of control points. O2 k- U? 0 20 CL W m U 6 L 15 U? o 0 L Z a 10 I 7 W ? m (r 5 W 5 I I •- i 0) Not Not exceeded 1 time in 100 t I Not exceeded k5 times in 100 e` I� Average ueue l.enath W 0 re 0 TRAFFIC INTENSITY (Average Arrival Rate = Average Service Rate) tl Assu.T.Dr ions 1. Arrivals follow a Poisson Distriiution 4er.ice rate can be represented by an esponencial prooabiliL function: 3. Flow is equally dividl'ed between eaca lane if -crc than one is available. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 '.cte: To obtain reservoir length, use 22 reef nFr vehicle. W 0 re 0 TRAFFIC INTENSITY (Average Arrival Rate = Average Service Rate) tl Assu.T.Dr ions 1. Arrivals follow a Poisson Distriiution 4er.ice rate can be represented by an esponencial prooabiliL function: 3. Flow is equally dividl'ed between eaca lane if -crc than one is available. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 '.cte: To obtain reservoir length, use 22 reef nFr vehicle. •Te capacity of exits from a major parking facility are dependent upon adequate space approaching the exit control local =on as well as adequate reservoir between that location and the driveway to the public street. Analysis must be con- ducted on both of these reservoir needs and sufficient. lanes as well as sufficient reservoir length provided to allow proper operation The emphasis of this paper will be upon tle capacity of the exiting parking control itself. The most common type of operation involves use of a cashier collecting a variable fee trom a parker based upon length of time- parked. This type of control has a capacity of approximately 150 vehicles per hour. Another approach might be to have the parker pay his fee to the cashier before entering his car and'then utilize a token operated zate as a means of exit control. This control strategy would have over :::ice the capacity of a cashier lane itself and could have application where there is insufficient space to provide an adequa:e number of cashier lanes. .eser•.,oir 'weeds If you have ever watc'ed cars approaching any type of parking control, you know that they do not come at an even rate. Ever. thous^ there may be nearby traffic signals which may cause the approaching parkers to arrive in groups or platoons, ramdom arrival is the normal approach characteristic assumed. Research has shown that ramdom arrivals or events in a traffic stream tend to follow the Poisson mathematical distribution. This distribution provides a means that. if the average rate is known, the probability of exceeding a given volume in a unit of time may be calculated. Thus, if you know the average vo1u.:.e, you may calculate the surges i-r . volume to allow design of reservoir space.. As an example, if the average number of cars in a five- minute interval is 10, use of poisso-, statistical techniques will yield the fact that no more than 1: cars will arrive in a five - minute interval within a probe - hilit•: that this amount will be exceeded only one time in a 100 five- minute intervals. Use of these calculation techniques allow the determination of the amount of reservoir required to serve a yiver: ::,pe of parking concrcl. FACIL37Y SIZE V S A0062 EUS .pj a � 2500 J All Q 0 h G O 2000 W m s m� 05 �� I ° ° 4T N a o -r .� �� i /0 Q (n 1500 Q mpleVAccas3 i 1000 : LL Space Garage ving Retail Commercial 0 l Peak Hour Volume 500 X560 Vehicles per iHour (In or Out) Needs: 2 Ticket Dispenser Q ILanes 4 Cashier 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 PEAK HOUR VOLUME (IN OR OUT) IN OUT Cazhler — Variable Fee 2 :he relationship between the arrival of vehicles and t ^e abilic }• of the parking control equipment or strategy tp ;angle these vehicles are the most important items in,detertmining reservoir space. If the average number of arrivals per unit of time is called "v" and "s" is the average rate of service (disc" -arge) per unit of time, the ratio of v/s is used to determine the amount of reservoir space. This ratio is called traffic intensity,( "i "). The average length of - -tmK queue (—q) behind the vehicle being serviced is equal to q =(iii) This formula assumes that the arrival of vehicles a-t the service poi--t follows a rardo= dis_ri- bution. the servicing time for vehicles car. be reoresented by an exponen'cial probability function, and that the flow is equally divided among service facilities if there is more Char. one lane servin_ a given area of the garage. Knowing the average queue length and selecting a probability value which represents the frequency that the design length will be exceeded, will alto -w the designer to determine the amount of reservoir required behind the service position. These formulas and probabilities were utilized to prepare Figure 1 which compares traffic intensity with required reservoir for common probabilities used in design. The mache:racics are such chat, as the average volune approaches the averaz=- service race, the amount of backup will be in_i mite. In addition, the probability that the amount of reservoir space =or a given volume will rever be exceeded also is infinite. In actcality, these conditions do not occur but the general relationships ^old true based uDon our field obser. :at ions. A..5 .:a?; be noted in the -Figure, 'an insignificant amount of reservoir is required when the average arrival rate is 50 percent rr less of the average service rate of the parking control device. At this level, only a cwo -car reservoir would be required. Is the ratio o,f traffic intensity increases above 0.7, the amount o reservoir space increases rapidly. We have selected a traffic intgnsic-r of 0.3 as appropriate for design and a probability that the de= er-Uned reservoir would be exceeded only five tv -.es i- 100. Thus, = the average service rate for a given type of parking M control is known and sucicient lanes are provided so that the average arrival rate during the peak hour is 0.5 times the average service rate, a reservoir of six car leneths behind each service Position would be adequate to meet the needs of t`e facilicv. If this is ph}•sically impossible, a traffic intensity of 0.6 sheuld be used to deteraine the number of lanes requiring only a two -car reservoir_ S,u mm,ary Having determined the peak hour volumes, the parking control strategy, the number of lanes, and the reservoir Length to adeauatel.• serve the peak -hour volumes, the physical design of the facilities Chen may be made. As noted previously, having an inadequate caoacit;- to serve the traffic volumes approaching the control means can have a very drastic effect upon the backup which will occur_ :his backup creates adverse operating characteristics in and around t`.e facili = :- and also causes the length of time that a parker is involved in entering or leaving a garage to grow significantly_ Thus, the design features of the facility can have an impact on the attitudes of the users and indirectly affect the success or failure of the parking facility in attracting customers or users_ To provide a means of easily determining the number of lanes necessary for various types of parking garages, Figure 2 was pre- pared which allows the designer to directly translate the size of tie sarage.and the type of land use served into the number of necessary access lanes for the parking control strategy assumed. The example shows that a 1,250 -space garage servirs a retail coc^er- cial facility will no=zlly have a directional peak hour volume of 560 vehicles per hour_ If inbound ticket dispensers with gates are used, two lanes will be adequate to serve this garage. If cashiers collect variable fees, a total of four exit cashier lanes will be required_ Normally these four lanes will not be provided all in the same location and, of course, it would be necessary to operate all four only during peak hours. -in_ In the case of an office building rather than a retail facility, it would be possible to use coded card exit gates for monthly parkers. This would significantly reduce the required number of exit Lanes since transient visitors are a much lower percentage of the peak hour volumes for an office building than they are in a garage serving a retail facility. The reduction in construction and operating cost would be significant. A warning is necessary concerning the use of Figure 2 since it vas based upon very generalized information. Each individual major parking facility must be considered on-its own and its access needs decernined in light of the characteristics of the probable users of the facility itself. In order to have satisfied customers and users of a major parking facility, thorough investigation and determinat±or of access needs must be accomplished, -Ii- APPENDIX D AIR QUALITY Air Quality Assessment For: HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared For: BONTERRA CONSULTING 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E -200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Submitted By: MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Fred Greve P.E. Matthew B. Jones, P.E. 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 949.34990671 Fax 9499349.0679 August 167 2007 Report#05 -246 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Pagel Table of Contents List of Tables ............... List of Exhibits ............. 1.0 Existing Air Quality .................................................... ..............................1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................... ............................... 1 1.2 Local, State, and Federal Air Quality Agencies .................... ............................... 3 1.3 Criteria Pollutants and Standards ......................................... ............................... 4 1.3.1 Ozone (03) ................................................................... ............................... 5 1.3.2 Particulate Matter (PM10 & PM2.5) ................................. ............................... 7 1.3.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) ................................................ ............................... 7 1.3.4 Nitrogen Dioxide ( NO2) ................................................. ............................... 7 f.3.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) ..................................................... ............................... 8 1.3.6 Lead (Pb) ..................................................................... ............................... 8 1.3.7 Visibility Reducing Particulates .................................... ............................... 8 1.3.8 Sulfates( SO42-) ............................................................... ..............................9 1.3.9 Hydrogen Sulfide (1-12S) ................................................ ............................... 9 1.3.10 Vinyl Chloride (Chloroethene) ................................. ......................:........ 9 1.4 South Coast Air Basin Air Quality Attainment Designations . ............................... 9 1.5 Air Quality Management Plan ( AQMP) ............................... ............................... 12 1.6 Climate ............................................................................... ............................... 13 1.7 Monitored Air Quality .......................................................... ............................... 14 1.8 Existing Emissions .............................................................. ............................... 18 2.0 Potential Air Quality Impacts ................................... .............................19 2.1 Thresholds of Significance .................................................. ............................... 19 2.1.1 Regional Air Quality .................................................... ............................... 19 2.1.2 Local Air Quality ........................................................... .............................19 2.2 Short -Term Impacts ............................................................ ............................... 20 2.2.1 Construction Air Pollutant Emissions .......................... ............................... 20 2.3 Long -Term Impacts ..........................:................................. ............................... 21 2.3.1 Local Air Quality Project Impacts ............................... ............................... 21 2.3.2 Regional Air Quality .................................................... ............................... 23 Future Emission With Existing Development .......................................... .............................24 Emission Increases With Previously Approved Development ................ .............................24 Emission Increases With Project .............................................................. .............................26 Emission Increases With Project Alternative ........................................... .............................28 Summary.................................................................................................. ............................... 30 2.4 Compliance with Air Quality Planning ................................... :............................ 31 2.4.1 Consistency with AQMP ............................................. ............................... 31 Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? ......... .............................32 Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? ................................... .............................32 2.5 Comparison with Final EIR No. 142 .................................... ............................... 33 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures ................................................. .............................34 3.0 Mitigation Measures ................................................. .............................39 3.1 Short -Term Impacts ............................................................ ............................... 39 3.1.1 Particulate Emission (PM -10) Control ........................ ............................... 39 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page ii Table of Contents (Continued) 3.1.2 Construction Equipment Emission Control ................ I ................................ 48 3.2 Long-Term Impacts ........................................................................................... 50 3.2.1 Local Air Quality Impacts ........................................................................... 50 3.2.2 Regional Emissions ................................................................................... 50 4.0 Unavoidable Significant Impacts .......................................................... 51 4.1 Short -Term Impacts ................................................. ......................................... 51 4.2 Long-Term Impacts ........................................................................................... 51 APPENDIX.................................................................................................. 52 Operational Emissions Calculation Worksheets ........................ ............................... 53 ExistingConditions ............................................................................................. 54 2015 With Existing Development ........................................................................ 55 2015 Without Project .......................................................................................... 56 2015 With Project ............................................................................................... 57 2015 With Project Alternative .................... ........................................................ 58 Mestre Greve Associates List of Tables Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page iii Table 1 Hoag Hospital Campus Development Summary ................ ..............................3 Table 2 Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................... ............................... 6 Table 3 Designations of Criteria Pollutants for the SCAB .............. .............................10 Table 4 Air Quality Levels Measured at the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station ..............15 Table 5 Air Quality Levels Measured at the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station ............16 Table 6 Existing (2007) Hospital Emissions ................................. ............................... 18 Table 7 Existing Hospital Emissions Compared Regional Emissions .........................18 Table 8 SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance ...............19 Table 9 2015 Existing Hospital Development Emissions ............... .............................24 Table 10 2015 Hospital Emissions With Approved Development .... .............................24 Table 11 2015 Emissions Increase With Approved Development . ............................... 25 Table 12 2015 Emissions With Project' ......................................... ............................... 26 Table 13 Emissions Increase With Project Over Existing Conditions ...........................27 Table 14 Future Emissions Change Due to Project ......................... .............................27 Table 15 Hospital Emissions With Project Compared Regional Emissions ..................28 Table 16 2015 Emissions With Project Alternative" ......................... .............................28 Table 17 Emissions Increase With Project Alternative Over Existing Conditions .......... 29 Table 18 Future Emissions Change Due to Project Alternative ....... .............................29 Table 19 Hospital Emissions With Project Alternative Compared Regional Emissions 30 Table 20 Difference In Emissions With Project vs. Project Alternative .........................31 Table 21 Required Best Available Control Measures (Rule 403 Table 1) .....................40 Table 22 Dust Control Measures for Large Operations (Rule 403 Table 2) ..................45 Table 23 Contingency Control Measures for Large Operations (Rule 403 Table 3)......47 Table 24 Track Out Control Options ................................................ .............................48 List of Exhibits Exhibit1 Vicinity Map ...................................................................... ............................... 2 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 1 1.0 Existing Air Quality 1.1 Project Description Hoag Hospital is an existing facility located at One Hoag Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The facility is a 409 -bed acute care, not for profit hospital. Exhibit 1 presents a vicinity map showing the location of the facility. The site is bounded by Hospital Road to the north, West Coast Highway to the south, and Newport Boulevard to the east. Residential development abuts the western edge of the Upper Campus and open space is to the west of the Lower Campus. Superior Avenue is the closest major street to the west. The approximately 38 -acre site is split into two planning areas, the 17.57 acre Upper Campus and the 20.41 acre Lower Campus. The Lower Campus is the portion of the site located along the north side of Pacific Coast Highway. The Upper Campus is the portion of the site south of Hospital Road. The Project proposes to allow greater flexibility in the placement of development on the project site, specifically to allow square footage currently allocated for the Lower Campus to be constructed on the Upper Campus. The Project would transfer up to 225,000 square feet of medical uses from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. A Project Alternative is assessed that would allow the transfer of up to 150,000 square feet from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Table 1 presents a summary of the development at Hoag Hospital under existing conditions and future conditions with and without the Project. The campus is currently developed with 886,270 square feet of medical uses and 409 hospital beds. The Upper Campus consists of 698,121 square feet of development and the Lower Campus consists of 188,149 square feet of development. Under the current City of Newport Beach General Plan, development at the hospital can be increased by 456,968 square feet to 1,343,238 square feet. The Project does not propose to change this. Without the Project, an additional 67,228 square feet would be added to the Upper Campus and an additional 389,740 square feet would be added the Lower Campus With the Project, 292,228 square feet of development would be added to the Upper Campus and 164,740 square feet of development would be added to the Lower Campus (assuming transfer of the maximum of 225,000 square feet). With the Project Alternative, 217,228 square feet of development would be added to the Upper Campus and 239,740 square feet of development would be added to the Lower Campus (assuming transfer of the maximum of 150,000 square feet). Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 3 Table 1 TSF- Thousand Square Feet t The increase and total development for the upper and lower campus shown is the maximum increase for either campus. However, the total increase and total development cannot exceed the amount shown in the last row of the columns. The number of beds in the hospital is not restricted as long as the addition of beds does not create any new unanticipated traffic impacts. For purposes of the traffic study assumptions were made about future conditions with and without the proposed Project for trip generation. The 'bed counts presented in Table 1 reflect the assumptions used in the traffic study. Without the Project, the bed count at the hospital would be expected to remain unchanged. With the Project, or the Project Alternative, the bed count of the hospital is projected to increase by 76 beds from 409 to 485. Utilization of a 76 -bed increase for the Project Alternative is considered conservative given the proposed Project would reallocate more square footage then the alternative. Note that the Project only proposes modifying the allowable development on the Hoag Hospital Campus and does not propose any specific projects. This report analyzes the potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed Project. Regional air quality impacts from construction and operation of the proposed Project are analyzed, as are potential local air quality impacts. 1.2 Local, State, and Federal Air Quality Agencies The proposed Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB is comprised of parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. The basin is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean and surrounded on the other sides by mountains. To the north lie the San Gabriel mountains, to the north and east the San Bernardino Mountains, to the southeast the San Jacinto Mountains and to the south the Santa Ana Mountains. The basin forms a low plain and the mountains channel and confine air flow which trap air pollutants. The primary agencies responsible for regulations to improve air quality in the SCAB are the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is an important partner to the SCAQMD, as it is the designated metropolitan planning authority for the area and produces estimates of anticipated future growth and vehicular travel in the basin which are used for air quality planning. The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for non - vehicular sources of air pollution in the basin and works with SCAG to develop and implement Transportation Control Measures (TCM). TCM measures are intended to reduce and improve vehicular travel and associated pollutant emissions. C Existing Without Project ! Increase Total ;Increase With Project With Alternative Total .Increase Total Hospital Beds 409 0 409 76 485 i 76 485 Upper Campus TSF Lower Campus TSF 698.1 188.1 67.2 389.7 765.3 577.9 l 292.2 164.7 990.3 352.9 217.2 239.7 915.3 427.9 Total TSF 886.3 457.0 1,343.21 457.0 1,343.21 457.0 1,343.: TSF- Thousand Square Feet t The increase and total development for the upper and lower campus shown is the maximum increase for either campus. However, the total increase and total development cannot exceed the amount shown in the last row of the columns. The number of beds in the hospital is not restricted as long as the addition of beds does not create any new unanticipated traffic impacts. For purposes of the traffic study assumptions were made about future conditions with and without the proposed Project for trip generation. The 'bed counts presented in Table 1 reflect the assumptions used in the traffic study. Without the Project, the bed count at the hospital would be expected to remain unchanged. With the Project, or the Project Alternative, the bed count of the hospital is projected to increase by 76 beds from 409 to 485. Utilization of a 76 -bed increase for the Project Alternative is considered conservative given the proposed Project would reallocate more square footage then the alternative. Note that the Project only proposes modifying the allowable development on the Hoag Hospital Campus and does not propose any specific projects. This report analyzes the potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed Project. Regional air quality impacts from construction and operation of the proposed Project are analyzed, as are potential local air quality impacts. 1.2 Local, State, and Federal Air Quality Agencies The proposed Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB is comprised of parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. The basin is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean and surrounded on the other sides by mountains. To the north lie the San Gabriel mountains, to the north and east the San Bernardino Mountains, to the southeast the San Jacinto Mountains and to the south the Santa Ana Mountains. The basin forms a low plain and the mountains channel and confine air flow which trap air pollutants. The primary agencies responsible for regulations to improve air quality in the SCAB are the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is an important partner to the SCAQMD, as it is the designated metropolitan planning authority for the area and produces estimates of anticipated future growth and vehicular travel in the basin which are used for air quality planning. The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for non - vehicular sources of air pollution in the basin and works with SCAG to develop and implement Transportation Control Measures (TCM). TCM measures are intended to reduce and improve vehicular travel and associated pollutant emissions. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 4 CARB was established in 1967 by the California Legislature to attain and maintain healthy air quality, conduct research into the causes and solutions to air pollution, and systematically attack the serious problem caused by motor vehicles, which are the major causes of air pollution in the State. CARB sets and enforces emission standards for motor vehicles, fuels, and consumer products. It sets the health based California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and monitors air quality levels throughout the state. The board identifies and sets control measures for toxic air contaminants. The board also performs air quality related research, provides compliance assistance for businesses, and produces education and outreach programs and materials. CARB provides assistance for local air quality districts, such as SCAQMD. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the primary federal agency for regulating air quality. The EPA implements the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). This Act establishes national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) that are applicable nationwide. The EPA designates areas with pollutant concentrations that do not meet the NAAQS as non - attainment areas for each criteria pollutant. States are required by the FCAA to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIP) for designated non - attainment areas. The SIP is required to demonstrate how the areas will attain the NAAQS by the prescribed deadlines and what measures will be required to attain the standards. The EPA also oversees implementation of the prescribed measures. Areas that achieve the NAAQS after a non - attainment designation are redesignated as maintenance areas and must have approved Maintenance Plans to ensure continued attainment of the NAAQS. The CCAA required all air pollution control districts in the state to prepare a plan prior to December 31, 1994 to reduce pollutant concentrations exceeding the CAAQS and ultimately achieve the CAAQS. The districts are required to review and revise these plans every three years. The SCAQMD satisfies this requirement through the publication of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP is developed by SCAQMD and SCAG in coordination with local governments and the private sector. The AQMP is incorporated into the SIP by CARB to satisfy the FCAA requirements discussed above. The AQMP is discussed further in Section 1.5. 1.3 Criteria Pollutants and Standards Under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), the U.S. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six major pollutants; ozone (0,), respirable particulate matter (PM,,,), fine particulate matter (PM,5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOO, sulfur dioxide (SOO, and lead. These six air pollutants are often referred to as the criteria pollutants. The NAAQS are two tiered: primary, to protect public health, and secondary, to prevent degradation to the environment (i.e., impairment of visibility, damage to vegetation and property). Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the California Air Resources Board have established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) to protect the health and welfare of Californians. State standards have been established for the six criteria pollutants as well as four additional pollutants; visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 5 Table 2 presents the state and national ambient air quality standards. A brief explanation of each pollutant and their health effects is presented follows. 1.3.1 Ozone (Od Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds (VOC) (also referred to as reactive organic gasses (ROG)) and nitrogen oxides (NOJ, which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground -level ozone to form in the air. As a result, it is known as a summertime air pollutant. Ground -level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Because ozone is formed in the atmosphere, high concentrations can occur in areas well away from sources of its constituent pollutants. People with lung disease, children, older adults, and people who are active can be affected when ozone levels are unhealthy. Numerous scientific studies have linked ground -level ozone exposure to a variety of problems, including: • lung irritation that can cause inflammation much like a sunburn; • wheezing, coughing, pain when taking a deep breath, and breathing difficulties during exercise or outdoor activities; • permanent lung damage to those with repeated exposure to ozone pollution; and • aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and bronchitis. Ground -level ozone can have detrimental effects on plants and ecosystems. These effects include: • interfering with the ability of sensitive plants to produce and store food, making them more susceptible to certain diseases, insects, other pollutants, competition and harsh weather; • damaging the leaves of trees and other plants, negatively impacting the appearance of urban vegetation, national parks, and recreation areas; and • reducing crop yields and forest growth, potentially impacting species diversity in ecosystems. Mestre Greve Associates Table 2 Ambient Air Qualitv Standards Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 6 vl3lbdlty Averaging ! State Federal Standardsz Pollutant Time I Standards" I Primary'," Secondary'," __ 1 Hour 0.0909 PPM 0.030 ppm (56 pg /ma) i 0.053 ppm (100 pg /m`) Ozone (O,) (NO') (180 pg /m') 0.18 ppm I 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 pg /m) 0.08 ppm (157 pg /m' ) s Same as Primary Respirable j 24 Hour t SO l:glm' r 150 jig /m' !, Same as Primary Particulate Matter; . (Pm"), AAM' 2014glm' 0.04 ppm Same as Primary Fine Particulate ; 24 Hour -- 35 jig/rill" Same as Primary (PM,,5)' I "Ms Ms 12 pglm' 15 pg /m' Same as Primary 0.5 ppm _ our 20 ppm (23 mpgPm') 35 ppm (40 mg /m,) 1 None Carbon Monoxide ,....... 8 Hour . 9.0 m ; ..... 9 ppm None (CO) _.. .... (]0 mg /m') _ _., .... (IO m /m3).._ vl3lbdlty 5nour i 6ppm x(0.07 Perko - -a30 miles for _ (Lake Tahoe) (7 mg /m') __ __ Nitrogen Dioxide AAM s 0.030 ppm (56 pg /ma) i 0.053 ppm (100 pg /m`) ;Same as Primary (NO') I Hour 0.18 ppm I (338 /m') i AAW i 0.030 ppm Sulfur 24 Hour •,,,, 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm _ Dioxide . . . (SO2) 3 Hour .. ;._. .._.._ i ., .. __ ..... 0.5 ppm _ 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 pg /m') Lead' 30 day Avg, 1.5 14g/m' _ `Calendar Quarter 1.5 14g /m' Same as Primary vl3lbdlty $hour I per kon — visibility a 10 miles Reducing Particles x(0.07 Perko - -a30 miles for Lake Tahoe) Sulfates 24 Hour 25 14g/M3 Hydorgen Sulfide I Hour 0.03 ppm ,. Vinyl Chloride' 24 Hour uuf ppm I. California standards for ozone. carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (I and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide. PM,N PM; _ and visibility reducing particles, are values that ale not in be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. 2. National standards (ether than ozone, PM„ PM_s.. and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic meet) are not to be exceeded mane 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 Nan me standard. For PM,v the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days Per calender year with a 24 -hour average concentration above 150 pg /m' is equal to or less than one. For PM,,, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of Me daily concentration, averaged over three years, are equal in or less than Ne standard. Contact U.S. 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 25• C and a reference pressure of 760 too. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25' C and a reference pressure of 760 tort; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant Per role of gas. 4. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 5. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfam from any known on anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 6. Annual Arithmetic Mean 7. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as'mxie ah 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 pollutan6. 8. on September 21. 2906 EPA published a final rule revoking the annual 501rg /m'PNI standard and lowering the 24 -hour PM., standard From 65 gor'. Attainment designations are to be issued in fkcember. 2009 with attainment plans due April, 2010. -- No Standard Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 7 1.3.2 Particulate Matter (PM,, & PM2,j Particulate matter includes both aerosols and solid particles of a wide range of size and composition. Of particular concern are those particles smaller than 10 microns in size (PM,,) and smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The size of the particulate matter is referenced to the aerodynamic diameter of the particulate. Smaller particulates are of greater concern because they can penetrate deeper into the lungs than large particles. The principal health effect of airborne particulate matter is on the respiratory system. Short term exposures to high PMZ_, levels are associated with premature mortality and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Long term exposures to high PM2.5 levels are associated with premature mortality and development of chronic respiratory disease. Short-term exposure to high PM,o levels are associated with hospital admissions for cardiopulmonary diseases, increased respiratory symptoms and possible premature mortality. The EPA has concluded that available evidence does not suggest an association between long -term exposure to PM10 at current ambient levels and health effects. PM,,, is directly emitted in combustion exhaust and formed from atmospheric reactions between of various gaseous pollutants including nitrogen oxides (NO.) sulfur oxides (SOJ and volatile organic compounds (VOC). PM,, is generally emitted directly as a result of mechanical processes that crush or grind larger particles or the re suspension of dusts most typically through construction activities and vehicular travels. PM25 can remain suspended in the atmosphere for days and weeks and can be transported long distances. PM,,, generally settles out of the atmosphere rapidly and are not readily transported over large distances. 1.3.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas, which in the urban environment, is associated primarily with the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. Carbon monoxide combines with hemoglobin in the bloodstream and reduces the amount of oxygen that can be circulated through the body. High carbon monoxide concentrations can lead to headaches, aggravation of cardiovascular disease, and impairment of central nervous system functions. Carbon monoxide concentrations can vary greatly over comparatively short.distances. Relatively high concentrations are typically found near crowded intersections, along heavily used roadways carrying slow - moving traffic, and at or near ground level. Even under the most severe meteorological and traffic conditions, high concentrations of carbon monoxide are limited to locations within a relatively short distance (i.e., up to 600 feet or 185 meters) of heavily traveled roadways. Overall carbon monoxide emissions are decreasing as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, which has mandated increasingly lower emission levels for vehicles manufactured since 1973. 1.3.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Nitrogen gas, normally relatively inert (unreactive), comprises about 80% of the air. At high temperatures (i.e., in the combustion process) and under certain other conditions it can combine with oxygen, forming several different gaseous compounds collectively called nitrogen oxides (NOJ. Nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the two most important compounds. Nitric oxide is converted to nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere. Nitrogen dioxide (NO.) is a red - brown pungent gas. Motor vehicle emissions are the main source of NO, in urban areas. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 8 Nitrogen dioxide is toxic to various animals as well as to humans. Its toxicity relates to its ability to form nitric acid with water in the eye, lung, mucus membrane and skin. In animals, long -term exposure to nitrogen oxides increases susceptibility to respiratory infections lowering their resistance to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Laboratory studies show susceptible humans, such as asthmatics, exposed to high concentrations of NO, can suffer lung irritation and potentially, lung damage. Epidemiological studies have also shown associations between NO; concentrations and daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular causes and with hospital admissions for respiratory conditions. NO, is a combination of primarily NO and NO,. While the NAAQS only addresses NO2, NO and the total group of nitrogen oxides is of concern. NO and NO, are both precursors in the formation of ozone and secondary particulate matter as discussed in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2. Because of this and that NO emissions largely convert to NO„ NO, emissions are typically examined when assessing potential air quality impacts. 1. 3.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SOd Sulfur oxides (SO,) constitute a class of compounds of which sulfur dioxide (SO.) and sulfur trioxide (SO;) are of greatest importance. Ninety -five percent of pollution related SO, emissions are in the form of SO,. SO, emissions are typically examined when assessing potential air quality impacts of SO2. Combustion of fossil fuels for generation of electric power is the primary contributor of SO, emissions. Industrial processes, such as nonferrous metal smelting, also contribute to SO, emissions. SO, is also formed during combustion of motor fuels. However, most of the sulfur has been removed from fuels greatly reducing SO, emissions from vehicles. SOz combines easily with water vapor, forming aerosols of sulfurous acid (HzSO,), a colorless, mildly corrosive liquid. This liquid may then combine with oxygen in the air, forming the even more irritating and corrosive sulfuric acid (H,SO,). Peak levels of SO, in the air can cause temporary breathing difficulty for people with asthma who are active outdoors. Longer -term exposures to high levels of SOZ gas and particles cause respiratory illness and aggravate existing heart disease. SO2 reacts with other chemicals in the air to form tiny sulfate particles which are measured as PM2_,. The heath effects of PM.., are discussed in Section 1.3.2. 1.3.6 Lead (Pb) Lead is a stable compound, which persists and accumulates both in the environment and in animals. In humans, it affects the blood- forming or hematopoletic, the nervous, and the renal systems. In addition, lead has been shown to affect the normal functions of the reproductive, endocrine, hepatic, cardiovascular, immunological, and gastrointestinal systems, although there is significant individual variability in response to lead exposure. Since 1975, lead emissions have been in decline due in part to the introduction of catalyst- equipped vehicles, and decline in production of leaded gasoline. In general, an analysis of lead is limited to projects that emit significant quantities of the pollutant (i.e. lead smelters) and are not applied to transportation projects. 1.3.7 Visibility Reducing Particulates Visibility- reducing particles consist of suspended particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt. The Statewide Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 9 standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze. A separate standard for visibility- reducing particles that is applicable only in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin is based on reduction in scenic quality. 1.3.8 SulfateS(SO42J Sulfates are the fully oxidized ionic form of sulfur. Sulfates occur in combination with metal and / or hydrogen ions. In California, emissions of sulfur compounds occur primarily from the combustion of petroleum- derived fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) that contain sulfur. This sulfur is oxidized to sulfur dioxide (SO,) during the combustion process and subsequently converted to sulfate compounds in the atmosphere. The conversion of SO, to sulfates takes place comparatively rapidly and completely in urban areas of California due to regional meteorological features. The ARB's sulfates standard is designed to prevent aggravation of respiratory symptoms. Effects of sulfate exposure at levels above the standard include a decrease in ventilatory function, aggravation of asthmatic symptoms, and an increased risk of cardio - pulmonary disease. Sulfates are particularly effective in degrading visibility, and, due to fact that they are usually acidic, can harm ecosystems and damage materials and property. 1.3.9 Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Hydrogen sulfide (HZS) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial decomposition of sulfur- containing organic substances. It can also be present in sewer gas and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation. Breathing HZS at levels above the standard will result in exposure to a very disagreeable odor. In 1984, an ARB committee concluded that the ambient standard for H,S is adequate to protect public health and to significantly reduce odor annoyance. 1.3. 10 Vinyl Chloride (Chloroethene) Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Short-term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air causes central nervous system effects, such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches. Long -term exposure to vinyl chloride through inhalation and oral exposure causes in liver damage. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation. Vinyl chloride exposure has been shown to increase the risk of angiosarcoma, a rare form of liver cancer in humans. 1.4 South Coast Air Basin Air Quality Attainment Designations Based on monitored air pollutant concentrations, the U.S. EPA and CARB designate areas relative to their status in attaining the NAAQS and CAAQS respectively. Table 3 lists the current attainment designations for the SCAB. For the Federal standards, the required attainment date is also shown. The Unclassified designation indicates that the air quality data for the area does not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 10 Table 3 Designations of Criteria Pollutants for the SCAB Pollutant Federal State Severe -17 Ozone (03) Nonattainment Nonattainment Respirable Particulate Serious Matter (PM,,) Nonattainment Nonattainment .... (2006) Fine Particulate ._.__. Nonattainment Matter(PM,5) (2015) Nonattainment . Carbon M onoxide Attainment/Maintenance (CO) (2000) Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide 1. Attainment/Maintenance (NO,) (1995) Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2) Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Visibility Reducing Particles n/a Unclassified Sulfates n/a Unclassified Hydroy�en Sulfide n/a Attainment —Vinyl Chloride n/a Attainment Table 3 shows that the U.S. EPA has designated SCAB as Severe -17 non - attainment for ozone, serious non - attainment for PM,,,, non - attainment for PM,5, and attainment /maintenance for CO and NO,. The basin has been designated by the state as non - attainment for ozone, PM „), and PM2.5• For the federal designations, the qualifiers, Severe -17 and Serious, affect the required attainment dates as the federal regulations have different requirements for areas that exceed the standards by greater amounts at the time of attainment/non- attainment designation. The SCAB is designated as in attainment of the Federal SO, and lead NAAQS as well as the state CO, NO2, S02, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride VAAQS. In July 1997, U.S. EPA issued a new ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm using an 8 -hour averaging time. Implementation of this standard was delayed by several lawsuits. Attainment/non- attainment designations for the new 8 -hour ozone standard were issued on April 15, 2004 and became effective on June 15, 2005. The SCAB was designated severe -17 non - attainment, which requires attainment of the Federal Standard by June 15, 2021. As a part of the designation, the EPA announced that the 1 -hour ozone standard would be revoked in June of 2005. Thus, the 8- hour ozone standard attainment deadline of 2021 supercedes and replaces the previous 1 -hour ozone standard attainment deadline of 2010. The SCAQMD is requesting that U.S. EPA change the nonattainment status of the 8 -hour ozone standard to extreme. This will allow the use of undefined reductions (i.e. "black box ") based on the anticipated development of new control technologies or improvement of existing Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 11 technologies in the attainment plan. Further, the extreme classification could extend the attainment date by three years to 2024. On April 28, 2005, CARB adopted an 8 -hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm. The California Office of Administrative Law approved the rulemaking and filed it with the Secretary of State on April 17, 2006. The standard became effective on May 17, 2006. California has retained the 1- hour concentration standard of 0.09 ppm. To be redesignated as attainment by the state the basin will need to achieve both the 1 -hour and 8 -hour ozone standards. The SCAB was designated as moderate non - attainment of the PMT, standards when the designations were initially made in 1990 with a required attainment date of 1994. In 1993, the basin was redesignated as serious non - attainment with a required attainment date of 2006 because it was apparent that the basin could not meet the PM10 standard by the 1994 deadline. At this time, the Basin has met the PM,o standards at all monitoring stations except the western Riverside where the annual PM,o standard has not been met. However, on September 21, 2006, the U.S. EPA announced that it was revoking the annual PM,n standard as research had indicated that there were no considerable health effects associated with long -term exposure to PMjo. With this change, the basin is technically in attainment of the federal PM10 standards although the redesignation process has not yet begun. In July 1997, U.S. EPA issued NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2,5). The PM2.5 standards include an annual standard set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), based on the three -year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and a 24 -hour standard of 65 µg /m3, based on the three -year average of the 98th percentile of 24 -hour concentrations. Implementation of these standards was delayed by several lawsuits. On January 5, 2005, EPA took final action to designate attainment and nonattainment areas under the NAAQS for PM2_5 effective April 5, 2005. The SCAB was designated as non- attainment with an attainment required as soon as possible but no later than 2010. EPA may grant attainment date extensions of up to five years in areas with more severe PM2,5 problems and where emissions control measures are not available or feasible. It is likely that the SCAB will need this additional time to attain the standard On September 21, 2006, the U.S. EPA announced that the 24 -hour PM2.5 standard was lowered to 35 pg/m3. Attainment/non - attainment designations for the revised PM2.5 standard will be made by December of 2009 with an attainment date of April 2015 although an extension of up to five years could be granted by the U.S. EPA. The Federal attainment deadline for CO was to be December 31, 2000, however the basin was granted an extension due to exceedances of the CO NAAQS. The SCAB has not had any violations of the federal CO standards since 2002. In March 2005, the South Coast AQMD adopted a CO Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan. On May 11, 2007, the U.S. EPA announced approval of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan and that, effective June 11, 2007, the SCAB would be re- designated as attainment/maintenance for the federal CO NAAQS. The plan provides for maintenance of the federal CO air quality standard until at least 2015 and commits to revising the Plan in 2013 to ensure maintenance through 2025. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 12 The federal annual NO2 standard was met for the first time in 1992 and has not been exceeded since. The SCAB was redesignated as attainment for NO2 in 1998. The basin will remain a maintenance /attainment area until 2018, assuming the NO2 standard is not exceeded. Table 3 shows that SCAB is designated as in attainment of the SO2 and lead NAAQS as well as the state CO, NO2, SO., lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride CAAQS. Generally, these pollutants are not considered a concern in the SCAB. 1.5 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) As, discussed above the CAA requires plans to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS for which an area is designated as nonattainment. Further, the CCAA requires SCAQMD to revise its plan to reduce pollutant concentrations exceeding the CAAQS every three years. In the SCAB, SCAQMD and SCAG, in coordination with local governments and the private sector, develop the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin to satisfy these requirements. The AQMP is the most important air management document for the basin because it provides the blueprint for meeting state and federal ambient air quality standards. The 1997 AQMP is the current federally approved applicable air plan for ozone. The successor 2003 AQMP was adopted locally on August 1, 2003, by the governing board of the SCAQMD. CARB adopted the plan as part of the California State Implementation Plan on October 23, 2003. The EPA adopted the mobile source emission budgets from the plan on March 25, 2004. The PM10 attainment plan from the 2003 AQMP received final approval on November 14, 2005 with an effective date of December 14, 2005. The EPA has not approved the ozone attainment plan of the 2003 AQMP to date. For federal purposes, the 1997 AQMP with the 1999 amendments is the currently applicable ozone attainment plan. The overall control strategy for the 2003 AQMP is to meet applicable state and federal requirements and to demonstrate attainment with ambient air quality standards. The 2003 AQMP contains short- and long -term measures. These measures are included in Appendix IV -B of the AQMP. Short-term measures propose the application of available technologies and management practices between 2005 and the year 2010. The 2003 AQMP includes 24 short -term control measures for stationary and mobile sources that are expected to be implemented within the next several years. The stationary source measures in the 2003 AQMP include measures from the 1997 AQMP and 1999 Amendment to the Ozone SIP with eleven additional new control measures. In addition, a new transportation conformity budget backstop measure is included in the 2003 AQMP. One long -term measure for stationary sources is included in the 2003 AQMP. This control measure seeks to achieve additional VOC reductions from stationary sources. The long -term measure is made up of Tier I and Tier II components. Tier I long -term measure has an adoption date between 2005 and 2007 and implementation date between 2007 and 2009 for Tier I. Tier 11 has an adoption date between 2006 and 2008 and implementation date between 2008 and 2010. To ultimately achieve ambient air quality standards, additional emission reductions will be necessary beyond the implementation of short-term measures. Long -term measures rely on the advancement of technologies and control methods that can reasonably be expected to occur Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 13 between 2005 and 2010. Additional stationary source control measures are included in Appendix IV -B of the AQMP, Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California SIP. Contingency measures are also included in Appendix IV- Section 2 of the 2003 AQMP. On June 1, 2007, the SCAQMD adopted the 2007 AQMP in response to the new federal PM2.5 and 8 -hour ozone standards. The plan focuses on control of sulfur oxides (SOJ, directly emitted PM,.,, and nitrogen oxides (NO.) to achieve the PM2.5 standard. Achieving the 8 -hour ozone standard builds upon the PM2.5 attainment strategy with additional VOC reductions. Control measures proposed by the District for sources under their jurisdiction include facility modernization, energy efficiency and conservation, good management practices, market incentives /compliance flexibility, area source programs, emission growth management and mobile source programs. In addition, CARB has developed a plan of control strategies for sources controlled by CARB (i.e. on -road and off -road motor vehicles and consumer products). The 2007 AQMP now must be approved by CARB prior to being submitted to the U.S. EPA by June 2007. 1.6 Climate The climate in and around the project area, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. It maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity, and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter "wet" season. Temperatures are normally mild, excepting the summer months, which commonly bring substantially higher temperatures. In all portions of the basin, temperatures well above 100 degrees F. have been recorded in recent years. The annual average temperature in the basin is approximately 62 degrees Fahrenheit. Winds in the project area are usually driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes. At night, the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Wind direction will be altered by local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from the south. The frequency of calm winds (less than 2 miles per hour) is less than 10 percent. Therefore, there is little stagnation in the project vicinity, especially during busy daytime traffic hours. Southern California frequently has temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Ground based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear, cold, early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground -based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major roadways. Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological phenomena. Elevated inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion, dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 14 1.7 Monitored Air Quality Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates for the SCAB have been made for existing emissions ( "2003 Air Quality Management Plan ", August 1, 2003). The data indicate that mobile sources are the major source of regional emissions. Motor vehicles (i.e., on -road mobile sources) account for approximately 45 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC), 63 percent of nitrogen oxide (NO,) emissions, and approximately 76 percent of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. The SCAQMD has divided the SCAB into 38 air - monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The Project is in the area represented by measurements made at the Costa Mesa monitoring station. The Costa Mesa station is located near the intersection of Mesa Verde Drive west of Harbor Boulevard approximately 4 miles north of the project site. The air pollutants measured at the Costa Mesa station include ozone (O,), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO,), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The air quality data monitored from 2003 to 2006 at the Costa Mesa station is presented in Table 4. Particulate Matter (PM,0 and PM,.,) is not monitored at the Costa Mesa station. The next nearest monitoring site to the Project is the Mission Viejo monitoring site located east of Los Alisos Boulevard between Jeronimo Road and Trabuco Road approximately 15 miles east of the Project site. The air pollutants measured at the Mission Viejo station include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), PM,,, and PM2.,. The air quality data monitored from 2003 to 2006 at the Mission Viejo station is presented in Table 5. The monitoring data presented in Table 4 and Table 5 were obtained from the CARB air quality data website (www.arb.ca.gov /adanV). Federal and State air quality standards are also presented in the Tables. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 15 Table 4 Days State Days National California National Max. Standard Standard Pollutant Standard Standard Year % Msrd.' Level Exceeded' Exceeded' Ozone 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm° 2006 100 0.074 0 0 1 Hour 2005 92 0.085 0 0 Average 2004 98 0.104 2 0 2003 100 0.107 4 0 Ozone 0.070 ppm 0.08 ppm 2006 100 0.062 -- 0 8 Hour 2005 92 0.072 0 Average 2004 98 0.087 1 2003 100 0.088 1 CO 20 ppm 35 ppm 2006 98 3.5 0 0 1 Hour 2005 96 4.1 0 0 Average 2004 97 4,9 0 0 2003 97 7.4 0 0 CO 9.0 ppm 9 ppm 2006 98 3.0 0 0 8 Hour 2005 96 3.2 0 0 Average 2004 97 4.1 0 0 2003 97 5 9 0 0 NOz 0.18 ppm None 2006 98 0.101 0 n/a 1 Hour 2005 86 0.085 0 n/a Average 2004 97 0.097 0 n/a 2003 96 0.107 0 n/a NO2 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm 2006 98 0.015 n/a No AAM' 2005 86 0.014 n/a No 2004 97 0 016 n/a No 2003 96 0.018 n/a No SO, 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm 2006 92 0.005 0 n/a 24 Hour 2005 94 0.008 0 0 Average 2004 98 0.008 .... .. _ -... ... 0 ._ .... 0 2003 93 0 012 0 0 SOz None 0.030 ppm 2006 92 0.001 n/a No AAM 2005 94 0.001 n/a No 2004 98 0 002 n/a No 2003 93 0.001 n/a No 1. Percent of year where high pollutant levels were expected that measurements were made 2. For annual averaging times a yes or no response is given if the annual average concentration exceeded the applicable standard. For the PM,v24 hour standard. daily monitoring is not performed. The first number shown in Days State Standard Exceeded column is the actual number of days measured that State standard was exceeded. The second number shows the number of days the standard would be expected to be exceeded if measurements were taken every day. 3. Annual Arithmetic Mean 4. With the implementation of the federal 8 -hour ozone standard, the 1 -hour standard was revoked as of June 15, 2005. The previous standard is provided for informational purposes. -- Data Not Reported n /a —no applicable standard Source: CARB Air Quality Data Statistics web site www.arb.ca.gov /adam/ accessed 6/6/07 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 16 Table 5 Air Quality Levels Measured at the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station Respirable 20 pg /m' None 2006 75 21 Yes Days State Days National California National 24 Yes Max. Standard Standard Pollutant Standard Standard Year % Msrd.' Level Exceeded' Exceeded Ozone 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm' 2006 97 0.123 12 0 1 Hour n/a 0 2005 99 0.125 3 1 Average 0 PM "5 2004 99 0116 11 0 0 24 Hour Average 2003 99 0,153 16 4 Ozone 0,070 ppm 0.08 ppm 2006 97 0.105 6 8 Hour 2005 2005 99 0.085 PM,.S 1 Average — 12.0 2004 99 0.090 4 2003 99 01105 8 CO 20 ppm 35 ppm 2006 99 1.8 0 0 1 Hour 2005 96 i.2 0 0 Average 2004 97 14 0 0 2003 97 2.5 0 0 CO 9.0 ppm w 9 ppm 2006 99 1.6 0 0 8 Hour 2005 96 1.6 0 0 Average 2004 97 1.5 _.._. 0 0 __ ...... 2003 ......._ ... 97 .._. 1.6 0 0 Respirable 90 pg /m3 150 µg /m' 2006 75 57 1/6 0/0 Particulates 2005 90 41 0/0 0/0 PMR) 2004 94 47 0/0 0/0 _.... 24 Hour Average 2003 95 64 2113 0/0 Respirable 20 pg /m' None 2006 75 21 Yes n/a Particulates 2005 94 24 Yes It PMtns 2004 95 27 Yes n/a AAM' 2003 94 31 Yes n/a Fine None 65 yg /m' 2006 46.9 n/a 0 Particulates 2005 353 n/a 0 PM "5 2004 49.4 n/a 0 24 Hour Average 2003 50.6 n/a 0 Fine 12 ytg/m3 15 pg/m' 2006 Particulates 2005 10.6 No No PM,.S 2004 — 12.0 No No AAM3 2003 1. Percent of year where high pollutant levels were expected that measurements were made 2. For annual averaging times a yes or no response is given if the annual average concentration exceeded the applicable standard, For the PM,, 24 hour standard, daily monitoring is not performed. The first number shown in Days State Standard Exceeded column is the actual number of days measured that State standard was exceeded. The second number shows the number of days the standard would be expected to be exceeded if measurements were taken every day. 3. Annual Arithmetic Mean 4. With the implementation of the federal 8 -hour ozone standard, the I -hour standard was revoked as of June I5, 2005. The previous standard is provided for informational purposes. 5. On September 21, 2006 U.S. EPA announced that it was revoking the annual average PM, standard and lowering the 24 -hour PM, � standard to 35 pe /m'. The previous standards are presented as the new standards are not fully implemented at this time. -- Data Not Repotted n /a— no applicable standard Source: CARB Air Quality Data Statistics web site www- arb.ca.gov /adam/ accessed 6/6/07 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 17 The monitoring data presented in Table 4 and Table 5 show that ozone and particulate matter (PMIO and PM2,5) are the air pollutants of primary concern in the Project area. The State 1 -hour ozone standard was exceeded 4 days in 2003, 2 days in 2004 and was not exceeded in 2005 or 2006 at the Costa Mesa station. The standard was exceeded between 3 and 16 days each year between 2003 and 2006 at the Mission Viejo station. As of June 15, 2006 the Federal 1 -hour ozone standard was revoked with the implementation of the 8- hour standard. The Federal 1 -hour ozone standard has not been exceeded in the past four years at the Costa Mesa monitoring station. The Federal 1 -hour standard was exceeded 4 days in 2003, 1 day in 2005, and was not exceeded in 2004 and 2006 at the Mission Viejo station The Federal 8 -hour ozone standard was exceeded 1 day each year in 2003 and 2004 but was not exceeded in 2005 or 2006 at the Costa Mesa station. The standard was exceeded between 1 and 8 days each year over the past four years at the Mission Viejo station. The recently adopted State 8 -hour ozone standard has also been exceeded, but the CARB website is not currently reporting the total number of days. Based on data presented at the CARB website the State 8- hour ozone standard was not exceeded in 2006, was exceeded 2 days in 2005 and was exceeded at least 4 days each year in 2003 and 2004 at the Costa Mesa Station. The standard was exceeded at least four days each of the past four years at the Mission Viejo Station. The data shows a distinct downward trend in maximum ozone concentrations and number of days with exceedances at the Costa Mesa station. However, at the Mission Viejo station there does not appear to be a trend in either maximum ozone concentrations or days of exceedances in the area. The State 24 -hour concentration standards for PM,o was measured to be exceeded 2 days in 2003 and 1 day in 2006 at the Mission Viejo monitoring station. This results in an estimate .of 13 days of exceedances in 2003 and 6 days of exceedances in 2006 at the station because PMIO monitoring is not performed every day. The State annual average PMIO standard has been exceeded each of the past four years at the Mission Viejo Station. The Federal 24 -hour PM,, standard has not been exceeded in the past four years at the Mission Viejo station. There does not appear to be a noticeable trend in either maximum particulate concentrations or days of exceedances in the area. Particulate levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading operations, and motor vehicles. The Federal 24 hour standard for PM,, has not been exceeded in the past four years at the Mission Viejo station. Note that on September 21, 2006 U.S. EPA revised the standard to 35 yg /m3. However, since designations for the revised standards will not be made until April 2010 only the number of days exceeding the original standard of 65 µg/m3 are reported here. The State and Federal annual average PMz.5 concentration standards were not exceeded bin 2004 and 2005 at the Mission Viejo Station. Complete data is not available for 2003 or 2006. There does not appear to be a noticeable trend in either maximum particulate concentrations or days of exceedances in the area. The monitored data shown in Table 4 and Table 5 show that other than ozone, PMi„ and PM,_, exceedances as mentioned above, no State or Federal standards were exceeded for the remaining criteria pollutants. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 18 1.8 Existing Emissions The project site currently has development that generates air pollutant emissions. The primary source of regional emissions generated by the site is from motor vehicles. The majority of motor vehicle emissions associated with the site are generated off the premises. Emissions generated on -site include the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. Land use and trip generation information for the project site was provided by the traffic engineer for the Project, Lindscott, Law, & Greenspan. The existing Hospital development includes 886,270 square feet of building space. The traffic study shows that the Project generates 13,998 daily vehicle trips under existing conditions. Based on the uses and trip length data in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the average trip length for the Project is 9.0 miles, this results in 125,892 daily vehicle miles traveled associated with the Hospital. Table 6 presents the estimated daily pollutant emissions due to the existing hospital operations. A worksheet showing the detailed data used to calculate these emissions is presented in the appendix, Table 6 Existing (2007) Hospital Emissions Note: Total may not equal sum of components exactly due to rounding Table 7 compares the existing Hospital emissions to the base year (2006) emissions for the South Coast Air Basin presented in the 2003 AQMP. The table shows that the emissions associated with the hospital are a very small fraction, less than 21 thousandths of a percent, of the basin's emissions. Table 7 Atal Emissions Compared Regional Emissions Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) Source CO yOC N% PMnt PM,., s% Vehicular Trips 1,533.1 161.7 303.0 15.8 11.2 1.5 Natural Gas Consumption 2.8 0.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 On -Site Electrical Generation 73.2 49.5 49.5 14.9 14.7 0.0 Total Area Emissions 1,609.1 212.0 369.3 30.7 26.0 1.5 Note: Total may not equal sum of components exactly due to rounding Table 7 compares the existing Hospital emissions to the base year (2006) emissions for the South Coast Air Basin presented in the 2003 AQMP. The table shows that the emissions associated with the hospital are a very small fraction, less than 21 thousandths of a percent, of the basin's emissions. Table 7 Atal Emissions Compared Regional Emissions * Source: 2003 AQMP Tables 3 -5A & 3 -5B Pollutant Emissions (tons/day) CO yOC NO, PM, PM t s0, Project Emissions 0.805 0.106 0.185 0.015 0.013 0.001 2006 South Coast Air Basin* 3,973 730 950 293 60 Project as % of Basin 0.0203% 0.0145% 0.01940/c 0.0052% 0.0012% * Source: 2003 AQMP Tables 3 -5A & 3 -5B Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 19 2.0 Potential Air Quality Impacts Air quality impacts are usually divided into short-term and long -term. Short-term impacts are usually the result of construction or grading operations. Long -term impacts are associated with the built out condition of the proposed Project. 2.1 Thresholds of Significance 2.1.1 Regional Air Quality In the "1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook", the SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess the regional impact of project related air pollutant emissions. Table 8 presents these significance thresholds. There are separate thresholds for short-term construction and long -term operational emissions. A project with daily emission rates below these thresholds are considered to have a less than significant effect on regional air quality throughout the South Coast Air Basin. Table 8 SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Emissions (lbstday) co Voc NOx PM10 PM" sox Construction 550 75 100 150 55 150 Operation 550 55 55 150 55 150 It should be noted that an exceedance of the thresholds presented in Table 8 does not necessarily cause a violation or contribute to a violation of the Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) presented previously in Table 2. The AAQS are in terms of pollutant concentrations, which is a direct measure of the level of exposure to the pollutants. Violations of the AAQS are measured at the ambient air monitoring stations operated by SCAQMD and ARB. The SCAQMD significance thresholds are in terms of total daily of pollutant emissions. Pollutant concentrations are dependent on the amount of pollutant emissions and weather patterns that disperse the emissions. 2.1.2 Local Air Quality To assess local air quality impacts, the significance thresholds are relative to the State AAQS. Because the area is, technically, in attainment of the CO state standards exceedances of these standards, 20 ppm for 1 -hour Carbon Monoxide (CO) concentration levels, and 9 ppm for 8 -hour CO concentration levels, result in a significant local air quality impact. If the CO concentration levels with the Project are under the standards, then there is no significant impact. If future CO concentrations with the Project are above these levels, then the Project will have a significant local air quality impact. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 20 2.2 Short-Term Impacts 2.2.1 Construction Air Pollutant Emissions As discussed previously, the proposed Project does not increase the allowable development and only reallocates the currently approved levels of development for the Hoag Hospital site. No specific projects are proposed. Therefore, a detailed analysis of air quality impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project cannot be performed. Temporary impacts will result from Project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment, fugitive dust will be generated during grading of the Project site, and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC — an ozone precursor) will be released during asphalt laying and the application of architectural coatings. Typically, the greatest levels of air pollutant emissions during construction activities occur during site grading and/or demolition. Operating more than four pieces of the largest heavy construction equipment for 8 hours a day or 6 to 8 pieces of smaller equipment will generate NO, emissions in excess of the SCAQMD's 100 pounds per day significance threshold. Actively disturbing more than 13.4 acres of exposed soil per day will generate PM,,, emissions greater than the 150 pounds per day significance threshold even when site watering is performed. During demolition, heavy equipment is used, the demolition activities generate PM „) emissions and debris haul trucks generate considerable emissions. Heavy trucks traveling more than 2,500 vehicle miles, 50 trips with a 25 mile one way trip length, generate NO, emissions greater than the 100 pounds per day threshold. For NO, emissions to remain below the significance threshold, truck trips would need to be limited more than this, because the combined emissions from the trucks and heavy equipment would need to be lower than the threshold. Therefore, it is possible that grading and demolition activities resulting from the Project would generate PM,,, PM2.5 and NOx emissions greater than the SCAQMD thresholds and result in a significant air quality impact. Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.1. Final EIR No. 142 prepared and certified in 1991 to assess the environmental impacts of the currently approved Master Plan for Hoag Hospital. The air quality analysis for Final EIR No. 142 found that emissions due to construction activities associated with the development of the Master Plan would result in a significant air quality impact. Because the Project does not change the allowable development of the Hoag Hospital site, the impact of air pollutant emissions with the Proposed Project would not be expected to change significantly from development currently approved. Other considerable emissions that can occur on a short-term basis include the off -gas (evaporative) emissions of VOC from the application of architectural coatings (e.g.; painting) and off -gas emissions of VOC from asphalt paving. Based on the emission factor of 2.62 pounds per acre of asphalt paving (from URBEMIS2002), up to 28.6 acres could be paved daily without exceeding the threshold. It is unlikely that this amount of paving would be required at the hospital. Therefore, asphalt paving would likely not result in a significant air quality impact. Based on the emission factor of 0.0185 pounds per square foot of painted surface (from URBEMIS2002) only 4,054 square feet or less of surface could be painted each day without exceeding the threshold. This is only approximately 500 linear feet of an 8 foot high surface. It is unlikely that painting would be limited to this amount. However, the emission factor used in Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 21 this calculation assumes the use of paint with the highest VOC content available for use in the South Coast Air Basin and the most inefficient method of application. However it is still likely that VOC emissions during application of architectural coatings would exceed the 75 lbs. /day significance threshold. Therefore, it is likely that painting activities resulting from the Project would result in a significant air quality impact. Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.1. SCAQMD has developed a methodology to assess the localized impacts of emissions from within a project site (SCAQMD, Draft Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 19, 2003). SCAQMD recommends, but does not require, comparing projects to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). The LST's were developed to analyze the significance of potential local air quality impacts of projects and provides screening tables for smaller projects, in which emissions may be less than the mass daily emission thresholds analyzed above. The SCAQMD also recommends project- specific air quality modeling for larger projects. Depending on the size and location of specific construction projects relative to sensitive receptors it is possible that individual projects will have a significant short -term localized impact for NO„ PM,,,, and PM, 5. Therefore, the proposed Project could have a significant impact on local air quality during construction. Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.1. In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified particulate matter from diesel - fueled engines (Diesel Particulate Matter or DPM) as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). The majority of the heavy construction equipment utilized during construction will be diesel fueled and emit DPM. Impacts from toxic substances are related to cumulative exposure and are assessed over a 70 -year period. Cancer risk is expressed as the maximum number of new cases of cancer projected to occur in a population of one million people due to exposure to the cancer - causing substance over'a 70 -year lifetime (California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Guide to Health Risk Assessment.) Because of the relatively short duration of construction compared to a 70 -year lifespan, diesel emissions resulting from the construction of the Project are not expected to result in a significant impact. 2.3 Long -Term Impacts 2.3.1 Local Air Quality Project impacts While the Project is projected to result in fewer vehicle trips than the currently approved Master Plan, the Project will change traffic distribution patterns which will increase traffic volumes at some intersections. Increased traffic volumes result in increased pollutant emissions in the vicinity of these intersections, which can cause pollutant levels to exceed the ambient air quality standards. Carbon monoxide (CO) is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. For this reason carbon monoxide concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network, and are used as an indicator of its impacts on local air quality. CO concentrations are highest near intersections where queuing increases emissions. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future carbon monoxide levels with State and Federal carbon monoxide standards moreover by comparing future CO concentrations with and without the Project. The Federal and State standards for carbon monoxide were presented earlier in Table 2. CO modeling was performed for the 2005 CO Resignation Request and Maintenance Plan to demonstrate attainment of the federal CO standards. Modeling was performed for four intersections considered the worst -case intersections in the South Coast Air Basin. These Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 22 intersections included, Wilshire at Veteran, Sunset at Highland, La Cienega at Century, and Long Beach at Imperial. Table 4 -10 of Attachment 2 of the 2005 CO Resignation Request and Maintenance Plan shows that modeled 1 -hour average concentrations at these four intersections for 2002 conditions are actually below the 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm. The highest modeled 1- hour average concentration of 4.6 ppm occurred at the Wilshire and Veteran intersection. None of the intersections in the Project area have peak hour traffic volumes that exceed those at the intersections modeled in the AQMP nor do they have any geometric qualities that would result in higher concentrations than for the intersections modeled for the AQMP. Generally, only intersections operating at LOS of D or worse are considered to have the potential to cause CO concentrations to exceed the state ambient air quality standards of 20 ppm for a 1 -hour averaging time and 9 ppm for an 8 -hour averaging time. Compared to the future conditions with the approved Master Plan, the Project is projected to increase total traffic volumes traveling through the intersection during peak hours at only four intersections; (1) Superior Avenue at Hospital Road, (2) Hoag Drive/Placentia Avenue at Hospital Road, (3) Superior Avenue at 16" Street /Industrial Way, and (4) Superior Avenue at 17" Street. All four of these intersections are projected to operate with a Level of Service (LOS) of C or better with the Project for the peak period where the Project is projected to increase the volume. (Superior Avenue at 17" Street is shown to have an A.M. Peak hour LOS of E for Existing and 2015 conditions with and without the Project and LOS D for 2025 conditions with and without the Project, but the Project is not projected to affect the A.M. Peak Hour traffic volume at this intersection.) The Project is not projected to affect the LOS at these intersections compared to future conditions with the approved Master Plan. Peak hour traffic volume increases due to the Project are less than 5 percent for all four intersections and would not be expected to alter CO concentrations significantly. Compared to the conditions with the approved Master Plan, the Project Alternative is projected to increase total traffic volumes traveling through the intersection during peak hour at the same four intersections as the Project and one additional intersection; Placenta Avenue at Superior Avenue. All five of these intersections are projected to operate with a Level of Service (LOS) of C or better with the Project Alternative for the peak period where the Project Alternative is projected to increase the volume. (Superior Avenue at 17' Street is shown to have an A.M. Peak hour LOS of E for Existing and 2015 conditions with and without the Project Alternative and LOS D for 2025 conditions with and without the Project Alternative, but the Project Alternative is not projected to affect the A.M. Peak Hour traffic volume at the intersection.) The Project Alternative is not projected to affect the LOS at these intersections compared to conditions with the approved Master Plan. Peak hour traffic volume increases due to the Project Alternative are less than 5 percent for all five intersections and would not be expected to alter CO concentrations significantly. Based on the modeling from the AQMP and the fact that neither the Project nor the Project Alternative will substantially affect intersection operation, in terms of CO generation, all intersections in the vicinity would not be expected to experience CO concentrations in excess of the state standards. Further, neither the Project nor the Project Alternative would result in any changes in air pollutant emissions from stationary on -site sources that could affect local air quality in the vicinity of the Hospital. Therefore, neither the Project nor the Project Alternative will result in a significant local air quality impact. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 23 2.3.2 Regional Air Quality The primary source of regional emissions generated by Hoag Hospital operations is from motor vehicles. Other emissions are generated from the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating and the on -site generation of electricity at the cogeneration facility on the campus. Air pollutant emissions for future conditions with and without the Project were calculated and are presented below. The emissions were calculated using the guidance presented in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and information presented on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook web site ( http: / /www.agmd.gov /ceqa/hdbk.html). Emission factors from EMFAC2007 published by the SCAQMD on their CEQA Air Quality Handbook web site were used to estimate vehicular emissions. ENMAC2007 is a computer program generated by the California Air Resources Board that calculates emission rates for vehicles. The average trip length for the Project was calculated to be 9.0 miles. This is a composite trip length derived from data contained in the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Page 9 -24). The data used to estimate the on -site combustion of natural gas are based on the proposed land uses in terms of building square footages, and emission factors taken from the SCAQMD 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The hospital operates a cogeneration facility that generates electricity from natural gas extracted from the ground. At present, three engine/generators generate 1,475 kilowatts of electricity and three generators are planned to be added in the future that will generate 2,950 kilowatts of electricity. Emissions from these generators were calculated based on the maximum permissible emission rates allowed by the SCAQMD permits for the units. Land use and trip generation information for each of the three scenarios analyzed were provided by the traffic engineer for the Project, Linscott, Law & Greenspan. Emissions presented below were calculated for the earliest expected buildout year of the Project, 2015. As vehicular emissions are projected to be reduced in future years, due to more vehicles complying with more stringent air pollution emission standards, consideration of the earliest buildout year of the Project results in the highest emissions generation by the Project PM25 emissions due to natural gas combustion were calculated using the methodology presented in SCAQMD's "Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds" (October 2006). The PM1„ emissions were calculated using the above methodologies and then multiplying the PM10 emissions by the applicable PM23 fraction derived from emission source, using PM profiles in the California Emission Inventory Data and Reporting System (CEIDRS) developed by GARB. This data indicates that PM,_, emissions are 0.990 times PMw emissions. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 24 Future Emission With Existing Development Air pollutant emissions from the existing Hoag Hospital facilities will decrease in the future from the levels presented previously in Table 6. This is due to projected reductions in vehicular emissions due to more vehicles complying with more stringent air pollution emission standards. Emissions related to natural gas consumption and electrical generation are not projected to change. The impact of the Project is measured against the change in emissions resulting from the implementation of the Project. Therefore, the emissions from the existing facilities are subtracted from the total facility emissions with the Project to determine the change caused by the Project. Table 9 presents the estimate of emissions from the Hospital in 2015 if no additional development is performed and represent the baseline emissions for analyzing the impacts of the Project. The total emissions presented on the last row of Table 9 are subtracted from the With - Project emission calculations presented below to determine the change in emissions due to the Project. This change in emissions is compared to the SCAQMD significance thresholds presented in Table 8 to determine the significance of the changes resulting from the Project. Table 9 2015 Existina HosDltal Development Emissions Note: Total may not equal sum of components exactly due to rounding Emission Increases With Previously Approved Development The approved Master Plan for the Hospital allows for development of a total of 1,343,238 square feet of building space independent of approval of the Proposed Project. The traffic study shows that under this scenario, the Hospital is projected to generate 27,152 daily vehicle trips. This results in 244,368 daily vehicle miles traveled associated with the Hospital when developed under the approved Master Plan. In addition, current plans will add three additional generator units to the cogeneration facility. Table 10 presents the estimate of emissions from the Hospital in 2015 with the currently approved development. A worksheet showing the detailed data used to calculate these emissions is presented in the appendix. Table 10 2015 Hospital Emissions With Approved Development Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) Source CO yOC NO PM,n PM,t SOy Vehicular Trips 808.1 90.3 152.9 14.2 9.8 1.5 Natural Gas Consumption 2.8 0.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 On -Site Electrical Generation 73.2 49.5 49.5 14.9 14.7 0.0 Total Area Emissions 884.1 140.6 219.1 29.1 24.5 1.5 Note: Total may not equal sum of components exactly due to rounding Emission Increases With Previously Approved Development The approved Master Plan for the Hospital allows for development of a total of 1,343,238 square feet of building space independent of approval of the Proposed Project. The traffic study shows that under this scenario, the Hospital is projected to generate 27,152 daily vehicle trips. This results in 244,368 daily vehicle miles traveled associated with the Hospital when developed under the approved Master Plan. In addition, current plans will add three additional generator units to the cogeneration facility. Table 10 presents the estimate of emissions from the Hospital in 2015 with the currently approved development. A worksheet showing the detailed data used to calculate these emissions is presented in the appendix. Table 10 2015 Hospital Emissions With Approved Development Note: Total may not equal sum of components exactly due to rounding Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) Source CO yOC NO. PM'. PM2.5 SO. Vehicular Trips 1,568.5 175.3 296.7 27.6 19.0 2.8 Natural Gas Consumption 4.2 1.1 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 On -Site Electrical Generation 146.5 99.1 99.1 29.7 29.4 0.0 Total Area Emissions 1,719.2 275.5 421.2 57.4 48.5 2.8 Note: Total may not equal sum of components exactly due to rounding Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 25 Table 11 presents the increase in emissions associated with the development of the Hospital under the currently approved development plans. The emissions with existing development in 2015 from Table 9 and with approved development from Table 10 are presented and the increase due to the additional currently approved development is shown. The SCAQMD thresholds are also presented. Table 11 2015 Emissions Increase With Note: Change may not equal difference of components exactly due to rounding Table 1 1 shows that, without the proposed Project, the increases in CO, VOC and NO, emissions associated with the currently approved development of the Hospital are projected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. This shows that the development of the existing Master Plan would result in a significant air quality impact using the SCAQMD thresholds. At the time the analysis for Final EIR No. 142, the 1991 EIR prepared and certified for the currently approved Master Plan for the Hospital, was prepared, SCAQMD had not published these thresholds. The air quality analysis in Final EIR No. 142 found that the development of the Master Plan would not have a significant regional air quality impact by itself. Cumulative air quality impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable. The finding of no significant impact for the Master Plan was reached by comparing the Hospital emissions with regional emissions for the South Coast Air Basin and Source Receptor Area 18. The analysis concluded that since the Hospital represented such a small portion of regional emissions that it did not result in a significant impact. However, CO, VOC, and NO, emissions projected in the Final EIR No. 142 were greater than the SCAQMD significance thresholds established in the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Air Pollutant emissions from the Hospital operations with the Master Plan presented in the Final EIR No. 142 were greater than those presented in Table 10 for all pollutants except VOC. CO and NOx emissions are projected to be 3 to 7 percent lower in Table 10 than they were in the Final EIR No. 142, and VOC emissions are projected to be 92% higher than in Final EIR No. 142. These differences are due to multiple factors. Vehicular emission factors and emission factors due to on site natural gas combustion have been updated since 1991. The cogeneration facility emissions included in the emission estimate presented above were not directly included in Final EIR No, 142. Vehicular trip generation and trip length estimates for the Hospital in 1991 are different from the estimates used to estimate emissions presented in Table 10. The current trip length values are derived from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook which was published in 1993, prior to Final EIR No. 142 and trip generation rates have undergone several refinements since that time. Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) Condition CO voc NO, PM" PM'.' s0, Existing Uses in 2015 884.1 140.6 219.1 29.1 24.5 1.5 Future Without Project 1,719.2 275.5 421.2 57.4 48.5 2.8 Change In Emissions 835.1 134.9 202.0 28.3 23.9 1.4 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 Note: Change may not equal difference of components exactly due to rounding Table 1 1 shows that, without the proposed Project, the increases in CO, VOC and NO, emissions associated with the currently approved development of the Hospital are projected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. This shows that the development of the existing Master Plan would result in a significant air quality impact using the SCAQMD thresholds. At the time the analysis for Final EIR No. 142, the 1991 EIR prepared and certified for the currently approved Master Plan for the Hospital, was prepared, SCAQMD had not published these thresholds. The air quality analysis in Final EIR No. 142 found that the development of the Master Plan would not have a significant regional air quality impact by itself. Cumulative air quality impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable. The finding of no significant impact for the Master Plan was reached by comparing the Hospital emissions with regional emissions for the South Coast Air Basin and Source Receptor Area 18. The analysis concluded that since the Hospital represented such a small portion of regional emissions that it did not result in a significant impact. However, CO, VOC, and NO, emissions projected in the Final EIR No. 142 were greater than the SCAQMD significance thresholds established in the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Air Pollutant emissions from the Hospital operations with the Master Plan presented in the Final EIR No. 142 were greater than those presented in Table 10 for all pollutants except VOC. CO and NOx emissions are projected to be 3 to 7 percent lower in Table 10 than they were in the Final EIR No. 142, and VOC emissions are projected to be 92% higher than in Final EIR No. 142. These differences are due to multiple factors. Vehicular emission factors and emission factors due to on site natural gas combustion have been updated since 1991. The cogeneration facility emissions included in the emission estimate presented above were not directly included in Final EIR No, 142. Vehicular trip generation and trip length estimates for the Hospital in 1991 are different from the estimates used to estimate emissions presented in Table 10. The current trip length values are derived from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook which was published in 1993, prior to Final EIR No. 142 and trip generation rates have undergone several refinements since that time. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 26 Table 11 shows that the development of the Master Plan results in a significant air quality impact when compared to the SCAQMD significance thresholds, including potential human health implications associated with each of the subject pollutants (see discussion of effects of pollutants on health in Section 1.3). Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.2. Emission Increases With Project In 2015, with the Project, the Hospital is projected to have 1,343,238 square feet of building space, the same as the existing Master Plan. The traffic study shows that with the full transfer of 225,000 square feet from the lower campus to the upper campus, the Hospital is projected to generate 22,801 daily vehicle trips. This results in 205,209 daily vehicle miles traveled associated with the Hospital under these conditions. This represents 16% reduction in trips and vehicle miles traveled with the Proposed Project compared to the existing Master Plan. This level of reduction would only be experienced if the full 225,000 square feet were transferred from the lower campus to the upper campus. The Project only proposes to allow for transferring this amount of development but does not require the transfer. If less development were transferred, the reduction in trips would be less, to the point where, if no area is transferred, the trip generation would be the same as the Master Plan and emissions would be the same as presented above in Table 10 and result in the air pollutant emission increases shown in Table 11. Table 12 presents the estimate of emissions from the Hospital in 2015 with the full transfer of 225,000 square feet from the lower campus to the upper campus. A worksheet showing the detailed data used to calculate these emissions is presented in the appendix. Table 12 2015 Emissions With Project* Total Area Emissions 1,467.9 247.4 373.6 53.0 45.4 2.4 * Assumes full transfer of 225,000 square feet from lower campus to upper campus Note: Total may not equal sum of components exactly due to rounding Table 13 presents the increase in emissions associated with the development of the Hospital with the proposed Project. The emissions from the Hospital for existing conditions from Table 9 and with the Project from Table 12 are presented and the increase due to the Project is shown. The SCAQMD thresholds are also presented. Pollutant Emissions (lbstday) Source CO yoC N% PM,a PMu s% Vehicular Trips 1,317.2 147.2 249.2 23.2 16.0 2.4 Natural Gas Consumption 4.2 1.1 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 On -Site Electrical Generation 146.5 99.1 99.1 29.7 29.4 0.0 Total Area Emissions 1,467.9 247.4 373.6 53.0 45.4 2.4 * Assumes full transfer of 225,000 square feet from lower campus to upper campus Note: Total may not equal sum of components exactly due to rounding Table 13 presents the increase in emissions associated with the development of the Hospital with the proposed Project. The emissions from the Hospital for existing conditions from Table 9 and with the Project from Table 12 are presented and the increase due to the Project is shown. The SCAQMD thresholds are also presented. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 27 Table 13 Emissions Increase With Project Over Existina Conditions *Assumes full transfer of 225,000 square feet from lower campus to upper campus Note: Change may not equal difference of components exactly due to rounding Table 13 shows that the increase in CO, VOC and NO, emissions associated with the development of the Project over existing conditions are projected to exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, the development of the Master Plan as modified by the Project will result in a significant air quality impact for CO, VOC, and NO„ including potential human health implications associated with each of these pollutants (see discussion of effects of pollutants on health in Section 1.3). Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.2. Table 14 presents the change in emissions associated with the development of the Hospital with the proposed Project, assuming the full transfer of 225,000 square feet from the lower campus to the upper campus, compared to future conditions without the Project (i.e., with the current Master Plan), The Hospital emissions for future conditions with currently approved development (Future Without Project) from Table 10 and with the Project from Table 12 are presented and the change due to the Project is shown. The SCAQMD thresholds are also presented. Table 14 Future Emissions Change Due to Project Pollutant Emissions (lbstday) Future Without Project 1,719.2 Pollutant Emissions (lbstday) 421.2 57.4 Condition CO VOC NO, PM" PM" s0, Existing Uses in 2015 884.1 140.6 219.1 29.1 24.5 1.5 Future With Project* 1,467.9 247.4 373.6 53.0 45.4 2.4 Change In Emissions 583.8 106.8 154.5 23.8 20.9 0.9 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 *Assumes full transfer of 225,000 square feet from lower campus to upper campus Note: Change may not equal difference of components exactly due to rounding Table 13 shows that the increase in CO, VOC and NO, emissions associated with the development of the Project over existing conditions are projected to exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, the development of the Master Plan as modified by the Project will result in a significant air quality impact for CO, VOC, and NO„ including potential human health implications associated with each of these pollutants (see discussion of effects of pollutants on health in Section 1.3). Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.2. Table 14 presents the change in emissions associated with the development of the Hospital with the proposed Project, assuming the full transfer of 225,000 square feet from the lower campus to the upper campus, compared to future conditions without the Project (i.e., with the current Master Plan), The Hospital emissions for future conditions with currently approved development (Future Without Project) from Table 10 and with the Project from Table 12 are presented and the change due to the Project is shown. The SCAQMD thresholds are also presented. Table 14 Future Emissions Change Due to Project Pollutant Emissions (lbstday) Future Without Project 1,719.2 275.5 421.2 57.4 48.5 2.8 Future With Project* 1,467.9 247.4 373.6 53.0 45.4 2.4 Change In Emissions -251.4 -28.1 -47.6 -4.4 -3.0 -0.5 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 * Assumes full transfer of 225,000 square feel from lower campus to upper campus Note: Change may not equal difference of components exactly due to rounding Table 14 shows that the Project will result in lower emissions than future conditions without the Project, This is due to the projected reduction in Hospital vehicle trips with the Project shown in the traffic study. Note that the reductions shown only occur if the full 225,000 square feet is transferred from the lower campus to the upper campus. Lower reductions would occur with less area transferred, to the point where, if no area is transferred, the emissions would not change from those with the approved Master Plan presented in Table 11. Transferring the full 225,000 square feet would reduce the projected CO, VOC and NO, emission increases over existing conditions by between 6% and 15% compared to future conditions with currently approved development. Therefore, the Project, when considered by itself, does not result in a significant impact. However, the development of the Master Plan, even as modified by the Project will Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 28 result in a significant impact by virtue of exceeding certain of the SCAQMD thresholds as discussed above. Table 15 compares the Hospital emissions with the Project to the 2020 emissions projected for the South Coast Air Basin presented in the 2003 AQMP. The table shows that the emissions associated with the Hospital with the proposed Project are a very small fraction, less than 36 thousandths of a percent, of the basin's emissions. Table 15 Hospjtal Emissions With Project Comraared Regjonal Emissions * Source: 2003 AQMP Tables 3 -5A & 3 -5B Emission Increases With Project Alternative In 2015, with the Project Alternative, the Hospital is projected to have 1,343,238 square feet of building space, the same as the existing Master Plan. The traffic study shows that with the full transfer of 150,000 square feet from the lower campus to the upper campus, the Hospital is projected to generate 25,365 daily vehicle trips. This results in 228,285 daily vehicle miles traveled associated with the Hospital under these conditions. This represents 6.6 % reduction in trips and vehicle miles traveled with the Project Alternative compared to the existing Master Plan. This level of reduction would only be experienced if the full 150,000 square feet were transferred from the lower campus to the upper campus. The Project Alternative only proposes to allow for transferring this amount of development but does not require the transfer. If less development were transferred, the reduction in trips would be less, to the point where, if no area is transferred, the trip generation would be the same as the Master Plan and emissions would be the same as presented above in Table 10 and result in the air pollutant emission increases shown in Table 11. Table 16 presents the estimate of emissions from the Hospital in 2015 with the full transfer of 150,000 square feet from the lower campus to the upper campus. A worksheet showing the detailed data used to calculate these emissions is presented in the appendix. Table 16 2015 Emissions With Project Alternative* Pollutant Emissions (tons/day) co voc NO, PM, PMzs s% Hospital Emissions w/ Proj. 0.734 0.124 0.187 0.026 0.023 0.001 2020 South Coast Air Basing 2,414 584 532 318 -- 76 Project as % of Basin 0.0304% 0.0212% 0.0351% 0.0083% -- 0.0016% * Source: 2003 AQMP Tables 3 -5A & 3 -5B Emission Increases With Project Alternative In 2015, with the Project Alternative, the Hospital is projected to have 1,343,238 square feet of building space, the same as the existing Master Plan. The traffic study shows that with the full transfer of 150,000 square feet from the lower campus to the upper campus, the Hospital is projected to generate 25,365 daily vehicle trips. This results in 228,285 daily vehicle miles traveled associated with the Hospital under these conditions. This represents 6.6 % reduction in trips and vehicle miles traveled with the Project Alternative compared to the existing Master Plan. This level of reduction would only be experienced if the full 150,000 square feet were transferred from the lower campus to the upper campus. The Project Alternative only proposes to allow for transferring this amount of development but does not require the transfer. If less development were transferred, the reduction in trips would be less, to the point where, if no area is transferred, the trip generation would be the same as the Master Plan and emissions would be the same as presented above in Table 10 and result in the air pollutant emission increases shown in Table 11. Table 16 presents the estimate of emissions from the Hospital in 2015 with the full transfer of 150,000 square feet from the lower campus to the upper campus. A worksheet showing the detailed data used to calculate these emissions is presented in the appendix. Table 16 2015 Emissions With Project Alternative* Total Area Emissions 1,616.0 263.9 401.6 55.6 47.2 2.6 * Assumes full transfer of 150.000 Square feet from the lower campus to the upper campus Note: Total may not equal sum of components exactly due to rounding Pollutant Emissions (lbslday) Source co voc NO PM, PM21 s0 Vehicular Trips 1,465.3 163.8 277.2 25.8 17.8 2.6 Natural Gas Consumption 4.2 1.1 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 On -Site Electrical Generation 146.5 99.1 99.1 29.7 294 0.0 Total Area Emissions 1,616.0 263.9 401.6 55.6 47.2 2.6 * Assumes full transfer of 150.000 Square feet from the lower campus to the upper campus Note: Total may not equal sum of components exactly due to rounding Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 29 Table 17 presents the increase in emissions associated with the development of the Hospital with the proposed Project Alternative. The emissions from the Hospital for existing conditions from Table 9 and with the Project Alternative from Table 16 are presented and the increase due to the Project Alternative is shown. The SCAQMD thresholds are also presented. Table 17 ons Increase With Project Alternative Ovel SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 Note: Change may not equal difference of components exactly due to rounding Table 17 shows that the increase in CO, VOC and NO, emissions associated with the development of the Project Alternative over existing conditions are projected to exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, the development of the Master Plan as modified by the Project Alternative will result in a significant air quality impact for CO, VOC, and NO., including potential human health implications associated with each of these pollutants (see discussion of effects of pollutants on health in Section 1.3). Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.2. Table 18 presents the change in emissions associated with the development of the Hospital with the proposed Project Alternative, assuming the full transfer of 150,000 square feet from the lower campus to the upper campus compared to future conditions without the Project (i.e., with the current Master Plan). The Hospital emissions for future conditions with currently approved development (Future Without Project) from Table l l and with the Project Alternative from Table 16 are presented and the change due to the Project Alternative is shown. The SCAQMD thresholds are also presented. Table 18 Future Emissions Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) Condition CO VOC NOx PM,a PM" s0 Future Without Project 1,719.2 275.5 421.2 57.4 48.5 2.8 Future With Alternative* 1,616.0 263.9 401.6 55.6 47.2 2.6 Change in Emissions -103.2 -11.5 -19.5 -1.8 -1.3 -0.2 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 " Assumes full transfer of 150,000 square feet from lower campus to upper campus Note: Change may not equal difference of components exactly due to rounding Table 18 shows that the Project Alternative will result in lower emissions than future conditions with the approved Master Plan. This is due to the reduction in Hospital vehicle trips projected with the Project Alternative by the traffic study. Note that the reductions shown only occur if the full 150,000 square feet is transferred from the lower campus to the upper campus. Lower reductions would occur with less area transferred, to the point that if no area is transferred, the emissions would not change from those with the approved Master Plan presented in Table 11. Pollutant Emissions (lbs / day) Condition CO VOC NO, PM" PM'.' s0, Existing Uses in 2015 884.1 140.6 219.1 29.1 24.5 1.5 Future With Alternative 1,616.0 263.9 401.6 55.6 47.2 2.6 Change In Emissions 731.9 123.4 182.5 26.4 22.7 1.2 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 Note: Change may not equal difference of components exactly due to rounding Table 17 shows that the increase in CO, VOC and NO, emissions associated with the development of the Project Alternative over existing conditions are projected to exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, the development of the Master Plan as modified by the Project Alternative will result in a significant air quality impact for CO, VOC, and NO., including potential human health implications associated with each of these pollutants (see discussion of effects of pollutants on health in Section 1.3). Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.2. Table 18 presents the change in emissions associated with the development of the Hospital with the proposed Project Alternative, assuming the full transfer of 150,000 square feet from the lower campus to the upper campus compared to future conditions without the Project (i.e., with the current Master Plan). The Hospital emissions for future conditions with currently approved development (Future Without Project) from Table l l and with the Project Alternative from Table 16 are presented and the change due to the Project Alternative is shown. The SCAQMD thresholds are also presented. Table 18 Future Emissions Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) Condition CO VOC NOx PM,a PM" s0 Future Without Project 1,719.2 275.5 421.2 57.4 48.5 2.8 Future With Alternative* 1,616.0 263.9 401.6 55.6 47.2 2.6 Change in Emissions -103.2 -11.5 -19.5 -1.8 -1.3 -0.2 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 55 150 " Assumes full transfer of 150,000 square feet from lower campus to upper campus Note: Change may not equal difference of components exactly due to rounding Table 18 shows that the Project Alternative will result in lower emissions than future conditions with the approved Master Plan. This is due to the reduction in Hospital vehicle trips projected with the Project Alternative by the traffic study. Note that the reductions shown only occur if the full 150,000 square feet is transferred from the lower campus to the upper campus. Lower reductions would occur with less area transferred, to the point that if no area is transferred, the emissions would not change from those with the approved Master Plan presented in Table 11. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 30 Transferring the full 150,000 square feet would reduce the projected CO, VOC and NO, emission increases over existing conditions by between 3% and 7% compared to future conditions with currently approved development. Therefore, the Project Alternative, when considered by itself, does not result in a significant impact. However, the development of the Master Plan, even as modified by the Project Alternative will result in a significant impact by virtue of exceeding certain of the SCAQMD thresholds as discussed above. Table 19 compares the Hospital emissions with the Project Alternative to the 2020 emissions projected for the South Coast Air Basin presented in the 2003 AQMP. The table shows that the emissions associated with the Hospital with the Project Alternative are a very small fraction, less than 38 thousandths of a percent, of the basin's emissions. Table 19 With Project Alternative Compared Regional Emissions * Source: 2003 AQMP Tables 3 -5A & 3 -5B Summary The increase in emissions associated with the development of the Master Plan as modified by the Project or the Project Alternative compared to existing development are projected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance (as would the existing approved development even in the absence of the Proposed Project or Project Alternative). Note also that these thresholds are not necessarily an appropriate reference to determine the significance of Project emissions. These thresholds are taken from the "1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook ", which states that the criteria "are consistent with the federal Clean Air Act definition of a significant source in an area classified as extreme for ozone." While it is correct that the thresholds are consistent as such, the Handbook does not acknowledge such criteria were developed .initially by the U.S. EPA to be applied to point source emissions, such as an industrial smokestack. Comparisons between emissions from an extreme point source and emissions from the Hospital are clearly inappropriate in this context. Emissions from the Hospital are primarily from motor vehicles traveling in the area. Emissions from the Hospital bear no resemblance to emissions from industrial sources. In spite of the original intent and application of SCAQMD's thresholds, SCAQMD has recommended their application to emissions generated by a proposed project, including vehicle emissions, and therefore, the change in emissions resulting from the project is compared with them per the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Since the increase in daily emissions of CO, VOC and NO, due to the Project will exceed the significance thresholds presented in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, the development of the Master Plan as modified by the Project or the Project Alternative, is considered to have significant long -term impacts, including potential human health implications associated with each of the subject pollutants (see discussion of effects of pollutants on health in Section 1.3). As a result, mitigation measures are recommended for long -term impacts. Mitigation measures are discussed in Section 3.2. Pollutant Emissions (tons /day) co Voc NO, PM,, PM,., sox Hospital Emissions w/ Alt. 0.808 0.132 0.201 0.028 0.024 0.001 2020 South Coast Air Basin* 2,414 584 532 318 -- 76 Project as % of Basin 0.0335% 0.0226% 0.0377% 0.0087% -- 0.0017% * Source: 2003 AQMP Tables 3 -5A & 3 -5B Summary The increase in emissions associated with the development of the Master Plan as modified by the Project or the Project Alternative compared to existing development are projected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance (as would the existing approved development even in the absence of the Proposed Project or Project Alternative). Note also that these thresholds are not necessarily an appropriate reference to determine the significance of Project emissions. These thresholds are taken from the "1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook ", which states that the criteria "are consistent with the federal Clean Air Act definition of a significant source in an area classified as extreme for ozone." While it is correct that the thresholds are consistent as such, the Handbook does not acknowledge such criteria were developed .initially by the U.S. EPA to be applied to point source emissions, such as an industrial smokestack. Comparisons between emissions from an extreme point source and emissions from the Hospital are clearly inappropriate in this context. Emissions from the Hospital are primarily from motor vehicles traveling in the area. Emissions from the Hospital bear no resemblance to emissions from industrial sources. In spite of the original intent and application of SCAQMD's thresholds, SCAQMD has recommended their application to emissions generated by a proposed project, including vehicle emissions, and therefore, the change in emissions resulting from the project is compared with them per the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Since the increase in daily emissions of CO, VOC and NO, due to the Project will exceed the significance thresholds presented in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, the development of the Master Plan as modified by the Project or the Project Alternative, is considered to have significant long -term impacts, including potential human health implications associated with each of the subject pollutants (see discussion of effects of pollutants on health in Section 1.3). As a result, mitigation measures are recommended for long -term impacts. Mitigation measures are discussed in Section 3.2. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 31 The Master Plan modified by both the Project and the Project Alternative result in emission reductions when compared with the currently approved Master Plan assuming full transfer of the proposed square footage from the lower campus to the upper campus. If no area is transferred, the emissions would be the same. Greater reductions would be experienced with the Project over the Project Alternative. The reduction in CO, VOC and NO, emissions with the Project are 2.4 times more than the reductions with the Project Alternative due to the greater reduction in vehicle trips. Table 20 shows the emissions from the entire Hospital with the development of the Project and with the Project Alternative. The last row of the table shows the increase in emissions with the Project alterative. The Project Alternative would result in CO, VOC, and NO, emissions between 4.2% and 6.0% higher than emissions with the Project Table 20 Difference In Emissions With Project vs. Project Alternative Note: Increase may not equal difference of components exactly due to rounding 2.4 Compliance with Air Quality Planning The following sections deal with the major air planning requirements for this Project. Specifically, consistency of the Project with the AQMP is addressed. As discussed below, consistency with the AQMP is a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2.4.1 Consistency with AQMP An EIR must discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed Project and applicable GPs and regional plans (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (Section 15125)). Regional plans that apply to the proposed Project include the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). In this regard, this section will discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed Project with the federally- approved applicable AQMP. The purpose of the consistency discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the Project would interfere with the region's ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision - makers determine that the project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: Pollutant Emissions (lbstday) Condition CO voc NO PM, PM,, SO, Future With Project 1,467.9 247.4 373.6 53.0 45.4 2.4 Future With Alternative 1,616.0 263.9 401.6 55.6 47.2 2.6 Increase With Alternative 148.1 16.6 28.0 2.6 1.8 0.3 Note: Increase may not equal difference of components exactly due to rounding 2.4 Compliance with Air Quality Planning The following sections deal with the major air planning requirements for this Project. Specifically, consistency of the Project with the AQMP is addressed. As discussed below, consistency with the AQMP is a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2.4.1 Consistency with AQMP An EIR must discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed Project and applicable GPs and regional plans (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (Section 15125)). Regional plans that apply to the proposed Project include the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). In this regard, this section will discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed Project with the federally- approved applicable AQMP. The purpose of the consistency discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the Project would interfere with the region's ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision - makers determine that the project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 32 (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots). (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality analysis contained in this report, there will be significant start-term construction and long -term operational impacts due to the Project and Project Alternative based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. That is, air pollutant emissions from construction activities associated with the project may be greater than the SCAQMD thresholds, and air pollutant emissions associated with the operation of the Hospital will increase more than the SCAQMD thresholds with the Project or the Project Alternative. However, as discussed previously, emissions greater than the SCAQMD thresholds do not necessarily result in air pollutant concentrations greater than the Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). The analysis shows that the Hospital emissions are projected to be only a small fraction of the basin wide emissions, It is unlikely that emission increases due to the project would considerably affect monitored air pollutant concentrations at the nearest ambient air monitoring stations where violations of the AAQS would be recorded. The analysis for long -term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations are not projected to exceed any of the AAQS. The analysis for short-term construction impacts concluded that it is possible that construction activities could result in local pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the construction activities exceeding the AAQS. However, this exceedance would be localized to the area immediately surrounding the construction area and would not translate to a violation of the AAQS measured at nearby air monitoring stations. Neither the Project nor the Project Alternative is projected to increase the frequency or severity of violations of the AAQS, thus the Project and Project Alternative are found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by comparing the Project's population, housing and employment growth with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. Thus, the emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the Project growth and associated emissions do not exceed those assumed as a basis for the AQMP. AQMP growth assumptions are based upon the General Plans for the Cities in the Basin. The currently approved development at the Hospital is included in the City's General Plan and therefore is the basis for the AQMP growth assumptions. Table 14 and Table 18 show that emissions with the Project and Project Alternative will be lower than with the development of the currently approved development for the Project in the City's General Plan, primarily due to a reduction in Project vehicle trips. Since the AQMP predictions Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 33 are based on the General Plan and the Project will result in emissions reductions for all pollutants, the Project is consistent with the AQMP assumptions. 2.5 Comparison with Final EIR No. 142 Final EIR No. 142 prepared and certified in 1991 to assess the environmental impacts of the currently approved Master Plan for Hoag Hospital. Final EIR No. 142 was prepared prior to the publication of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the significance thresholds presented in the handbook. As discussed above in Section 3.2, the development of the Master Plan, in Final EIR No. 142, was found to not have a significant regional air quality impact by comparing the Hospital emissions with regional emissions for the South Coast Air Basin and Source Receptor Area 18. The analysis concluded that since the Hospital emissions represented such a small portion of regional emissions that it did not result in a significant impact. However, CO VOC and NO, emissions projected in Final EIR No. 142 were greater than the SCAQMD significance thresholds (as stated previously, the SCAQMD significance thresholds were not adopted until after EIR No. 142 was certified). Final EIR No. 142 did find that the Master Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impact. Emissions with the Master Plan (approved development) presented in EIR No. 142 were greater than those presented in Table 10 for all pollutants except VOC. CO and NO, emissions are projected to be 3 to 7 percent lower in Table 10 than they were in Final EIR No. 142 and VOC emissions are projected to be 92% higher than in Final EIR No. 142. These differences are due to revisions to vehicular emission factors and emission factors due to on site natural gas combustion and inclusion of the cogeneration facility emissions in the data presented in Table 10. Vehicular trip generation and trip length estimates for the Hospital when Final EIR No. 142 was prepared are different from the current values. The current trip length values are derived from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, which was published in 1993, prior to Final EIR No. 142, and trip generation rates have undergone several refinements since that time. Table 11 shows that the increases in emissions from Hospital Activity with the development of the Master Plan are greater than the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO, VOC and NO.. Therefore, development of the Master Plan results in a significant air quality impact. Emissions with the Project or Project Alternative are lower than with the approved Master Plan. However, the reductions do not reduce emission increases from existing conditions to below the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO, VOC, and NO,. Therefore, the development of the Master Plan as modified by either the Project or the Project Alternative results in a significant air quality impact. Final EIR No. 142 found that emissions due to construction activities associated with the development of the Master Plan would result in a significant air quality impact; likewise construction impacts with the Project or Project Alternative would also result in a significant air quality impact, Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 34 Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures The following is a list of Mitigation Measures adopted in Final EIR No. 142. The Hospital will be required to comply with all of these measures for all future development except as noted. 37. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of development, the project proponent shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that energy efficient lighting has been incorporated into the Project design. 82. Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach, demonstrating compliance with all applicable District Rules, including Rule 401, Visible Emissions, Rule 402, Public Nuisance, and Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. 88. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase of development, verifying that energy efficiency will be achieved by incorporating appropriate technologies and systems into future structures, which may include: High efficiency cooling /absorption units Thermal storage and ceramic cooling towers Cogeneration capabilities • High efficiency water heaters Energy efficient glazing systems • Appropriate off -hour heating /cooling /lighting controls Time clocks and photovoltaic cells for lighting controls • Efficient insulation systems • Light colored roof and building exteriors PL lighting and fluorescent lighting systems • Motion detector lighting controls Natural interior lighting — skylights, clerestories Solar orientation, earth berming and landscaping 89. The Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that methods and materials, which minimize VOC emissions have been employed where practical, available and where value engineering allows it to be feasible. 96. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that the thermal integrity of new buildings is improved with automated time clocks or occupant sensors to reduce the thermal load. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 35 97. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods have been incorporated into building designs. 98. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate that building designs incorporate efficient heating units and other appliances, such as water heater, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. 99. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate into building designs, where feasible, passive solar designs and solar heaters. 105.The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all trucks used for hauling material shall be covered to minimize material loss during transit. 106. Project Sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall be performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance, which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, erosion and siltation control, noise, and other grading related activities. 107. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during the morning and evening prior to or after earth moving operations. To further reduce dust generation, grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (MPH), and soil binders or SCAQMD approved chemical stabilizers should be spread on construction sites or unpaved areas. Additional measures to control fugitive dust include street sweeping of roads used by construction vehicles, reduction of speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, suspension of operations during first and second stage smog alerts, and wheel washing before construction vehicles leave the site. 110. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that low emission mobile and stationary equipment is utilized during construction, and low sulfur fuel is utilized in stationary equipment, when available. Evidence of this fact shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any grading or building permit. Measures 82, 89,105, 106, 107, and 110 are related to construction emissions. Note that measure 105 is covered by the California Vehicle Code that requires covering or adequate freeboard (i.e. the height of the side wall above the load) to minimize material loss. Measure 106 is compliance the City's Grading Ordinance, which is required of all grading activity in the City. Measure 107 is required for all grading in the South Coast Air Basin and the "to further reduce dust generation" items have been added to Rule 403 as standard conditions. Additional mitigation measures to reduce construction related emission are presented in Section 3.1. Because of the additional mitigation measures presented in Section 3. 1, mitigation measures 105, 106, and 107 are no longer required while mitigation measures 82, 89, and 110 will continue to apply. Measures, 37, 82, 96, 97, 98, and 99 are Energy Efficiency Measures and represent all feasible Energy Efficiency related air quality mitigation measures and will continue to apply. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 36 Mitigation Measure 38 is a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measure. In addition, the Hospital has additional TDM measures implemented to reduce vehicular trips. These measures include the promotion of ride sharing and carpooling through the implementation of dedicated carpool parking spaces, a formal vanpool program, ride matching services, and an account with yellow cab to provide guaranteed rides home due to illness, emergency, or unscheduled overtime. Bus schedules are available at cashiers, human resources and business services. The Hospital has on -site facilities that reduce trips including an ATM/Credit Union, cafeteria /lunch room, day care center, and transit pass sales. The hospital also provides compressed work weeks of 3/36 (12 hour shifts), 4/40 (10 hour shifts), and 9/80 (approximate 9 hour shifts) shifts for nursing and other departments and telecommuting for some employees. The hospital participates in emission /trip reduction strategies for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2202 with an average vehicle ridership (AVR) goal of 1.5. If this AVR is not reached emission offsets are purchased by the hospital. Two mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 36 and 38) are proposed for revision. Mitigation Measure 36 requires verification of necessary permits from the SCAQMD for regulated equipment. It further states if the new emissions result in impacts not previously considered or significantly change the land use impact, appropriate CEQA documentation shall be prepared prior to issuance of any permits for that phase of development. This mitigation measure is combining two processes. The SCAQMD would review the data pertaining to the use of regulated equipment. In order for the applicant to receive the required permit, the project would need to meet the standards established by SCAQMD. The issue pertaining to new significant impacts associated with emissions or land use impacts would not be within SCAQMD's jurisdiction. The City of Newport Beach would continue to be responsible for ensuring that appropriate CEQA documentation is prepared. To avoid confusion, the portion of the mitigation measure related to CEQA documentation is recommended for deletion. The recommended changes are shown below. Strikeout text is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. This measure, as modified, would continue to apply to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. 36. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment incorporated within each phase. An air quality analysis shall be conducted prior to each phase of development for the proposed mechanical equipment contained within that phase that identifies additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment to be installed in the phase. if the Fiew emissions, when added to 3 For Mitigation Measure 38, a revision to item g is proposed to cross reference Mitigation Measure 30, which pertains to bus turnouts (Section XV, Transportation /Circulation). As discussed in Section XV, the location and design of bus turnouts is within jurisdiction of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Mastro Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 37 38. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of Master Plan development, the Project Sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorporate the site development requirements of Ordinance No. 91 -16, as appropriate, to the Traffic Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and Planning Commission approval. Requirements outlined in the Ordinance include: a. A minimum of five percent of the provided parking at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These parking spaces shall be located near the employee entrance or at other preferred locations. b. A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employees shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided at such time as demands warrants. c. A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. d. Information of transportation altematives shall be provided to all employees. e. A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated in the parking area. I. The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. g. Bus stop improvements shall be coordinated with the Orange County Transportation Authority, consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 30. required for exist vAshin five The exact number of each of the above facilities within each phase of the Master Plan shall be determined by the City during review of grading and building permit applications for each phase. The types and numbers of facilities required of each phase will reflect the content of the Ordinance at the time that a permit application is deemed complete by the Planning Department. The following mitigation measure was adopted as a part of Final EIR No. 142 and has been implemented. This mitigation measure would no longer need to be tracked through mitigation monitoring. 87. The Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department verifying that all roadways associated with the development of the Master Plan will be paved early in the project, as a part of Phase I Master Plan development construction activities. In addition, the Mitigation Measure 109 is proposed for deletion. When Final EIR No. 142 was certified in 1992, there was not a certified Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, a wide range of mitigation measures were identified in an effort to ensure the maximum amount of mitigation feasible. Since that time, the AQMP has been certified and the specific mitigation measures have been identified. Other mitigation measures (listed above) have been identified to address construction projects; however, stationary equipment is not a contributor to construction emissions. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 38 109. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each phase of construction the Project Sponsor shall submit an analysis to the City Building Department that documents the criteria emissions factors for all stationary equipment to be used during that phase of construction. The analysis shall utilize emission factors contained in the applicable SCAQMD Handbook. The analysis shall also be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review and approval Mitigation Measure 121 is also proposed for deletion because the analysis shows that the Project is not projected to result in a CO hotspot at any intersections affected by the Project as discussed in Section 2.3.1. Further, the SCAB is technically in attainment of the CO ambient air quality standards and the AQMP contains an CO attainment demonstration that shows that CO concentrations do not exceed the ambient air quality standard even at the four worst intersections in the basin. 121. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each individual phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall conduct, a CO hot spot analysis for the subject phase of development. This analysis shall utilize the EMFAC7EP emission factor program for the buildout year of the subject phase of development and the CALINE4 CO hot spot model or the model recommended for such analysis at that time. The results of this analysis shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review. City staff will verify consistency with the results of the project buildout CO analysis. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 39 3.0 Mitigation Measures 3.1 Short -Term Impacts 3.1.1 Particulate Emission (PM -10) Control During construction of the Project, the property owner /developer and its contractors are required to comply with regional rules, which will 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. Two options are presented in Rule 403; monitoring of particulate concentrations or active control. Monitoring involves a sampling network around the Project with no additional control measures unless specified concentrations are exceeded. The active control option does not require any monitoring, but requires that a list of measures be implemented starting with the first day of construction. Rule 403 requires that "No person shall conduct active operations without utilizing the best available control measures included in Table I of this Rule to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type within the active operation." The measures from Table l of Rule 403 are presented below as Table 21. All applicable measures presented in Table I are required to be implemented by Rule 403. At this time, specific construction projects are not specified so it is unknown which measures will be applicable. Rule 403 requires that "Large Projects" implement additional measures. A Large Project is defined as "any active operations on property which contains 50 or more acres of disturbed surface area; or any earth- moving operation with a daily earth- moving or throughput volume of 3,850 cubic meters (5,000 cubic yards) for more than three times during the most recent 365 day period. Grading of the Project will not be considered a Large Project under Rule 403. Therefore, the Project will not be required to implement the applicable actions specified in Table 2 of the Rule. Table 2 from Rule 403 is presented below as Table 22. Rule 403 also requires that the construction activities "shall not cause or allow PM,o levels to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined by simultaneous sampling, as the difference between upwind and down wind sample." Projects that cannot meet this performance standard are required to implement the applicable actions specified in Table 3 of Rule 403. Table 3 from Rule 403 is presented below as Table 23. Further, Rule 403 requires that that the Project shall not "allow track -out to extend 25 feet or more in cumulative. length from the point of origin from an active operation." All track -out from an active operation is required to be removed at the conclusion of each workday or evening shift. Any active operation with a disturbed surface area of five or more acres, or with a daily import or export of 100 cubic yards or more of bulk materials must utilize at least one of the measures listed in Table 24 at each vehicle egress from the site to a paved public road. In order to minimize particulate emissions to the greatest extent feasible, the following mitigation measure requires that all listed control measures from Rule 403 to be implemented or reasons given to why the measures are not applicable or feasible Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 40 Mitigation Measure AQ -1: Implement all applicable feasible control measures from Table 1 (Table 21 below), Table 2 (Table 22 below), Table 3 (Table 23 below), and track out control measures (Table 24 below) of SCAQMD Rule 403. At this time, specific construction projects are not known so it is unknown which measures will be applicable or feasible. Prior to any construction related permit issuance (e.g.; demolition, grading or building permit), the applicant shall submit to the City a list of feasible measures that will be implemented and how they will be implemented along with a list of inapplicable or infeasible measures that will not be implemented for the specific construction project along with justification for the inapplicability or infeasibility finding. Table 21 Required Best Available Control Measures (Rule 403 Table 1) Source Category "6FT Stabilize 6acCf iff material when not • Mix backfill soil with water prior to actively handling; and moving 01 -2 Stabilize backfill material during • Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose handling; and to backfilling equipment 01 -3 Stabilize soil at completion of activity. • Empty loader bucket slowly so that no dust plumes are generated • Minimize drop height from loader bucket 02 -1 Maintain stability of soil through pre - watering of site prior to clearing and grubbing; and 02 -2 Stabilize soil during clearing and grubbing activities; and 02 -3 Stabilize soil immediately after clearing and grubbing activities. - - -- - — -... .......... aring Forms 03 -1 Use water spray to clear forms; or 03 -2 Use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; or 03 -3 Use vacuum system to clear forms. Maintain live perennial vegetation where possible Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes • Use of high pressure air to clear forms may cause exceedance of Rule requirements 04 -1 Stabilize surface soils prior to operation • Follow permit of support equipment; and 04 -2 Stabilize material after crushing. crushing equipment • Pre -water material prior to loading into crusher • Monitor crusher emissions opacity • Apply water to crushed material to prevent dust plumes Mestre Greve Associates Table 21 (Continued) Required Best Available Category Measure 403 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 41 Cut and Fill 1. 1. OS -1 Pre -water soils prior to cut and fill • For large sites, pre water with sprinklers or activities; and water trucks and allow time for penetration 05 -2 Stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities. Demolition — Mechanical/ManuaI 06 -1 Stabilize wind erodible surfaces to reduce dust; and 06 -2 Stabilize surface soil where support equipment and vehicles will operate; and 06 -3 Stabilize loose soil and demolition debris; and • Use water trucks /pulls to water soils to depth of cut prior to subsequent cuts ... . ................ ... ................. . ....... ....... .....-.... .......... ..... ....... .......... --- - - - - -- _.. - ... . ... - . ....._.._ ...... Apply water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes 06 -4 Comply with AQMD Rule 1403. Disturbed Soil �,. . 07-1 Stabilize disturbed soil throughout the Limit vehicular traffic and disturbances on construction site; and 07 -02 Stabilize disturbed soil between structures Activities I Pre -apply water to depth of cuts; and 08 -2 Re -apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and 08 -3 Stabilize soils once earth- moving activities are complete. soils where possible • If interior block walls are planned, install as early as possible • Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes --- ------------- _....._- - - ---- - __ ................._.__... -. • Grade each project phase separately, timed to coincide with construction phase • Upwind fencing can prevent material movement on site • Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes Mestre Greve Associates Table 21 (Continued) Required Best Availa Category iort*T?! orting of Bulk Materials ..... ....... I'll ..... .. 09-1 Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and 09-2 Maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and 09-3 Stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and 09-4 Stabilize material while unloading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and 09-5 Comply with Vehicle Code Section 23114. Landscaping 10-1 Stabilize soils, materials, slopes Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 42 Gui • Use tarps or other suitable enclosures on haultrucks • Check belly-dump truck seals regularly and remove any trapped rocks to prevent spillage • Comply with track-out prevention/mitigation requirements • Provide water while loading and unloading to reduce visible dust plumes . ........... ........... .. • Apply water to materials to stabilize Maintain materials in a crusted condition • Maintain effective cover over materials • Stabilize sloping surfaces using soil binders until vegetation or ground cover can effectively stabilize the slopes • Hydroseed prior to rain season Road Shoulder Maintenance ..... ... ........ ... ------------- 11-1 Apply water to unpaved shoulders prior -Installation of curbing and/or paving of to clearing; and road shoulders can reduce recurring 11-2 Apply chemical dust suppressants maintenance costs and/or washed gravel to maintain a • Use of chemical dust suppressants can stabilized surface after completing road inhibit vegetation growth and reduce future shoulder maintenance. road shoulder maintenance costs ----------- ------ Screening. ........ . ... ..... ... ...... . ......... ... ------- — ------------ 12-1 Pre-water material prior to screening; • Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose and to screening operation 12-2 Limit fugitive dust emissions to opacity • Drop material through the screen slowly and plume length standards; and and minimize drop height 12-3 Stabilize material immediately after • Install wind barrier with a porosity of no screening. more than 50% upwind of screen to the height of the drop point Staging Areas .. . .... ... ..... ......... 13-1 Stabilize staging areas during use; and • Limit size of staging area 13-2 Stabilize staging area soils at project • Limit vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour completion. • Limit number and size of staging area entrances/exists Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 43 Table 21 (Continued) Required Best Available Control Measures (Rule 403 Table 1) Source Category Control Measure Stockpiles/ Bulk Material Handling 14 -1 Stabilize stockpiled materials. • Add or remove material from the 14 -2 Stockpiles within 100 yards of off -site occupied buildings must not be greater than eight feet in height; or must have a road bladed to the top to allow water truck access or must have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. Traffic Areas for Construction Activities 15-1 Stabilize all off -road traffic and parking areas; and 15 -2 Stabilize all haul routes; and 15 -3 Direct construction traffic over established haul routes. downwind portion of the storage pile • Maintain storage piles to avoid steep sides or faces • Apply gravel /paving to all haul routes as soon as possible to all future roadway areas • Barriers can be used to ensure vehicles are only used on established parking areas /haul routes 16 -1 Stabilize surface soils where trencher or • Pre - watering of soils prior to trenching is excavator and support equipment will an effective preventive measure. operate; and 16.2 Stabilize soils at the completion of trenching activities. Truck 17 -1 Pre -water material prior to 17.2 Ensure that freeboard exceeds six inches (CVC 23114) • For deep trenching activities, pre- trench to 18 inches soak soils via the pre -trench and resuming trenching • Washing mud and soils from equipment at the conclusion of trenching activities can prevent crusting and drying of soil on equipment and • Empty loader bucket such that no visible dust plumes are created • Ensure that the loader bucket is close to the truck to minimize drop height while loading Turf Overseeding 18 -1 Apply sufficient water immediately Haul waste material • immediately off site prior to conducting turf vacuuming activities to meet opacity and plume length standards; and 18 -2 Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 44 Table 21 (Continued) Required Best Available Control Measures (Rule 403 Table 1) Source Category Control Measure Guidance laved Roads/Parking Lots 19 -1 stabilize soils to meet the applicable •Restricting vehicular access to established performance standards; and unpaved travel paths and parking lots can 19 -2 Limit vehicular travel to established reduce stabilization requirements unpaved roads (haul routes) and unpaved parking lots. Vacant Land -... _..__,.1 -1.. ............. ....... 20 -1 In instances where vacant lots are 0 10 acre or larger and have a cumulative area of 500 square feet or more that are driven over and/or used by motor vehicles and /or off -road vehicles, prevent motor vehicle and/or off -road vehicle trespassing, parking and /or access by installing barriers, curbs, fences, gates, posts, signs, shrubs, trees or other effective control measures. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 45 Table 22 Dust Control Measures for Large Operations (Rule 403 Table 2) Fugitive Dust Source Category h- moving (except construction cutting and filling areas, and mining operations) (1 a) Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations each subsequent four -hour period of active operations; OR (la -1) For any earth - moving which is more than 100 feet from all property lines, conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in length in any direction. cart- moving: Construction till areas ......... . (lb) Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. For areas which have an optimum moisture content for compaction of less than 12 percent, as determined by ASTM Method 1557 or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer and the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. EPA, complete the compaction process as expeditiously as possible after achieving at least 70 percent of the optimum soil moisture content. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations during each subsequent four -hour period of active operations. Earth - moving: Construction cut areas and mining operations: - - -- .. _ _._ _. - _.......... (lc) Conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible emissions from extending more than 100 feet beyond the active cut or mining area unless the area is inaccessible to watering vehicles due to slope conditions or other safety 4 _. Disturbed surface areas (except completed grading areas) (2a1b) Apply dust suppression in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. Any areas which cannot be stabilized, as evidenced by wind driven fugitive dust must have an application of water at least twice per day to at least 80 percent of the unstabilized area. -- - -- -... _._. -- _ -- _ -- - -- Disturbed surface areas: Completed grading areas (2c) Apply chemical stabilizers within five OR of grading completion; (2d) Take actions (3a) or (3c) specified for inactive disturbed surface areas. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 46 Table 22 (Continued) Dust Control Measures for Large Operations (Rule 403 Fugitive Dust Source Category Control Actions Inactive disturbed surface areas (3a) Apply water to at least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed surface areas on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, excluding any areas which are inaccessible to watering vehicles due to excessive slope or other safety conditions; OR (3b) Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface; OR (30 Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. Ground cover must be of sufficient density to expose less than 30 percent of unstabilized ground within 90 days of planting, and at all times thereafter; OR (3d) Utilize any combination of control actions (3a), (3b), and (3c) such that, in total, these actions apply 19'.a-111.1--inactive disturbed surface areas. Unpaved Roads (4a) Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic at least once per every two hours of active operations [3 times per normal 8 hour work day]; OR (4b) Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic once daily and restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour; OR (4c) Apply a chemical stabilizer to all. unpaved road surfaces in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. _ - - (5a) Apply chemical OR (5b) Apply water to at least 80 percent of the surface area of all open storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust; OR (50 Install temporary coverings; OR (5d) Install a three -sided enclosure with walls with no more than 50 percent porosity which extend, at a minimum, to the top of the pile. This option may only be used at aggregate- related plants or at cement manufacturing facilities. All Categories - — - ........ -- -- ------------ -- . Via) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified in Table 2 may be used Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 47 Table 23 Contingency Control Measures for Large Operations (Rule 403 Table 3) Fugitive Dust Source Category Earth - moving (IA) Cease all active operations; OR (2A) Apply water to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving such soil. Disturbed surface areas (013) On the last day of active operations prior to a weekend, holiday, or any other period when active operations will not occur for not more than four consecutive days: apply water with a mixture of chemical stabilizer diluted to not less than 1 /20 of the concentration required to maintain a stabilized surface for a period of six months; OR (113) Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; OR (213) Apply water to all unstabilized disturbed areas 3 times per day. If there is any evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, watering frequency is increased to a minimum of four times per day; OR (313) Take the actions specified in Table 2, Item (3c); OR (413) Utilize any combination of control actions (113), (213), and (313) such that, in total, these actions apply to all disturbed surface areas. .._...__... - _...._.. ._ ... ....... _ .... ................. Unpaved Roads (1C) Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; OR (2C) Apply water twice per hour during active operation; OR (3C) Stop all vehicular traffic. Open Storage Piles (1D) Apply water twice per hour; OR (21)) Install temporary coverings. Paved Road Track -Out (IE) Coverall haul vehicles; OR (2E) Comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code for both public and private roads. _ . _ .... _. _ ..... _ .__ -. -. _..... _ ..._. ._._ All Categories (1F) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified in Table 3 may be used. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 48 Table 24 Track Out Control Options (A) Install a pad consisting of washed gravel (minimum -size: one inch) maintained in a clean condition to a depth of at least six inches and extending at least 20 feet wide and 50 feet long. (B) Pave the surface extending at least 100 feet and a width of at least 20 feet wide. (C) Utilize a wheel shaker /wheel spreading device consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipe, or grates) at least 24 feet long and 10 feet wide to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle under carriages before vehicles exit the site. (D) Install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. (E) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified items (A) through (D) above. 3.1.2 Construction Equipment Emission Control While Measure AQ -1 above addresses particulate emissions from construction activities, other pollutants generated by construction equipment could contribute to exceedances of the SCAQMD thresholds. The generation of these emissions is almost entirely due to engine combustion in construction equipment and employee commuting. The measure below addresses these emissions. Mitigation Measure AG1 -2-. The following measures shall be implemented to the greatest extent feasible to minimize vehicular emissions. At this time, specific construction projects are not known so it is unknown which measures will be feasible. Prior to any construction related permit issuance (e.g.; demolition, grading or building permit), the applicant shall submit to the City a list of feasible measures that will be implemented and how they will be implemented along with a list of inapplicable or infeasible measures that will not be implemented for the specific construction project along with justification for the inapplicability or infeasibility finding. • Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. • Do not allow construction equipment to idle for more than five minutes. Shut off engines of equipment that will not be used for five or more minutes. • Utilize alternative low emission fuels in construction equipment. • Utilize diesel particulate filters on construction equipment. • Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when available. This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators. • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Minimize obstruction of through - traffic lanes. Construction should be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum. • Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off -peak hours to the Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 49 best extent when possible. • Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.) It should be noted that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is currently working to establish new standards for new off -road construction vehicles and for existing in -use off -road construction vehicles. The current proposal for existing vehicles is to establish total fleet emission requirements for individual contractors which can be met through equipment turnover or retrofitting old equipment. All contractors in the State of California will be required to comply with any requirements adopted by GARB. The following mitigation measure will minimize VOC emissions to the greatest extent possible. VOC emissions are primarily due to the application of architectural coatings (painting). Mitigation Measure AQ-03: The following measures shall be implemented to the greatest extent feasible to minimize VOC emissions during application of architectural coatings. At this time, specific construction projects are not known so it is unknown which measures will be feasible. Prior to any building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit to the City a list of feasible measures that will be implemented and how they will be implemented along with a list of inapplicable or infeasible measures that will not be implemented for the specific construction project along with justification for the inapplicability or infeasibility finding. • Minimize the amount of paint used by using pre - coated, pre - colored and naturally colored building materials; and • Use high transfer efficiency painting methods such as HVLP (High Volume Low Pressure) sprayers and brushes /rollers were possible. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 50 3.2 Long -Term Impacts 3.2.1 Local Air Quality Impacts The future carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are projected to be in compliance with the I -hour and 8 -hour State and Federal standards, and therefore, the local air quality impacts due to the Project are not considered to be significant. Therefore, the Project will not result in a significant local air quality impacts. 3.2.2 Regional Emissions The analysis presented in Section 2.3.2 showed that the implementation of the Project or Project Alternative would result in reductions in operational emissions compared to emissions that would occur with the currently approved Master Plan. However, increases in CO, VOC, and NO, emissions associated with the development of the Master Plan as modified by the Project and the Project Alternative were shown to exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Exceedance of the SCAQMD thresholds is attributable primarily to vehicular traffic. Mitigation measures for regional air quality impacts are generally separated into two categories, Transportation Demand Measures to minimize emissions from vehicular activity, and Energy Efficiency Measures to minimize emissions due to generation of electricity, water heating, and space heating and cooling. Mitigation measures from Final EIR No. 142 prepared for the approved Master Plan are presented in Section 2.5. Measures, 37, 88, 96, 97, 98, and 99 are Energy Efficiency Measures and represent all feasible Energy Efficiency related air quality mitigation measures. In addition, all new construction at the Hospital is required to comply with Title 24, Part 5 of California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential buildings. Mitigation Measure 38 from the Master Plan EIR is a Transportation Demand Management Measure. In addition, the Hospital has additional measures implemented to reduce vehicular trips discussed in Section 2.5. All feasible Energy Efficiency Measures are required as mitigation from the previously adopted EIR for the Hospital Master Plan. Further, the hospital has implemented all feasible Transportation Demand Management Measures. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for establishing vehicular emission regulations which are set per state and federal regulations and any future reductions will be implemented by CARB outside the context of this project. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 51 4.0 Unavoidable Significant Impacts 4.1 Short -Term Impacts The analysis indicates that Project emissions of PM,,,, PM,.,, NO, and VOC from construction activities will likely exceed the SCAQMD's Thresholds of Significance. Mitigation will reduce emissions, but possibly not to the point that they will fall under the SCAQMD's thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions may exceed the SCAQMD thresholds even after mitigation, and short-term construction air quality impacts would, in that event, be significant, including potential human health implications associated with each of the two pollutants (see discussion of effects of pollutants on health in Section 1.3). 4.2 Long -Term Impacts At the time Final EIR No. 142 for the Master Plan was prepared, SCAQMD had not published the significance thresholds used to determine that the Project would have a significant impact. In Final EIR No. 142, the development of the Master Plan was found to not have a significant regional air quality impact by itself. Cumulative air quality impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable. The finding of no significant impact for the Project was reached by comparing the Project emissions with regional emissions for the South Coast Air Basin and Source Receptor Area 18. The analysis concluded that since the Project represented such a small portion of regional emissions that it did not result in a significant impact. However, CO VOC and NO, emissions projected in Final EIR No. 142 were greater than the SCAQMD significance thresholds established in the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The Project or Project Alternative would generate fewer pollutant emissions than would occur with the Master Plan due to trip reductions associated with the proposed Project and Project Alternative. Thus development of the Project or Project Alternative will not have a significant impact in comparison to the No Project option (completion of the Master Plan as already approved). The analysis indicates that operational emissions from either the Project or Project Alternative will exceed the SCAQMD's Thresholds of Significance for CO, VOC, and NO,. Mitigation will reduce emissions, but not to the point that they will fall under the SCAQMD's thresholds. Therefore, operational emissions of CO, VOC, and NOx will exceed the SCAQMD thresholds even after mitigation, and long -term regional air quality impacts will be significant, including potential human health implications associated with each of the subject pollutants (see discussion of effects of pollutants on health in Section 1.3). Mestre Greve Associates APPENDIX Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 52 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 53 Operational Emissions Calculation Worksheets • MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES PROJECT EMISSIONS WORKSHEET Project: Hoag Hospital Blaster Plan Existing Uses Study Year: 2007 County: OC r. rcrnwurrt rrrnraorvrvo axwn racwr ���,a. � General Vehicles Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks Number of Trips- 13.985 % Pass. Veh. = 95,0% Number of Trips= 0 FA.g. tpr Length = 9,0 % Deliv. Trucks = 5.0% Avg. Trip Length = 9.0 VMT- 19srr4a VMT= 0 (Ibimi) ter Vehicle 0.011552 0.001182 0.001213 v. 04.07 0.000084 0.000052 0.000011 0000910,., 0.000769 0.000026.,,,,_. t Fam. 6665 q 0 Fam. c4 4105 p 0 Fam. x5 3918 0 0 _._ __. fN8MO. _.t[ 0subtotallor Resroenbal al 2 0 0 vRetall 2.9 0 0 Notel 4 8....., . 885,?70 139 479 ..._.._..... ........ ..... __... Percent Regional .,..,,, fN/CustomerlMO CustomerslMO , 139479 subtotal for RelarUCommerculi CO VOC ............... NOx PM10 P1025 .._.._......... SOx 4. ON- SITEEWSS/ON5 DUE TO ELECTRICAL GENERATION Number of Co nerallon Generators 3 1,475 kw /unit ' 24 unit hdda = 106.200 KWH CO ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 sox Factor (Ibsldayiunq.,_„ 24 41 16.51 16.5 1 4 95 4 90 0 00 Emissions Lb 73.2 49.5 49.5 14.9 14.7 0.0 "TOTAL PROJECT EM MONS •• CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOc Ibs/day 1,609.1 212.0 369.3 30.7 26.0 1.5 0.80 ,,., 0.11 0.18 002 0.01 000 2020 SCAB (Tons/Day) 1,920 544 504 315 -- 73 Percent Regional 0.042% 0.019% 0.037% 0.005% 0.001% • MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES PROJECT EMISSIONS WORKSHEET. v. 04.07 Project: Hoag Hospital Master Plan F-Kisling Uses Study Year: 2015 County: OC General Vehicles Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks Number of Trips= 13,988 %Pam. Veh. = 950' . Number of Trips= 0 Avg. Trip Length = 9.0 % Deliv. Trucks = 5,04.; Avg. Trip Length = 9.0 VMT - jvqAq2 I VMT o 0 Factors (Ibtmi) 6665 0 0 PM10 Mult. Fam. �-4 4105 Passenger Vehicle 0.006141 0.000664 0.000602 0.000093 0.000060 0.000011 Delivery Trucks 0-011694 0.001739 01.012650 0.01.0.10503 0000413 __ 0000027_ Heavy Duty Diesel Truck! 0,007669 0.001786 0.021227 0.001047 0.000880 0 0 0.001% Hotel/Motel 4.8 1A 9 9R Single Fam. 6665 0 0 PM10 Mult. Fam. �-4 4105 0 0 219.1 Mult. Fam. >=5 3918 0 0 0.07 0.11 0.01 ft, 0 Subtotal for Residential Hospital 2 0 0 'ercent Regional Office/Retail 2.9 0 0 0.001% Hotel/Motel 4.8 886,270 139.479 it /Customer/Mo. Customers/Mo. 139.479 Subtotal. for RetaillCommercial Industrial 2936.6 0 0 ------- ------ 0 Subtotal for ladustnal ........ . . ------------- --- - - --------- - -- 139,479 Total Gas UsagarDay CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOX 1-1- Factor (lbs/10-6 it') 5.3 0.7 .... . . ...... I .... 0.2 0.2 0.0 Emissions (Lb/D 2.8 0.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. ON SITE EMISSIONS DUE TO CONSUMER PRODUCT USAGE Emission Factor source: URBEMIS200 Number of Residents 0 ,.,_,,,,,,,,,_CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2-5 sox =actor Ibis /resident - --- - - -- ....... .. . . - ......... ..... ..... . -------- - ------------ 066 0.0171 0-0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 zmissions JLbrDy) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. ON-SITE EMISSIONS DUE TO ELECTRICAL GENERATION Number of Cogneration Generators 3 1,475kw/unit '24unith CO ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 sox - - kn�toL I 6 jsid nt 16,50, 16.51 4.95 4.90 - 0.0.0. .. ....... . .... . I -- ... . . .............. ... . . . . `TOTAL PROJECT EMISSIONS ** CO VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5 sox asiday 894.1 140.6 219.1 29.1 24.5 1.5 bn/day 0.44 0.07 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.00 WO SCAB (Tons /Day) 1,920 544 504 315 -- 73 'ercent Regional 0.023% 0.013% 0.022% 0005% 0.001% • MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES PROJECT EMISSIONS WORKSHEET - v. 04.07 Project: Hoag Hospital Master Plan Future Development w/b Pwierl Study Year: 2015 County: OC General Vehicles Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks Number of Trips= 27,152 %Pass. Vah. = 95.0% Number of Trips= a Avg Top Length = 9,0 % Deliv. Trucks = 5,015 Avg. Trip Length = 9.0 VMT- P".qRs VIAT = 0 Single Fam. CO VOC NOx Pull PM2.5 sox Factors (lb/mi) 0 CO ----------------- Mult. Fam. >---5 3918 0 0 Passenger Vehicle 0.006141 0.000664 0.000602 0.000093 0.000060 0.000011 Delivery Trucks 0.011694 0.001739 0.012850 0.000503 0.000413 0.000027 Heavy Duty Diesel Truck t 0.007669 0.001786 0.021227 0.001047 0.000880 0.000041 F-ieci- 11 KIMA w/customer/Mo. 1 7 A ooa 7 179 IQ n 9 A Single Fam. 6665 0 0 Pull Mult. Fam. <-4 4105 0 0 CO ----------------- Mult. Fam. >---5 3918 0 0 sox -actor lbs/revdent)00000 . ..... 0. ff 0 Subtotal for Residential - -- - ---------- Hospital 2 0 0 00 Office/Retail 2.9 0 0 0.045% Hotel/Motel . . . 4.8 I,343.238 211,395 - -- ------ -- w/customer/Mo. Customers/Mo. 211,395 Subtotal for FfelaillOommex.i.al Industrial . .. 2936.6 ................ 0 ............ 0 ------------ 0 ........... Subtotal for Industrial . ..... 211 395 Total Gas Us elDa CO VOC NOx Pull PM2.5 sox Factor iib­smio--i-n ......... lEmissions 20.0 - ................ . - 5.3, . 0-.-7-- - - - 02-_ 0.2 -o-.o-- (Lb/Dvl 4 P I 1 --- 1. Pte ... nn no n .. n 3. ON SITE EMISSIONS DUE TO CONSUMER PRODUCT USAGE CO Emission Factor Source U9BEMIS200 Number of Residents: 0 Pull PM2.5 sox Dsiday 1,719.2 CO ----------------- VOC NOx Pull PM2.5 sox -actor lbs/revdent)00000 . ..... 0.01711, - --- ------- 00000 ----- 0.-0000 0.0000 ------ 0.0000 �missions (Lb/Dy) 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 - ---------------- 0.0 --- -- 00 I. ON-SITE EMISSIONS DUE TO ELECTRICAL GENERATION Number of Cogneration Generators 6 1,475 kw /unit 24 unit hr /day = 212,400 KWk CO ROG NOx Pull PM2.5 sox . . . ....... WIQ- rJlims/daylt�n�t) ._24.41 16.51 1 - 6.61 4.95 4.90 . .............. ...... 0.00 -m issions Lb[Dy) 146:5 99.1 99.1 29�7 29.4 0.0 'TOTAL PROJECT EMISSIONS - CO VOC NOx Pull PM2.5 sox Dsiday 1,719.2 275.5 421.2 57.4 48.5 2.8 bniday .....0.86 p 1 0.21 0.03 0.02 0.00 -020 SCAB (Tons/Day) 1,920 544 504 315 - 73 'ercent Regional 0.045% 0.025% 0.042% 0.009% 0.002% • MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES PROJECT EMISSIONS WORKSHEET v. 04.07 Project: Roeg Hospital Master Plan Full/re development W Project Study Year: 2015 County: OC L VCHIWLAR CMI*WUNJ 6665 emission ranor source: em,rn ,vv r rrvrorwsc o u 0 General Vehicles Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks Number of Trips= 22.801 %Pass. Van. = 95.0% Number of Trips= 0 1 Avg. Trip Length = 9.0 % Deliv. Trucks= 5.0% Avg. Trip Length = 9.0 VMT= 205.209 W1111/MO. VMT= 0 0 CO VOC NOxPM10 PM2.5 sox Factors (Ib /mi) 0 0.0 Office/Retail Passenger Vehicle 0.006141 0.000664 0.000602 0.000093 0.000060 0.000011 Delivery Trucks 0.011694 0012850 0.000503 0.000413 0000027._ Heavy. Duty Diesel Truck; ..... _ 0.007669 ... .,0001739 ... 0.001786 0 021227 0 001047 0 000880 0.000041 _ _.._ _... ......... .... Fmieainns fl h/11v1 1 317 9 _._ ___.. _ ._... 1A7 9 9AQ 9 93 9 16.0 2.4 Single Fam. 6665 0 0 212,400 KWF Mult. Fam. �4 4105 0 0 sox Mull. Fam. m5 ., _ _ 3916 0 ...... ... ... 0 .. .__.._._.. _ _ _ _...._.......... .... .. ... _.. _. °actor Ibslresident 0.0000 -S._., _�._. ..._._,. W1111/MO. .... W 0 Subtotal for Residential Hospitat 2 0 0 0.0 Office/Retail 2.9 0 0 0.002% Hotet/Motel ..... 4.8 ...... . 1.34 238 ......._. 211.395 _._...._ ft'/Customer/Mo. Customers/Mo. ` __.. .. _ 211.395 ........_. _. Subtotal for RetaillCommercial Industrial 2936.6 0 0 0 Subtotal for Industrial 211,395 Total Gas Use ems CO VOC NOx _.. _. PM10 _ PM2.5 sox Factor(lbs /10^6 fn., 20.0 53 07 0.2 02 0.0 [Emissions fLWDvl 49 1 1 99 a n n 0 n 0 0 % ON SITE EMISSIONS DUE TO CONSUMER PRODUCT USAGE CO Emission Factor Source: UREIEMIS200 Number of Residents: 0 212,400 KWF .____..._. -.____ ......... CO ROG NOx PM10, PM2.5 sox VOC NOx 1651 PM26 SOX °actor Ibslresident 0.0000 -S._., _�._. ..._._,. 0 0171 D 0000 .PM10 0.0000 D 0000 0.0000 .._... _�._.. :missions Lb/Dy) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I. ON -SITE EMISSIONS DUE TO ELECTRICAL GENERATION Number of Cogneration Generators 6 CO VOC 1,475 kw /unit ' 24 unit miday = 212,400 KWF .____..._. -.____ ......... CO ROG NOx PM10, PM2.5 sox 'actor (Ibs/ /unit) 24;41 ......... 1651 1651 _. ......._.._._. 4.95 490 000 :missions (Ib/Dy) 146.5 99.1 99.1 _ 29.7_ 29.4 0.0 'TOTAL PROJECT EMISSIONS CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5 sox is /day 1,467.9 247.4 373.6 53.0 45.4 2.4 bn /dam_,_`__ _ _0_73 0:12 0 19 0.03 0.02 0.00--- !020 SCAB (Tons/Day) 1,92 0 544 504 315 73 'ercent Regional 0.038% 0.023% 0.037% 0.008% 0.002% • MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES PROJECT EMISSIONS WORKSHEET v. 04.07 Project: Hoag Hospital rrfasfer Plan Future Development w Project Alternative Study Year: 2815 County: OC 1. vcf fGULAH tM/J510N5 Emission Factor Source: EMFAC200 ]Worst -Case B SGADMD General Vehicles Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks Number of Trips= 25.365 % Pass. Veh. = Z50% Number of Trips= 0 Avg. Trip Length = 9.0 % Deliv. Trucks = 5.p °o Avg. Trip Length = 9.0 VMT= 99A. 9A5 VMT= a Factors (lb/ml) 6665 B 0 Number of Residents: 0 ROG NOx PM10 PM25 Passenger Vehicle 0.006141 0.000664 0.000602 0.000093 0.000060 0.000011 Delivery Trucks 0.011694 0.001739 0.012850 0.000503 0.000413 0.000027 Heavy Duty Diesel Truck: 0.007669 0.001786 p 0.001047 _0.000880 0,000041 Emissions Lb/D 1,465.3 163.8 .0.021227 277.2 25.8 17.8 26 Single Fam. 6665 B 0 Number of Residents: 0 ROG NOx PM10 PM25 Mult. Fam. <=4 4105 8 0 ..VOC ......._.__.__ NOx .,._.._..__.. PM10 Mult. Fam., >,=,5 3918 B 0 _.._ 0 0000 0.0000 __......_ _...._._. ............. 0.0000 0 0000 tt ✓h Rvlo; ft' p Subtota! for Resdenoa! _ .- ..._._.. _....... 0.0 ..0 _........ 0.0 Hospital 2 p 0 0.009% 0.002% Office /Retail 2,9 p 0 Hotel/Motel 4.8 1,343,238 211395 _ W/Customer/Mo. Customers/Mo.211,395 Subtotal for Retail/Commercial Industrial 2936.6 0 .............. ..- ...._� ._. .... ._. ......._.. 4. Subtolattorindustnat 211.395 Total Gas Usage/Day _..._ _CO„ VOC .......... NOx PM10 PM2.5 Sox Factor (Ibsl10 ^6 IV) 20.0 5.3 0.7 ........ 0.2 0.2 0.0 Emissions Lb1D 42 1.1 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 I. ON SITE EMISSIONS DUE TO CONSUMER PRODUCT USAGE Generators 6 Emission Factor Source: URBEMIS200 Number of Residents: 0 ROG NOx PM10 PM25 sox 8ctor (Ibs/dayluni)_ - -__ 2441 16.51 ...._..... CO ..VOC ......._.__.__ NOx .,._.._..__.. PM10 PM2.5 Sox actor (Ibslresident) 0 0000 ._.__.._.._ ......- . 0.0171 ._._,.. _.._ 0 0000 0.0000 __......_ _...._._. ............. 0.0000 0 0000 :missions (Lb/Dy) 0.0 0 0 .,. ... ___ 0 0 ._,._...._. 0 0 _ .- ..._._.. _....... 0.0 ..0 _........ 0.0 I. ON -SITE EMISSIONS DUE TO ELECTRICAL GENERATION - Number of Cogneration Generators 6 1,475 kw/unit ' 24 unit hr/day = 212,400 KWI PM10 ROG NOx PM10 PM25 sox 8ctor (Ibs/dayluni)_ - -__ 2441 16.51 1651 4.95 4.90 000 emissions (Lb /Dy) 146.5 99.1 991 29.7 29.4 0.0 'TOTAL PROJECT EMISSIONS " CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5 Sox )s/day 1,616.0 263.9 401.6 55.6 47.2 2.6 :onlday -. 0 81 . _....._ 0;13 ........., 0 20 .......... 0 03 .. 0.02 0 00 020 SCAB (Tons/Day) 1,920 544 . 504 ... 315 .. -- - ......... 73 -ement Regional 0.042% 0.024% 0.040% 0.009% 0.002% APPENDIX E HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT Health Risk Assessment (HRA) of Cogeneration Plant Operations at Hoag Memorial Hospital Newport Beach, California June 22, 2007 Prepared for: BonTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E -200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Prepared by: cm 18581 Teller Avenue, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92612 Project No. 32409 - 46665- 07- Documentation.LBR. Contents Section1 Introduction ........................................................................... ............................1 -1 Aerial Site Map 1.1 Background .......... ..................................... ........................................... 1 -1 Appendix D 1.2 Significance Thresholds .......................................... ............................1 -2 Section 2 Equipment and Process Descriptions ................................. ............................2 -1 Section 3 Emission Estimates ................ ........................................................................... 3 -1 SCAQMD PAH Emission Factors 3.1 TACs Identification ................................................. ............................3 -1 Appendix J 3.2 TAC Emission Estimates ........................................ ............................3 -1 Section 4 Health Risk Analysis by HARP Modeling ........................ ............................4 -1 Appendix L 4.1 Dispersion Module Setup ....................................... ............................4 -1 Acute Risks by Facility (Run608) 4.2 Risk Module Setup .................................................. ............................4 -1 Section 5 Rules Evaluation ................................................................... ............................5 -1 Section 6 Analysis and Concl usions .................................................... ............................6 -1 Appendices Appendix A Site Drawing Appendix B Aerial Site Map Appendix C Equipment Manufacturer Data Appendix D CARB Speciation Profile Appendix E OEHHA TACs Tab Appendix F Emission Estimates for Existing New and Old Equiipment Appendix G Permit Document for Existing Equipment Appendix H SCAQMD PAH Emission Factors Appendix I Cumulative Risk Summary Appendix J Proposed Project Incremental Risk Summary Appendix K HARP Modeled Output Files for Facility Cumulative Cancer, Chronic and Acute Risks (Run618) Appendix L HARP Modeled Output Files for Incremental Cancer, Chronic and Acute Risks by Facility (Run608) ♦■ R:NO HHRAWR Contents (continued) List of Tables Table 2 -1 List of TAC Emitting Equipment in Hoag Hospital Cogeneration and UtilityPlants .......................................................................... ..............:.............2 -1 Table 2 -2 Natural Gas Cogeneration ICE Parameters (per unit) ...... ............................2 -1 Table 2 -3 Natural Gas Boiler Parameters (SCAQMD permit application data) ......... 2 -2 Table 2 -4 Existing Cogeneration Plant Diesel Standby ICE .............. ............................2 -2 Table 2 -5 Existing Utility Plant Diesel Standby ICE .......................... ............................2 -2 Table 3 -1 CARB Source Profiles ............................................................ ............................3 -1 Table 3 -2a Non -PAH TAC Emission Estimates for Each Natural Gas ICE Using CARB Source Profile No. 719 ............................................... ............................3 -2 Table 3 -2b PAH Emission Estimates for Each Natural Gas ICE Using SCAQMD EmissionFactors ..................................................................... ............................3 -3 Table 3 -3a Non -PAH TAC Emission Estimates for Natural Gas Boilers/ Heaters Using CARB Source Profile No. 3 ........................................ ............................3 -3 Table 3 -3b PAH Emission Estimates for Natural Gas Boilers /Heaters Using SCAQMD EmissionFactors ............................................ ..................................................... 3 -3 Table 3 -4 TAC Emission Estimates for Diesel Standby ICE using CARB Source Profile No. 818 (TOG) and 116 (PM) ................................... ............................3 -4 Table 6 -1 Risks Summary by HARP Modeling ................................... ............................6 -1 Table 6 -2 Facility Cumulative Cancer Risk Breakdown by TAC at the Peak Cancer RiskReceptor .......................................................................... ............................6 -2 Table 6 -3 Facility Cumulative Chronic Risk Breakdown by TAC at the Peak Chronic RiskReceptor .......................................................................... ............................6 -3 Table 6 -4 Facility Cumulative Acute Risks Breakdown by TACs at the Peak Acute RiskReceptor ................................ .... .................................................................. 6 -4 Table 6 -5 Proposed Project Incremental Cancer Risk Breakdown by TAC at the Peak Cancer Risk Receptor ............................................................. ............................6 -5 Table 6 -6 Proposed Project Incremental Chronic Risks Breakdown by TAC at the Peak Chronic Risk Receptor ................................................. ............................6 -6 Table 6 -7 Proposed Project Incremental Acute Risk Breakdown by TAC at the Peak AcuteRisk Receptor .............................................................. ............................6 -7 RtWn,,H A\HRA Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Hoag Hospital is an existing facility located at One Hoag Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The approximately 38 -acre site is generally bounded by Hospital Road to the north, West Coast Highway to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and residential development and Superior Avenue to the west. Sunset View Park is a linear/ consolidated park that extends along much of the northern boundary of the Lower Campus and separates the hospital from the Villa Balboa and Seafaire condominiums. A site drawing and aerial map are attached in Appendices A and B, respectively. The hospital cogeneration plant is located at the west end of the Lower Campus of Hoag Hospital property. It has three (3) currently permitted internal combustion engines (ICE) fueled by natural gas, one boiler (1) fueled by natural gas, and one (1) standby ICE fueled by diesel. Air quality Permits To Construct were obtained in 2003 from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for these existing units. In addition to the new cogeneration plant, there is also an existing utility plant located in the northwest comer of the Upper Campus which has five (5) diesel engine genets, four (4) natural gas fueled boilers, and two (2) natural gas fueled heater / chillers. The cogeneration plant has been designed to accommodate three (3) future cogeneration natural gas ICEs to meet anticipated power and heating demand in the future. Although not specifically known, this future demand date is expected to be after 2010. Relative to the cogeneration plant, the nearest commercial area is to the southwest approximately 500 feet away. The nearest K -12 school, Newport Heights Elementary School, is approximately 0.6 miles to the northeast of the facility. Three nursing homes are appromately 750 feet to the north of the facility. Residential locations are very close to both plants; specifically north of the cogeneration plant and west of the utility plant. This technical report was developed to address health risk impacts associated with the three future cogeneration ICEs, as part of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that has been prepared for Hoag Hospital. The health risk assessment was conducted following the Tier 4 Detailed Risk Assessment methods in South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Risk Assessment Procedures document'. As specified in those procedures, the California Air Resources Board's (ARB's) Hotspots Analysis and Report Program (HARP) model was used to calculate incremental and cumulative risks. ' SCAQMD "Risk Assessment Procedures for Rule 1401 and 212, Version 7.0," July], 2005. 'E i R'Noag HHRkWP 1 -1 Section 1 Section Title 1.2 Significance Thresholds For this analysis, the project is assumed to be the installation and operation of the three future cogeneration ICES. Therefore, the health risk assessment has been conducted in such a way that results are comparable to the following significance thresholds. • Incremental project health risks associated with operation of the three future ICES are compared to SCAQMD's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds2: 0 10 per million cancer risk threshold3 o Chronic non - cancer hazard index (HI) >= 1.0 o Acute HI >= 1.0 Cumulative hospital cogeneration and utility plant health risks are compared to SCAQMD Rule 1402 limits for facility -wide toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions4: 0 25 per million cancer risk threshold o Chronic non - cancer HI >= 3.0 o Acute HI >= 3.0 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, available at hftk // 0 vlrera /ticlbk.htm1. ' "Per million" means per million persons exposed to the toxic air contaminants being analyzed. a SCAQMD Rule 1402 "Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources," Amended March 4, 2005. t� 1 -2 C:\OOC ..,n antl S.Mm9ay.hrs jXMy WameMS \ROjedaWoa�HNRAWRA- O)1pxX R.p ,RwE- 002201 deen Ew Section 2 Equipment and Process Descriptions The Lower Campus cogeneration plant has three existing ICES fueled only by natural gas, one boiler fueled only by natural gas, and one standby ICE fueled only by diesel. There are also three future ICES identical to the existing ones to be installed at much later date. The existing Upper Campus utility plant has five diesel generator sets, four natural gas boilers and two natural gas heater/ chillers. The equipment descriptions are presented in the following Tables 2 -1 through 2 -4, and the manufacturer data sheets are attached in Appendix C. Table 2 -1 List of TAC Emitting Equipment in Hoag Hospital Cogeneration and Utility Plants New /Existing Location Equipment Type Fuel Type No. Proposed Project (New) Cogeneration Plan Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Natural Gas 3 Existing Cogeneration Plant Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Natural Gas 3 Boiler Natural Gas 1 Standby ICE Diesel 1 Utility Plant Standby ICE Diesel 5 Boiler Natural Gas 4 Heater /Chiller Natural Gas 2 Tota! Equipment 1 19 Source: CDM 2007. Table 2 -2 Natural Gas Cogeneration ICE Parameters (per unit) Parameter Value Manufacturer WAUKESHA Engine Size 2080 BHP Stack Height (Above ground) 46 ft Stack Diameter 18 in Exhaust Flowrate 5374 actm Exhaust Temperature 400 F Fuel Consumption Rate 17640 cfh (natural gas) Operation Schedule 24 hr /day, 365 dayslyr Source: CDM 2007. E� RAH -9 HH XHRA 2 -1 Section 2 Equipment and Process Descriptions Table 2 -3 Natural Gas Boiler Parameters (SCAQMD permit application data) Parameter Value Boiler Size 16 MMBtu1Hr Stack Height (Above ground) 46140ft iti Stack Diameter 26112in lei Exhaust Flowrate 3719 acfm Exhaust Temperature 200 F (assumed) Fuel Consumption Rate 16000 cfh (natural gas) Operation Schedule 24 hr /day, 365 daystyr Source: CDM 2007. [1] The boiler release height and diameter were measured at 46 -ft and 26 -in from available Cogan Plant drawing, and estimated at 40 -ft and 12 -in for boilers at Central Utility Plant from site walk. Table 2-4 Existing Cogeneration Plant Diesel Standby ICE Parameter Value Manufacturer Caterpillar Engine Size 400 ekW Stack Height (Above ground) 12 ft Stack Diameter 12 in Exhaust Flowrate 3333.7 acfm Exhaust Temperature 872 F Fuel Consumption Rate 109.9 Lthr (diesel) Operation Schedule Test — 52hrtyr, Maintenance— 10hrtyr, Total 62 hrtyr Source: CDM 2007. Table 2 -5 Existing Utility Plant Diesel Standby ICE Parameter Value Manufacturer Caterpillar Engine Size 2518 bhp Stack Height (Above ground) 40 ft Stack Diameter 18 in Exhaust Flowrate 15135.9 acfm Exhaust Temperature 761.7 F Fuel Consumption Rate 109.9 Lthr (diesel) Operation Schedule Test— 52hrtyr, Maintenance — 101hrtyr, Total 62 hrtyr Source: CDM 2007, E7-0- RAHm9 HHRAWRA 2 -2 Section 3 Emission Estimates 3.1 TACs Identification CARB Speciation profiles can provide estimates of the chemical composition of VOC and PM emissions from different processes.ln this analysis, most TAC emissions from natural gas fueled equipment were identified using the CARB source profiles and OEHHA TACs table. Natural gas PAH emission factors were obtained from SCAQMD and included in Appendix F. The following source profiles were downloaded from the CARB source profile database, as presented in Table 3 -2. In each profile, a group of chemicals were given in terms of weight percentage based on total organic gases (TOG), which were converted to mass percent of VOC in order to use the permitted VOC emission rates by SCAQMD. The conversion was included in Appendix D. For equipment fueled by diesel, the diesel particulate matter was identified as the only carcinogenic TAC to represent diesel exhaust as recommended by OEHHA guidelines. Table 3 -1 CARB Source Profiles Source Profile ID ProcesslSource Type Speciation from 719 ICE - reciprocating- natural gas TO 3 External combustion boiler - natural gas TOG 818 Farm equipment- diesel - light& heavy TOG Source: CDM 2007. 3.2 TAC Emission Estimates The non -PAH TAC emissions from natural gas fueled equipment were calculated . using the TAC's weight percentage multiplied by the source VOC emissions, which were either the allowable emissions permitted by SCAQMD or manufacture test data. The PAH emissions were calculated using the fuel consumptions and emission factors from SCAQMD as attached in Appendix F. The detailed calculation worksheets were attached in Appendix H. For each of the cogeneration ICES, the VOC emissions were calculated from the source testing data in SCAQMD permit document, i.e. 0.158 /bhp- hr for VOC emission as shown in Appendix G. The emission results were presented in Table 3 -2a. The boiler VOC emission was calculated using the emission factor of 5.5 lb /MMcf, which was submitted in the existing boiler permit application to SCAQMD. The TAC emissions were summarized in Table 3 -3a. The standby diesel engine emissions were calculated using the diesel emission factors provided in the technical data sheet from manufacturer, which are 0.11 g /bhp -hr and 0.062 g /bhp -hr respectively for HC and PM. The results were presented in Table 3-4. In emission calculations, it was assumed that there are no direct PM emissions from natural gas combustion, thus only the diesel equipment generated PM emissions. In addition, the r� awocq reian�nnn 3 -1 Section 3 Emission Estimates speciation factors of CARB profiles were based on TOG emission that should be converted to VOC speciation profile because either source testing or manufacturer's spec data only provides the VOC or NMHC emissions. The PAH is an important group of TACs in VOC emissions, but detailed speciation of PAHs are not provided in CARB source profiles. The SCAQMD PAHs emission factors were used to calculate annual and hourly PAH emissions. For the natural gas ICES, a control efficiency of 70 percent was assumed applicable to all PAHs, which was reported as NMHC control efficiency in the source testing report provided by the manufacturer. However, for the natural gas boiler, since there was not any control efficiency for any kinds of organic gas emissions indicated in the permit documents, the PAHs emissions were calculated without any control efficiency applied. The PAH emissions were summarized in Tables 3 -2b and 3 -3b, respectively, for the cogeneration ICEs and the boiler. For the diesel standby ICE, the PAH emissions were not calculated separately because diesel PM emission was assumed as the only TAC causing cancer risks. Table 3 -2a Non -PAH TAC Emission Estimates for Each Natural Gas ICE Using CARB Source Profile No. 719 CHEMICAL NAME (excluding PAHs) CAS SPeciation Fraction Each Engine LBSIHR LBSIYR 1,2,4 -TR I M ETHYLBENZEN E (1,3,4- TRIMETHYLBENZENE) 95636 3.9705E -04 2.7573E -D4 2.415 ACETALDEHYDE 75070 1.1911E -03 8.2716E -04 7.246 BENZENE 71432 4.3673E -03 3.0329E -03 26.568 BUTYRALDEHYDE 123728 7.9406E -04 5.5143E -04 4.831 CYCLOHEXANE 110827 3.9705E -04 2.7573E -04 2.415 ETHYLBENZENE 100414 3.9705E -04 2.7573E -04 2.415 ETHYLENE 74851 2.5013E -02 1.7370E -02 152.162 FORMALDEHYDE 50000 3.2160E -02 2.2333E -02 195.637 ISOMERS OF XYLENE 1210 7.9406E -04 5.5143E -04 4.831 M- XYLENE 108383 3.9705E -04 2.7573E -04 2.415 N-HEXANE 110543 7.9406E -04 5.1143E -D4 4.831 O- XYLENE 95476 3.9705E -04 2.7573E -04 2.415 PROPYLENE 115071 6.7098E -02 4.6596E -02 408.181 TOLUENE 108883 1.5881E -03 I 1.1029E -03 9.661 Source: UUM 2007. •� RUbeg HHRAWRA 3-2 Section 3 Emission Estimates Table 3 -2b PAH Emission Estimates for Each Natural Gas ICE Using SCAQMD Emission Factors TAC CAS SCAQMD EFs (IhslMMcf) LBSfHRI!l LBSIYRI" PAHs 1 1151 1 0.0004 1 2.12E -06 1.85E -02 Source: SCAQMD, httpahmvv.anmdnp_v/ ra�dasl�drfC(�M8FM2001.pdE; CDM 2007. [1) A 70 percent control efficiency applied to PAHs (assumed the same as for NMHC control from manufacturer's testing data) Table 3 -3a Non -PAH TAC Emission Estimates for Natural Gas Boilers/Heaters Using CARB Source Profile No. 3 CHEMICAL NAME (excluding PAHs) CAS Speciation Fraction LBS /HR LBSIYR FORMALDEHYDE 50000 0.1660 1.4606E -02 127.948 BENZENE 71432 0.0830 7.3029E -03 63.974 TOLUENE 108883 0.0415 3.6515E -03 31.987 CYCLOHEXANE 110827 0.0207 1.8257E -03 15.993 HEXANE 110543 0.0207 1.8257E -03 15.993 Source: CDM 2007, Table 3 -3b PAH Emissions for Natural Gas Boilers/Heaters Using SCAQMD Emission Factors Source CAS EFs (lbsfMMcf) LBS /HR LBSfYR Cogeneration Plant Boiler 1151 0.0004 6.4E -06 561E-02 Utility Plant Boilers (each) 1151 0.0004 6.4E -06 5.62E -02 Utility Plant Heater /Chillers (each) 1151 0.0004 3.05E -06 2.67E -02 Source: CDM 2007. F1 R ?Hoag HHRA%HRA 3 -3 Section 3 Emission Estimates Table 3-4 TAC Emission Estimates for Diesel Standby ICE Using CARB Source Profile No. 818 (TOG) and 116 (PM)III CHEMICAL NAME CAS Speciation Fraction WEIGHT% of TOG LBSIHR LBSNR FORMALDEHYDE 50000 0.1471 14.714 0.0191 1.1847 BENZENE 71432 0.0200 2.000998 0.0026 0.1611 METHYL ETHYL KETONE (MEK) (2- BUTANONE) 78933 0.0148 1.476998 0.0019 0.1189 TOLUENE 108883 0.0147 1.473 0.0019 0.1186 M- XYLENE 108383 0.0061 0.611 0.0008 0.0492 O- XYLENE 95476 0.0034 0.335 0.0004 0.0270 P- XYLENE 106423 0.0010 0.095 0.0001 0.0076 STYRENE 100425 0.0006 0.058 0.0001 0.0047 METHYL ALCOHOL 67561 0.0003 0.03 0.00004 0.0024 VANADIUM 7440622 0.0055 0.55 0.0004 0.0250 Diesel PM 9901 7.320E -02 4.538 Source: CDM 2007. (11 The speciated TACs were used for acute risk analysis only. For cancer risk, Diesel PM was the only TAC to represent the diesel exhaust in the analysis as recommended in Risk Assessment Procedures to Evaluate Particulate Emissions From Diesel - Fueled Engines, OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. � R:%Hd g HHRA HR 3-4 I- T- RAH a HHRA\ Section 4 Health Risk Analysis by HARP Modeling HARP is software developed by CARB for HRA analysis under the OEHHA Guideline for Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. It basically comprises of three modules, i.e. emission inventory, dispersion modeling, and risk analysis. The emission inventory was developed by entering the emission estimates from the previous section. The dispersion modeling module needs the input of all source information, such as stack locations, heights, diameters, exhaust temperatures, flowrates, and dimensions of any on -site buildings close to any stacks, as well as receptor locations and terrain elevations. The output will be the ground concentrations of TACs at each receptor. The risk module will combine the emission rates and dispersion results to determine health risks for each receptor. The following sections will discuss in details to set up dispersion modeling inputs, and risk analysis using HARP Version 1.3. 4.1 Dispersion Module Setup Two maps were used to help the setup of dispersion module, the site drawing from client and the aerial map downloaded from TerraServer as attached in Appendix D and E. The terrain file was downloaded as a DEM file from USGS website. The origin of facility UTM coordinates was determined at the hospital ER entrance from the download TerraServer aerial map. Then with site drawing, each source location was determined relative to the facility origin using the site map scale. The coordinates of the property line was determined by measuring some points on fenceline using site drawing scale. Since the hospital is located in an area with terrain changes, a DEM file, downloaded from USGS website was imported to determine the terrain elevation of the area. Stack dimensions and exhaust parameters were obtained from equipment spec sheets from manufacturers. Based on SCAQMD guideline on HRA for an area ranging between 25 and 100 acres, a minimum of 100 -meter spacing was chosen for grid receptors outside property fenceline and a maximum of 75 -meter spacing for grid receptors on fenceline. And the grid receptor system outside hospital property line was extended to 1200 meters on each direction from the facility origin. The meteorological data file was downloaded from SCAQMD website. 4.2 Risk Module Setup The risk module combined the results of emission data and modeled TACs ground concentrations from the previous two modules, to calculate cancer, chronic and acute risks for all receptors on and outside fenceline. Except inhalation pathway, four other pathways were chosen in the analysis as recommended by OEHHA guideline, i.e. the home grown produce, the dermal, soil ingestion and mothers milk pathways. Since the closest residential receptor is immediately to the fenceline at the hospital northwest corner and residence normally has higher risks than workers at same location, the fenceline receptors were all modeled as residential area. 41 E= R:H.9 HHf MW Section 5 Rut s Evaluation ea pplicable rules are SCAQMD rule 1401 and 1402 for toxic air emissions during operations of the cogeneration plant project. The rules require that for existing facilities the cumulative cancer risks should not exceed 25 per million, and cumulative HI for chronic non -cancer and acute risks should not exceed 3.0 for any target organ. The incremental project cancer risks should not exceed 10 per million, and incremental HI for chronic non -cancer and acute risks should not exceed 1.0 for any target organ. In addition, the cancer burden should not exceed 0.5 if individual cancer risks exceeds 1 per million. 5-t Section 6 Analysis and Conclusions The health impacts were evaluated for cancer, chronic and acute risks using HARP on 1239 receptors, including 10 sensitive receptors, 38 fenceline receptors, 625 grid receptors and 566 population census receptors. For the proposed future project with 3 natural gas ICES, the modeled residential peak risks of cancer, chronic and acute impacts were found at the closest residential area just north of the cogeneration plant. The risk values are summarized in Table 6 -1, and the residential peak cancer risk was calculated to be 5.7 per million which is lower than the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of 10 per million. The cumulative impacts were also evaluated by modeling all existing and future equipment at both the utility plant and the cogeneration plant. The peak cumulative cancer risk was found about 20.6 in a million and also occurred at the receptor north of and nearest to the cogeneration plant. Note that the natural gas ICES in the cogeneration plant are assumed to have oxidation catalysts, while all other existing boilers and heaters are not assumed to have add -on VOC or PAH controls. The new natural gas ICES were modeled with 70% PAHs control efficiency, which was assumed same as the control efficiency for HC from manufacture test data. The cumulative His for both non -cancer chronic and acute risks were modeled, and the risk results are lower than the HI thresholds of 1.0 at all receptors. In addition, the cancer burden was evaluated as required by Rules 1401 if the incremental cancer risks exceed 1 per million. A total of 566 census receptors were found in a circle area with a 2500 -meter radius, and the highest cancer burden was determined at 0.005, which is far below SCAQMUs threshold of 0.5. The breakdown of cumulative risk contributions by each chemical were provided for the peak risk receptors in Tables 6-2 through 6-4, for cancer, chronic non - cancer and acute risks, respectively. The main cancer risk drivers include the following four chemicals: PAHs, formaldehyde, benzene, and diesel PM. The proposed project incremental risk breakdown by chemical are presented in Tables 6 -5 through 6-7, for cancer, chronic non - cancer, and acute risks respectively. Additional backup information and data are contained in Appendices E through L. Table 6 -1 Risks Summary from HARP Modeling Risk Type SCACIMD Threshold Facility Cumulative Risks Project Incremental Risks Significant (Yes/No) Cumulative Increment Cumulative Increment MICR (per million individuals) 25 10 20.6 5.6 No No HIC (chronic) 3.0 1.0 0.16 0.07 No No HIA (acute) 3.0 1.0 0.11 0.02 No No Source: CDM 2007. ,F� R.1 b HH IH 6 -1 Section 6 Analysis and Conclusions Table 6-2 Facility Cumulative Cancer Risk Breakdown by TAC at the Peak Cancer Risk Receptor CAS Name INHAL DERM SOIL MOTHERI VEG ORALt't TOTAL 1151 PAHs -w /o 7.13E -08 2.37E -06 3.55E -07 0.00E +00 8.68E -06 1.14E -05 1.15E -05 56 50000 Formaldehyde 3.71E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.71E -06 18 71432 Benzene 3.44E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.44E -06 17 9901 DleselExhPM 1.90E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.90E -06 9 75070 Acetaldehyde 5.58E -08 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 5.58E -08 0 91203 Naphthalene 3.63E -10 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.63E -10 0 1210 Xylenes 0,00E +00 I 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 74851 Ethylene I 0,00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 I 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 95476 o- Xylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 I 0,00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 95636 12AThMeBenze 0,00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 I 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 100414 Ethyl Benzene 0,00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0,00E +00 0 108383 m- Xylene 0,00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 108883 Toluene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 I 0.00E +00 0 110543 Hexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0,00E +00 0 27 Cyclohexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0,00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 H15071 Propylene 0,00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 123728 Butyraldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 107028 Acrolein 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0,00E +00 0,00E +00 0,00E +00 0 1330207 XYLENES 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 67561 Methanol 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 78933 MEK 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 D.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 100425 Styrene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0,00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 106423 p- Xylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 7440622 1 Vanadium 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 Total by Pathway 9.18E -06 2.37E -06 3.55E -07 0.00E +00 8.68E -06 1.14E -05 2.06E -05 100 Source: CDM 2007. [11 ORAL is the subtotal of non - INHAL risks. 8'8 FIH.a HKRA Rq 6 -2 Section 6 Analysis and Conclusions Table 6 -3 Facility Cumulative Chronic Risk Breakdown by TAC at the Peak Chronic Risk Receptor CAS NAME CNS DEVEL ENDO EYE GILV KIDN REPRO RESP BLOOD MAX 50000 Formaldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.56E -01 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.56E -01 0.00E +00 1.56E -01 107028 Acrolein 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.74E -03 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.74E -03 0.00E +00 3.74E -03 75070 Acetaldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.64E -03 0.00E +00 1.64E -03 71432 Benzene 1.52E -03 1.52E -03 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.52E -03 1.52E -03 9901 DieselExhPM 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 9.16E -04 0.00E +00 9.16E -04 115071 Propylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.88E -04 0.00E +00 2.88E -04 108883 I Toluene 1.28E -04 1.28E -04 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.28E -04 0.00E +00 1.28E -04 1210 Xylenes 1.39E -05 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 - 0.00E +00 1.39E -05 0.00E +00 1.39E -05 95476 o-Xylene 6.93E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 6.93E -06 0.00E +00 6.93E -06 108383 m- Xylene 6.93E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 6.93E -06 0.00E +00 6.93E -06 110543 Hexane 2.74E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.74E -06 100414 Ethyl Benzene 0.00E +00 2.71E -06 2.71E -06 0.00E +00 2.71E -06 2.71E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.71E -06 1330207 XYLENES 2.34E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.34E -06 0.00E +00 2.34E -06 91203 Naphthalene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 8.92E -07 0.00E +00 8.92E -07 78933 MEK 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.52E -08 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.52E -08 106423 p- Xylene 1.39E -09 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.39E -09 0.00E +00 1.39E -09 100425 Styrene 6.62E -10 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 6.62E -10 67561 Methanol 0.00E +00 7.71E -11 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 7.71E -11 7440622 Vanadium 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1151 PAHs -w /o 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 110827 Cyclohexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 95636 1,2,4TriMeBenze 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 123728 Butyraldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 74851 Ethylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 TOTAL by Organ 1.68E -03 1.65E -03 2.71E -06 1.60E -01 2.71E -06 2.71E -06 1.52E -08 1.63E -01 1.52E -03 1.63E -01 Source: CAM 2007. t� RlHOag HHPAWA 6 -3 Section 6 Analysis and Conclusions Table 6-4 Facility Cumulative Acute Risks Breakdown by TACs at the Peak Acute Risk Receptor CAS NAME CNS DEVEL EYE IMMUN REPRO RESP BLOOD MAX 50000 Formaldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 7.88E -02 7.88E -02 0.00E +00 7.88E -02 0.00E +00 7.88E -02 107028 Acrolein 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.15E -02 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.15E -02 0.00E +00 3.15E -02 71432 Benzene 0.00E +00 8.23E -04 O.00E +00 8.23E -04 8.23E -04 0.00E +00 8.23E -04 8.23E -04 7440622 Vanadium 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.36E -04 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.36E -04 0.00E +00 3.36E -04 108883 Toluene 2.25E -05 2.25E -05 2.25E -05 0.00E +00 2.25E -05 2.25E -05 0.00E +00 2.25E -05 78933 - MEK 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 9.32E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 9.32E -06 0.00E +00 9.32E -06 1210 Xylenes 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 4.69E 06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 4.69E-06 0.00E +00 4.69E -06 108383 m- Xylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 4.64E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 4.64E -06 0.00E +00 4.64E -06 95476 c- Xylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.57E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.57E -06 0.00E +00 3.57E -06 1330207 XYLENES 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.98E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.98E -06 0.00E +00 1.98E -06 106423 P- Xylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.82E -07 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.82E -07 0.00E +00 3.82E -07 100425 Styrene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.40E -07 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.40E -07 0.00E +00 2.40E -07 67561 Methanol 9.01E -08 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 9.01E -08 9901 DieselExhPM 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1151 PAHs -w /o 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 75070 Acetaldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 91203 Naphthalene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 100414 Ethyl Benzene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 110543 Hexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 110827 Cvclohexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 115071 Propylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 95636 1,2,4TriMeBenze 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1 0.00E +00 123728 Butyraldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 u.uuE +uu u.uuE +uu u.uuE +uu 74851 Ethylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 TOTAL by Organ 2.26E-05 8.45E -04 I 1.11E -01 I 7.96E -02 I 8.45E -04 1.11E -01 I 8.23E -04 1.11E -01 Source: CDM 2007. I- R VoaO HHP MRA 6 -4 Section 6 Analysis and Conclusions Table 6 -5 Proposed Project Incremental Cancer Risk Breakdown by TAC at the Peak Cancer Risk Receptor CAS NAME INHAL GERM SOIL MOTHER VEG ORAL"' TOTAL % 1151 PAHs -wlo 1.87E -08 6.21E -07 9.31E -08 0.00E +00 2.27E -06 2.99E -06 3.01E -06 54 50000 Formaldehyde 1.54E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 1.54E -06 28 71432 Benzene 9.98E -07 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 9.98E -07 18 75070 Acetaldehyde 2.72E -08 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 2.72E -08 0 1210 Xylenes 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 74851 Ethylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 95476 o- Xylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 95636 1,2,4TriMeBenze 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 100414 Ethyl Benzene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 106383 m- Xylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 O.o0E +00 0 108883 Toluene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 110543 Hexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 110827 Cyclohexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 115071 Propylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 123728 Butyraldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +OO 0.00E +00 0 86737 Fluorene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 Total by Pathway 2.59E -06 6.21 E -07 9.31 E -08 0.00E +00 2.27E -06 2.99E -06 5.58E -06 100 Source: CDM 2007. [11 ORAL is the subtotal of non -INHAL risks. t1 RI a9 HHR NRA 6-5 Section 6 Analysis and Conclusions Table 6 -6 Proposed Project Incremental Chronic Risks Breakdown by TAC at the Peak Chronic Risk Receptor Source: COM 2007. R:IHwug HHM%HRA M GILV KIDN RESP BLOOD MAX % CAS NAME CNS DEVEL EN DO EYE 50000 Formaldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 6.50E -02 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 6.50E -02 0.00E +00 6.50E -02 98 75070 Acetaldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0,00E +00 8.03E -04 0.00E +00 5.03E -04 1 71432 Benzene 4.41E -04 4.41E -04 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0,00E +00 0,00E +00 4.41E -04 4.41E -04 1 115071 Propylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.36E -04 0.00E +00 1.36E -04 0 108883 Toluene 3.21E -05 3.21E -05 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.21E -05 0.00E +00 3.21E -05 0 1210 Xylenes 6.88E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 6.88E -06 0.00E +00 6.88E-06 0 95476 o-Xylene 3.44E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.44E -06 0.00E +00 3.44E -06 0 108383 m- Xylene 3.44E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.44E -06 0.00E +00 3.44E -06 0 100414 Ethyl Benzene 0.00E +00 1.20E -06 1.20E -06 0.00E +00 1.20E -06 1.20E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.20E -06 0 110543 Hexane 6.88E -07 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 I 6.88E -07 0 1151 PAHs -w /o 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 74851 Ethylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 95636 1,2,4Tr[MeBenze 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 110827 Cyclohexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 .0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 123728 Butyraldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 86737 Fluorene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0 TOTAL 4.88E -04 4.75E -04 1.20E -06 6.50E -02 1.20E -06 1,20E -06 6.60E -02 4.41E -04 I 6.60E -02 100 Source: COM 2007. R:IHwug HHM%HRA M Section 6 Analysis and Conclusions Table 6 -7 Proposed Project Incremental Acute Risk Breakdown by TACs at the Peak Acute Risk Receptor CAS NAME CNS DEVEL EYE IMMUN I REPRO RESP BLOOD MAX 50000 Formaldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.22E -02 2.22E -02 0.00E +00 2.22E -02 0.00E +00 2.22E -02 71432 Benzene 0.00E +00 1.46E -04 0.00E +00 1.46E -04 1.46E -04 0.00E +00 1.46E -04 1.46E -04 108883 Toluene 2.78E -06 2.78E-06 2.78E -06 0.00E +00 2.78E -06 2.78E -06 0.00E +00 2.78E -06 1210 Xylenes 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.34E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.34E -06 0.00E +00 2.34E -06 95476 o- Xylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.17E-06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.17E -06 0.00E +00 1.17E -06 108383 m- Xylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.17E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.17E -06 0.00E +00 1.17E -06 1151 PAHs -w /o 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 74851 Ethylene 0.00E +00 I 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 75070 Acetaldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 95636 1,2,4Tr!MeBenze 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 100414 Ethyl Benzene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 110543 Hexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 11na97 f]vrinherane n.nnF +nn 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 I 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 115071 Propylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 123728 Butyraldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 86737 Fluorene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 TOTAL by Organ 2.78E -06 1.48E -04 2.22E -02 2.23E -02 1.48E -04 2.22E -02 1.46E -04 2.23E-02 Source: CDM 2007. �I 1 0,11 R%Ho gHHR %HRA 6 -7 Appendix A Site Drawing F:*l ,HHNA ... . ...... VVE In - 7i MOMhh !k. 12. P ViTY L L D TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES Appendix B Aerial Map • • 11 R W-a HHRXHR ` \Pity � Appendix C Equipment Manufacturer Data RAl gHHRAWR 1 WA � ° SAA No. 2003- 14A Waukesha CERTIFICATION OF ENGINEERING APPROVAL Are Special Codes or Equipment Required for this Approval? v List: Code 1102: Hot Water Cooling system - 2350F JW Code 1130: Breather System Modification WPS Code 1105/1205A: Engomatic Control System Required Engineering Approval: Ignition Timing 21 °BTDC Carb Setting (Lambda or MAFR) 9.3896 Co When operating per the site conditions listed with a commercial quality natural gas consisting of 93% Methane by volume, WKI(TM) 91, and 900 Btu /ft3 SLHV, WED approves a continuous rating of 2080 BHP @1200 RPM with 8% overload allowed 2hrs /24hrs. For the site conditions listed and per the above stated fuel with the engine operating at 2080 BHP @1200 RPM, the following heat rejection and emissions are guaranteed to be: BSFC:(Btu /bhp -hr) 7910 ±496 Induction Air:(SCFM) 3151±6% Exhaust Flow:(lb /hr) 14026 ±6% Exhaust Temp:(GF) 1201 ±500 Heat To:(Btu /hr x1000) Jacket Water: 4678 ±696 Lube Oil: 725 #6% Intercooler: 519 ±68 Total Exhaust: 4435 ±696 Radiation: 801 ±2596 Emissions Not To Exceed: *NDx:(g /bhp -hr) 13.0 CO:(g /bhp -hr) 9.0 NMHC:tg /bhp -hr) 0.50 NOx emission at absolute humidity of 75 grains H2O /lb dry air. Fuel must conform to WED "Gaseous Fuel Specification" S7884 -7. 2.� ze�3 Sign Jayson Ewald Date: 01/28/2003 Signed: Mark ct einer Date: 01/28/2003 Form M-5516.04101 Page 3 of 3 EMISSION CONTROL EQWPMEN7 SPECII1CA710N 180LVPAu Ma ,ry PA !9355 Td: 610.971.1100 P u: 6109713116 - -- Dal. 6,M003 Quote Yo. 463.3459 P701CC 1: H02g$05pit2l Email: MhunIqlarAmLcam .leis COIL rb..C: 961 - 37/•306( Faa: 962-377-3061 e Model: P9390GSI 2080 1200 100%9 Na0sral Gas hlmcamlyn. °F: 1 1201 Flow.scfc: I 3102 Flm, xm: I 186148 Flow, IW. 14033 v01 %: 28.0 79.70 1 vml %.: 32.0 030 D. Vol %: 18.0 10.00 2 . w1 %.� 94.0 10.00 9NO" DATA PRE J POST It u NO2, g/Bhp -hr. IJ.00 0.15 s m NOO, l0✓hr. 59.62 0.69 1 NOZ'f06VS't' 261.15 J.01 c u NOO, ppmv: 2,64318 3050 caNO2, mvd 15 %02: ;h 842.54 9.72 9.00 0.60 Mohr 41.28 2.75 UMLI�IC [80.80 12.05 Fimv. - 3,006.37 200.42 vd [5 %02' 958.27 63.88 'aa CH4, g/Bhphr 2100 0.15 u CH4.@Ar. 9.17 0.69 as CH4, mndyr. 40.18 3.01 OCH4.ppmc 1.169.14 97.69 u CH4, PPmvd 4 t5%. 02: 372.66 27.95 [Cm CH4, $MbpAr. 0.50 0.15 IC m CH4. Wlu- 2.29 0.69 ICU CH4, tomlyr. 10.04 101 IC u CH4, ppmr. 29219 87.69 :C a CH4. ppmvd!l 15 %02: 93.17 27.95 1PmVep00 rl" None Awk eppma (inches) ...0 72 Vift glpma (i°Ctes)...A 48 feighl: approa (incha) ... B 52 VNhG onmaw (pounds) 1700 aria k3nags) (2304mcha) Carbon 4 4 ack Ptesnae: estimated(i0cha H2O) 3 d price..(cach) 529,256.50 eli . ARO 6.8 Weds 'V. Xmuw, r, Fmgine Industries Sala Mang" ... 281.353.2500..f A: 281- 288.4550..email: kammew (o3imust.mm Ad.Yia6o,30aaT 0o, nQU Of 9, eer, i0B 9P'nt arMwraOVP, bOWe ml a9Wicnte a.ae and uay Serta.nn l0 aaaa 6.Pn autat'n.ow aPrtwva r 1eY0rJTevu „w Cer6ew Wnar,d Ot,one„6Pn,a..f..i5mmtr 13 mono. M1am aan ef,vn -tµ Wnm, m9an9nAl .u•�i..sry.entllOdq.,si 51in.eu„oPP+dv bnPenut as wnei 17. Y rOr. de4W bmn t'V,t ,w,ahmno Ga¢mnvPa,p,R b oplY„ mn.wb aemnp A alaay7T eid b 41i[Yivrm,t ux bd +:a9aa:N IOyae, anbv.n e)wP, of0.: %- a7Y.3 eaPP9„eey mi0rvdn aWatamr171W u 100. «IUaeia. P /9.91 b 6907 JM Tra.lfwn.t Rira Oww CETERPILLARE TECHNICAL DATA Set • . STANDBY 400 ekW 500 WA 60 Hz 1800 rpm 480 Volts Genset Power rating with fan 400 ekW Genset Power rating @ 0.8 pf 500 kVA fuel Consumption p.100 %load wdf'fan :.: - ,.:'. ,,. : .. : loss LJhr `: 290 Gallhi T - 941oad wnh :fen - ". , 806 Lifir::; t - 213'Gol/hr ' -60 %load withlan - .56.0 Uhb := `. 14.8 Galfir Cooling System Air flow restriction (system) 0.12 We 0.48 in. water Engine Coolant capacity with radialorlexp. lank 54.5 L 14.4 Gal Engine coolant capacity 20.8 L 5.5 Gal Radiator coolant capacity 33.7 L 8.9 Gal `Exit ISyetein . :.:.- :. ... .. .. .:. .. . :C4mbustIon air;inle[FloW -rate 363 m?lriiin 12879cfm ERtlBUSl stack:gas temperatpre _ 46650ag;G 872 DCg Fs Exfi"it 0as flow rate .: �' .: ` g4 4 malmi6 3333 7 chin > Exhaust flange. size l)nterneY diameter). 1624 mrti=`, 60m .:E. aust system baokpreasure lmeiii)mum�allowablee 67 kPa': 36.9'ie.:WSter - Heal Rejection Heel rejection to coolant itolal) 149 kW 8474 Btulmin Heat rejection to exhaust (total) 399 kW 22691 Blulmin Heat rejection to atmosphere from engine 74 kW 4208 Btulmin Heat rejection to atmosphere from generator 27.28 kW 1551.41 Btu/min Altemalor_ .:... ... ...:.. Mcitor sterling capabtitry 0, 30% vo)lage A)p 765 skVA - -- _ 498 �-TeinpereturORise - - 130 Deg C 266` Dog F Lobe System Sump refill with filter 3B.0 L 10.0 Gal -Nox glhp fir ot to excee 5 46 glbhp -hn ,CO fllltp jir(notto exceed> ..;' _.. 32 g�tillphr _ ,HG gfip hr (rh o A exceed }.. • 11 gR�fip -hr PMglhphr'(nottoexceed) 063g1b)phr Ammon( capamnry at cuu m Ibou m *Dove sea love I. I-or amDient capability at other altitudes, Consult your Caterpillar dealer. Air flow restriction isyslem) is added to existing restriction from factory. Generator temperature rise is based on a 40' C (104° F) ambient per NEMA MG 1-32. Emissions data measurements are consistent with those described in EPA CFR 40 Part 89 Subpart 0 & E and 45081791 for measuring HC, CO, PM, NOx. Data shown is based on steady state operating conditions of 77 deg F. 28.42 in HG and number 2 diesel fuel with 35 deg API and LHV of 18,390 8lullb_ 4 17 November 2003 3:07 PM Appendix D CARS Speciation Profile .r' R:1M , M1 )H1 GRGPROF SAROAG ORGFRAC TOGTHC CAS 3 43105 0.01 1.036 H-BUTANE 3 43122 0.09 1.036 CYCLOHEXANE 3 43201 0.56 1.036 74826 3 43204 ON 1.036 74086 3 43212 0109 1.036 106976 3 43220 0.06 1.036 109660 3 43248 0101 1.036 110827 3 43502 0.06 1.036 50000 3 0.5201 ON 1.036 71432 3 45202 0.02 1.036 108883 ISOMERS OF HEXANE Huemal oomWs0on bailer - natural 9. ISOMERS OF PENTANE Eriemal combustion bailer - aaWral gas METHANE E#emal combustion butler - naural gas PROPANE Exlemal combustion boiler - naWml gas H-BUTANE a mural � bo6ar- natural gas N- PENTANE Eammal cambu nboiler - naWml gas CYCLOHEXANE Eammal combustbn boiler - ma lgas FORMALDEHYDE El WmWa lsn War - natural gas BENZENE Exlamal mrrmuab.n WW - rretu gas TOLUENE 6stamal mmbus0on boiler - mtual gas ORGPROF SAROAO CRGFRAC TOGTHC CAS 719 43105 0.0002 0.99 ISOMERS OF HEXANE ICErecipmoatingnffiuml gas 719 43106 0.004 0.99 ISOMERS OF HEPTANE ICE,dprocating- naturl gas 719 43107 0.0002 0.99 ISOMERS OF OCTANE ICE- raciprmaliag- natural gas 719 43108 0.0001 0.99 ISOMERS OF NONANE ICE -anal Mti -.twat gas 719 43109 0.0002 0.99 ISOMERS OF DECANE ICE- redprocating-nalural gas 719 43120 0.0026 0.99 ISOMERS OF BUTENE ICE- recipromlingnatural gas 719 43122 0.0013 0.99 ISOMERS OF PENTANE ICE- recipaxsstngnalural gas 719 43201 0.7663998 0.99 74828 METHANE ICE-recp.cafing- natural gas 719 43202 0.1399 0.99 74840 ETHANE ICE- recipmpaling -naWml gas 719 43203 0.0063 0.99 74851 ETHYLENE ICE- reErpmcaling- natural gas 719 43206 0.0291 0.99 74986 PROPANE ICE- nam,aaating- natural gas 719 43205 0.0169 D.99 115071 PROPYLENE ICE-mcipmmlir natural gas 719 43206 0.0032 0.99 74862 ACETYLENE ICE- recipmcatingnalural gas 719 43212 0.01 0.99 106978 N- BUTANE ICE- mcpromfing- natural gas 719 43213 00001 0.9g 106989 1- BUTENE ICEtecipmmling- nahaal gas 719 43214 0.0043 0199 75285 1SOBUTANE ICE - reciprocating - natural gas 719 43215 0.0002 0.99 115117 ISOBUTYLENE ICE- redpmmling- natural gas 719 43216 0.0013 0.99 624646 TRANS -2- BUTENE ICE - reciprocating - natural gas 719 43217 0.0002 0.99 590181 CIS -2- 5UTENE ICE- mcipmmtingnalural gas 719 43220 0.0013 0.99 10966D N- PENTANE ICE- recipmcafingnelural gas 719 43224 0.O of 0.99 109671 1- PENTENE ICE- racpmcafing- natural gas 719 43226 0.0001 0.99 608048 TRANS -2- PENTENE WE- raipmwli.,.reu.l gas 719 43228 0.0001 0.99 513359 2- METHYL -2- BUTENE ICE - reciprocating - natural gas 719 43230 0.0002 0.99 96140 3- METHYLPENTANE ICE- reaprocaL'ng- natural gas 719 43231 0.0002 0.99 110543 N-HEXANE ICE- radpmr.ting- natural as 719 43232 0.0002 0.99 142825 N-HEPTANE ICE- recipmcstir .tural as 719 43233 0.0002 0.99 111659 N- OCTANE ICErecpmca4ngiaturet gas 719 43235 0.001 0.99 111842 N- NONANE ICE- recipmcatingnasaml gas 719 43238 0.001 0.99 124185 N- DECANE ICE-racpmrating� natural gea 719 43242 0.0002 0.99 287923 CYCLOPENTANE ICE- recipmcalingnalural gas 719 43248 D.0001 099 110827 CYCLOHEXANE ICE - reciprocating - natural gas 719 43261 0.0002 0.99 108872 METHYLCYCLOHEXANE ICE -redpmmtngmatural gas 719 43262 0.0004 0.99 96377 METHYLCYCLOPENTANE ICE-redpmcatirg Tal gas 719 43265 0.0001 0.99 111660 1.00TENE ICE- wiPra.mgnalural gas 719 43267 0.0001 0.99 124116 1- NONENE ICE- recipmcasngnalural gas 719 43271 0.001 0.99 108087 2,4- DIMETHYLPENTANE ICE- racpmcafing.natural gas 719 43291 00001 0.99 75832 2.2- DIMETHYLBUTANE ICE- racipmcafing.natmal gas 719 43295 0.0001 0.99 589344 3-METHYLHEXANE ICE -recipmmlingnatural gas 719 43298 0.0002 0.99 589811 3-METHYLHEPTANE ICE- recipmcafing.nalural gas 719 43502 0.0091 0.99 5mm FORMALDEHYDE ICE- redpmcalingnaluml gas 719 43503 '0.0003 0.99 75070 ACETALDEHYDE ICE- reciprocslingnatural gas 719 43510 0.0002 0.99 123728 BUTYRALDEHYDE ICE- recipromting- natural gas 719 45102 0.0002 0.99 1330207 ISOMERS OF XYLENE ICE - recipmcating- natural gas 719 45201 0.011 0.99 71432 BENZENE ICE- recipmcadngnatural gas 719 45202 D.004 0.93 108863 TOLUENE ICE -re6pmmfing- nature)gas 719 45203 0.0001 0.99 100414 ETHYLBENZENE ICE-reapmcaling- natural gas 719 45204 0,0001 0.99 95476 O- XYLENE ICE- mcipmcalingnalural gas 719 45205 OOWi 0199 108383 M- XYLENE ICE- rerpmcating-natural gas 719 45207 0.0002 0.99 108678 1,3.STRIMETHYLBENZENE ICE- recipromting + alural gas 719 45208 0.0001 0.99 95636 1.2,4- TRIMETHYLBENZENE ICE- recipmmting- natural 719 45225 0.00D1 0.99 526738 gas 1, 2, 3TRIMETHYLBENZENEICE- recipromting-nMu.1 719 45248 o.DOD1 0.99 C10 DIALKYL BENZENES gas ICEIeaipmoefingnaWaal gas 719 98005 0.0001 0.99 592767 1- HEPTENE ICExipmmfiag- natural gas 719 98039 0.0002 0.99 C10 INTERNAL ALKENES ICEreciprocaling- natural gas 719 98040 0.0002 0.99 763291 2- METHYL- 1�PENTENE ICE- mopmca0ng- natural gas 719 98042 0.0004 0.99 C9 INTERNAL A.Le ES ICE- redpramtilgnamral gas 719 98049 010001 0.99 C9 AROMATICS ICE - reciprocating- natural gas 719 99912 0.0001 0199 620144 1- METHYL3ETHYLBENZE ICE- redpmcatingnahaal gas 719 99915 0.0001 0.99 611143 1- METHYL- 2- ETHYLBENZEICE- recpmcafingnaWrsI gas ORGPROF SAROAD ORGFRAC TOGTHC CAS BIB 43201 0.04064 1.436 74828 818 43202 0 00565 1.438 74840 818 43203 0.143T7 1.436 74851 818 43204 0.00185 1A38 74986 818 43205 0.02597 1.438 115071 818 43206 0.04254 1.438 74862 818 43208 0.00466 1.438 463490 818 43212 0.00150 1.438 106978 B18 43213 DOOMS 1.438 106989 818 43214 0.01222 1A38 75285 B18 43215 0.00922 1.438 115117 818 43215 0.00195 1.438 624846 818 43217 0.00094 1.438 590181 818 43218 OA019 1.438 106990 818 43220 0.00175 1A38 109660 818 43224 0.00324 1.438 109671 818 43226 amen TABS 646NB 818 43227 0.0003 1.438 627203 818 43229 0.00392 TABS 107835 618 43230 0.00115 1.438 96140 818 43231 0.00157 1.438 110543 818 43232 0.00068 1.438 142825 BIB 43233 0.0014 1.438 111659 818 43234 0.00028 1.438 563780 818 43235 0.0023 1.438 111842 818 43238 0.00529 TABS 124185 818 43241 0.00261 1.438 1120214 818 43242 0.00012 1.438 287923 818 43248 0.00026 1.438 110827 818 43261 O.0006B TABS 108872 ale 43262 0.00149 1.438 96377 818 43264 0.00107 1.438 108941 818 43271 0.00019 1.438 106087 818 43274 000073 1.438 565593 818 43275 0.0115 1.438 591764 818 43276 000298 1.438 540841 818 43277 0.00036 1.438 589435 818 43279 0.00015 1.438 565753 818 43291 0.00061 1A38 75832 818 43295 0.00348 1.438 589344 818 43301 0.0003 1,438 67561 818 43302 0.00009 1.438 64175 818 43502 0.14714 1A38 50000 818 43503 O.D7353 1.438 75070 818 43504 0.0091 1.438 123386 818 43510 0.01668 1.438 123728 818 43512 0.0011 1.438 818 43551 0.07507 1 438 67641 818 43552 0.01477 1 438 78933 818 43559 0.00899 1.438 59 +786 818 45105 0.00127 1,438 818 45106 0.00135 1.438 818 45201 O.D2001 1.438 71432 818 45202 0.01473 1.438 1088B3 818 45203 0.00305 1.438 100414 818 45204 0.00335 1.438 95476 818 45205 0.00611 1.438 108383 818 45206 0.00095 1.438 '106423 818 45207 0.00194 1A38 1OB678 818 45208 010053 1.438 9563E 816 45209 0.00122 1A38 TO36Bi 818 45,215 0.MEKS, 1.438 98066 818 45220 0.00058 1.438 100425 816 45225 0.0012 1.436 526736 816 45234 0.00051 IA38 135988 B10 45235 0.00126 1.436 538932 BIB 45501 0.00699 1.438 10052' ale 90081 D.00061 1.436 818 98020 0.05047 1.436 837503 618 98043 D.000IS 1.438 98828 818 98044 0.00188 1.438 490117 810 98046 0.00085 1.438 91203 BIB 98049 0.00497 1.438 81B 98050 0.00079 1,438 818 98078 0.01749 1.438 B18 98095 0.03799 1.438 818 98132 0.00602 1.438 78784 B18 98139 D.00011 1.438 584941 81B 98140 D.00057 1.43B 592278 018 98154 D.000B6 1.438 135513 BIB 98169 D.0282 1.438 558572 B18 09912 0.00247 1.438 620144 B18 99915 0.00138 1.438 611143 618 99999 D.13862 1.438 METHANE Farm equipment - diesel - light & heavy -0 ETHANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - ii ETHYLENE Farm equipment - diesel - light&heavy - (i PROPANE Farm equipmenl - diesel - fight &heavy - (r PROPYLENE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - (i ACETYLENE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - (r 12- PROPAOIENE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - i, N- BUTANE Farm equipment - diesel - light&haary - i� 1- BUTENE Farm equipment - diesel - tight &heavy - i 1506UTANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - i ISOSUTYLENE Farm equipment - diesel - light&heavy - ii TRANS -2- BUTENE Farm equipment. theist - light & heavy -i- CIS- 2- BUTENE Farm equipment - diesel- light&NpA, - i 1.3-BUTADIENE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - � N- PENTANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - � 1- PENTENE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - i TRANS -2- PENTENE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - ii CIS2- PENTENE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - i 2- METHYLPENTANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - i 3- METHYLPENTANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - i N- HEXANE Farm equipment - diesel - Ighl&heavy - i, N-HEPTANE Farm equipment - tliesel - light &heavy - i N- OCTANE Farm equipment - diesel - light 8 heavy -� 2.3.0IMETHYL -I- BUTENE Farm equipment - diesel - light &henry - p N- NONANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - i N- DECANE Farm equipment - diesel - light&heavy - fir N- UNOECANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - (r CYCLOPENTANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - ii CYCLOHEMNEE Farm equipment - diesel - light 9 heavy - h METHYLCYCLOHEXANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - ir METHYLCYCLOPENTANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - p CYCLOHEXANONE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - ir 2.4- DIMETHYLPENTANE Farm equipment- these{ - light S heavy - (i 2.3- 0IMETHYLPENTANE Farm equipment - diesel - l light 8 hear, -( 2- METHYLHEXANE Farm equipment - diesel - light&heavy - fir 2.2kTRIMETHYLPENTANE Farm equipment- diesel- light & heavy - 6 2.4-DIMETHYLHEXANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - p 2.3.4 - TRIMETHYLPENTANE Farm equipment- diesel - light & heavy - (i 2.2- DIMETHYL9UTANE Farm equipment - diesel - light&heavy - p 3- METHYLHEXANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - h METHYLALCOHOL Farm equipment - diesel - light 8 heavy - p ETHYL ALOOHOL Farm equipment - diesel- light &heavy - i, FORMALDEHYDE Farm equipment- diesel- light& horny - i, ACETALOEHYOE Farm equipment - diesel - light&haary - i, PROPIONALDEHYDE Farm equipment- tliesel - light&heary - i BUTYRALDEHYOE Farm equipment - diesel - light &he., -I, CS ALDEHYDE Farm equipment- diesel - light &heavy - �i ACETONE Farm equipment - diesel - light&heavy - �i METHYL ETHYL KETONE{ Farm equipment- diesel -light & heavy - METHYL N-BUTYL KETONE Farm equipment- diesel -light & heavy. (r ISOMERS OF BUTYLBENZI Farm equipment- diesel -light & heavy - i ISOMERS OF OIETHYLBEN Farm equipment- diesel -light & heavy - Ii BENZENE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - i TOLUENE Farm equipment - diesel -light &heavy - I. ETHYLBENZENE Farm equipment - diesel - light&heavy - i O- XYLENE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - I, M-XYLENE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - fir P- XYLENE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - fir 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE Farm equipment- diesel - light & heavy - h 1,2.LTRIMETHYLBENZENE Farm equipment- diesel - light B heavy - 0 N-PROPYLBENZENE Farm equipment - diesel - light 8 heavy - I, T- BUTYLBENZENE Farm equipment - diesel - ilght&heavy - i STYRENE Farm equipment - diesel - light 8 heavy - �i 1,2.3- TRIMETHYLBENZENE Farm equipment - diesel- light & heavy - (i (1- METHYLPROPYLISENZE Farm equipment - diesel- lighl8 heavy - (i (2- METHYIPROPYL)BENZI Farm equipment - diesel - light & heavy- (i BENZALDEHYDE Farm equipment - diesel -light &heavy - p ETHYLHEXANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - p 8-METHYLSTYRENE Farm equipment- diesel - light &heavy - p ISOPROPYLBENZENE CCU Farm equipmenl - diesel - light & heavy - p INDAN Farm equipmenl - diesel - Fght &heavy -�i NAPHTHALENE Farm equipment - diesel l- light &heavy -ii 09AROMAnCS Farm equipmenl - diesal - light &heavy -(i 010AROMATICS Farm equipment - diesel - Egs&heavy - �i ALKENE KETONE Farm equipmenl- diesel -light & heavy -0 C6ALDEHYDE6 Farm equipment - diesel -Ii9N & heavy -9 ISOPENTANE Farm equipment - diesel - light &heavy - � 2,YDIMETHYLHEXANE Farm equipment- diesel -h grip & heavy -�, 2- METHY1PENTANE Farm aqulpmeN•dieset - tills&heavy - p 1,2- DIETHYLBENZENE (OF Farm equipmenl - diesel - light& heavy - (, 3,3- DIMETHYL- I- BUTENE Farm equipment - diesel - light&heavy - (i 1- METHYL-3- ETHYIBENZEFarm egmpmsnl. dlBSel - Ii9hl & heavy- (. 1- METHYL- 2-ETHYLSENZEFarm equipment - diesel- lighl8 heavy - h UNIDENTIFIED Farm equipmenl - tliesel - light &heavy - (i WEIGHT% PM PROFIL CHEMICA SPECIE CAS SAROAD ofPMTOTAL 116 CALCIUM CA 116 ELEM CAI C(E) 116 IRON PE 116 SILICON SI 116 SULFATE:SO4 116 VANAOIUIV 116 OTHER OTHER 7440702 12111 - -- 7440440 12116 7439896 12126 7440213 12165 14808798 124W 7440822 12164 99999 12999 W EIGHT %WEIGHT % of PM10 ofPM2.5 5 5 5 STAT. I.C. ENGINE 4 4 4 STAT. I.C. ENGINE 0.55 0.55 0.55 STAT. I.C. ENGINE 0.55 0.55 0.55 STAT. I.C. ENGINE 15 15 15 STAT. I.C. ENGINE 0.55 0,55 0.55 STAT. I.G. ENGINE 74.35 74.35 74.35 STAT. I.C. ENGINE Appendix E OEHHA TACs Table RAHO HHgg1HRA A Noermmrn Eftnh Caen Risk Clu�cale Amte D.O • Clroair a.a• Chromic 0.0 • InhaFa4oa pa • � 14• a Abshsrr S�sllare FaM Ishalatim I'd.. 01-11 V.I. Caner Fd.. Oral Slope F.h• W RII. Reseed otr Fo d Fmtor� RU F (CAS) �6�r1 N "lµ OWMI) N +m (s9b'L'& ommq Get rta fA&d. {,tatdl tm4k5-�' *dj l•'Idi. (Mglr8-0) ACETAI,DIIiYDE 75=07-0 9.01+00 593 1A&CC 4. I [5/931 ACETAMIDE 6045 -5 7.0&2? 4199 I ACROLED: 1074125 1.0E -01 4A9 6.011-0+ 101 -- ACRY'LAMME 70-061 4.5E 4,'W 1 ACRYLICACID 79 -10.7 6.0E+03- 4.99 - ACRUD)ZZITRHR 107434 5.0E+00 12.01 LOE+W 1 Sl I ALLYL CI DRME 1074)5 -1 1113,4k2 4:99 k 2- AMWOANnD AQUINONE 117-79-3 3.3 &02 449 1 A3.iA3CSh'SA 766441" 3.2E+03 4,99 2.0E+02 21160 A.YII.II�E 62 -533 5.73.03 449 1 1nr. ia Compar -* ,"4110 -36A - 4A2iN1WYTFSO7CiDE 1309 -044 -- ARSENICA- M CO3f19 IMS -' 1015 1Afr01 4 3.Olit' 1NI 3.0 &OY IO�Ct1 1-'E'61 7,'90 I.SE -flO 14kWJ k (INORO,ANIC)1-H„♦ [3015} ARSINE- ^84-42 -1 1.6E+02 499 - ASBES7091xr ❑ 1332 -214 1.9E-04 3.24 333.33 iAC+T � SEMENBE -' 7143 -2 1.3E+03 4,99 5OE-01 2,aO 1.0 &01 1..15 1 AW TA^ [ ] A2 -87 -5 50U-02 4`99 1 361aar aka apg[v W [191] Bme�Aroa6mscde0ar 1010 3.03+02 4199 1 [1.91j DeYsClBimr836 1937 -37 -7 3.03 +02 E1r 1 DbwtBhm 6 260146 -2 .1.0£+02 1 -41-,11 D~Bm"934"hwalpadq 16071 -86.6 5.03 +02 4, 1 1,91 Bmn:'= CHLORIDE 10044 -7 46+02 4.99 1.7&01 4.99 1 BERYU.R736 Ah15 CONWM''NI158 7 fl7 7Ar -03 11,01 2.OFs03 11,01 8:4E.0O *99 1 110 --11 17.9a] - C�1}ETfEER tlh-) 111444 25E-0 4,99 I BM(aMARcWMTHYL)uimm 542 -98 -1 4.6E +01 1 U.9t i .3 - E17TADffiHrHw 100-099-0 10E+01 L'63 6.0&D1 7.192 1 TAI A APPE"M L - TABLE I OEIMVARB APPROYEO HEALTH VALVES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS e Barium.C,aA"We 1029 <443 :aemreanr EQfh IM l.1iG -F1 C'serer Rhk _ T0.0 •.ue ChemkN• �. a 33,'65340 '.9 &01 1. ,0f 241.01 I@w I T JIM .Wuhan Axwe Sahalatiaa. 43$1; Clv9nir 0.u• Chr9 9aa• Saha "0 9•�•• N' aabstaa.e Sere # Isha4tirn TIB Ar "6 Oral V. Caerer 5ye. M ]P 5.3E<0: rac 1>06 1iwmher (CAS) (vm) Baa:..a (A6bQ RM. 0.B''9s') eia.:..d IAA IAFi (m&':71C1 swieeR (,Add C rwbmu Farrar aBit €W4 2.066.° 30M ! Y 1.96 801 a "a.. rh.m¢ta mP 770.062 f ha:da 1,'03 1.0E -2^ Saw j PAI CAD4r41L'.01 AIM CMWM D - a =SSo a ?l 5.08-04 20436 I51FAI I 1mI 2.0 &113 30W 5.q12-V S7 DDMMFMS an mitt ar�555min5ffi8 CRMIM AN SDS D Colshou 440-SM 1.08+02 4149 Cal�P %94oNv=z o- 4IDRE U0.T14 F.3E-0I CARHOP: C E74*4� 1.9E 3 4M 4- e+61 V01 1 -T &QI yea, CFO..ORAiAYEDFARAFFIKS 2.1E.01 4!99 CHLORLIMMME 6.0601 4.'01 i CBLOR0.0- PHENYLRNBMAMFM 9s3i0 1.6FlhT 4,99 I CIMOR EEN'ZE+'E 10840 -7 1.08+03 LTFI - CHL Uee Fes) CMLORCFCRM 67-6&3 1.58'D2 4 3.0-6+02 9M I.i&02 1"✓SKi 3 A•eY h 14.69 FBhTAt NDROP1ffi40L 87 -2-5 1.8&ffi PW 1 2,4,6- 1V1C33LOR0B3{E M 7.0 &02 [191] 3 nmvra �a nuc7 ? 9Fi9t Ar96 4G 12,01 Barium.C,aA"We 1029 <443 Pd&9l IM l.1iG -F1 .a "W _ T0.0 •.ue �. a 33,'65340 '.9 &01 1. ,0f 241.01 I@w I T JIM 43$1; cokum, Cb.1 - spy Fist deaerrar' TIB Ar "6 201:04 1XIl '2.9602 ]P 5.3E<0: rac 1>06 9.EdP> Sedm'a. dir.�cvrs6i` 1038301 -9 1.0601 !97 2.066.° 30M ! 3.1E +0 z_+c'. 1.96 801 a "a.. rh.m¢ta mP 770.062 1.0601 1,'03 1.0E -2^ Saw j PAI 1.'86 a =SSo 1333.810 20803 1mI 2.0 &113 30W 5.q12-V 2:56 an mitt ar�555min5ffi8 CRMIM AN SDS D Colshou 440-SM 1.08+02 4149 o- 4IDRE U0.T14 F.3E-0I 4's�9 I APPENM L - TABLE 1 OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS r Nam ameer Effects f Cxenr Gist Ctemicaf• Lutei�at%ea Be. ' Ctrexlc p ft Cues![ lbmr [ntWtloa ➢ea e. Orel STOP@ ➢ties• Yr Absluce S�strece 8ncicr %'cke TataV4os %'dee Orxl Fdu Cxarer Flee R X ®ber �' Serie.N RFL Resieevad REL ReriaaM Polescr Re.iaa6 FOCMx Rmree6 A (CAS) fP5'm�) j9dtic4e fPB'msl W1 (i 6`A f.f +aea7 Fetter (AGE i>eS`le6 -�, [Ad4N1 F fsgAW-W ETHYLENE LORM 10:4wi-2 4.0E 02 1,121 2lE-02 01,85 1 ETHYLENE GLYCOL 101.21.1 4.0E+02 400 — EM`LENE GLYCOL BT, TYL ETHER ... (see (11eN e4h®s) OXIDH 15-2&8 3.08+01 L01 118,01 118' l fIETHYpoxvE ETHYiENETHIOL'REA 9&45-7 4.3E02 490 € FTesiaL� 3301 2.4E+0a 4199 1.38'+0! "I 4.08 -2 803 HYDRO(iE6i FLUORIDE 7664 -343 2.4E+02 499 1.4E+01 8!031 - ' 2.4 4.0E-2 FCPMEkLDEHYDEw S&WO 9.4E+01 4,59 102+00 .,YSZ 2- TAC 3.92 l GASOLINE VAPORS 1110 — GLU'FARRi➢EENTE 111 -3" 8.0&02 1101 — GLYCOL ETHERS 1115 ETHYLENEGLYCOLM0NGRUTYL ETHER— HCME M -76 -2 1.4E+04 499 -- ETHYLENE GLYCOLMON0ETHYL 11040 -5 3.7E+02 4MR12j 7.0E+01 zm — ELHER —EGEE Am ETAY1. MELYCOLMONOEIHY'i 111 -15A 124E+02 4% 3.0E+02 200 — ETHERACETATE —BOEEA Aaep ETHYLENE 109 -864 9.3E,01 1 .Ares 499 6.0E+01 200 — 4iGL %R)NO IETLETHER —EGME ETHYL&NEGLYCOL M0NOMETHYLETHERACETATE— EGMEA 11049E 9.9E+0l 2.100 — HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118 -741 1.SE+ 1 [4,99 I CLOHMLUMS � 1120 4.0E+00 [191j 4.0E+00 11 1 499 1 HEY � tiOROCPCLOi� E 319446 4.0E+00 �1l � 4.0E-.LW 11MI 1 bem HECACHLOROCYCLOHEXAl.'E 319 -85 -7 402 =� 9 4.0E+0O 1 (1,913 D} HEXACEILOROCYCLOIEXANE 58-89-9 1.1E+00 499 I.LE+W law I (L ) APPENDIX L - TABLE 1 OEHHAlARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES TOR USE IN HOT SPOT TACHSTY RISK ASS£SS'MLN,''TS . N9>g mERerb Carry Rids ' � 1A�4e0 pwr Cffieeir .pwa l4m[ 0.e• Sah8lstsa. C.xer g�¢. Ord SM pLe• w �' Cheri aP Abshart Sahst n Sernra V.1w Lhsbt3a V.A. rsl 16cm V.. Vd.. F /� Vdw N6mhar 4.iese6 REC R.rfew.d li X i..N POINKf E..4...a f 8-� (CAS) (ems') M++-4 ft4M 1AAbg Part+R t6u+el {6-7641 F CmSk641 a- HERA�E 110-56 -3 d.6E+D3 4,W HYDRAMNE 372-01 -2 29E61 L91 17E +01 4A9 1. N ACM 7647 -01-0 2.1E+03 419 4.0E+00 :290 _ (HY&NM rhlende) HYD ROGEN B ... Lsee Blmm� d Camlimmds) - . -- (ree Cymi66& Ceag9wffi) FLL ._Cue Fkaides) HIDR.OMN ... � 6d/e d Cam) HYDROGENs7mm 77&3456 -1 42E +01 4, LOR+01 4.L0 MORWRONE '8 -P3-1 209+03 12,01 KOpR11PYL AI.Cohm Cappmpon04 61-53-0 3.2E+03 499 7 -M+03 ='00 LE4D AND CMDOUNDST -' - 76 B - 4.2602 4:91 8.5E-03 lGW 7 flirts.) 2Q��4yp1p 301-0J -7 4" F-0' 49' 8.5803 I0d6 048.7 4 -?E0I 4 97 8.1803 IP9P 4 1219 Lrady6,Rpna.• 144ff -2.' -7 a,r_ 3.2801 ,i9.' 3.1803 Ifv06 4, %MM L.d:m6 Cwe t335 -324 ine LDMAh'E NEA- LMANMMME 108 -314 1 12A1 -- 2SA*Ii'Ah�sEA4'DClR1POSR.DB ?4 R [11921 2.6E-0I +'W ` W0tG1 Y MC GM 7439 -475 1.8E+00 4h'9 9042. 290 3.0E-06 (IA2j �' +OEG.4ATC? [I133f hhrcarir rR!mid. 74r? 7 1.31+00 4,95 9OE-92 .'.'00 3.0804 d R>P ?} _ IM-CURY AND N/A {MGA34C) ea oAca m: mETRYL MERCUEY 593-744 ?dETRAZrOT. 67 -Sef•I 3..8E+0i 4S9 4.0F -03 4W NaTun BRO34IDEE- 7683A 3.9E +03 454 3AE+C9 2RS0 3unRY L twmyy -RUTYL ESHER 1636-044 '8. +0+03 2m 9.1E-0E IL99 i ] C 71 -556 6.6E+46 4:19 I.CE•03 22100 f661- Tucbloroneaue) APPES9DL4 L - TABLE 1 OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESS..NE:V TS ` Nawd ff ECecb. Cam Rule GAbr�al' p,n. Ciraair y�,.. C4raeir y,p. IcEalatloa Ma- s A6 sinclt SWSbKe Serssse F.IV I!L !1!ti!n Yl . Oni rv.wr Caerer ♦1Y. Ordl Sbp! Y.M R Num6lr REL RlA�.d REL Rn3esed REL AeciaK Pat y Rnie.rM Faster 8..:...d A (CAS) {eg'ms) Adam (a6''m') l.Sd*.0 (m&u94) JAM.0 Fart-' {Addm7 (mC>m-M' 1Ad&41 F . (m6'88�i, METHYLETHnNEMNE (bB9ba9ad) 7893-3 13E+04 40 -- METRYLIMCYANATE 624438 LOE-Q 12'01 - METBYLMERC4RT ... €mlT3mcaYde Compt®ds7 ME= A ETRACRYLATE 8062 -5 44 M €2LiII.OROANIIXiP PMCA) 707 -1ii 1.SS+W 499 F METIMM,M 75-09.2 1.4E+04 4,➢9 40k+02 2;98 3.5593 3i34 1 'AC 4.4'- Aafrfn smiC nid iwrtf iVc 101 -'Till 208+03 1391 1.4E +W 499 1.6E+W IQ90 1 olmn.5nKMORME) MET &YL@]EE?Y EWYLEOCYANATE 101.04 7.O&01 1101 - M1C73LF.R'SX13fONE (4,4' -B6(d ) 969" 2.6601 4.99 2 N- N1TRO50m- 8[n&1'Yf ANME 924 -16-3 1.1E+01 d 14J N- NITROSODLa�CPYL MM 62144 -a 7.0E-0 +v9 F N- AETROYOUMMiANUNE 55-12-5 3.6E+0i 1 (1� N- Lv7TR0�'E 62 759 1.6E -1 4W- i [1,911 N- 2r`CTRO5O7EPSEs'YLA1,BTdE 86304 9.01141 419 3 N- N11%W- N,1lET'AYLETMLAMM 1059595-6 2.2E+01 4.99 RIM 3 N -N ROSOMORPHOLVE 59 -89-2 6.9E+W 4.0 1 N- NITROSOP�R3DM IW- -4 9.4E+W 4� 1 N- 1.1TROSOPYRROLMWE 930 -553 2.1E+W 4M 1 NAPHYRAME PowcraK sam4tic 6v&onub=) NICF.El.Au \'D COMPOL"JDS - 7440 42-0 9.1&01 Neal 540 b: [1145]' CwH 499 5.0 &02 2+W SAE92 70TH Tat 891 7 A&biac.We 3T,3 -014 b0E+00 4.99 SOE-w SA0 =.0 &0= law P-JE-01 BAi 2tt31 1. Alkbf re:b&99? 3333 -394 6DE+00 4;99 5.0E0X 2100 5 -.0 &0? IP00 9-=801 .'4z>a.'rarbmOP 13463-39-3 6.0E+00 499 3.0&05 5,00 S.0 &02 iWM A'i�t 9y1 6. }r3R Y`xWAD*.Ad 1:054-4$7 6.0E+00 4.R9 S.OEAS 2w 5AE-9: 70.90 9.JE -01 mi d:5tss APPLNDLC L - TABLE 1 OEHHMARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE LN HOT SPOT FACH,M RISK 9SSESSM- TS" N4arm ERer6 Caere Rist CO®ralr Ivkxlallaa N 4t AWncf 'boa metal. Aw' cLraa3r nw• chmak a.. C=cu tuft, Oral St4 av• W 5estme Sense TffZ v kek>61im Rir Ord Mato crnr Fxtw 9NO Rniewwre NOm6c ",m) R..ia.a RII. An,. Wl q �. 14ri.vM W6&el POhac7 Faetm a..+..d W*dl (m k6'�{ 4166th A F {C� 43-6"4 Ott) (m ug.v (111kS -Mi Aislaa4e4' 1x71 -xS➢ 6.0E+0Q 40 3.0&0£ 2470 3.0602 14ti17 "S &91 ar ➢i1 NICKEL OXMEr 13134@ -1 omQ w a+99 LQfi81 Z'LO S.QH{L' 30'CQ ➢'i� 59F ^ *t` -➢ 1146 6.08+40 4.9➢ 50602 2w 3.0602 1010 9.7601 MI 7 ti61 ,Yxbtvkru'�f Ix03S7}x 6.9E +C4 4,m➢ 3.460: 2:90 5.4E - @7 /O.p9 ➢.JF4 -nc S91 a,: /rA 2d1'JRJC ACM 769727 -2 1 9.6E +01 4A -- NFTROGRZ MOXME 10102-#O 479-02 4.99{3.,921 x-hMROPP"AivE ?9#9 P- N=WSW3P3i 3,'VEAMNE 156- 10-5' 2.21102 4'99 3 O71F,.E ION&15i6 1.8E+01 4,99 J•92) •. -- 9901 S.OE Q 899 1.1E-00 898 I 333€ €5£[..RGELEO Q3GABSru: �9S 4 _ - OROP33E?s L Mowrb�) OEPfi1 127 -IS4 2.0E +00 4AW 3.5EM1 to9l 2.18`02 tap[ PIEWOL 10845' S.RE+O3 449 2.6E -02 490 PHOSGENE 75+4.5 4.0E+00 449 - PHOSPHFh'E -W3.51-2 9.OS PHOSYr3O3LC ACM 7063 -3S.2 '=.08+00 2.X60 muAE.7C AhHYDRM 95-44 -9 213E -01 401 PCH(POLYCEi1.OPmL TEOE1PHENYLS 1336 -36-3 7.0 &Di' _202 7.0&03 2b. I e) k PCB (POLYCHI'OR1N'1 `"`FD ffiP!¢73Y3'S 1336 -3F3 4.0503 `01 9,48.01 zo-I 1 ansPr54a+0 mcv+ae3 Sck 4 -4_ PCb �OLYQ2ORII +ATID *�Affi. 1336 -363 tCE +00 2.08++2 2�ffi ' aesPr <iamd va'xoae 'M risk PCB (PDLYLHL AYED 7S C • 9+N 1.0E-00 1 493 3E W3 EA3 - I &93 (01) 2-50-4 1,0801 OM3 I.M. ! l3E W7 89T .38+9! 1'03 23 }' J,4'- PINIACHIMMlBiMM 32590 -14 4.OSOF SO3 lAE 44 8' I3E+O1 84+13 UE+91 &07 (105) 2.T4 -,4 S- FINIACSHAROB1P33 NL 114) 74 4 7 2 -37-0 B.O110P @93 2.05 -05 ON3 135E WI 993 6.}E +Oi 9%03 3 4.080! D.0E -04 3E+p1 893 bl (!1 APPENDIX L -TABLE 1 OEHHAIARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSXfEYTS ` 1Ynr EHuh Caen RhS Cl ndmr + Ab A � sh 0 . C6raak iun. C'umbic Ifae• Ors• Dr61 Slo pe ma A3• 5.1misme Sorel" W311tlw V. Ord V• Fdx W 1( nim QII Rw +d Rif b iced REL R a PohazF R.1n Fula uri A (CAS) [d1hdj (nR,tt) jW.41 FKt" N�'4 CmAhb-A3 [-did[ F ("s4:c-m' 21,141:3- MrACHLOW"•'"••WYL M44- 4.0119 ". 1.0E-04 mi LIE *01 W33 11 -01 893 P 3) 33',4,4, - ?ElSACHI.OR09EP Si 65- 4.0 &0$ 3 1.0E -0' Spi I3E -04 O9a 1.311 +Di 8'03 (176) ?,3,3'4,4',5 -HMC 0 9.C&M' 843 1.0E -05 Bti 6.SE *01 & 3 6511 -01 9%03 7 S6) 13,3 „4'.5' �Z'*.l1 7 2-96F 8.C13-07 603 2.0E -05 6311.01 803 6.55'0[ K.3 75$ ^_,3 ",4,4'. ,5'4iEXA HEhYL 52653 U.6 4.0E-00 1.0E -03 1311-00 893 i.i5 -00 603 611 3,3',4,4'5.5'- IiE.'CA IDRDIH9 Am 31':'4166 4.0&03 &03 1.0E -06 8'03 1311.03 8N3 l.36 *03 3 69 `4, ,5,3' ACHf.CJBS 4.0 &01 3 IA &04 893 b03 3.35.0E 8!03 (189) ROY •P ➢IDXStvS (RDD) (PCD 1085 rte,• 1066 {A91,?,F,841'CDD EQGRF ALEhT) 12.7,3_ anrrmvw P- 1346-01_6 4.0E-05 2:00 2.0E-0b 1040 1.3E+05 8,96 L35+05 gB6 2 DlD31L w TM. TA4 2,3,7,S- 7 RA 403:6764 8.0 &05 2'00 2.0E-0b 1000 4 "99 €.3EA5 1090 I 1.3E+05 3922 %766 4.0591 B'W I.0E-0' 10•CO 1.311 4 499 t.31E 0 JOIN I P- DIO -YL`i 17 fi2.6,F, - HE3[AC 576338S7 4.0605 2'W lA &07 2090 1.3E+0i 4� 3.i5W4 1000 F P-➢ 323,7,$,9- �ZD- 19MS,F 3 4.059$ 2'00 IAE-07 la% 1.35+04 V" 13E10 10% 1 P -D]l= 35b22 -469 4.08-3 200 I.O&06 low 1'.311+03 440 €.3E+03 1090 1 HM 43[0XN 14.G ?. 3168417-0 4.6Fi -I 290 IA &Oi 1090 1.3E-01 4"� E.3E+01 It690 E 0 rRrmnn RD3CC� '8 (&S U7, -P= (Ai 13,'8- DCTIDEC}UIl!ALfif,R} 1080 RAN 5130-73-19 4.0&0$ 200 IAH-D7 1000 1.3E 4di 4+90 1.3E -" 10'00 1 pII, - 57117 -ii-6 EOE44 2W 1 -OR47 10-0 6.5E+03 4,99 6.SE #3 101%1 I 23A7,8 PEKE RAN 57M- 314 6.0 &0 b'00 7.0E -0R low 6.51RM$ 4,99 6.5E+04 IM I A&YA'CHLOR.ODMOUXTUFAN 70648.26.9 4AFr04 1?0!S 30167 F0474 1.3E,04 494 1.311104 k0'00 1 APPS -NDLY L - TABLE 1 OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALLTS FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACEUTY RISK. ASSESSNIENTS Nmoncer EDerh Caner Rist: Che�ral` 7� Dm• Chronic pan` Cbraan D.u'• �8b8° D.m• Imn• Ai• m AbOn.t Eabslance Servire �' Yvh. Inhalation +.ter Oral YeFee Caner ear Or41 Slope Y.9m 3k !Iamher Lriesed IIIS. 8eriera9 RII. Ee.:..ed Eettu2 x..t..ad Fnrtw Resie..d A -CAS) oigm 1Addeal 041W) Hdd`dt (mg�fli�•dj N�j Fxter t+eMA Sm€iiF -� lAdd j F 12}, , ,H• iiE*{AC'EILO&CI]]7BEIr'3AF [ iRAty 5 ?117 -44-9 4.685K 2140 i.OE -07 20'00 19E-94 4� 1.3E -01, 10M I 1,EXAC9 HEXACH[AlEDDIBE'lTZOFURa2d 32918 -21 -9 4.080t 2'580 LOZ47 1000 13E+04 4,99 1.3E+04 1OW 3 1�iCACFRO1tODf8ENZOd+[IBAly W851 -37-5 4A807 2m 1.080, . MW L3E +04 4,99 1.3E+0W 10,W I 123,4,6,•,..- HEFTAC HI.OItODIEL�^7ZOFL7 WN 61,562 -39-4 4.0803 i0a 1.0$06 I0W 1.3EW3 4,99 1.3E -03 1000 1 1,"i,4,7,H, - RMACALORO 546938fti7 4.0803 =00 1.0206 10'W 1.3E -63 4.99 1.3E'03 10'00 1 6;7,8,9- E9CTAC13LtA111DMZ0I�CRAly 39801 -M -0 4.0E-13 2,590 LOBOS IOTA 1.3E*01 4.99 F.3E+Sil IORW 2 'CCYCI.IC' = 110 HYDROCARDW (PAR) 1151 13BNZ(A),kIgII.=c:f NEa 56-553 39801 12E�W iGI1 1 [4w BENZO(A)FYRII€E° 50 -32-8 19E -w F.2E�01 t � [y:� 7 BM,ZOR)F7.uDF- 4241I1E i&' 205 -94-2 3.9Fi42 1.2E+W IG1D IKENZI�LOPUNTITEn* 20542 -3 3.9E -01 ' 12E-00 �� F EMZ0(IPFLUURAh'1'iiEhTe 20,49-9 39E-01 [ate] 4o CHRYSMM, 218 -0I9 39E-W 4� �� 1 226 3 -9$01 4� I D13MZ(A,IrA *211MC�* 53 -'ri.3 4.1E-00 ;� N1.2E100 10' 9 [QP4] RWI DIEE27ZVLXAC-RIDSNE 22442-0 3.9801 4'� IW [4'94 1494 A,E1pYRF, v 192454 39E -00 1 [49�7 [4V41 DMEvZ0(AH3P7'RIIvde 189-61 -0 3.9E-41 4:99 t..fi+{!2 1OIX9 E [4;041 Iii APPE:YDIX L - TABLE 1 OEHHAIARS APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESS- NIENTS ° N9x3x4r RHarh Caarar Bist: Ar91° 1DbahLLOO P.n• Chrsac p.y• Cbrevic Paw• Iahat¢tiaa ma. OF 4.:.• \P Cbxin l' Abmart 9¢bshmre° 53rTice T•lu Ie6ah4°a Vrhe Oral vhr Caarer T•b. FXMr M Vd R� Zamber (CAS) �' (AW) snpwN I3aawl REL (9Fm'3 a..:n.a 1�1 REL (�s;A) R..::..a JAMW Paun.7 Fxrx R+:..ea N+4M '� R.eiew3 IAna•ai A F (mc'98-d1' 38E3:r:A1A,1jPYREhR° 989358 ].4Ybl [4V41 13E-92 low D�SSiO(A.L)PYRENE° 192- -348 3.9E+01 [ "] 3.28 -83 Ed [ �R- niseNZa<a�.�. , evcaT . 193 -$43 3.9E+0Q 454 [3`97) F.3H'Ol IOW 01+931 1 7,12. D YH1'I8E't'Z(A}AN7IRACEA'8° 5 -1-97E 23YW1 399 [ "j '_.SEtOT 1�➢ i l,b-DShi[ROPYA€2.E° 3239x61.8 3.4E-01 4� I.2E +0T I 19- MMMOPYREW 42397- 6 P 3.48 -W I1E+01 14004 1 Q' ilmo F,2 - CDWFRENg° i93d9 -5 3.9607 13fi#3 lam 4 i 3- AMt'HkZCHOLpNTHRg[.* S64a5 27E+41 �j ?.TH+4k law j i 3- b76'f'Fi1ZCHRYSHNY° 369' -Ti3 3.4$ -W [�j 7?E+OI 14� 1 NAPRIHAMM 91 -20.3 9.OE+W 4A0 - 3- NTMDA�tAMTHWE* 60297.9 13&01 [ 1.38-01 t I 6- NMROCHRYSENV* 749E-0T.8 - 3.4E?01 [#e 1.2E+42 .L a 1 :4TSROPLCORHI.E• W7 -57-8 3.96x2 14941 1.2ff41 im 41" I I_NEMOPYRENp°' SP-14M 3.4643 14943 F38-W J4,A41 t +ATCROM'M'Ee 5763711+ -t ME [4'94j I.3fiWfl `m 1 POTAssamE TE._ _. ram73m®e @ Campamda) 1,34ROAAhM SLITONE 112D-717 2.4E -00 3NP 1 RZEAWiO 115-074 3.4E+43 4tm MIL ETHER 107494 ?AE-103 260 ._ PROPYLS.,E 0= 75 -549 3.1E+43 4`Y9 3.0E+01 '✓W 1.3602 [4W E SELL TUTS AIM COL1POMMS 775149 -2 3.08!01 1201 HAMROGHN SELWIDE TR3 -0i -S 5.4E+M 499 - 6ahreu° ]M16 -34d #.Qd +91 1291 - SODR'LIHYDROII@E 1114-7%2 48H'A4 7'A - APPENDIX L - TABLE 1 OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IY HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS + S�sfeace Ckomirnl• Abstrad Sersire .(MbN (CO) Nearaacer E06scts F Casry Rick hAtvb a abd �E'me) Din• F.V. 8ta4aed jad�df CZbradc Matson REL ('W't) • Va, Rseased (AddNj Umax 0121 30L (' 'DS'6i Sea• Fike Reekaed N Castor Pointy Fact" n.a+ Floe 8seasW 9Abad7 Oral Sb4e Factor x (."$Y-4 ma• Va. g. ,d IA &C AP" W A F STYRE1m 100-41-5 2 -IE+04 499 4.0E+02 4D0 SULFATES 9960 1.2E+02 499 2.5E+9I 192 SLTFLTC DR11tB7E '496-09 -5 6.dE+02 499j1921 46E+42 L92 _ SM;URICACM 434O OLEUM 7664 -9341 1.2E+02 499 f.PE+00 IMJ _ S=L?XjCID 7664-6+) -P f.2E+07 4x49 L0E+00 12,11 RIFLE ZRR22®E :446 -77-9 13E+02 4W _ 0LEW 6034 -PS7 1.2E+03 419 LOP +PD 12.Df LIB,'- TEMACHLOROETHRM 79-34-5 20E-01 499 1 (w U) 2.45- OROF[IENNOL agwopb —b) L4. - Ti+2CTII.0 L -( ) THIOACE74'. M 62 -55-5 6.1E -� 494 1 TOLLMI'm 106-083 3.7,E+04 499 3.08+0 400 Toians2 deerac}er,M•'•reim 361204 7OR-R: 1.521 37,.9E-07 4.99 f TDI.LMS- 2,4- DMOCYANATE 584.849 3 -6Effi 3;'01 3 -4 &0: 494 1 TOLL0s47E- 2,6- DUSOCYAItiATE 91-m7 7,607 It01 3.9E4M 499 1 1,12- OROETHANE (4Tepl m-hu ide) ?BAH -5 5.7E -02 4:94 3 TRSCH1.IROE°Tfi1'LMM "` 774-01-6 6.08 +02 4w ?0603 me 1090 1 TRlETHYLA-NM7E 12144-8 2.8E+03 499 9'.107 i.Ti$3TiA3dE (Ethyl cmtm te) 51 -"31-6 10EJ04 C4,) 0 pim+o�i2m C apt i5maerum Ok2+2oraut0 rr4P -6a -a 3.aa+a1 4a�4 VANAD 31IMP£NTOXOE 1314-62 -1 3.x+01 4:99 b'DStT. ELATE 108 2.4E A ,mm CRLORMIY ) 75-41-0 1.8E +05 419 2.7601 we L 1Th 11,k- DIrkl�,kydeorvl 75- }4-4 7.�4 @1 _ APPENDI%L - TABLE I OEHIWARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IM HOT SPOT FACUM RISK ASSESSIIMM xmcnce FBu/s Caster Pj* E Cbr-k 2elsh ttaa cep Abdrsd i 3�y� 1/ero• D1 . mp• D�• ond M� By' sdnbn suvim TIM. 3vmt� Fa.. Orel V• cmw VA. p'ttmr F� w Rom6R ��t? R— +j Raima RM R dmw Pet®q S..A, a ilm•:wa A (CAS) gaaawg {py'm VW&i ( 1��1 Facfar P,h"Wi [MM-4 p 1m0+1P.� XYl.ENES(mtadixaas) 312107 2.28+04 459 7.08402 4'00 m•XYLENE 101 -38-3 2.28*" 4A9 7.08402 4'00 o- XYLffi48 95.47.0 228404 4+5D i.�w2 400 RYLffi38 10&424 228+04 4w 7.08402 4W Appendix F Emission Estimates for Existing New and Old Equiipment ., R:W ggRAWM CARS Soeciation Method VOC (lbs /day) VOC (g1s) Gas Consumption (scf /hr) ICE -NG 50 3 engines (permit) 0.2627 Control Eff. (%) 17640 per engine ROGIVOC 70(l) ROGNOC CHEMICAL NAME CAS Speciation Emission Ra Each En ine LBS/HR LBSIYR jexcluding PAHs Fraction s 1,2,4 - TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95636 3.9705E -04 1.0432E -04 2.7573E -04 2.415 ACETALDEHYDE 75070 1.1911E -03 3.1294E -04 8.2716E -04 7.246 BENZENE 71432 4.3673E -03 1.1474E -03 3.0329E -03 26.568 BUTYRALDEHYDE 123728 7.9406E -04 2.0862E -04 5.5143E -04 4.831 CYCLOHEXANE 110827 3.9705E -04 1.0432E -04 2.7573E -04 2.415 ETHYLBENZENE 100414 3.9705E -04 1.0432E -04 2.7573E -04 2.415 ETHYLENE 74851 2.5013E -02 6.5717E -03 1.7370E -02 152.162 FORMALDEHYDE 50000 3.2160E -02 8.4493E -03 2.2333E -02 195.637 ISOMERS OF XYLENE 1210 7.9406E -04 2.0862E -04 5.5143E -04 4.831 M- XYLENE 108383 3.9705E -04 1.0432E -04 2.7573E -04 2.415 N-HEXANE 110543 7.9406E -04 2.0862E -04 5.5143E -04 4.831 O- XYLENE 95476 3.9705E -04 1.0432E -04 2.7573E -04 2.415 PROPYLENE 115071 6.7098E -02 1.7629E -02 4.6596E -02 408.181 TOLUENE 108883 1.5881E -03 4.1725E -04 1.1029E -03 9.661 70% NMHC control efficienc applied to PAHs (assumed same as the testing for MHCJ (;ontrolle u PAHs I CAS EE Ibs1MMc LBSlHR lConfirolleal LBSNR PAHs 1151 0.0004 2.12E -06 I 1.85E -02 SCAQMD Efs http:// www. agmd .govlprdas/pdfICOMBEM200l.pdf BOILER -NG AQMD Backup data for Boiler on Pace 9 Size 16 MMBtu /hr Speciation Fraction Fuel Consumption 16000 cfh FORMALDEHYDE Operating Scenario Ave. Max. 1.4606E -02 Load 100% 100% 71432 Hour /day 24 24 63.974 DayslWeek 7 7 0.0415 Days/Year 365 365 ISOMERS OF HEXANE Days /Month 30 30 1.8257E -03 Emission Factors Uncontrolled Controlled 110827 CO 50 50 ppm 15.993 NOx 9 9 ppm ROG Emi: PM10 7.6 7.6 Ib /mmcf LBSlHR ROG 5.5 5.5 Ib /mmcf 0.09 Sox 0.8 0.8 Ib /mmcf NA CHEMICAL NAME CAS Speciation Fraction LBS /HR LBS/YR FORMALDEHYDE 50000 0.1660 1.4606E -02 127.948 BENZENE 71432 0.0830 7.3029E -03 63.974 TOLUENE 108883 0.0415 3.6515E -03 31.987 ISOMERS OF HEXANE 110543 00207 1.8257E -03 15.993 CYCLOHEXANE 110827 0.0207 1.8257E -03 15.993 ISOMERS OF PENTANE NA 0.1867 1-6432E-02 143.941 N- BUTANE NA 0.1867 1.6432E -02 143.941 N- PENTANE NA 0,1245 1.0954E -02 95.961 PROPANE i NA 0.0830 1 7.3029E -03 61974 ivvw. �.r. wiu i NA illtldfls ui[s c PmICAl IF not Iigtpm ac a I Af'. in HL Pp (i inhxo CHEMICAL NAME CAS Efs lb /mmcf LBSIHR LBS /YR Acetaldehyde 75070 0.0031 4.9600E -05 0.434 Acrolein 107028 0.0027 4.3200E -05 0.378 Propylene 115071 0.53 8.4800E -03 74.285 Naphthalene 91203 0.0003 4.8000E -06 0.042 Xylenes 1330207 0.0197 3.1520E -04 2.761 Ethylbenzene 100414 0.0069 11040E -04 0.967 1141.1" i If chemical vs the Efs from. SCAQMD Efs http:/h vww. agmd .gov /prdastpdf /COMBEM200l.pdf StandU Diesel Engine Speciation WEIGHT % LBSIHR Size 400 ekW 536 bhp-hr Operation 62 hrtyr 1 -hr test/wk + 10 -hr Maintlyr Exhaust 3334 acfm BENZENE 71432 Release Height/Diameter 12 ft 1 ft Fuel Consumption (100% Load 29 gal /hr 0.0019 0.1189 Emission factors (Caterpillar Technical Data) 108883 0.0147 1.473 Nox 5.46 g /bhp -hr 108383 0.0061 CO 0.32 g /bhp -hr LBS/HR LBS/YR HC 0.11 g /bhp -hr 0.130 8.052 PM 0.062 g /bhp -hr 0.0001 0.0076 TACs 100425 0.0006 0.058 0.0001 0.0047 CAS EF /bhp-hr) lb/hr Ib/ r Diesel PM 9901 6.20E -02 7.320E -02 4.538 Other HC havinq Chronic and Acute impacts from CARB Speciation Profile 818 PAHs' Ef from SCAQMD-http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/pdf/COMBEM200l.pdf (lb /1000 gal) LBSIHR LBS/YR 1PAHs 0.0559 0.0016211 0.1005082 Speciation WEIGHT % LBSIHR LBS/YR CHEMICAL NAME CAS Fraction of TOG FORMALDEHYDE 50000 0.1471 14.714 0.0191 1.1847 BENZENE 71432 0.0200 2.000998 0.0026 0.1611 METHYL ETHYL KETONE (ME 78933 0.0148 1.476998 0.0019 0.1189 TOLUENE 108883 0.0147 1.473 0.0019 0.1186 M- XYLENE 108383 0.0061 0.611 0.0008 0.0492 O- XYLENE 95476 0.0034 0.335 0.0004 0.0270 P- XYLENE 106423 0.0010 0.095 0.0001 0.0076 STYRENE 100425 0.0006 0.058 0.0001 0.0047 METHYL ALCOHOL 67561 0.0003 0.03 0.00004 0.0024 Other metal PM having Acute impacts from CARB PM Speciation Profile 116 PM 10/2.5 VANADIUM 7440622 0.0055 0.55 0.0004 0.0250 PAHs' Ef from SCAQMD-http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/pdf/COMBEM200l.pdf (lb /1000 gal) LBSIHR LBS/YR 1PAHs 0.0559 0.0016211 0.1005082 CARB Speciation Method BOILER -NG AOMD Backup data for Baler on Parameters Size Fuel Consumption Operating Scenario Load Houriday DaysMleek DaysNear Days/Month Emission Factors DO NOx PM10 ROG sox 9 16.6 MMBtu /hr 16000 cfh Ave. Max. 100% 100% 24 24 7 7 365 365 30 30 Uncontrolled Controlled 50 50 9 9 7.6 7.6 5.5 5.5 0.8 0.8 ppm ppm ib/mmc£ Ib(mmcf LBSrHR CHEMICAL NAME CAS Speciation Fraction LBStHR LBS/YR FORMALDEHYDE 50000 0.1660 14606E -02 127.948 BENZENE 71432 0.0830 7.3029E -03 63.974 TOLUENE 108883 0.0415 3.6515E -03 31.987 ISOMERS OF HEXANE 110543 0.0207 1.8257E -03 15.993 CYCLOHEXANE 110827 0.0207 1.8257E-03 15.993 ISOMERS OF PENTANE NA 0.1867 1.6432E -0U95.961 N- BUTANE NA '0.1867 1.6432E -0 N- PENTANE NA 0.1245 1.0954E -0PROPANE NA 0.0830 7.3029E -0 Note: CAS with NA man Ynlc CHEMICAL NAME CAS E£s lbtmmcf) LBS /HR LBSiYR Acetaldehyde 75070 0.0031 4.9600E -05 0.434 Acrolein 107028 0 0027 4.3200E -05 0.378 Propyiene 115071 0.53 8.4800E -03 74.285 Naphthalene 91203 0.0003 4.8000E -06 0,042 Xylenes 1330207 0.0197 3.1520E -04 2.761 Ethylbenzene' 100414 0.0069 1.1040E -04 0.967 w Y vif6, the Efs from AQMD backup data were used. Standbv Diesel Engine Size ekW 2018 bhp -hr Operation 62 hr /yr CAS Fraction Exhaust 15135.9 acfm 50000 0.1471 Release Height/Diameter 12 ft 1 It Fuel Consumption (100% Load 138.9 gal /hr 78933 0.0148 Emission factors (Caterpillar Technical Data) 0.0072 TOLUENE 108883 Nox 5.39 g /bhp -hr M- XYLENE 108383 CO 0.29 g /bhp -hr LBS /HR LSS/YR HC 0.11 g /bhp -hr 0.489 30.314 PM 0.026 g /bhp -hr STYRENE 100425 TACs 0.058 0.0003 METHYL ALCOHOL 67561 0.0003 CAS EF /bh -hr lb/hr lb/ r Diesel M 1 0.8 1.156E-01 1 P 990 2.60E -02 7. 65 http: / /www. cat. com /cda/ components /fullArticle / ?m= 392808x= 7&id= 215813&languageld =7 Rating 200( vtner nc naving t nromc ana Acute impacts trom GAKE3 z)peaaaon vrome aiu Parameters Speciation WEIGHT % LBSIHR CHEMICAL NAME CAS Fraction of TOG Fuel Consumption FORMALDEHYDE 50000 0.1471 14.714 0.0719 BENZENE 71432 0.0200 2.000998 0.0098 METHYL ETHYL KETONE (ME 78933 0.0148 1.476998 0.0072 TOLUENE 108883 0.0147 1.473 0.0072 M- XYLENE 108383 0.0061 0.611 0.0030 O- XYLENE 95476 0.0034 0.335 0.0016 P- XYLENE 106423 0.0010 0.095 0.0005 STYRENE 100425 0.0006 0.058 0.0003 METHYL ALCOHOL 67561 0.0003 0.03 0.00015 Other metal PM having Acute impacts from CARS PM Speciation Profile 116 Ib /mmcf Sox 0.8 0.8 P M 10/2.5 VANADIUM, 7440622 0.0055 0.55 0.0006 0.6066 0.4477 0.4465 0.1852 0.1016 0.0288 0.0176 PAHs' Ef from SCAOMD-hftp://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/pdf/COMBEM200l.pdf (lb /1000 gal) LBSIHR LBSIYR PAHs 0.0559 0.0077645 0.48139962 Heater /Chiller AQMD Backup data for Boiler on Page 11 Parameters Size 7.623 MMBtu /hr Fuel Consumption 7623 cfh Operating Scenario Ave. Max. Load 100% 100% Hour /day 24 24 Days/Week 7 7 Days/Year 365 365 Days /Month 30 30 Emission Factors Uncontrolled Controlled CO 50 50 ppm NOx 9 9 ppm PM10 7.6 7.6 Ib /mmcf ROG 5.5 5.5 Ib /mmcf Sox 0.8 0.8 Ib /mmcf LBS /HR LBS/YR CHEMICAL NAME CAS Speciation Fraction LBS /HR LBS/YR FORMALDEHYDE 50000 0.1660 6.96E -03 60.959 BENZENE 71432 0.0830 3.48E -03 30.479 TOLUENE 108883 0.0415 1.74E -03 15.240 ISOMERS OF HEXANE 110543 0.0207 8.70E -04 7.620 CYCLOHEXANE 110827 0.0207 8.70E -04 7.620 ISOMERS OF PENTANE NA 0.1867 7.83E -03 68.579 N- BUTANE NA 0.1867 7.83E -03 68.579 N- PENTANE NA 0.1245 5.22E -03 45.719 PROPANE NA 0.0830 3.48E -03 30.479 CHEMICAL NAME CAS Efs Ib /mmcf LBS /HR LBS/YR Acetaldehyde 0.0031 2.3631E -05 0.207 Acrolein _ 0.0027 2.0582E -05 0.180 Propylene 0.53 4.0402E -03 35.392 Naphthelene 0.0003 2.2869E -06 0.020 Xylenes 0.0197 1.5017E -04 1.316 Ethylbenzene 0.0069 5.2599E -05 0.461 If chemical is not available in source profile, the Efs from AQMD backup data were used No control efflciencv applied for the Boiler's PAHs. PAHs 1 1151 4.00E -04 3.05E -06 SCAQMD Efs http:// www. agmd .gov /prdas /pdf /COMBEM200i.pdf Appendix G Permit Document for Existing Equipment R.IHwg IMRANR On File at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department Appendix SCAQMD R.RO MR"W H PAH Emission Factors VENTURA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 669 County Square Drive, Ventura CA 93003 805/ 645 -1401 FAX 8051645-1444 www.vcapcd.org AB 2588 COMBUSTION EMISSION FACTORS Emission factors for combustion of natural gas and diesel fuel were developed for use in AB 2588 emission inventory reports in 1990 and updated in 1991, 1992 and 1995. These factors have been updated again based on new data available from the USEPA (1) (10). These emission factors are to be used where source testing or fuel analysis are not required by the AB 2588 Criteria and Guidelines Regulations, Appendix D. The factors are divided into external combustion sources (boilers, heaters, flares) and internal combustion sources (engines, turbines). Natural gas combustion factors are further divided into a number of sub - categories, based on equipment size and type. If better source specific data such as manufacturer's data, source tests, or fuel analysis is available, it should be used rather than these emission factors. Natural Gas Combustion Factors Natural gas combustion factors were developed for listed substances identified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as significant components of natural gas combustion emissions (2) and for some federal HAPs. In the past, the VCAPCD has included emission factors for natural gas fired internal combustion equipment in this document.. In 2000, the USEPA published air toxics emission factors for natural gas fired turbines and engines. For natural gas fired internal combustion equipment, the emission factors from the USEPA publication AP -42 (1) should be used. For natural gas fired turbines, emission factors from Table 3.1 -3 of AP -42, dated April 2000 should be used. For natural gas fired intemal combustion engines, emission factors from Tables 3.2 -1, 3.2 -2, and 3.2 -3 of AP -42, dated August 2000, as applicable, should be used. Natural Gas Fired External Combustion Equipment May 17, 2001 <10 MMBTUh 10 -100 MMBTUh I >I00 MMBTUh flare Pollutant Emissions (lb/MMcf) benzene 0.0080 0.0058 0.0017 0.159 formaldehyde 0.0170 0.0123 0.0036 1.169 PAH's (including naphthalene) 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.014 naphthalene 0.0003. 0.0003 0.0003 0.011 acetaldehyde 0.0043 0.0031 0.0009 0.043 acrolein 0.0027 0.0027 0.0008 0.010 propylene 0.7310 0.5300 0.01553 2.440 toluene 0.0366 0.0265 0.0078 0.058 . xyimes 0.0272 0.0197 0.0058 0.029 ethylbenzene 0.0095 0.0069 0.0020 O.00l3 1.444 0.029 hexane 0.0063 0.0046 May 17, 2001 External combustion equipment includes boilers, heaters, and steam generators. Derivation of Factors The emission factors for boilers, heaters, and steam generators were based on the results of source tests performed mostly on units rated at between 10 and 100 million BTU per hour. The following test data was used: benzene (3) (6) (16) (19); formaldehyde (3) (6) (19); PAR, naphthalene, toluene, xylenes, ethyl benzene (16) (19); acetaldehyde, acrolein, and propylene (19); and hexane (20). The test results listed above were used directly to determine the emission factors for boilers, heaters, and steam generators with heat input ratings of 10 -100 MMBTU /hr. For units <10 MMBTU/hr and >100 MMBTU/hr, were calculated by scaling the factors for 10 -100 MMBTU/hr equipment by the ratios of their TOC emission factors (7). For flares, the factors were developed by applying the CARB species profiles (8) to the USEPA TOC emission factor for flares (1). The internal combustion species profile was used as CAAB stated that they had very little confidence in the external combustion profile, and they use only the internal combustion profile (9). Information on acrolein was not contained in the species profile used. It was therefore assumed that the ratio of acrolein to formaldehyde is the same for flares as for turbines. The PAH emission factor is from EPA (10) May 17, 2001 Diesel Combustion Factors Diesel. ( #1, #2 fuel oil) combustion factors were developed for listed substances identified by the CARB as significant components of diesel fuel combustion emissions (2) and for federal HAPs for which data was available. Diesel Combustion Factors 1ND - not oelecien May 17, 2001 external combustion internal combustion Pollutant Emissions (]b /1000 al) benzene 0.0044 0.1863 formaldehyde 0.3506 1.7261 PAH's (including naphthalene) 0.0498 0.0559 naphthalene 0.0053 0.0197 acetaldehyde 0.3506 0.7833 acrolein 0.3506 0.0339 1,3- butadiene 0.0148 01174 chlorobenzene 0.0002 0.0002 dioxins ND ND forms ND ND propylene 0.0100 0.4670 hexane 0.0035 0.0269 toluene 0.0044 0.1054 xylenes 0.0016 0.0424 ethyl benzene 0.0002 0.0109 hydrogen chloride 0.1863 0.1863 arsenic 0.0016 0.0016 beryllium ND ND cadmium 0.0015 0.0015 total chromium 0.0006 0.0006 hexavalent chromium 0.0001 0.0001 copper 0.0041 - 0.0041 lead 0.0083 0.0083 manganese 0.0031 0.0031 mercury 0.0020 0.0020 nickel 0.0039 0.0039 selenium 0.0022 0.0022 zinc 0.0224 0.0224 1ND - not oelecien May 17, 2001 Derivation of Factors For external combustion equipment, formaldehyde, PAH, and naphthalene emission factors for were developed using source test data (17). Based on information from CARB it was assumed that acetaldehyde and acrolein emissions would be the same as formaldehyde (14). Emission factors for toluene, xylenes, propylene, ethyl benzene, and hexane were based on USEPA emission factors for total organic compounds and CARB species profile (8) for substances identified by CARB as significant. For internal combustion engines, emission factors for formaldehyde, PAH's, naphthalene, and metals were based on source testing (4), (5), (6), (18). Benzene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, toluene and xylenes emission factors were based on sources (4), (5), and (18). Propylene factors were based on source tests (4) and (5). 1,3- butadiene was based on (4). Ethyl benzene and hexane emission factors were based on (18). For all oil combustion equipment, emission factors for chlorobenzene, hydrogen chloride, and metals were based on stack testing and fuel analyses (4), (5), (6), (12), (13), (18). It was assumed that 99.9% of the chlorine contained in the fuel was converted to hydrogen chloride (1.5), with the remainder converted to chlorobenzene. 5% of the chromium in the fuel samples was assumed to be emitted as hexavalent chromium (15). Dioxins (PCDD's), furans (PCDF's), and beryllium were identified as potentially significant components of diesel combustion exhaust (2). However, the only test results for diesel combustion found (11) reported "not detected" for dioxins and furans. Beryllium has not been detected in any of the diesel fuel analyses reviewed (4), (5), (6), (12), (13), (18). For emission inventory reporting purposes, facilities should report these compounds on for PRO using an emission estimation code of "99" and writing "ND" for the emissions. References (1) USEPA, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I, Fifth Edition, AP -42, January 1995, and Supplement F, 2000 (2) Gary Agid, California Air Resources Board, Letter to Air Pollution Control District, September 12, 1989 (3) CARNOT, Emission Inventory Tesfing a[ Sou[hem California Fdison CotnpanLLon¢ Beach Auxiliary Boiler, May 1990 (4) CARNOT, Emissions of Air Toxic Species' Test Conducted Under AB 2588 for the Western States Petroleum Association, May 1990 (5) South Coast Environmental, Compliance Report: Hydraulic Dredge "011ie Riedel ", Report Number T1238C, March 8, 1991 (6) ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Western Stales Petroleum Association, Pooled Source Report: Oil and Gas Production Combustion Sources Fresno and Ventura Counties, California, Document Number 7230 - 007-700, January 1991 (7) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Emission Factors and Calculation Procedures, July 1985 (8) State of California Air Resources Board, Identification of Volatile Organic Compound Species Profiles, August 1991, as updated November 29, 2000, profiles 504 and 719 May 17, 2001 (9) Paul Allen, California Air Resources Board, Telephone conversation, February I, 1990 (10) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From Sources of POlYcyclic Organic Matter EPA -454 /R -98 -014, July 1998 (11) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Toxic Air Pollutant Emission Factors -A Compilation for Selected Air Toxic Compounds and Sources, EPA - 450/2- 88 -006a, October 1988 (12) BTC Environmental, Inc., Ventura Port District Dredge: Air Toxics Emissions Retesting January 29, 1991 (13) Shell Western E & P, Emission Inventory Report for Ventura Avenue Field, June 11, 1990 (14) Muriel Strand, California Air Resources Board, Telephone conversation, February 6, 1990 (15) State of California Air Resources Board, Technical Guidance Document to the Criteria and Guidelines Regulation for AB 7588, August 1989 (16) Shell Western E &P, Emission Measurements for Speciated PAH's and BTXE Compounds on a Gas fired Turbine and Steam Generator, June 24 -27, 1991 (17) Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton California: Draft Final Air Toxics Emissions Inventory Report, May 1, 1991 (I8) Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Pooled Source Testing of a Rig Diesel -Fired Internal Combustion Engine, conducted for Western States Petroleum Association, July 29 -31, 1992 (19) Radian Corporation, Source Test Report for the Texaco Heater Treater, the Mobil Steam Generator and the SWEPI Gas Turbine in the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, September 1992 (20) AIRx Testing, Emissions Testing OLS Energu Natural Gas Fired Turbine, and Two Auxiliary Boilers, Job Number 22030, April 21, 1994 May 17, 2001 Appendix I Cumulative R:'.., MWA1 Risk Summary Chem Stk # 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 CAS Source 1 9901 DieselExhPM Diesel engine exhaust, particulate matter existing ICE #1 2 50000 Formaldehyde Formaldehyde existing ICE #2 3 67561 Methanol Methanol existing ICE #3 4 71432 Benzene Benzene existing new boiler 5 78933 MEK Methyl ethyl ketone (2- Butanone} existing new diesel Genset 6 95476 o- Xylene o- Xylene existing old diesel Genset #1 7 100425 Styrene Styrene existing old diesel Genset #2 8 106423 p- Xylene p- Xylene existing old diesel Genset #3 9 108383 m- Xylene m- Xylene existing old diesel Genset #4 10 108883 Toluene Toluene existing old diesel Genset #5 11 7440622 Vanadium Vanadium (fume or dust) existing old boiler #1 12 1151 PAHs -w /o PAHs, total, w/o Indlvid. components reported [fn existing old boiler #2 13 75070 Acetaldehyde Acetaldehyde existing old boiler #3 14 91203 Naphthalene Naphthalene existing old boiler #4 15 100414 Ethyl Benzene Ethyl benzene existing old chiller #1 16 107028 Acrolein Acrolein existing old chiller #2 17 110543 Hexane Hexane future ICE #1 18 110827 Cyclohexane Cyclohexane future ICE #2 19 115071 Propylene Propylene future ICE #3 20 1330207 XYLENES XYLENES (mixed xylenes) 21 956361,2,4TriMeBenze 1,2,4 - Trimethylbenzene 22 123728 Butyraldehyde Butyraldehyde 23 74851 Ethylene Ethylene 24 1210 Xylenes Xylenes (mixed) Stk # 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 AVERAGE CHRONIC HI, RECEPTOR 664 CAS Name I INHAL I DERM SOIL I MOTHER VEG ORAL TOTAL % 1151 PAHs -w /o 7.13E -08 2.37E -06 3.55E -07 0.00E +00 8.68E -06 1.14E -05 1.15E -05 0.56 50000 Formaldeh 3.71 E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.71 E-061 0.18 71432 Benzene 3.44E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.44E -06 0.17 9901 DieselExh 1.90E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.90E -06 0.09 75070 Acetaldeh 5.58E -08 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 5.58E-081 0.00 91203 Na hthale 3.63E -10 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.63E -10 0.00 1210 X lenes 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 74851 Eth lene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 95476 o- Xylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 956361,2,4TriMe 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 100414 Ethyl Benz 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 108383 m -X lene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 108883 Toluene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 110543 Hexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 110827 C clohexa 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 115071 Propylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 123728 Bu raldeh 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 107028 Acrolein 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 1330207 XYLENES 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 67561 Methanol 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 78933 MEK 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E+001 0.00 100425 Styrene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 106423 - Xylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 7440622 Vanadium 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 Total 9.18E -06 2.37E -06 3.55E -07 0.00E +00 8.68E -06 1.14E -05 2.06E -05 1.00 AVERAGE CHRONIC HI, RECEPTOR 664 CAS I NAME CNS DEVEL ENDO I EYE I GILV I KIDN I REPRO I RESP BLOOD MAX 50000 Formaldeh de 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.56E -01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.56E -01 0.00E+00 1.56E -01 107028 Acrolein 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 3.74E -03 0.00E+00 0.00E00 0E 00 . 374E 0..000EE+000 0 3.74E -03 Acetaldeh - , . . . 0.00E+00 0.00 E00 0.00E075070 64E -03 1.64E -03 71432 Benzene 1.52E -03 1.52E -03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.00E+001 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.52E -03 1.52E -03 9901 DieselExhPM 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 9,16E-04 0.00E +00 9.16E -04 115071 Propylen e 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.88E -04 0.00E +00 2.88E -04 108883 Toluene 1,28E -04 1.28E -04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 U.00E +00 00E+00 0.00E+00 1.28E -04 0.00E+00 1.28E -04 1210 X lenes -05 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E + 00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 1.39E -OS 000E +00 1.39E -051.39E 95476 o -X lene 6.93E -06 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 6.93E -06 0.00E+00 6.93E -06 108383 m -X lene 6.93E -06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 6.93E -06 0.00E +00 6.93E -06 110543 Hexane 2.74E -06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.OUE +00 0.00E +00 2.74E -06 100414 Eth lBenzene 0.00E+00 2.71E -06 2.71E -06 0.00E+00 2.71E -06 2.71E -06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.71E -06 1330207 XYLENES 2.34E -06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 2.34E -06 0-00E +00 2.34E -06 91203 [Naphthalene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 8.92E -07 0.00E+00 8.92E -07 78933 MEK 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.52E -08 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 1.52E -08 106423 -X ene 1.39E -09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 1.39E -09 0.00E +00 1.39E -09 100425 St rene 6.62E -10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 6.62E -10 67561 Methanol 0.00E+00 7.71E -11 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.71E -11 7440622 Vanadium 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 1151 PAHs -w /o 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 110827 C clohexane 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0,00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 956361,2,4TriMeBenze 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 123728 Bu raldeh de 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 74851 Eth lene 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 Total 1.66E -03 1.65E -03 2.71E -06 1.60E -Ot 2.71E-06 2.71E -06 1.52E -08 1.63E -01 1.52E -03 1.63E -01 ACUTE HI, RECEPTOR 664 CAS NAME CNS I DEVEL EYE IMMUN I REPRO I RESP I BLOOD I MAX % 50000 rmaldeh 0.00E +00 I 0.00E +00 7.88E -02 7.88E -02 0.00E +00 7.88E -02 0.00E +00 7.88E -02 0.71 107028 Acrolein 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.15E -02 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.15E -02 0.00E +00 3.15E -02 0.28 71432 Benzene 0.00E +00 8.23E -04 0.00E +00 8.23E -04 8.23E -04 0.00E +00 8.23E -04 8.23E -04 0.01 7440622 Vanadium 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.36E -04 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.36E -04 0.00E +00 3.36E -04 0.00 108883 Toluene 2.25E -05 2.25E -05 2.25E -05 0.00E +00 2.25E -05 2.25E -05 0.00E +00 2.25E -05 0.00 78933 -MEK 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 9.32E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 9.32E -06 0.00E +00 9.32E -06 0.00 1210 X lenes 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 4.69E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 4.69E -06 0.00E +00 4.69E -06 0.00 108383 m -X lene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 4.64E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 4.64E -06 0.00E +00 4.64E -06 0.00 95476 o -X lene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.57E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.57E -06 0.00E +00 3.57E -06 0.00 1330207 XYLENES 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.98E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.98E -06 0.00E +00 1.98E -06 0.00 106423 -X lene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.82E -07 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.82E -07 0.00E +00 3.82E -07 0.00 100425 Styrene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.40E -07 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.40E -07 0.00E +00 2.40E -07 0.00 67561 Methanol 9.01E -08 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 9.01E -08 0.00 9901 iieselExhP 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 1151 PAHs -w /o 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 75070 cetaldeh 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 91203 a hthalen 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 100414 h I Benze 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 110543 Hexane 0.00E +00 I 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 110827 clohexan O:00E +00 I 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 115071 1 Propylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 95636 IATHMeBei 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 123728 utyraldehy 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 74851 Ethylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 Total 2.26E -05 8.45E-04 .11E-01 7.96E -02 8.45E -04 1 1.11 E -01 I 8.23E -04 1 1.11 E -01 1.00 Cancer Risk by Source SRC INHAL DERM SOIL MOTHER VEG I ORAL ITOTAL % existing new boiler 1.40E -06 7.59E -07 1.14E -07 0.00E +00 2.78E -06 3.65E -06 5.05E-061 0.245 future ICE #1 8.75E -07 2.10E -07 3.15E -08 0.00E +00 7.69E -07 1.01E-06 1.89E -06 0.092 future ICE #2 $.72E -07 2.09E -07 3.14E -08 0.00E +00 7.66E -07 1.01E-011 1.88E -06 0.091 future ICE #3 8.74E -07 2.10E -07 3.14E -08 0.00E +00 7.68E -07 1.01E-06 1.88E-061 0.091 existing ICE #3 8.69E -07 2.09E -07 3.13E -08 0.00E +00 7.64E -07 1.00E -06 1.87E -06 0.091 existing ICE #1 8.58E -07 2.06E -07 .3.09E -08 0.00E +00 7.54E -07 9.91E -07 1.85E -06 0.090 existing ICE #2 8.60E -07 2.07E -07 3.09E -08 0.00E +00 7.56E -07 9.93E -07 1.85E -06 0.090 existing new diesel Genset 1.80E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 I 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.80E -06 0.087 existing old boiler #1 1.33E -07 7.20E -08 1.08E -08 0.00E +00 2.64E -07 3.46E -07 4.79E -07 0.023 existing old boiler #2 1.31E -07 7.13E -08 1.07E -08 0.00E +00 2.61 E-071 3.43E -07 4.74E -07 0.023 existing old boiler #3 1.30E -07 7.04E -08 1.06E -08 0.00E +00 2.58E -07 3.39E -07 4.69E -07 0.023 existing old boiler #4 1.27E -07 6.92E -08 1.04E -08 0.00E+00 2.53E -07 3.33E -07 4.60E -07 0.022 existing old chiller #1 7.25E -08 3.93E -08 5.89E -09 0.00E +00 1.44E -07 1.89E -07 2.61E -07 0.013 exI . sting old chiller #2 7.19E -08 3.90E -08 5.84E -09 0.00E +00 1.43E -07 1.87E -07 2.59E -07 0.013 existing old diesel Genset #5 2.08E -08 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.08E -08 0.001 existing old diesel Genset #4 2.07E -08 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.07E -08 0.001 existing old diesel Genset #3 2.05E -08 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.05E -08 0.001 existing old diesel Genset 1 2.04E -08 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.04E -08 0.001 existing old diesel Genset #1 2.02E -08 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.02E -08 0.001 Total 9.18E -06 2.37E -06 3.55E -07 0.00E +00 8.68E -06 1.14E -05 2.06E -05 1.000 664 Run 618 without PAH control on existing new boiler Total % Existing Equip. 1.24E -05 6.03E -01 Cogan Plant Future Equip. 5.65E -06 2.74E -01 Central Plant Existing Equip. 2.50E -06 Total 2.06E -05 Chronic Non - Cancer Risk by Source NAME CNS I REVEL EN EYE GILV I KIDN REPRO I RESP BLOOD % future ICE #1 1. 5E-04 1.61E -04 4.07E -07 2.20E -02 4.07E -07 4.07E -07 0.00E+00 2.23E -02 1.49E -04 2.23E -02 0.1368 future ICE #3 1.65E -04 1.60E -04 4.07E -07 2.20E -02 4.07E -07 4.07E -07 0.00E +00 2.23E -02 1.49E -04 2.23E -02 0.1368 existing ICE #3. 1.64E -04 1.60E -04 4.04E -07 2.18E -02 4.04E -07 4.04E -07 0.00E +00 2.22E -02 1.48E -04 222E -02 0.1362 future ICE #2 1.64E -04 1.60E -04 4.06E -07 2,19E -02 4.06E -07 4.06E -07 0.00E +00 2.22E -02 1.49E -04 2.22E -02 0.1362 existing ICE #1 1.62E -04 1.57E -04 3.99E -07 2.16E -02 3.99E -07 3.99E -07 0.00E +00 2.19E -02 1.46E -04 2.19E -02 0.1344 existing ICE #2 1.62E -04 1.58E -04 4.00E -07 2.16E -02 4.00E -07 4.00E -07 0.00E +00 2.19E -02 1.47E -04 2.19E -02 0.1344 existing new boiler 4.75E -04 4.72E -04 1.95E -07 1.97E -02 1.95E -07 1.95E -07 0.00E +00 1.98E -02 4.29E -04 1.98E -02 0.1215 existing old boiler #1 4.49E -05 I 4.47E -05 1,84E -08 I 1.87E -03 1.84E -08 1.84E -08 0.00E +00 1.87E -03 4.06E -05 1.87E -03 0.0115 existing old boiler #2 4.45E -05 I 4.42E -05 1.82E -08 1.85E -03 1.82E -08 1.82E -08 0.00E +00 1.85E -03 4.02E -05 1.85E -03 0.0113 existing old boiler #3 4.39E -05 4.37E -05 1.80E -08 1.a2E -03 1.80E -08 1.80E -08 0.00E +00 I 1.83E -03 3.97E -05 1.83E -03 0,0112 existing old boger#4 4.31E -05 4.29E -05 1.77E -08 1.79E -03 1.77E -08 1.77E -08 0.00E +00 1.80E -03 3.90E -05 1.80E -03 0.0110 existing old chiller #1 2.45E -05 2.44E -05 1.01E -08 1.02E -03 1.01E -0a 1.01E -08 0.00E +00 1.02E -03 2.22E -05 1.02E -03 0.0063 existing old chiller #2 2.43E -05 2.42E -05 9.98E -09 1.01E -03 9.98E -09 I 9.98E -09 0.00E +00 1.01E -03 2.20E -05 1.01E -03 0.0082 existing new diesel Genset 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 51.01E .67E -04 0.00E +00 8.67E -04 0.0053 existing old diesel Genset #5 8.30E -08 7.98E -08 0.00E +00 1.02E -05 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.08E -09 2.01E -05 6.96E -08 2.01E -05 010001 existing old diesel Genset #4 8.24E -08 7.92E -08 0.00E +00 1.02E -05 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 3.06E -09 2.00E -05 6.90E -08 2.00E -05 0.0001 existing old diesel Genset #3 8.18E -08 7.86E -08 0.00E +00 1.01E -05 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.03E -09 1.98E -05 6.85E -08 1.98E -05 010001 existing old diesel Genset #2 8.12E-08 7.80E -08 0.00E +00 1.00E -05 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.01 E -09 1.96E -05 6.80E -08 1.96E -0 5 0.0001 existing old diesel Genset #1 6.04E -06 I 7.73E -08 0.00E +00 9.91 E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.98E -09 1.95E -05 6.74E -08 1.95E -05 0.0001 Total 1.68E -03 1.65E -03 2.71E -06 1.80E -01 2.71E -06 2.71E -06 1.52E -08 1.63E -01 1.52E -03 1.63E -01 1 1.0000 boiler Acute Risk by Source NAME CNS DEVEL EYE IMMUN REPRO I RESP I BLOOD I MAX % existin new boiler 4.16E -06 1.67E -04 1.61E -02 6.70E -03 1.67E -04 1.61E -02 1.63E -04 1.61E-021 0.15 existing ICE #1 9.35E -07 5.01 E-051 7.44E -03 7.49E -03 5.01 E-051 7.44E -03 4.91 E-051 7.49E -03 0.07 future ICE #2 9.34E -07 5.01E -05 7.45E -03 7.49E -03 5.01E -05 7.45E -03 4.91E -05 7.49E -03 0.07 future ICE #3 9.29E -07 5.41 E -05 7.41 E -03 7.46E -03 5.41 E -05 7.41 E -03 5.32E -05 7.46E -03 0.07 future ICE #1 9.28E -07 4.64E -05 7.40E -03 7.44E -03 4.64E -05 7.40E -03 4.55E -05 7.44E -03 0.07 exists ICE #2 9.26E -07 4.99E -05 7.38E -03 7.43E -03 4.99E -05 7.38E -03 4.90E -05 7.43E -03 0.07 existing ICE #3 9.24E -07 4.83E -05 7.35E -03 7.40E -03 4.83E -05 7.35E -03 4.74E -05 7.40E -03 0.07 existing old boiler #1 1.88E -06 6.02E -05 7.30E -03 3.02E -03 6.02E -05 7.30E -03 5.83E -05 7.30E -03 0.07 existing old boiler #2 1.86E -06 5.96E -05 7.22E -03 2.99E -03 5.96E -05 7.22E -03 5.77E -05 7.22E -03 0.07 existing old boiler #3 1.84E -06 5.89E -05 7.12E -03 2.95E -03 5.89E -05 7.12E -03 5.70E -05 7.12E -03 0.06 existin old boiler #4 1.80E -06 5.77E -05 6.97E -03 2.88E -03 5.77E -05 6.97E -03 5.59E -05 6.97E -03 0.06 existin old chiller #1 r 1.06E -06 3.29E -05 4.13E -03 1.71E -03 3.29E -05 4.13E -03 3.19E -05 4.13E -03 0.04 [existing old chiller #2 1.06E -06 3.26E -05 4.10E -03 1.69E -03 3.26E -05 4.10E -03 3.16E -05 4.10E -03 0.04 existin old diesel Genset #5 6.95E -07 1.59E -05 2.73E -03 2.67E -03 1.59E -05 2.73E -03 1.52E -05 2.73E -03 0.02 existing old diesel Genset #4 6.84E -07 1.57E -05 2.69E -03 2.63E -03 1.57E -05 2.69E -03 1.50E -05 2.69E -03 0.02 existing old diesel Genset #3 6.74E -07 1.54E -05 2.65E -03 2.59E -03 1.54E -05 2.65E -03 1.48E -05 2.65E -03 0.02 existing old diesel Genset #2 6.62E -07 1.52E -05 2.60E -03 2.55E -03 1.52E -05 2.60E -03 1.46E -05 2.60E -03 0.02 existing old diesel Genset #1 6.49E -07 1.50E -05 2.55 -031 2.50E -03 1.50E -05 2.55E -03 1.43E -05 2.55E -03 0.02 existing new diesel Genset 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 Total 2.26E -05 8.45E -04 1.11E -01 I 7.96E -02 8.45E -04 1.11E -01 I 8.23E -04 1.11E -01 1 1.00 Appendix J Proposed Project Incremental Risk Summary F= RMW HHRAWM Chem CAS NAME 1 1151 PAHs -w /o PAHs, total, w/o individ. components reported [Treated as B(a)P for HRA] 2 1210 Xylenes Xylenes (mixed) 3 50000 Formaldehyde Formaldehyde 4 71432 Benzene Benzene 5 74851 Ethylene Ethylene 6 75070 Acetaldehyde Acetaldehyde ____ 7 95476 o- Xylene o-Xylene 8 956361,2,4TriMeBenze 1,2,4 - Trimethylbenzene 9 100414 Ethyl Benzene Ethyl benzene 10 108383 m- Xylene m-X lene 11 108883 Toluene Toluene 12 110543 Hexane Hexane 13 110827 Cyclohexane Cyclohexane 14 115071 Propylene Propylene 15 123728 Butyraldeh de Bu raldeh e 161 86737 Fluorene I Fluorene Cancer Risk by TAC CAS NAME INHAL DERM SOIL MOTHER VE ORAL TOTAL % 1151 PAHs -w /o 1.87E -08 6.21E -07 9.31E -08 0.00E +00 2.27E -06 2.99E -06 3.01E -06 0.54 50000 Formaldehyde 1.54E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.54E -06 0.28 71432 Benzene 9.98E -07 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 9.98E -07 0.18 75070 Acetaldehyde 2.72E -08 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.72E -08 0.00 1210 Xylenes 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 74851 Ethylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 OAOE +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 95476 o -X lene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +09 0.00E +00 0.00 95636 1,2,4TriMeBenze 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 100414 Ethyl Benzene I 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 908383 m -X lane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 108883 Toluene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 110543 Hexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 110827 C clohexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 5071 Propylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 t123728 Bu raldeh de 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 737 Fluorene O.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 TAL 2.59E -06 1 6.21 E -07 9.31 E -08 0.00E +00 2.27E -06 2.99E -06 5.58E -06 1.00 Chronic Non - Cancer Risk by TAC CAS NAME CNS DEVEL ENDO EYE GILV KI N RESP BLOOD MAX % 50000 Formaldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 6.50E -02 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 6.50E -02 0.00E +00 6.50E -02 0.98 75070 Acetaldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 8.03E -04 0.00E +00 8.03E -04 0.01 71432 Benzene 4.41 E -04 4.41 E-04 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 4.41 E -04 4.41 E -04 0.01 115071 Propylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.36E -04 0.00E +00 1.36E -04 0.00 108883 Toluene 3.21 E -05 3.21 E -05 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.21 E-05 0.00E +00 3.21E-05 0.00 1210 X lenes 6.88E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 6.88E -06 0.00E +00 6.88E -06 0.00 95476 o -X lene 3.44E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.44E -06 0.00E +00 3.44E -06 0.00 108383 1 m-Xylene 3.44E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 3.44E -06 0.00E +00 3.44E -06 0.00 100414 Eth I Benzene 0.00E +00 1.20E -06 1.20E -06 . 0.00E +00 1.20E -06 1.20E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.20E -06 0.00 110543 Hexane 6.88E -07 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 I 6.88E -07 0.00 1151 PAHs -w /o 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 I 0.00E +00 0.00 74851 Ethylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 I 0.00E +00 0.00 95636 1,2,4TriMeBenze 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 110827 Cyclohexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 123728 Butyra ldeh de 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 86737 Fluorene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00 TOTAL 4.88E -04 4.75E -04 I 1.20E -06 6.50E -02 1.20E -06 1.20E -06 6.60E -02 4.41E -04 6.60E -02 1.00 Acute Risk by TAC CAS NAME CNS DEVEL EYE IMMUN REPRO RESP I BLOOD MAX. % 50000 Formaldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.22E -02 I 2.22E -02 0.00E +00 I 2.22E -02 0.00E +00 2.22E -02 0.996 71432 Benzene 0.00E +00 1.46E -04 0.00E +00 1.46E -04 1.46E -04 0.00E +00 1.46E -04 1.46E -04 0.007 108883 Toluene 2.78E -06 2.78E -06 2.78E -06. 0.00E +pp 2.78E -06 2.78E -06 0.00E +pp 2.78E -06 0.000 1210 X lenes 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.34E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 2.34E -06 0.00E +00 2.34E -06 0.000 95476 o-X lene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.17E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.17E -06 0.00E +00 1.17E -06 0.000 108383 m -X lene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.17E -06 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 1.17E -06 0.00E +00 1.17E -06 0.000 1151 PAHs -w /o O.00E +00 0.00E +00 O.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.000 74851 Ethylene O.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.000 75070 Acetaldehyde 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.000 95636 1 1,2,4TriMeBenze 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 I 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.000 100414 Ethyl Benzene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.000 110543 Hexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.000 110827 C clohexane 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00. 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.000 115071 Propylene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.000 123728 Butyraldehyde 0.00E +00 1 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +p0 0.00E +00 0.000 86737 Fluorene 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.00E +00 0.000 TOTAL 2.78E -06 1.48E -04 2.22E -02 2.23E -02 1.48E -04 i 2.22E -02 1.46E -04 2.23E -02 1.000 Cancer Risk by Source RECEPTOR 664 SRC NAME INHAL DERM SOIL MOTHER VEG I ORAL(SubTotal ) TOTAL Future ICE #1 8.58E -07 2.06E -07 3.09E -08 0.00E +00 7.54E -07 9.91E -07 1.85E -06 0.33 Future ICE #2 8.60E -07 2:07E -07 3.09E -08 0.00E +00 7.56E -07 9.93E -07 1.85E -06 0.33 Future ICE #3 8.69E -07 2.09E -07 3.13E -08. 0.00E +00 7.64E -07 1.00E -06 1.87E -06 0.34 Total 2.59E -06 6.21 E -07 1 9.31 E -08 0.00E +00 2.27E -06 2.99E -06 5.58E -06 1 1.00 Chronic Non - Cancer Risk by Source RECEPTOR 664 SRC NAME DEVEL I ENDO EYE I GILV I KIDN I RESP I BLOOD I MAX 1 % Future ICE #1 1.57E 04 3.99E -07 2.16E -02 3.99E-07 3.99E -07 2.19E -02 1.46E -04 2.19E -02 0.33 Future ICE #2 1.58E -04 4.00E -07 2.16E -02 4.00E -07 4.00E -07 2.19E -02 1.47E-0412.19E-021 0.33 Future ICE #3 1.60E -04 4.04E -07 2.18E -02 4.04E -07 4.04E -07 2.22E -02 1.48E -04 2.22E -02 0.34 Total 4.75E -04 .1.20E -06 6.50E -02 1.20E -06 1.20E -06 6.60E -02 4.41E -04 6.60E -02 1.00 Acute Risk by Source RECEPTOR 664 ;; SRC NAME CNS DEVEL EYE JIMMUN REPRO RESP BLOOD IMAX Future]CE #1 I 9.35E -07 5.01E -05 7.44E -03 7.49E -03 5.01E -05 7.44E -03 4.91E -05 7.49E -03 0.34 Future ICE #2 9.26E -07 4.99E -05 7.38E -03 7.43E -03 4.99E -05 7.38E -03 4.90E 05 7.43E -03 0.33 Future ICE #3 9.24E -07 4.83E -05 7.35E -03 7.40E -03 4.83E -05 7.35E -03 4.74E -05 7.40E -03 0.33 Total I 2.78E -06 1.48E -04 2. 2E-021 2.23E -02 1.48E -04 2.22E -02 1.46E -04 2.23E-021 1.00 Appendix L HARP Modeled Output Files for Incremental Cancer, Chronic and Acute Risks by Facility R IHmg WMMM On File at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department Appendix K HARP Modeled Output Files for Facility Cumulative Cancer, Chronic and Acute Risks .. R:%HOW HHMAW On File at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department APPENDIX F NOISE REPORT Noise Assessment For: HoAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared For: BONTERRA CONSULTING 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E -200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Submitted By: MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Fred Greve P.E. Matthew B. Jones, P.E. 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 949.349.0671 FaK949.349e0679 September 12, 2007 Report #07 -158.6 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page Table Of Contents 1.0 EXISTING SETTING ................................................. ..............................1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................ ..............................1 1.2 Background Information on Noise ................................... ..............................5 1.2.1 Noise Criteria Background ........................................... ..............................5 1.2.2 Noise Assessment Metrics .......................................... ..............................7 1.3 Noise Criteria ............ .. ...................................................................................10 1.3.1 City of Newport Beach Noise Element ........................ .............................10 1.3.2 City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance ..................... .............................10 1.3.3 Hoag Hospital Development Agreement ..................... .............................13 1.4 Existing Noise Measurements ......................................... .............................14 1.4.1 Grease Pit Cleaning ................................................... .............................17 1.4.2 Loading Dock Activities .............................................. .............................18 1.4.3 Mechanical Equipment ............................................... .............................19 46 1.4.4 Cogeneration Plant ..................................................... .............................20 1.4.5 General Ambient Measurements ................................ .............................22 1.5 Existing Roadway Noise Levels ...................................... .............................24 2.5 Comparison of impacts with 1991 EIR ............................ .............................51 2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS ................................ .............................27 2.1 Noise impact Criteria ........................................................ .................:...........27 2.2 Temporary Impacts ........................................................... .............................28 2.2.1 On -Site Construction Noise ........................................ .............................28 2.3 Long Term Off-Site Impacts ............................................. .............................30 2.3.1 Traffic Noise Impacts Due to Project .......................... .............................30 2.3.2 Traffic Noise Impacts With Project Altemative .........................................35 2.3.3 Traffic Noise Level Changes with Project vs. Alternative .........................40 2.3.4 Cumulative Traffic Noise Impacts ............................... .............................41 2.3.5 Noise Impacts from On -Site Activities ......................... .............................41 GreasePit Cleaning ........................................................................... .............................42 MechanicalEquipment ....................................................................... .............................42 LoadingDock Activity ....................................................................... ............................... 46 CogenerationFacility .......................................................................... .............................46 2.3.6 Changes in the Development Agreement/PC Text ...... .............................48 2.4 Long-Term On-Site Noise Impacts .................................. .............................50 2.5 Comparison of impacts with 1991 EIR ............................ .............................51 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................... .............................52 3.1 Temporary Impacts ........................................................... .............................52 3.1.1 General Construction Noise ........................................ .............................52 3.2 Long Term Off -Site Impacts ............................................. .............................52 3.2.1 Traffic Noise ............................................................... .............................52 3.2.2 On-Site Activities ........................................................ .............................52 MechanicalEquipment ....................................................................... .............................52 Mestre Greve Associates Table Of Contents (Continued) Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page ii LoadingDock ...................................................................................... .............................53 Grease Trap .................. ............................... ..... 58 ............................... ............................... CogenerationFacility .......................................................................... .............................59 3.3 Long Term On -Site Impacts ............................................. .............................59 3.3.1 Outdoor Traffic Noise Mitigation ................................. .............................59 3.3.2 Indoor Traffic Noise Mitigation .................................... .............................60 4.0 UNAVOIDABLE NOISE IMPACTS .......................... .............................62 APPENDIX...................................................................... .............................63 Traffic Data Used for Noise Modeling ..................................... .............................64 Existing Traffic Noise Levels .................................................. .............................78 Traffic Noise Level CNEL Changes and Future Levels With Project ................81 Traffic Noise Level CNEL Changes and Future Levels With Project Alternative .................................................................................... ............................... 87 Traffic Noise Level CNEL Changes With Project vs. Project Alternative .......... 93 Mestre Greve Associates List of Tables Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page Ili Table 1 Hoag Hospital Campus Development Summary ................ ..............................1 Table 5 (Continued) Existing Roadway Traffic Noise Levels ............ .............................26 Table 2 City Of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Standards ......... .............................12 Table 3 Noise Measurement Results For Cogeneration Facility (dBA) .......................20 Table 7 Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project ........................... .............................32 Table 4 General Ambient Noise Measurements ............................ .............................24 Table 5 Existing Roadway Traffic Noise Levels ............................. .............................25 Existing Traffic Noise Levels ......................................... .............................78 Table 5 (Continued) Existing Roadway Traffic Noise Levels ............ .............................26 Table A -6 Table 6 Traffic Noise CNEL Changes With Project ( dB) ................ .............................31 Table 6 (Continued) Traffic Noise CNEL Changes With Project (dB) ............................32 Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project ....................... ...................:.........84 Table 7 Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project ........................... .............................32 Table A -8 Table 7 (Continued) Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project .......... .............................33 Table 8 Traffic Noise CNEL Changes With Project Alternative (dB) ...........................35 Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project Alternative ...... .............................90 Table 8 (Continued) Traffic Noise CNEL Changes With Project Alternative (dB) ........... 36 Table 9 Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project Alternative ......... .............................37 Table 9 (Continued) Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project Alternative .....................38 (dB) ...:........................................................................ .............................93 Table 10 Traffic Noise CNEL Changes with Project vs. Project Alternative (dB) ......... 40 Table 11 Comparison of Noise Limits ............................................ .............................48 Table 12 Future Traffic Noise Levels Impacting Project ................ .............................50 Table A -1 Average Daily Traffic Volume and Speed Data Used For Noise Modeling .65 Table A -2 Peak Hour Volumes as Percentage of ADT From Data Provided ...............69 Table A -3 Peak Hour Volumes as Percentage of ADT Used to Calculate ADT's ........ 72 Table A -4 Traffic Distribution Used for Traffic Noise Modeling ...... .............................77 Table A -5 Existing Traffic Noise Levels ......................................... .............................78 Table A -6 Traffic Noise CNEL Changes With Project .................... .............................81 Table A -7 Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project ....................... ...................:.........84 Table A -8 Traffic Noise CNEL Changes With Project Alternative .. .............................87 Table A -9 Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project Alternative ...... .............................90 Table A -10 Traffic Noise CNEL Level Changes With Project vs. Project Alternative (dB) ...:........................................................................ .............................93 Mestre Greve Associates List of Exhibits Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page iv Exhibit1 Vicinity Map ..................................................................... ..............................2 Exhibit 2 Loading Dock Area .......................................................... ..............................4 Exhibit 3 Typical A- Weighted Noise Levels .................................... ..............................6 Exhibit 4 Typical Outdoor Noise Levels .......................................... ..............................9 Exhibit 5 City of Newport Beach Noise Standards ......................... .............................11 Exhibit 6 Existing Noise Source Measurement Locations .............. .............................16 Exhibit 7 Cogeneration Facility Noise Measurement Locations ..... .............................21 Exhibit 8 General Ambient Noise Measurement Locations.... ..................................... 23 Exhibit 9 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................ .............................29 Exhibit 10 Acoustic Louver Locations ............................................ .............................45 Exhibit 11 Reconfigured Loading Dock .......................................... .............................57 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 1 1.0 EXISTING SETTING 1.1 Project Description Hoag Hospital is an existing facility located at One Hoag Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The facility is a 409 -bed acute care, not for profit hospital. Exhibit l presents a vicinity map showing the location of the facility. The site is bounded by Hospital Road to the north, West Coast Highway to the south, and Newport Boulevard to the east. Residential development abuts the western edge of the Upper Campus and open space is to the west of the Lower Campus. Superior Avenue is the closest major street to the west. The approximately 38 -acre site is split into two planning areas, the 17.57 acre Upper Campus and the 20.41 acre Lower Campus. The Lower Campus is the portion of the site located along the north side of Pacific Coast Highway. The Upper Campus is the portion of the site south of Hospital Road. The Project proposes to allow greater flexibility in the placement of development on the project site, specifically to allow square footage currently allocated for the Lower Campus to be constructed on the Upper Campus. The Project would transfer up to 225,000 square feet of medical uses from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. A Project Alternative is assessed that would allow the transfer of up to 150,000 square feet from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Table 1 presents a summary of the development at Hoag Hospital under existing conditions and future conditions with and without the Project. The campus is currently developed with 886,270 square feet of medical uses and 409 hospital beds. The Upper Campus consists of 698,121 square feet of development and the Lower Campus consists of 188,149 square feet of development. Table 1 TSF- Thousand Square Feet t The increase and total development for the upper and lower campus shown is the maximum increase for either campus. However, the total increase and total development cannot exceed the amount shown in the last mw of the columns. Existing Without Project I Increase Total With Project Increase Total With Alternative ! Increase Total Hospital Beds 409 0 409 76 485 76 485 Upper Campus TSF Lower Campus TSF 698.1 188.1 67.2 389.7 765.3 577.9 292.2 164.7 990.3: 352.9 2172 _ 2393 915.3 427.9 Total TSF 886.3 457.0 1,343.21 457.0 1,343.2 457.0 1,343.2 TSF- Thousand Square Feet t The increase and total development for the upper and lower campus shown is the maximum increase for either campus. However, the total increase and total development cannot exceed the amount shown in the last mw of the columns. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 3 Under the current City of Newport Beach General Plan, development at the hospital can be increased by 456,968 square feet to 1,343,238 square feet. The Project does not propose to change this. Without the Project, an additional 67,228 square feet would be added to the Upper Campus and an additional 389,740 square feet would be added the Lower Campus (assuming no transfer of the maximum of 225,000 square feet). With the Project, 292,228 square feet of development would be added to the Upper Campus and 164,740 square feet of development would be added to the Lower Campus. With the Project Alternative, 217,228 square feet of development would be added to the Upper Campus and 239,740 square feet of development would be added to the Lower Campus (assuming transfer of the maximum of 150,000 square feet). The number of beds in the hospital is not restricted as long as the addition of beds does not create any new unanticipated traffic impacts. For purposes of the traffic study assumptions were made about future conditions with and without the proposed Project for trip generation. The bed counts presented in Table 1 reflect the assumptions used in the traffic study. Without the Project, the bed count at the hospital would be expected to remain unchanged. With the Project, or the Project Alternative, the bed count of the hospital is projected to increase by 76 beds from 409 to 485. Utilization of a 76 -bed increase for the Project Alternative is considered conservative given the proposed Project would reallocate more square footage than the Alternative. Note that the Project only proposes modifying the allowable development on the Hoag Hospital Campus and does not propose any specific projects. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting an amendment of the Development Agreement to eliminate the 55 dBA noise level restriction at the Hoag Hospital property line that is currently contained in the "Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations" (PC Text). The noise generated from Hoag Hospital would be governed by the City Noise Ordinance except as otherwise noted below and with reference to an exhibit reproduced here as Exhibit 2. 1. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag Hospital property line adjacent to the loading dock shall be as follows: 7AM -10 PM 10 PM -7 AM Daytime Ni httime Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 58 dBA 2. Within the loading dock area, delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles, shall be exempt from any applicable noise standards. This report analyses the potential noise impacts from the proposed Project including the proposed changes to the Development Agreement. Background information on noise and community noise assessment criteria is presented first. This is intended to give the reader a greater understanding of noise and the criteria used to assess potential impacts from noise. Existing noise levels are presented to describe the existing noise environment. Potential noise impacts during construction and operation are examined, and measures to mitigate impacts are described where significant impacts are identified. UPPER CAMPUS mclN WMNG BIDE fUNREGRMGLLMWE ncess Gim (f- > 2. EME 230UWEVNE VIDWNINIJINE 2W IYME ILL.. ii, ........ ... —.I,=;; mjkvmPo� ; X lRDCNRE mcm m m w, PA CIRV MDMMMEt81P06LIFX NOW PWING A ti J S @ NORTH A LOWER CAMPUS IoGHWAY 100 0 100 200 Note: Buildings labeled for Identification purposes only LOADING DOCK NOISE STANDARDS Mestre 08.10.07 Exhibit 2 Dock Area LEGEND HOSPITAL R I li l,p PROPERTY LINE AS IDENTIFIED IN SECnON M. 1., DISTR ICT REGULATIONS LO LOADING DOCK AREA AS IDENTIFIED IN SEMON M,2,, DISTRICT REGULATIONS is Nil mclN WMNG BIDE fUNREGRMGLLMWE ncess Gim (f- > 2. EME 230UWEVNE VIDWNINIJINE 2W IYME ILL.. ii, ........ ... —.I,=;; mjkvmPo� ; X lRDCNRE mcm m m w, PA CIRV MDMMMEt81P06LIFX NOW PWING A ti J S @ NORTH A LOWER CAMPUS IoGHWAY 100 0 100 200 Note: Buildings labeled for Identification purposes only LOADING DOCK NOISE STANDARDS Mestre 08.10.07 Exhibit 2 Dock Area Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 5 1.2 Background Information on Noise 1.2.1 Noise Criteria Background Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dB higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; a sound 20 dB higher is perceived to be four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency- dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A- weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. Exhibit 3 provides examples of various noises and their typical A- weighted noise level. Sound levels decrease as a function of distance from the source as a result of wave divergence, atmospheric absorption and ground attenuation. As the sound wave form travels away from the source, the sound energy is dispersed over a greater area, thereby dispersing the sound power of the wave. Atmospheric absorption also influences the levels that are received by the observer. The greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence and the resultant fluctuations. The degree of absorption is a function of the frequency of the sound as well as the humidity and temperature of the air. Turbulence and gradients of wind, temperature, and humidity also play a significant role in determining the degree of attenuation. Intervening topography can also have a substantial effect on the effective perceived noise levels. Noise has been defined as unwanted sound and it is known to have several adverse effects on people. From these known effects of noise, criteria have been established to help protect the public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities. This criteria is based on known impacts of noise on people, such as hearing loss, speech interference, sleep interference, physiological responses and annoyance. Each of these potential noise impacts on people are briefly discussed in the following narratives: Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 7 HEARING LOSS is not a concern in community noise situations of this type. The potential for noise induced hearing loss is more commonly associated with occupational noise exposures in heavy industry or very noisy work environments. Noise levels in neighborhoods, even in very noisy airport environs, are not sufficiently loud as to cause hearing loss. SPEECH INTERFERENCE is one of the primary concerns in environmental noise problems. Normal conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 65 dBA and any noise in this range or louder may interfere with speech. There are specific methods of describing speech interference as a function of distance between speaker and listener and voice level. SLEEP INTERFERENCE is a major noise concern for traffic noise. Sleep disturbance studies have identified interior noise levels that have the potential to cause sleep disturbance. Note that sleep disturbance does not necessarily mean awakening from sleep, but can refer to altering the pattern and stages of sleep. PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES are those measurable effects of noise on people that are realized as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, etc. While such effects can be induced and observed, the extent is to which these physiological responses cause harm or are signs of harm is presently unknown. ANNOYANCE is the most difficult of all noise responses to describe. Annoyance is a very individual characteristic and can vary widely from person to person. What one person considers tolerable can be quite unbearable to another of equal hearing capability. 1.2.2 Noise Assessment Metrics The description, analysis and reporting of community noise levels around communities is made difficult by the complexity of human response to noise and the myriad of noise metrics that have been developed for describing noise impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify noise levels with respect to community response. Most of the metrics use the A- Weighted noise level to quantify noise impacts on humans. A- Weighting is a frequency weighting that accounts for human sensitivity to different frequencies. Noise metrics can be divided into two categories: single event and cumulative. Single -event metrics describe the noise levels from an individual event such as an aircraft fly over or perhaps a heavy equipment pass -by. Cumulative metrics average the total noise over a specific time period, which is typically 1 or 24 -hours for community noise problems. For this type of analysis, cumulative noise metrics is typically used. Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. They are designed to account for the known health effects of noise on people described previously. Based on these effects, the observation has been made that the potential for a noise to impact people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. A number of Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 8 noise scales have been developed to account for this observation. The two most predominate noise scales are the: Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). These scales are described in the following paragraphs along with the LDN and L( %) scales that are also used for community noise assessment. LEQ is the sound level corresponding to a steady -state sound level containing the same total energy as a time- varying signal over a given sample period. LEQ is the "energy" average noise level during the time period of the sample. LEQ can be measured for any time period, but is typically measured for 1 hour. This 1 -hour noise level can also be referred to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL), which is the energy average of all the events and background noise levels that occur during that time period. CNEL, Community Noise Equivalent Level, is the predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment. The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 -hour average noise level based on the A- weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise which occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a "CNEL of 60 dBA," "60 dBA CNEL," or simply "60 CNEL." Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale for different types of communities are presented in Exhibit 4. Ldn, the day -night scale is similar to the CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. It is a measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day. The time- weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized. In the Ldn scale, those noise levels that occur during the night (10 pm to 7 am) are penalized by 10 dB. This penalty was selected to attempt to account for increased human sensitivity to noise during the quieter period of a day, where resting at home and sleep are the most probable activities. L( %) is a statistical method of describing noise which accounts for variance in noise levels throughout a given measurement period. L( %) is a way of expressing the noise level exceeded for a percentage of time in a given measurement period. For example since 5 minutes is 25% of 20 minutes, L25 is the noise level that is equal to or exceeded for five minutes in a twenty- minute measurement period. The L50 noise level is the median noise level. For half of the measurement period the noise level exceeds the L50 and for half the noise level is less than the L50. The L90 is considered the background noise level and is the level exceeded 90% of the time. CNEL Outdoor Location Apartment Next to Freeway 3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport Downtown with Some Construction Activity Urban High Density Apartment —70— Row Housing on Major Avenue 'ban Residential Area ad Residential 1�Agricultural Crop Land ential Ambient 3wroe: US. GMlamental Pmlecim 4gwwy,'1g dU rocte loon Of lmkdQ WWkOd sof ldwWfWg m d kh Wng lawb CK—War -Nobs Fgpw 'WA MP f 73.0,1973. EKNIBIT 4 TYPICAL OUTOOOB NOISE LEVELS Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 10 1.3 Noise Criteria The Noise Ordinance and Noise Element of the General Plan contain the City's policies on noise. The Noise Ordinance applies to noise on one property impacting a neighboring property. Typically, it sets limits on noise levels that can be experienced at the neighboring property. The Noise Ordinance is part of the City's Municipal Code and is enforceable throughout the City. The Noise Element of the General Plan presents limits on noise levels from transportation noise sources, vehicles on public roadways, railroads and aircraft. These limits are imposed on new developments. The new developments must incorporate the measures to ensure that the limits are not exceeded. The City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance and Noise Element policies are presented below in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2. The Hospital's Development Agreement with the City affects the noise standards that are applicable to the Hospital operations. The provisions of the agreement that apply to noise limits are discussed in Section 1.3.3. 1.3.1 City of Newport Beach Noise Element The City of Newport Beach specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land uses impacted by transportation noise sources. The noise limits specified in the City's Noise Element are in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The standard states that for residential and hospital land uses, the exterior noise exposure level shall not exceed 65 CNEL and the interior noise exposure level shall not exceed 45 CNEL. Exhibit 5 presents the complete Interior and exterior noise standards contained in the City of Newport Beach Noise Element. 1.3.2 City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance The City of Newport Beach's Noise Ordinance is presented in three sections of the municipal code, Sections 10.26, 10.28, and 10.32. Section 10.28 "Loud and Unreasonable Noise" is what is often referred to as a "Nuisance Ordinance" in that it does not contain any specific noise level limits. It prohibits "the making, allowing, creation or maintenance of loud and unreasonable, unnecessary, or unusual noises which are prolonged, unusual, annoying, disturbing and/or unreasonable in their time, place and use are a detriment to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, general welfare and the peace and quiet of the City and its inhabitants." The specific provisions of Section 10.28 were substantially revised by the City in 2001 but the concept of the section was unchanged. Sections 10.28.040 and 10.28.045 are relevant to the Project in that they regulate construction noise and property maintenance noise. Effectively, these sections limit the hours of these activities to daytime hours. Section 10.32 "Sound Amplifying Equipment" regulates the use of sound amplification equipment and provides for permitting of sound amplification equipment. Section 10.26 is the most relevant to the Project as it presents specific standards for noise generated on one property so that it does not significantly impact adjacent properties. This section is summarized and the specific noise standards from the ordinance are presented below. This section was adopted in 1995. Prior to that, the City had not established any specific sound level limits. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 12 Table 2 presents the Noise Ordinance standards presented in Section 10.26 of the City's Municipal Code. The Noise Ordinance is applicable to noise generated from sources such as parking lots, loading docks, and mechanical equipment. The Noise Ordinance requirements cannot be applied to mobile noise sources such as heavy trucks when traveling on public roadways. Federal and State laws preempt control of the mobile noise sources on public roads. However, the requirements can be applied to vehicles traveling on private property. The City of Newport Beach exterior and interior noise criteria are given in terms of 15 minute Leq and Lmax noise levels. The noise levels specified are those that are not to be exceeded at a property from noise generated at a neighbor property. Noise levels are to be measured with A- weighting and a slow time response. Greater noise levels are permitted during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) as compared to the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Table 2 City Of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Standards Noise Noise Level Not To Be Exceeded Zone 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Metric da ime ( yt ) (nighttime) EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS I Residential Leq (1 min) 55 dBA 50 dBA Lmax 75 dBA 70 dBA ..—. _. . ._._.___ _. II Commercial Leq (15 min) 65 dBA � 60 dBA Lmax 85 dBA 80 dBA III Mixed Use Residential* Leq (15 min) 60 dBA 50 dBA Lmax 80 dBA 70 dBA IV Industrial /Manufacturi ng Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 70 dBA Lmax 90 dBA 90 dBA INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS I Residential Leq (15 min) 45 dBA 40 dBA Lmax 65 dBA 60 dBA —.. -- -d- _ _. ---- _.._. _ --- .... - -- ___. . _ ..._._.__ . _._..__- III Mixed Use Residential* Leq (15 min) 45 dBA 45 dBA Lmax 65 dBA 65 dBA * Residential within 100' of a commercial property where noise is from said commercial property Section 10.26.055 "Noise Level Measurement" defines the locations where measurements can be made to determine compliance with the noise standards. It effectively defines where the Noise Ordinance standards are applicable. For residential areas, the exterior standard is applicable to any part of a private yard, patio, deck or balcony normally used for human activity. The standards are not applicable to non -human activity areas such as trash container storage areas, planter beds, above or contacting a property line fence, or other areas not normally used as part of the yard, patio, deck, or balcony. Interior noise standards are applicable anywhere inside the room at least 4 feet from the walls, or within the frame of an open window. Section 10.26.045 sets different noise standards for HVAC equipment. HVAC equipment "in or adjacent to residential areas" cannot generate a noise level in excess of 50 dBA unless it includes a timing device that will deactivate the equipment between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in which the Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 13 standard is raised to 55 dBA since the HVAC will only operate during daytime hours. Section 10.26.35 "Exemptions" presents noise sources that are exempt from the provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance. Item L directly relates to the Hoag Hospital operations. Item L reads, "Any noise sources specifically identified and mitigated under the provisions of a use permit, modification permit, Development Agreement or planned community district development plan adopted prior to the date of adoption of this chapter." The Hospital's Development Agreement, which was adopted prior to the Noise Ordinance, as it affects allowable noise generation, is discussed below. Item G of Section 10.26.035 exempts noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property and instead requires that they be subject to Chapter 10.28 of the Municipal Code. Section 10.28.45 sets limits on the times of day that any "tool, equipment or machine" can be operated "in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity." Specifically, the section restricts these activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. These activities are prohibited on Sundays and federal Holidays. 1.3.3 Hoag Hospital Development Agreement Item 3.5 of the Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Approved February 14, 1994, Ordinance No. 94 -8.) reads as follows: Compliance with General Regulations Hoag is required to comply with the Existing General Regulations. As to those Existing General Regulations which require the payment of fees, costs, and expenses, Hoag shall pay the fee, cost, or expense required as of the data on which Hoag submits the application for Project Specific Approval. Hoag shall also comply with any Future General Regulations that do not impair Hoag's ability to develop the Property in accordance with the density, intensity, height and location of development specified in the Master Plan. Hoag shall also comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code, whether adopted before or after the Project Specific Approvals are submitted. Hoag shall also comply with the Coastal Act and the City's certified Local Coast 1 Program. Items 2.17, 2.18, and 2.19 define "Existing General Regulations," "Future General Regulations," and "General Regulations" as follows: 2.17 `Existing General Retulations" means those General Regulations approved by the City on or before the Approval Date (irrespective of their effective date) and not rescinded or superseded by City Action taken on or before the Approval Date 2.18 "Future General Regulations" means those General Regulations (see Section 2.19 below) adopted by the City after the Approval date. 2.19 "General Regulations" means those ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 14 and guidelines of the City, which are generally applicable to the use of land and/or construction within the City and include, the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, Uniform Building Codes and water and sewer connection and fee ordinances. Item 3.5 of the Development Agreement exempts the Hospital from the Noise Ordinance, Section 10.26 of the Municipal Code, a Future General Regulation, where the application of the Noise Ordinance would "impair Hoag's ability to develop the Property in accordance with the density, intensity, height and location of development specified in the Master Plan." In most cases, noise generated by activities at the Hospital should be able to be mitigated to below the Noise Ordinance limits without impairing the development of the property and the Noise Ordinance would apply to these cases. There could be some cases where enforcement of the Noise Ordinance would impair the development of the property. The Noise Ordinance would not be applicable in these cases. Section II "General Notes" item 7 of the "Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations" (referred to as the PC Text, and adopted by the City Council, City of Newport Beach, Ordinance No 92 -3 May 26, 1992) reads: New mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops and utility vaults, excluding communications devices, on the upper campus shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with building materials. Rooftop mechanical appurtenances or utility vaults shall be screened on the lower campus. Noise shall not exceed 55 dBA at all property lines. No new mechanical appurtenances may exceed the building height limitations as defined in these district regulations. This item preempts the HVAC regulations presented in Section 10.26.045 of the Noise Ordinance. Mechanical equipment at the hospital cannot exceed 55 dBA at the property line under the current PC Text. 1.4 Existing Noise Measurements In comments on the Notice of Preparation, residents of the condominiums along the western border of the Upper Campus indicated that activities at the hospital's loading dock were generating excessive noise levels. Sources of noise at the loading dock include a box crusher, a trash compactor, a sterilizer, and the noise generated by trucks and delivery activities at the dock. In addition, the commenters discussed the pumping of materials from an underground tank. The hospital indicated that this was a monthly cleaning of a grease pit, which separates grease from other materials to prevent it from entering the sewer system. The grease pit is cleaned once a month on the second Saturday between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. The loading dock operates between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Further, noise generated by the cogeneration facility near the corner of West Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue was identified as a potential issue. Measurements were performed to assess the noise levels generated by these activities. During these measurements, it was also determined that mechanical equipment was also generating considerable noise levels at the residences. The results of these measurements are discussed in Sections 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, and 1.4.4 for each of these four sources. The results of the grease pit cleaning noise measurements are presented in Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 15 Section 1.4.1. Noise levels measured near the loading dock are presented in Section 1.4.2. Noise levels generated by mechanical equipment are presented in Section 1.4.3. Noise levels . near the cogeneration facility are presented in Section 1.4.4. General ambient noise measurements were also performed to provide a general description of the existing noise environment around the Project site. The results of these measurements are presented in Section 1.4.5. The measurement survey utilized Bruel & KjTr 2236 and 2238 automated digital noise data acquisition systems. These instruments automatically calculate both the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and Percent Noise Level (L %) for any specific time period. The noise monitors were equipped with Bruel & Kjwr 1/2 -inch electret microphones and was calibrated with a Bruel & Kjwr calibrator with calibration traceable to the National Bureau of Standards before and after each measurement. Calibration for the instrument is performed annually and is certified through the duration of the measurements. This measurement system satisfies the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Standards 1.4 for Type 1 precision noise measurement. Noise measurements were performed on Saturday August 13, 2005, between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. to measure the levels generated by the grease pit cleaning and again on Wednesday August 17, 2005 between 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. to measure the noise levels generated by general loading dock activities. Exhibit 6 shows the location of the loading dock, grease pit cleaning area and the locations where noise measurements of activities were preformed. Noise levels were measured at Sites 1 and 2 on the Saturday for the grease pit cleaning and at Sites 1 and 3 on the Wednesday for the general loading dock activities. These sites were selected based on their proximity between the Hospital noise - generating uses and the residential uses. Site 1 was located on the balcony of the residence at Unit 304 of 260 Cagney Lane. The residence is located on the top (third) floor of the building. Site 2 was located at the northeast corner of the 260 Cagney Lane building and is representative of noise levels experienced at the first floor balconies of the building. Site 3 was located at the northeast corner of the 280 Cagney Lane Building. Two monitors were located at Site 3, one at 5 feet above ground level to represent noise levels experienced at first floor units and one at 15 feet above ground level to represent noise levels at second floor units. The times and locations of the noise measurements made for the cogeneration facility are presented in Section 1.4.4. The times and locations of the general ambient noise measurements are presented in Section 1.4.5. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 17 1.4.1 Grease Pit Cleaning The grease pit cleaning crew arrived at the site at approximately 9:20 a.m. on Saturday, August 13, 2005. The crew consisted of a van with a small trailer of equipment and a large diesel semi- trailer tanker truck. The tanker truck engine was left idling as the crew set up. The tanker truck engine generated a Leq noise level of approximately 65 to 66 dBA at Site 1 and 59 dBA at Site 2. The tanker truck engine was left idling for approximately 25 minutes as preparations were made for cleaning the grease pits. During this time, a manhole cover was removed and a small tent placed over it. The van was parked so that the trailer backed up to the tent. A fan with a water misting system was mounted on the back of the trailer and pointed towards the tent. We understand that the tent and the fan are used for odor control. There were no unusual odors observed during the cleaning. At about 9:45 a.m. the fan was turned on and run for about 15 minutes as preparations continued. During this period the combined, idling diesel tanker truck engine and fan generated a Leq noise level of approximately 66 dBA at Site 1 and 61 dBA at Site 2. At approximately 10:02 a.m., cleaning of the grease pit began. Essentially the grease trap is cleaned by placing a hose down a manhole and a pump, powered by the diesel engine of the tanker truck pumps material from the grease pit into the tanker truck. The diesel engine of the tanker truck is run, well above idling levels, to power the pump. This generated Leq noise levels between 76 and 78 dBA at Site 1 and between 70 and 73 dBA at Site 2. The pumping lasted for approximately 70 minutes with short breaks as the hose was moved between three manholes located approximately 5 to 10 feet apart which required relocation of the van and the tanker truck. Typically, this relocation took between two and four minutes. For a continuous 70- minute period, with three breaks of two to four minutes, the noise level at Site 1 was approximately 77 dBA at Site 1, 17 dB above the 60 dBA Noise Ordinance Limit, and the noise level at Site 2 was approximately 72 dBA, 12 dBA above the Noise Ordinance limit. For reference, a 10 dB difference is perceived as a doubling or halving of the noise level. Therefore, perceptually, the noise level at Site 1 during the pumping operations is almost four times greater than the Noise Ordinance limit and the noise level at Site 2 was more than double the Noise Ordinance limit. During the grease pit cleaning activity, the 80 dBA Lmax limit was exceeded three times at each site. In all cases, these were instantaneous exceedances due to an impact noise such as dropping a tool or other large object or the release of air pressure in the diesel truck brake system The City of Newport Beach has determined that grease trap cleaning should be considered a property maintenance activity. As discussed in Section 1.3.2, property maintenance occurring between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, or between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday is exempted from the Noise Ordinance criteria. Therefore, the grease trap cleaning is exempted from the Noise Ordinance limits as long as it occurs during these hours. Property maintenance activities are prohibited on Sundays or federal holidays. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 18 1.4.2 Loading Dock Activities The primary source of noise at the loading dock is the arrival and departure of trucks. There is a box crusher, a trash compactor, and a sterilizer that also potentially generate noise. However, during the measurements noise generated by these pieces of equipment were not audible. The box crusher was observed to be in operation without generating a distinctly audible noise. We understand from the residents that the sterilizer does not typically generate noise. However, under certain operating conditions a pressure relief valve will vent pressurized air to the atmosphere and generate considerable noise levels. However, this activity was not observed. According to the Hospital the sterilizer is run once every two hours, the trash compactor is operated twice an hour and the box crusher is operated twice an hour. On average three trucks arrived and then departed the loading dock in an hour with six occurring during the busiest hour (8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.). In addition to trucks arriving and departing the loading dock, general activity in the loading dock area also generates noise. This includes handling of materials being delivered, backup beepers, and speech communication. General traffic (i.e., non - delivery traffic) traveling on the service road also contributes substantially to the noise environment. The most significant noise event was trash removal. A truck arrived at the loading dock, backed up to the trash compactor, and then pulled the entire compactor unit onto the back of the truck (similar to the removal of a large trash dumpster), and drove away. The empty trash compactor was returned to the site some time later. The Hospital has indicated that this occurs every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. 60 dBA Leq was exceeded for six 15- minute periods at the second floor monitor of Site 3 and for three 15- minute periods at the first floor monitor during the five hours of monitoring. The highest 15- minute Leq was 68 dBA at the second floor monitor and 64 dBA at the first floor monitor. These levels occurred during the period where the trash compactor was removed from the loading dock area. The 80 dBA Lmax threshold was not exceeded at the first floor monitor at Site 3 and was exceeded four instances at the second floor monitor. These exceedances were instantaneous exceedances during an air pressure release on a truck air break system or during an engine start. The highest Lmax at the second floor monitor was 86 dBA. At Site 1, 60 dBA Leq was exceeded every 15- minute period from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. A strip chart of the noise level shows little or no activity before 7:00 a.m. but as soon as the gates are opened noise levels increase instantly with the increased activity. The loudest 15- minute Leq was 64 dBA. Much of the time the 15- minute Legs were less than 62 dBA. The 80 dBA Lmax criteria was exceeded five times between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Again, these were very short- term, in the one to two second range exceedances. The mechanical equipment noise experienced at Site l discussed above considerably contributes to the Leq standard exceedances. If this equipment were shut off many of the exceedances of the Leq standard at Site 1 would be eliminated and be similar to the second floor monitor at Site 3. But because the mechanical equipment is generating a relatively high noise level there does not need to be much additional noise to exceed 60 dBA Leq. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 19 Noise measurements were performed for the 1991 Hospital Expansion EIR near measurement Site 3. These measurements showed similar daytime noise levels to those measured for this analysis. This would indicate that loading dock activities and noise levels in the vicinity of the loading dock have not substantially increased since 1991. 1.4.3 Mechanical Equipment For both of the measurements, the monitor at Site 1 was set up the previous evening and set to record noise levels overnight. The dominant source of noise on the balcony observed during the set up and tear down of the monitor was mechanical equipment at the hospital. The noise level from the mechanical equipment was measured to be approximately 58 dBA with small fluctuations. During both measurements, the noise level during the night was never below 57 dBA with the 15- minute Leq noise levels of 58 dBA for almost the entire night. Occasionally some noise events resulted in slightly higher Leq levels. However, it is obvious that the operation of the mechanical equipment at the hospital results in a noise level of 58 dBA at Site 1. This is 3 dB higher than the 55 dBA District Regulations applicable to the Project and 8 dB higher than the current Noise Ordinance would allow. On both nights, the noise level at Site 1 was effectively constant until 7:00 am when noise events, vehicles passing on the service road and loading dock activity, began. This is when the gates to the service road are opened. During the Saturday measurements, the 15- minute Leq noise levels generally remained below 60 dBA when the grease trap cleaning was not being performed. However, the noise levels were just below the 60 dBA Leq level. On the Wednesday measurements the 15 minute Leq noise levels immediately jumped above 60 dBA at 7:00 a.m. and remained above 60 dBA until the monitoring was stopped at 4:00 p.m. The 15- minute Leq levels were generally between 60 and 62 dBA with the highest being 65 dBA. It appears that the mechanical equipment causing this noise is the same exhaust fan examined in the 1991_ EIR. It is not apparent that noise levels from the exhaust fan have been reduced substantially from that time. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 20 1.4.4 Cogeneration Plant Hoag Hospital is in the process of completing construction of a cogeneration plant near the northeast comer of Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. This facility will generate electricity for the hospital from natural gas extracted from the ground that used to be burned off. The waste heat from the generators is then used to generate hot and chilled water for the hospital heating and cooling. The site was visited on October 3, 2006 to measure the noise levels from the chiller vents on top of the cogeneration facility building. The generator engines were not yet in operation at the time of the measurements. Noise measurement results were repeated on November 20, 2006 and July 2, 2007. For the July 2 measurements, it was our understanding that the facility was in full operation including the generator engines that are enclosed in the building. Measurements were performed at the edge of the park just north of the cogeneration facility, and just outside the balconies at the south edge of the condominium building nearest to the cogeneration facility building as shown in Exhibit 7. Near the balconies, measurements were performed at 5 feet above the ground, the approximate ear level for a ground level observer, and at 20 feet above ground, the approximate ear level for a third floor observer. For the July 2, 2007 measurements, two additional sites were measured. These sites were measured at the request of the residents with concurrence from City staff. The measurements were made along the west edge of the property very near the property line. (The measurements may actually be slightly inside the property line.) Each time the measurements were made after 11:00 p.m. Noise measurements could not be made earlier because traffic noise from Pacific Coast Highway was the dominant noise source. Therefore, measurements were scheduled after 11:00 p.m. so that noise levels of the cogeneration facility could be determined between groups of cars. The noise levels from the cogeneration facility were steady. Traffic noise was still a significant noise source, and the noise measurements of the cogeneration facility were made during lulls in the traffic. The noise levels listed below in Table 3 represent the steady noise levels of the cooling fans and exhaust vents of the cogeneration facility. Table 3 Noise Measurement Results For Cogeneration Facility (dBA) October 3, November 20, July 2, Location 2006 2006 2007 1. Edge of Park 49.8 52.2 56.3 2. Nearest balcony (first floor level) 43.0 47.8 46.5 3. Nearest balcony (elevated 20') 46.1 49.8 49.2 4. NW Corner of Cogen -- -- 61.9 5. West of Cogen -- 69.8 �� g b�..� � -f,' Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 22 The Noise Ordinance regulations apply to the cogeneration plant since this facility is not being considered a mechanical equipment operation that would be regulated by the current PC Text. The particular paragraph in the PC Text refers to "new mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops and utility vaults" and the cogeneration facility does not seem consistent with this description. Additionally, the residential areas (Sites 2 and 3) are within 100 feet from the Hoag Hospital property line and therefore, would be protected by the Zone 3 — Mixed Use Residential criteria. The noise criteria for Zone 3 is 50 dBA (Leq) during the night and 60 dBA during the day. The noise levels for the cogeneration facility are below the nighttime criteria of 50 dBA contained in the Noise Ordinance. With the current equipment in operation, the noise levels generated by the cogeneration facility are in compliance with the Noise Ordinance at Sites 2 and 3. Sites 1, 4, and 5 are probably best characterized as an undeveloped park use. As such, they would not be subject to any noise ordinance limits. The cogeneration noise levels at Sites 4 and 5 were measured at 61.9 and 69.8 dBA, respectively. Clearly the cogeneration plant is loudest in this area. If the PC Text was the applicable noise controlling standard at these sites, the noise level would be in excess of the 55 dBA requirement by almost 15 dBA. However, for reasons stated in the previous paragraph it does not appear that the PC Text is the controlling document for this noise. It should also be pointed out that the traffic noise and other noise sources were higher than the cogeneration plant at these sites, although at Site 5 the cogeneration plant was the dominant noise source most of the time. According to Hoag staff, within the next year, an additional cooling tower with its associated pumps will be added in the exterior cooling tower yard along Pacific Coast Highway. The plant also has space for the following future equipment; three (3) generators, one (1) absorption chiller, and one (1) electric chiller, all of which will (if added) be placed inside the building. At this time since the current cogeneration operation complies with the Noise Ordinance, the addition of equipment becomes a future compliance issue. Additional noise measurements will be warranted when the facility is in full operation to ensure that it remains in compliance. The cogeneration facility is completely permitted at this time. The City will have the right to require noise mitigation of the facility only if the cogeneration facility is shown to not be compliance with the Noise Ordinance. 1.4.5 Genera/ Ambient Measurements To provide a general description of the existing noise environment in and around the Project site, ambient noise measurements were made on Monday November 21, 2005 between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. at three locations shown in Exhibit 8. The purpose of the general ambient measurements is to document typical existing daytime noise levels in the area of the Project and determine if there are any additional unusual noise sources in the Project area that need to be addressed. The results of the noise measurements presented are not used in the determination of impacts. For traffic noise impacts, modeled traffic noise levels are utilized to determine impacts. For impacts from other noise sources, source specific data is used. '^F Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 24 Table 4 presents the results of the measurements. The data presented in the table includes average noise level (Leq), maximum noise level (Lmax) and minimum noise level (Lmin) measured during each measurement period. The L10, L50 and L90 noise levels are presented as well. These are L% values; that is, the noise level that was exceeded for a percentage of the measurement period. The L50 is the median noise level. Half the time the noise level is above the L50 and half the time it is below. The L90 is the nose level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level. Table 4 General Ambient Noise Measurements Site Start Time Leg Lmax L10 L50 L90 Lmin 1 4:16 PM 68.0 79.9 71.0 66.5 60.5 54.8 2 4:56 PM 62.9 76.0 65.0 61.0 57.5 55.2 3 5:44 PM 53.6 66.3 55.5 52.5 50.5 49.4 Noise levels at all three general noise measurement sites were dominated by traffic noise. Site 1 was located on the east side Superior Avenue in the condominium development just north of Sunset View Park. Traffic on Superior Avenue and to a .lesser extent, Pacific Coast Highway were the dominant sources of noise. A large truck passing by on Superior Avenue resulted in the maximum noise level measured. Activities of persons in the park, generally walking and talking, also contributed to the noise environment along with insects. Site 2 was located on the east side of Sunset View Park just west of Hoag Road. Distant traffic on Newport Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway were the dominant source of noise at the site. Activities of persons in the park, generally walking and talking, also contributed to the noise environment. A person talking relatively close to the sound level meter caused the maximum measured noise level. S Site 3 was located to the east of the Hospital across Newport Boulevard, along old Newport Boulevard near the corner of Catalina Drive. Traffic on Newport Boulevard was the dominant source of noise with intermittent traffic on old Newport Boulevard also generating considerable levels of noise. A bus passing on old Newport Boulevard generated the maximum measured noise level. 1.5 Existing Roadway Noise Levels The highway noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ( "FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA -RD -77 -108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these equivalent noise levels and summing them gives the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. The distances to the existing condition CNEL contours for the roadways affected by the Project site are given in Table 5. The noise levels presented in Table 5 were calculated using the Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 25 existing traffic volumes provided by the traffic engineer for the Project and posted speed limits. Only roadways where the Project or Alternative is projected to change noise levels by 0.5 dB or more are presented in Table 5. Existing traffic noise levels along all roadways analyzed for the Project are presented in Table A -5 of the Appendix. The contours presented in Table 5 represent the distance from the centerline of the roadway to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 5 do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect traffic noise levels. Table 5 Existinq Roadwav Traffic Noise Levels RW — Noise contour falls within roadway fight-of-way t —From roadway centerline. Table Continued on Next Page CNEL Distance To CNEL Contourt (feet) Roadway Segment @100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 17th Street west of Superior Ave. 60.8 RW 52 113 east of Superior Ave. 63.7 38 82 177 16th Street west of Superior Ave. 55.6 RW RW 51 Industrial Way east of Superior Ave. 543 RW RW 44 Hospital Road east of Superior Ave. 57.2 RW 30 65 west of Hoag Dr. 56.8 RW RW 61 east of Hoag Dr. 60.0 RW 46 100 west of Newport Blvd. 60.1 RW 47 102 Pacific Coast Highway west of Orange St. 68.5 80 172 370 east of Orange St. 68.6 80 173 372 east of Hoag Dr. 63.9 39 84 181 west of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 64.1 40 87 187 west of Riverside Ave. 66.7 60 129 278 east of Riverside Ave. 66.0 54 116 251 Via Lido east of Newport Blvd. 57.9 RW 34 72 Orange Street south of West Coast Hwy. 47.9 RW RW RW Prospect Street north of West Coast Hwy. 50.4 RW RW RW south of West Coast Hwy. 44.9 RW RW RW Placentia Avenue north of Hospital Rd. 61.3 RW 57 122 RW — Noise contour falls within roadway fight-of-way t —From roadway centerline. Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Table 5 (Continued) Existing Roadway Traffic Noise Levels Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 26 RW — Noise contour falls within roadway right-of-way t— From roadway centerline. Table 5 shows that noise levels along 161h Street, Industrial Way, Orange Street, Prospect Street, Hoag Drive, Tustin Avenue, Bayshore Drive and Bayside Drive are minor. The 65 CNEL contour does not extend beyond the right -of -way along these roads. Traffic noise levels along 17'h Street, Hospital Road, Via Lido, Placentia Avenue, Balboa Boulevard, and Riverside Avenue are moderate. Noise levels directly adjacent to these roadways exceed 65 CNEL but do not substantially exceed 70 CNEL. Noise Levels along Pacific Coast Highway, Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard are substantial, exceeding 70 CNEL along the edge of the roadway. CNEL Distance To CNEL Contourr (feet) Roadway Segment @ 100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Superior Avenue north of 17th St. 58.2 RW 35 75 south of 17th St. 63.9 39 84 182 north of 16th St.\Industrial Way 63.2 35 75 163 south of 16th St.\Industrial Way 63.2 35 76 163 north of Placentia Ave. 62.4 31 67 145 north of West Coast Hwy. 64.5 43 92 198 Balboa Boulevard south of West Coast Hwy. 60.1 RW 47 101 Hoag Drive south of Hospital Rd. 53.0 RW RW 34 north of West Coast Hwy. 51.8 RW RW RW Newport Boulevard south of Hospital Rd. 68.9 84 181 390 north of Via Lido 65.6 51 109 235 south of Via Lido 64.4 42 91 196 Riverside Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 58.3 RW 36 77 Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 49.3 RW RW RW Bay Shore Drive south of West Coast Hwy. 52.3 RW RW 31 Bayside Drive north of East Coast Hwy. 48.6 RW RW RW RW — Noise contour falls within roadway right-of-way t— From roadway centerline. Table 5 shows that noise levels along 161h Street, Industrial Way, Orange Street, Prospect Street, Hoag Drive, Tustin Avenue, Bayshore Drive and Bayside Drive are minor. The 65 CNEL contour does not extend beyond the right -of -way along these roads. Traffic noise levels along 17'h Street, Hospital Road, Via Lido, Placentia Avenue, Balboa Boulevard, and Riverside Avenue are moderate. Noise levels directly adjacent to these roadways exceed 65 CNEL but do not substantially exceed 70 CNEL. Noise Levels along Pacific Coast Highway, Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard are substantial, exceeding 70 CNEL along the edge of the roadway. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 27 2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE 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. 2.1 Noise Impact Criteria Off -site impacts from on -site activities, short-term and long -term, are measured against the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance criteria. Noise generated during construction and operation will be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. Noise generated by activities on the Project site associated with operation is also required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. Long -term off -site impacts from traffic noise are measured against two criteria. Both criteria must be met for a significant impact to be identified. First, Project traffic must cause a substantial noise level increase on a roadway segment adjacent to a noise sensitive land use. Second, the resulting Future - With - Project noise level must exceed the criteria level for the noise sensitive land use. In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dB are often identified as substantial, 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. 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 are 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 l dB, and 3 dB appears to be appropriate for most people. An increase of 3 dB is often used as a threshold for a substantial increase. In this case, many residential areas adjacent to roadways in the Project vicinity are projected to have future noise levels approaching the 65 CNEL standard. Therefore, for this Project, a more conservative 1 dB traffic noise level increase due to the Project is considered substantial. If the Project results in more than a I dB increase and the future with Project noise level is in excess of the City's criteria level for the noise sensitive land use the Project will result in a significant noise impact. In this case, the criteria level is 65 CNEL for residential land uses as identified in the Noise Element. Long -term on -site impacts from traffic noise are measured against the noise standards established in the City's Noise Element. The applicable noise standards for this Project include the hospital 65 CNEL outdoor and 45 CNEL interior standards. Long -term cumulative off -site impacts from traffic noise are also measured against two criteria. Both criteria must be met for a significant impact to be identified. First, future traffic noise levels must increase by more than 3 dB compared to existing conditions on a roadway segment adjacent to a noise sensitive land use. Second, the resulting future with Project noise level must exceed the criteria level for the noise sensitive land use. In this case, the criteria level is 65 Mesita Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 28 CNEL for residential land uses. 2.2 Temporary Impacts 2.2.1 On -Site Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. The greatest construction noise levels are typically generated by heavy construction equipment. Worst -case examples of construction equipment noise at 50 feet are presented in Exhibit 9. The peak noise level for most of the equipment that will be used during the construction is 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. At 200 feet, the peak construction noise levels range from 58 to 83 dBA. At 400 feet, the peak noise levels range from 52 to 77 dBA. -Note that these noise levels are based upon worst -case conditions. Typically, noise levels near the site will be less. Noise measurements made by Mestre Greve Associates for other projects show that the noise levels generated by commonly used grading equipment (i.e. loaders, graders and trucks) generate noise levels that typically do not exceed the middle of the range shown in Exhibit 9. The proposed project just modifies the allowable development at the hospital and does not propose any specific construction project. Therefore, a specific analysis of noise levels generated by any construction that would be enabled by approval of this Project cannot be performed. Construction occurring within 500 feet of residential areas has the potential to exceed the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance noise level limits. However, the Noise Ordinance exempts construction activities from the noise level limits during specific hours of the day. Noise generating construction activities are permitted during the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and at no time on Sundays or federal holidays. Construction activities are not proposed outside of these hours. Therefore, construction will not result in a significant short -term noise impact. A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) At 50 Feet Fm dnminnf fsn 711 An on inn lin Compactor Roller Ou 70 LEGEND Noise Level Range Typical Poise Level IE IIE MOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . .. . ....... .. E Sources: "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Harris, 1979 'Transit Noise and Vibration impact Assessment" by Federal Transit Administration, 1995 WIN 91 Mestre Greve Associsies _-L—CONSIMCIlon Equipment Noise Levels I Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 30 2.3 Long Term Off -Site Impacts This section examines noise impacts from the Project on the surrounding land uses. First, potential traffic noise impacts due to the Project are examined. Changes in traffic noise levels caused by changes in traffic volumes resulting from implementation of the Project are examined. The results of this analysis are presented in Section 2.3.1. Next, potential traffic noise impacts resulting from the Project Alternative are examined in the same manner. The results of this analysis are presented in Section 2.3.2. Section 2.3.3 compares traffic noise levels with the Project to conditions with the Project Alternative. Section 2.3.4 examines cumulative traffic noise impacts. Potential impacts from noise generated on the Project site affecting nearby uses is discussed in Section 2.3.5. Noise impacts resulting from the proposed changes in the Development Agreement and PC Text are discussed in Section 2.3.6. 2.3.1 Traffic Noise Impacts Due to Project Impacts from increases in traffic noise levels due to the Project are estimated using the traffic projections presented in the traffic study prepared for the Project. By comparing the traffic volumes for different scenarios, the changes in noise levels along roadways in the vicinity of the Project can be estimated. To estimate noise level changes due to the Project, the With - Project traffic volume is compared to the Without - Project traffic volume. To estimate cumulative traffic noise level changes, the With- Project traffic volume is compared to the Existing traffic volume. Traffic volumes used to calculate the noise level changes were taken from the traffic study prepared for the Project by Linscott, Law & Greenspan engineers. The results of this analysis are presented below. Traffic noise CNEL changes with the Project are presented in Table 6. Traffic noise level changes are assessed for two scenarios: 2015 With Project, and 2025 With Project. Projected changes in traffic noise levels over existing conditions are presented along with the changes resulting from the implementation of the Project for each of the two analysis years. The change over existing conditions is how much the traffic noise CNEL levels are projected to change over current conditions due to the Project as well as other factors that will affect traffic volumes. This change is used to assess cumulative impacts discussed in Section 2.3.4. The change due to the Project is how much the future traffic noise levels are projected to change with the Project compared to the future conditions without the Project. Note that future conditions without the Project assume build out of the approved 1,343,238 square feet of the Hoag Master Plan without any reallocation of the square footage proposed by the Project. To focus on those roads that the Project affects, only those roadway segments with noise level changes due to the Project of 0.5 dB or greater (under any scenario analyzed) are presented in Table 6. Noise level increases along all roadways analyzed are presented in Table A -6 in the appendix. Traffic noise level increases due to the Project of 1 dB or more, and over existing conditions of 3 dB or more, are shown in bold - italics. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 31 Table 6 Traffic Noise CNEL Changes With Project (dB) Change in 2015 Change In 2025 Over Due to Over Due to Roadway Segment Existing Project Existing Project 17th Street west of Superior Ave. 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.0 east of Superior Ave. 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 16th Street . west of Superior Ave. 0.7 0.6 i 0.2 0.0 Industrial Way east of Superior Ave. 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.0 Hospital Road east of Superior Ave. 0.1 0.8 1.7 0.0 west of Hoag Dr. -0.3 0.6 1.3 0.0 east of Hoag Dr. i -1.0 -0.6 -0.1 0.3 west of Newport Blvd. -1.3 -0.8 -0.2 0.3 Pacific Coast Highway west of Orange St. 0.4 -0.5 0.5 0.0 east of Orange St. 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 east of Hoag Dr. 1.6 0.8 2.0 -0.5 west of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 1.6 1.0 2.1 -0.3 west of Riverside Ave. -0.2 -0.7 0.4 -0,1 east of Riverside Ave. 0.0 -0.5 I 0.6 -0.1 Via Lido east of Newport Blvd. 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.0 Orange Street south of West Coast Hwy. -0.9 -2.4 -1.4 0.0 Prospect Street north of West Coast Hwy. -2.3 -1.3 -0.9 0.0 south of West Coast Hwy. 0.5 -1.3 1.3 0.0 Placentia Avenue north of Hospital Rd. 0.7 0.8 1.8 0.0 Superior Avenue north of 17th St. 0.7 0.8 1.9 0.0 south of 17th St. 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.0 north of 16th SI.\Induslrial Way 0.7 0.7 0.9 0,0 south of 16th SIAInduslrial Way 0.7 0.7 I 0.8 0.0 north of Placentia Ave. 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 north of West Coast Hwy. -0.6 -1.1 -2.2 0,0 Balboa Boulevard south of West Coast Hwy. 0.0 1.1 -0.5 0.0 Hoag Drive south of Hospital Rd. 4.2 3.8 5.8 0.5 north of West Coast Hwy. 0.9 2.2 3.0 1.5 Table continued on next page Mestre Greve Associates Table 6 (Continued) Traffic Noise CNEL Changes With Project (dB) Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 32 Roadway Segment Change in 2015 Over Due to Existing Project Change in 2025 Over Due to Existing Project Newport Boulevard @ 100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL south of Hospital Rd. 1 -0.7 -0.7 0.1 -0.1 north of Via Lido -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 south of Via Lido -1.2 -0.7 -0.3 0.0 Riverside Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. -1.2 -1.0 -0.2 0.0 Tustin Avenue j north of West Coast Hwy. 3.4 1.6 j 3.5 0.0 Bay Shore Drive south of West Coast Hwy. -2.0 -2.1 -5.9 0.0 Bayside Drive 58.1 RW 35 75 north of East Coast Hwy. 4.8 1.0 5.6 0.0 The distances to the future 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours with the Project are presented in Table 7. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. The CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline is also presented. These are worst -case noise levels, in that the highest traffic volume projected for the scenarios presented in Table 6 were used to estimate the future noise level. The contours do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. The traffic data used to calculate these noise levels is presented in the appendix. Table 7 presents the contours along the same roadway segments presented in Table 7. Table A -7 in the appendix presents traffic noise levels with the Project for all roadways analyzed. Table 7 Future Traffic Noise t From' centerline. RW - Contour falls within right -of -way Table continued on next page. CNEL Distance To CNEL Contourt (feet) Roadway Segment @ 100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 17th Street west of Superior Ave. 61.9 RW 62 135 east of Superior Ave. 64.4 42 91 196 16th Street west of Superior Ave. 56.3 RW RW 57 Industrial Way east of Superior Ave. 55.4 RW RW 49 Hospital Road east of Superior Ave. 58.9 RW 39 85 west of Hoag Dr. 58.1 RW 35 75 east of Hoag Dr. 59.9 RW 46 98 west of Newport Blvd. 59.9 RW 46 98 t From' centerline. RW - Contour falls within right -of -way Table continued on next page. Mestre Greve Associates Table 7 (Continued) Future Traffic Noise Levels With Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 33 i From centerline. Rw— Contour falls within right -of -way CNEL Distance To CNEL Contourt (feet) Roadway Segment @ 100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Pacific Coast Highway west of Orange St. 69.0 86 186 400 east of Orange St. 69.0 86 186 400 cast of Hoag Dr. 65.9 53 114 247 west of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 66.2 55 119 257 west of Riverside Ave. 67.1 64 137 295 east of Riverside Ave. 66.6 59 128 275 Via Lido east of Newport Blvd. 59.3 RW 41 89 Orange Street south of West Coast Hwy. 47.0 RW RW RW Prospect Street north of West Coast Hwy. 49.4 RW RW RW south of West Coast Hwy. 46.2 RW RW RW Placentia Avenue north of Hospital Rd. 63.1 34 74 160 Superior Avenue north of 17th St. 60.0 RW 47 101 south of 17th St. 64.6 44 94 202 north of 16th St.\Industrial Way 64.1 40 86 186 south of 16th St.\Industrial Way 64.0 40 86 185 north of Placentia Ave. 64.0 40 86 185 north of West Coast Hwy. 63.8 39 83 179 Balboa Boulevard south of West Coast Hwy. 60.0 RW 47 101 Hoag Drive south of Hospital Rd. 58.7 RW 38 82 north of West Coast Hwy. 54.9 RW RW 46 Newport Boulevard south of Hospital Rd. 68.9 85 183 395 north of Via Lido 65.2 48 103 222 south of Via Lido 64.1 41 88 189 Riverside Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 58.1 RW 35 75 Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 52.9 RW RW 34 Bay Shore Drive south of West Coast Hwy. 50.3 RW RW RW Bayside Drive north of East Coast Hwy. 54.2 RW RW 41 i From centerline. Rw— Contour falls within right -of -way Mastro Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 34 Table 6 shows that the Project is projected to increase noise levels by 1 dB or more along five roadway segments; (1) Pacific Coast Highway West of Newport Boulevard Southbound Off - Ramp, (2) Via Lido east of Newport Boulevard, (3) Hoag Drive, south of Hospital Road, (4) Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Highway, and (5) Bayside Drive north of East Coast Highway. Conditions along each of these road segments were assessed to determine if the City's noise standards would be exceeded at any sensitive receptors are discussed below. Pacific Coast Highway west of Newport Boulevard Southbound Off-Ramp. The Project site is located north of this road segment. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is projected to extend 119 feet from the centerline. There are homes located on the south side of this road segment approximately 120 from the centerline and there is a 10 foot high block wall. This block wall provides approximately 9 dB of noise reduction. Therefore, traffic noise levels at the homes will not exceed the City's 65 CNEL outdoor noise standard. Therefore, the Project's traffic will not result in a significant noise impact along this road segment. Via Lido east of Newport Boulevard. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is projected to extend 41 feet from the centerline. There are only commercial uses along this road segment and, based on their distance from the centerline, all buildings along this segment would be expected to provide adequate outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction so that interior noise levels due to traffic on this road segment will not exceed the applicable standards. Therefore, the Project's traffic will not result in a significant noise impact along this road segment. Hoag Drive south of Hospital Road. This road segment is located within the Project itself. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is only projected to extend 38 feet from the centerline of the road. There are no noise sensitive outdoor areas located within this distance of the centerline and, based on their distance from the centerline, all buildings along this segment would be expected to provide adequate outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction so that interior noise levels due to traffic on this road segment will not exceed the applicable standards. Therefore, the Project's traffic will not result in a significant noise impact along this road segment. Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Highway. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is not projected to extend beyond the right -of -way. There are only commercial uses along Tustin Avenue just north of West Cost Highway with homes located along Tustin Avenue approximately 350 feet north of West Coast Highway. These residences front Tustin Avenue. Because the 65 CNEL contour is not projected to extend beyond the right -of -way no exceedances of the applicable noise standards is expected. Therefore, the Project's traffic will not result in a significant noise impact along this road segment. Bayside Drive north of West Coast Highway. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is not projected to extend beyond the right -of -way. There are mobile home residences located along both sides of this segment of Bayside Drive. These residences are set back approximately 40 feet from the roadway centerline. Because the 65 CNEL contour is not projected to extend beyond the right -of -way no exceedances of the applicable noise standards is expected. Therefore, the Project's traffic will not result in a significant noise impact along this road segment. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 35 Table 6 shows that noise levels along four roadway segments are projected to increase by 3 dB or more over existing conditions. Potentially, there are cumulative traffic noise impacts along these road segments. Cumulative traffic noise impacts are discussed in Section 2.3.4. 2.3.2 Traffic Noise Impacts With Project Alternative Potential traffic noise impacts with the development of the Project Alternative are examined below. Table 8 presents the traffic noise level changes projected with the Project Alternative in the same format as Table 6, which presented the traffic noise level increases with the Project. As with Table 6, to focus on those roads that the Project Alternative affects, only those roadway segments with noise level changes due to the Project Alternative greater than 0.5 dB (under any scenario analyzed) are presented in Table 8. Noise level changes along all roadways analyzed are presented in Table A -8 in the appendix. Traffic noise level increases due to the Project Alternative of l dB or more, and over existing conditions of 3 dB or more, are shown in bold - italics. Table 8 Traffic Noise CNEL Changes With Project Alternative (dB) Roadway Segment Change In 2015 ( Due to Over Project Existing Alternative, Change In 2025 Due to Over Project Existing Alternative 17th Street west of Superior Ave. 0.6 0.6 I. I -0.1 east of Superior Ave. 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 16th Street west of Superior Ave. 0.6 0.6 0.2 -0.1 Industrial Way east of Superior Ave. 0.6 0.6 0.7 -0.1 Hospital Road east of Superior Ave. 0. l 0.7 i 1.7 0.0 west of Hoag Dr. -0.3 0.5 1.3 0.0 east of Hoag Dr. 1.0 0.6 -0.1 0.3 west of Newport Blvd. 1.3 0.8 , 0.2 0.3 Pacific Coast Highway west of Orange St. i 0.4 -0.5 0.5 0.0 east of Orange St. 0.3 -0.5 0.5 0.0 east of Hoag Dr. 1.8 1.1 2.4 -0.2 west of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 1.6 1.0 2.2 -0.2 west of Riverside Ave. -0.2 -0.7 I 0.5 0.0 east of Riverside Ave. 0.1 -0.4 0.7 0.0 Via Lido east of Newport Blvd. 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.0 Orange Street south of West Coast Hwy. I -0.9 -2.4 -1.4 0.0 Prospect Street north of West Coast Hwy. 2.3 -1.3 -0.9 0.0 south of West Coast Hwy. 0.5 1.3 1.3 0.0 Table continued on next page Mestre Greve Associates Table 8 (Continued) Traffic Noise CNEL Changes With Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 36 Change in 2015 Change In 2025 Due to Due to Over Project Over Project Roadwav Seament Existing Alternative Exlstino Alternative Placentia Avenue north of Hospital Rd. 0.7 0.8 1.8 0.0 Superior Avenue north of 17th St. 0.7 0.7 1.9 0.0 south of 17th St. 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.0 north of 16th St.\Industrial Way 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.0 south of 16th St.\Industrial Way 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.0 north of Placentia Ave. 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 north of West Coast Hwy. -0.7 -1.2 -2.2 0.0 Balboa Boulevard south of West Coast Hwy. 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 Hoag Drive south of Hospital Rd. 4.0 3.5 5.8 0.5 north of West Coast Hwy. 0.7 -2.3 3.6 -1.0 Newport Boulevard south of Hospital Rd. 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 north of Via Lido -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 south of Via Lido -1.2 -0.7 -0.3 0.0 Riverside Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 1.2 1.0 0.2 0.0 Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 3.4 1.6 3.5 0.0 Bay Shore Drive south of West Coast Hwy. i -10 -2.1 -5.9 0.0 Bayside Drive i north of East Coast Hwy. 4.8 1.0 5.6 0.0 The distances to the future 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours with the Project Alternative are presented in Table 9. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. The CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline is also presented. These are worst -case noise levels, in that the highest traffic volume projected for the scenarios presented in Table 8 were used to estimate the future noise level. The contours do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. The traffic data used to calculate these noise levels is presented in the appendix. Table 9 presents the contours along the same roadway segments presented in Table 8. Table A -9 in the appendix presents traffic noise levels with the Project for all roadways analyzed. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 37 Table 9 Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project Alternative CNEL Distance To CNEL Contourt (feet) Roadway Segment @ 1 00' t 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 17th Street west of Superior Ave. 61.9 RW 62 134 east of Superior Ave. 64.4 42 91 195 16th Street west of Superior Ave. 56.3 RW RW 56 Industrial Way east of Superior Ave. 55.4 RW RW 49 Hospital Road east of Superior Ave. 58.9 RW 39 85 west of Hoag Dr. 58.1 RW 35 75 east of Hoag Dr. 59.9 RW 46 98 west of Newport Blvd. 59.9 RW 46 98 Pacific Coast Highway west of Orange St. 69.0 86 186 400 east of Orange St. 69.0 86 186 400 east of Hoag Dr. 66.2 56 121 261 west of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 66.2 56 121 261 west of Riverside Ave. 67.1 64 139 299 east of Riverside Ave. 66.7 60 129 278 Via Lido east of Newport Blvd. 59.3 RW 41 89 Orange Street south of West Coast Hwy. 47.0 RW RW RW Prospect Street north of West Coast Hwy. 49.4 RW RW RW south of West Coast Hwy. 46.2 RW RW RW Placentia Avenue north of Hospital Rd. 63.1 34 74 160 Superior Avenue north of 17th St. 60.0 RW 47 100 south of 17th St. 64.6 43 93 201 north of 16th StAIndustrial Way 64.0 40 86 186 south of 16th S[.\Industrial Way 64.0 40 86 185 north of Placentia Ave. 64.0 40 85 184 north of West Coast Hwy. 63.8 38 83 178 Balboa Boulevard south of West Coast Hwy. 60.1 RW 47 101 Hoag Drive south of Hospital Rd. 58.7 RW 38 82 north of West Coast Hwy. 55.5 RW RW 50 t From centerline. RW — Contour falls within right -of -way Table continued on next page. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 36 Table 9 (Continued) Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project Alternative CNEL Distance To CNEL Contourt (feet) Roadway Segment (9100't 70 CHEL 65 CNEL 60 CHEL Newport Boulevard south of Hospital Rd. 68.9 85 183 395 north of Via Lido 65.2 48 103 222 south of Via Lido 64.1 41 88 189 Riverside Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 58.1 RW 35 75 Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 52.9 RW RW 34 Bay Shore Drive south of West Coast Hwy. 50.3 RW RW RW Bayside Drive north of East Coast Hwy. 54.2 RW RW 41 t From centerline. RW -- Contour falls within right -of -way. Table 8 shows that the Project Alternative is projected to increase noise levels by 1 dB or more along six roadway segments; (1) Pacific Coast Highway West of Newport Boulevard Southbound Off -Ramp, (2) Pacific Coast Highway east of Hoag Drive (3) Via Lido east of Newport Boulevard, (4) Hoag Drive, south of Hospital Road, (5) Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Highway, and (6) Bayside Drive north of East Coast Highway. Conditions along each of these road segments were assessed to determine if the City's noise standards would be exceeded at any sensitive receptors are discussed below. Pacific Coast Highway East of Hoag Drive. The Project Alternative site is located north of this road segment. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is projected to extend 121 feet from the centerline. There are homes located on the south side of this road segment approximately 120 from the centerline and there is a 10 -foot high block wall. This block wall provides approximately 9 dB of noise reduction. Therefore, traffic noise levels at the homes will not exceed the City's 65 CNEL outdoor noise standard. There are commercial uses located to the north and south of the road segment and, based on their distance from the centerline, all commercial buildings along this segment would be expected to provide adequate outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction so that interior noise levels due to traffic on this road segment will not exceed the applicable standards. Therefore, the Project Alternative's traffic will not result in a significant noise impact along this road segment. Pacific Coast Highway west of Newport Boulevard Southbound Off -Ramp. The Project Alternative site is located north of this road segment. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is projected to extend 121 feet from the centerline. There are homes located on the south side of this road segment approximately 120 from the centerline and there is a 10- foot high block wall. This block wall provides approximately 9 dB of noise reduction. Therefore, traffic noise levels at the homes will not exceed the City's 65 CNEL outdoor noise standard. There are commercial uses located to the north of the road segment and, based on their distance from the centerline, all commercial buildings along this segment would be expected to provide adequate outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction so that interior noise levels due to traffic on Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 39 this road segment will not exceed the applicable standards. Therefore, the Project Alternative's traffic will not result in a significant noise impact along this road segment. Via Lido east of Newport Boulevard. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is projected to extend 41 feet from the centerline. There are only commercial uses along this road segment and, based on their distance from the centerline, all buildings along this segment would be expected to provide adequate outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction so that interior noise levels due to traffic on this road segment will not exceed the applicable standards. Therefore, the Project Alternative's traffic will not result in a significant noise impact along this road segment. Hoag Drive south of Hospital Road. This road segment is located within the Project Alternative area itself. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is only projected to extend 38 feet from the centerline of the road. There are no noise sensitive outdoor areas located within this distance of the centerline and, based on their distance from the centerline, all buildings along this segment would be expected to provide adequate outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction so that interior noise levels due to traffic on this road segment will not exceed the applicable standards. Therefore, the Project Alternative's traffic will not result in a significant noise impact along this road segment. Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Highway. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is not projected to extend beyond the right -of -way. There are only commercial uses along Tustin Avenue just north of West Cost Highway with homes located along Tustin Avenue approximately 350 feet north of West Coast Highway. These residences front Tustin Avenue. Because the 65 CNEL contour is not projected to extend beyond the right -of -way no exceedances of the applicable noise standards is expected. Therefore, the Project Alternative's traffic will not result in a significant noise impact along this road segment Bayside Drive north of West Coast Highway. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is not projected to extend beyond the right -of -way. There are mobile home residences located along both sides of this segment of Bayside Drive. These residences are set back approximately 40 feet from the roadway centerline. Because the 65 CNEL contour is not projected to extend beyond the right -of -way no exceedances of the applicable noise standards is expected. Therefore, the Project Alternative's traffic will not result in a significant noise impact along this road segment. Table 8 shows that noise levels along four roadway segments are projected to increase by more than 3 dB over existing conditions. Potentially, there are cumulative traffic noise impacts along these road segments. Cumulative traffic noise impacts are discussed in Section 2.3.4. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 40 2.3.3 Traffic Noise Level Changes with Project vs. Alternative Table 10 presents the difference in changes in traffic noise CNEL levels under conditions with the proposed Project versus with the Project Alternative. A positive number indicates that the Project Alternative would result in a higher noise level by the amount shown than the conditions with the Project. A negative number indicates that the Project would result in a higher noise level by the amount shown than conditions with the Project Alternative. Data is only presented for roadway segments with projected noise level difference between the Project and Project Alternative of 0.1 dB or more. Traffic noise level differences between the two scenarios will be less than 0.1 dB along all other roadway segments. Table A -10 presents the difference in changes in traffic noise levels between the Project and the Project Alternative for all roadway segments analyzed. Table 10 Traffic Noise CNEL Changes with Project vs. Project Alternative (dB) Roadway Segment 2015 2025 19th Street west of Newport Ave. 0.1 0.1 Hospital Road east of Superior Ave. -0.1 0.0 west of Hoag Dr. -0.1 0.0 east of Newport Blvd. -0.1 0.0 Pacific Coast Highway east of Balboa BlvdASuperior Ave. 0.1 0.1 west of Hoag Dr. -0.2 -0.2 east of Hoag Dr. 0.2 0.4 west of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 0.0 0.1 west of Riverside Ave. 0.0 0.1 east of Riverside Ave. 0.1 0.1 west of Bay Shore Dr.\Dover Dr. 0.1 0.1 east of Bay Shore Dr.\Dover Dr. 0.0 0.1 west of Bayside Dr. 0.0 0.1 west of Marine Dr.Uamboree Rd. 0.1 0.1 Placentia Avenue north of Superior Ave. -0.1 0.0 south of Superior Ave. -0.1 0.0 Hoag Drive south of Hospital Rd. -0.2 0.0 north of West Coast Hwy. -0.2 0.6 Table 10 shows that, in general, there is little difference in the projected traffic noise levels with the Project or with the Project Alternative. The greatest differences occur along Hoag Drive. This is primarily due to the low level of traffic on Hoag Drive. Table 7 and Table 9 show that traffic noise levels along Hoag Drive will be less than 65 CNEL and will just exceed 60 CNEL. The greatest difference in noise levels along Hoag Drive would be 0.6 dB under 2025 conditions. This is an imperceptible difference. Traffic noise CNEL differences along all other roadway segments would 0.4 dB or less with the Project compared to the Project Alternative. This Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 41 difference is imperceptible. 2.3.4 Cumulative Traffic Noise Impacts Cumulative traffic noise impacts are measured based on projected noise level increases over existing conditions. These increases were presented previously in Table 6 for the Project and Table 8 for the Project Alternative. Table 6 and Table 8 show traffic noise levels are projected to increase by 3 dB or more over existing conditions along the same four roadway segments under either condition. These segments are (1) Hoag Drive south of Hospital Road, (2) Hoag Drive north of West Coast Highway, (3) Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Highway, and (4) Bayside Drive north of East Coast Highway. The Project and Project Alternative are projected to cause an increase of 1 dB or greater along all of these segments except Hoag Drive north of West Coast Highway. The analysis presented in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 concluded that the City's Noise Standards would not be exceeded along these three segments and therefore, neither the Project nor the Project Alternative would result in a significant impact. Because the noise standards will not be exceeded, there will also not be a significant cumulative impact along these three road segments. Conditions along the remaining road segments were assessed to determine if the City's noise standards would be exceeded at any sensitive receptors are discussed below. Hoag Drive north of West Coast Highway. This road segment is located within the Project itself. The future 65 CNEL noise contour along this road segment is not projected to extend beyond the roadway right -of -way. There are no noise sensitive outdoor areas located within this distance of the centerline and all buildings along this segment provide adequate outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction so that interior noise levels due to traffic on this road segment will not exceed the applicable standards. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative noise impacts along this road segment. Therefore, no sensitive uses are projected to be exposed to traffic noise levels in excess of the City's Standards and cumulative traffic noise level increases of 3dB or greater for either conditions with the Project or Project Alternative. Therefore, there are no cumulative traffic noise impacts due to the Project or Project Alternative. 2.3 5 Noise Impacts from On -Site Activities As discussed previously, the proposed Project only changes and reallocates the levels of development allowed for the Hoag Hospital site. No specific projects are proposed. Therefore, a detailed analysis of impacts from on -site activities associated with the proposed Project cannot be performed. Four existing noise sources of noise from activities on the Hospital Site that are causing current noise issues were discussed in Section 1.4. These sources include grease pit cleaning, loading dock activities, mechanical equipment, and the cogeneration plant. As discussed in Section 1.4.1, 1.4.2, and 1.4.3, grease pit cleaning, loading dock activities, and mechanical equipment generate levels that exceed the basic Noise Ordinance Standards presented in Table 1. However, as discussed in these sections, the Noise Ordinance Standards from Table 1 are not necessarily applicable to the sources. Noise from these sources, the potential for the Project to change these noise levels, and potential measures to reduce the noise are discussed below for each source. As discussed in Section 1.4.4 noise generated by the cogeneration facility currently does not generate noise in excess of the Noise Ordinance. However, equipment may be added in the future. Additional noise measurements will be warranted when the facility is in full operation to insure that it remains within the limits of the Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 42 Noise Ordinance. The cogeneration facility is completely permitted at this time. The City will have the right to require noise mitigation of the facility only if the cogeneration facility is shown to not be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Grease Pit Cleaning As discussed in Section 1.4.1, grease pit cleaning is considered a property maintenance activity which is exempted from the Noise Ordinance Standards presented in Table 1 as long as it occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and at no time on Sundays or national holidays. However, the Grease Pit Cleaning generates very high levels of noise during the time the activity is being conducted. Noise levels at the nearest residences were approximately 77 dBA for over an hour. This is 17 dB higher, perceptually almost four times as loud as the City's 60 dBA Leq Noise Ordinance limit for residential uses located within 100 feet of a commercial use. Interior noise levels would be approximately 20 dB lower than outdoor levels or approximately 57 dBA. This is 12 dB greater, perceptually more than twice as loud, as the interior Noise Ordinance standard. The Project would add up to 76 beds, a 19% increase, and add up to 225,000 square feet, a 30% increase, of allowable development to the Upper Campus. These increases could result in an increase in the utilization of the cafeteria facilities due to the increased beds and facilities on the upper campus would be expected to utilize the cafeteria at higher rates than facilities on the lower campus. The increased cafeteria usage results in a corresponding increase in grease being trapped within the grease pit. This would result in more frequent cleaning of the grease pit being required. The grease pit cleaning already generates high levels of noise and the Project could increase the frequency of cleanings. However, it is exempt from the Noise Ordinance and the Noise Ordinance represents the threshold criteria for this activity. Therefore, a significant impact due to grease pit cleaning is not projected. Mechanical Equipment Completion of build out of the Hospital may require additional HVAC equipment, which could include roof top mounted equipment. At the time of the previous EIR, the City of Newport Beach had not adopted a Noise Ordinance with specific noise level limits. Using the County of Orange Noise Ordinance as guidance, the 1991 EIR set a noise level limit for mechanical equipment of 55 dBA. The analysis presented in Section 1.4.3 shows that this limit is being exceeded for the existing mechanical equipment. The current noise level at the residents has been measured at 58 dBA and this exceeds the current PC text limits by 3 dBA. The current noise is due both to rooftop equipment mounted on the Ancillary Building and to HVAC equipment located on the third floor of the West Tower. This condition should be corrected prior to issuance of any additional building permits for projects on the Upper Campus. This is discussed in Section 3.2.2. New mechanical equipment will need to comply with the PC Text. The current PC Text requires that HVAC equipment cannot generate a noise level in excess of 55 dBA. In fact, Hoag Hospital has initiated plans to revamp the HVAC system for the Ancillary Building. Paulo Fundament of Fundament and Associates outlined the new plans in his narrative entitled "Strategies for Mitigation of Noise Generating Mechanical Ventilation Equipment," (dated February 6, 2007). The following is a discussion of the proposed changes and possible measures to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 43 Currently the kitchen exhaust fans come through a "doghouse" in the center of the roof of the Ancillary Building. These fans currently are the prime noise generators on the Ancillary Building. According to Fundament, these fans will be replaced with new ducting and new fans. The new fans would operate at a lower speed and be selected for their low noise generation. Since the new fans have not been selected, it is not possible to calculate the resulting noise levels at the nearby residences. However, the new fans will operate at a much slower speed and will have an aerodynamic fan blade. It is very possible that the new fans by themselves will result in noise levels that will comply with the noise ordinance. It should be noted that kitchen exhaust fans might be difficult to mitigate if additional mitigation is necessary. Sound traps are commonly used to reduce the noise coming through the exhaust outlet. However, due to the grease loading of kitchen fans, sound traps are not viable. Other options may need to he considered including orienting all of the kitchen exhausts away from the residential area, and beefing up substantially the construction of the doghouse on the sides of the doghouse facing the residential area. In fact, according to Fundament the doghouse will likely be replaced with a 10 foot high sound wall. In summary, the new kitchen exhaust fans will probably result in a significant improvement in the noise levels. In order to insure that a significant noise reduction is achieved, a noise study should be required to show that the new fans, in combination with the other mechanical equipment, will meet the proposed PC text requirements. Mitigation options appear to be available, if needed, that would insure that the new fans could comply with these requirements. In addition to the new kitchen exhaust fans, twenty -two (22) new exhaust fans would be located on the roof of the Ancillary Building (Fundament, 2006). These will be small fans that will be scattered across the roof. These fans have been selected for quiet operation. Additionally, a 7 foot architectural screen wall is planned to be added to the west and portions of the north and south edges of the Ancillary Building. This screen wall is solid and will act as an effective noise barrier for the small exhaust fans that are located along the western portion of the building. According to Cary Brooks of Hoag Hospital, a gap of a few inches may be needed along the bottom of the parapet wall for drainage, but will be fitted with a skirt to cover the gap as viewed from the residential area. Since the specific fans that are going to be used are known, we were able to calculate the noise levels at the nearby residential area. A noise level at the upper floor of the nearest residence was calculated including the effect of the 7 foot screen wall. The projected noise level for the site is 42.1 dBA and is well below the current PC Text criteria of 55 dBA at the property line (and is below the 50 dBA nighttime limit in the noise ordinance). Even when the other fans in the area are added in, these new fans will not add significantly to the total noise level. In summary, the addition of the 22 fans on the Ancillary Building, in combination with the construction of the 7 foot screen wall, will not generate significant noise levels and will not exceed the current or proposed PC Text limitations. The air handlers on the third floor of the west face of the West Tower would also need to be reduced by 3 dBA to comply with the current PC Text. There are large air handler units in this floor of the West Tower that exhaust or intake air for the building. Six fans (i.e., EF -8, FC -4, SF -1, EF -12, EF -9, and EF -10) were identified in the West Patient Tower. Fundament confirms Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 44 that acoustic louvers will be used to mitigate four of the fans (i.e., EF -8, EF -9, EF -10, and SF -1). Fundament confirmed that FC -4 will remain and concurs that acoustic louvers could be used to mitigate this noise also. In fact, due to the open nature of this floor, acoustic louvers will be used all around the perimeter of this floor. EF -12 protrudes through the side of building, and is one of the louder fans. It is possible to fit a sound trap on EF -12, and not have the ducting protrude through the side of the building. Acoustic louvers are being planned around the outside perimeter of this floor as shown in Exhibit 10. Industrial Acoustics Noishield Louver Model R or equivalent will be used to attain the necessary noise reduction. It appears that Hoag Hospital has feasible options to control the mechanical equipment noise located in the West Patient Tower. The air handlers could be controlled with the use of appropriately rated acoustic louvers. Exhaust fan EF -12 needs to incorporate a sound trap and the exhaust duct needs to be shortened so that it would not extend past the acoustic louvers. These measures are projected to bring the mechanical equipment noise into compliance with the current PC Text. As discussed previously, the proposed Project only changes and reallocates the levels of development allowed for the Hoag Hospital site. No specific projects are proposed. Because of this, it is not known what new HVAC equipment, if any, may be required and an analysis of the potential noise impacts from this equipment is precluded. With proper equipment selection, location, and potentially incorporation of noise reduction features, there is no reason to believe that new HVAC equipment cannot meet the noise level standards discussed above. However, without proper planning it is possible that new HVAC equipment could generate noise levels in excess of the levels set forth in the proposed PC Text and result in a significant noise impact. Section 3.2.2 presents a mitigation measure to ensure that these standards are met. ■ Exhibit 10 Mestre Grove ftsneiates Acoustic Louver Locations on West Tower Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 46 Loading Dock Activity Existing noise levels generated by loading dock activities were presented in Section 1.4.2. The analysis shows that the noise generated by loading dock activities result in noise levels that exceed the Noise Ordinance limits on a regular basis. The completion of build out at the Hospital would likely result an increase in activity at the loading dock. By increasing the development at the Upper Campus, the Project could result in an additional increase in activity at the loading dock. However, it would not be expected to increase substantially over that which would have been otherwise occurred with the already approved build out of the Master Plan. The primary source of noise at the dock is from delivery trucks. While more delivery truck visits to the loading dock could occur with the completion of build out at the Hospital, it is likely that increased deliveries would be accommodated through larger loads in a similar number of trucks. An increase in the number of trucks would not be expected to result in an increase in noise levels generated by the loading dock but increase the frequency of high noise levels generated by the truck activity. As discussed in Section 1.4.2, the noise levels near the loading dock do not appear to have changed substantially from what was measured for the 1992 EIR prepared for the Hospital. The Hospital has limited the hours of access to the loading dock and the road that runs along the west side of the Upper Campus. Gates are closed at 8:00 p.m. and open at 7:00 a.m. This limits the loading dock noise to the hours when persons are generally considered less impacted by noise. Because of the topography of the area and the adjacent residential uses being three story condominiums it would not be feasible to construct noise barriers on hospital property that would provide considerable noise reduction for the residents in the vicinity of the loading dock, beyond enclosing the entire loading dock area and road adjacent to the residential uses (which is not considered feasible). A noise barrier is only effective when it breaks the line of site between the noise source and the receiver. It does not appear that noise generated by the loading dock has changed substantially from the noise levels measured in 1991. The Project is not expected to substantially increase loading dock activities or related noise beyond that which would have occurred with the build out of the already approved Master Plan. Therefore, noise levels the loading dock noise due to the proposed project will not result in a significant noise impact. However, it should be noted that the loading dock is currently and will continue to exceed the noise limits contained in the Noise Ordinance; however, the proposed project proposes exemption language to address this issue. Cogeneration Facility The measured noise levels from the cogeneration equipment have been in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, and have ranged from 46.1 dBA to 49.8 dBA at the upper floor of the nearest residence. A fourth cooling tower is being installed at the site. The addition of this cooling tower is expected to increase the cooling tower portion of the noise levels by about 1.2 dB. However, the noise at the nearest residence in not just due to the cooling tower; it is a combination of noise from the generator exhaust stacks and the cooling towers. A series of noise measurements was conducted on August land 2, 2007 to determine the relative contribution of the exhaust stacks and cooling towers at the nearest residence. The noise monitor used to Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 47 measure the noise levels was a Bruel & Kjxr Type 2260 Sound Level Meter (Serial #1772179) with a Bruel & Kja'r Type 4189 1/2" electret condenser microphone (Serial #2143233). The measurement system was calibrated before and after the measurements with a Bruel & KjWr Type 4231 sound level calibrator, with current calibration traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The noise measurements were conducted at several locations and, and for a number of the locations the measurements were made at two microphone heights. Analysis of the data indicates that at the upper floors of the residences of concern, the rooftop exhaust stacks are the major contributor, accounting for roughly 60% of the noise. The cooling towers account for about 40% of the noise. Previous measurements (see Section 1.4.4) at the worst -case residence of concern have ranged between 46.1 dBA to 49.8 dBA. These levels are below the City's Noise Ordinance limit of 50 dBA (nighttime), but are close. The addition of a fourth cooling tower would raise the overall noise level to between 46.7 and 50.4 dBA. The operation of a fourth cooling tower is not part of this project since the cogeneration facility is already permitted and no further approvals from the City are required for this facility to operate. Therefore, the operation of the cogeneration plant becomes a Noise Ordinance compliance issue. That is, the City or their representative would need to take measurements once the fourth cooling tower is in operation and determine if it is in compliance or not. If the facility is not in compliance, then Hoag Hospital would need to correct the situation to maintain complaince with the Noise Ordinance. Additionally, it would become a Development Agreement issue, since the hospital is required to make yearly reports to the City stating whether it is complying with City requirements. Hoag Hospital would have to report the compliance status of the cogeneration facility. Finally, there is the :issue of whether or not the cogeneration facility will remain in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. It is clear that the cogeneration facility is right at the borderline of compliance. If the cogeneration facility is operating at the upper end of the range measured (i.e., 49.8 dBA), then an additional 0.6 dB increase would put it over the Noise Ordinance limits. This presumes that the ambient noise level will drop even lower on occasion than has been observed so far. The Newport Beach Noise Ordinance does not require that noise source levels be lower than the ambient levels caused by traffic, waves, crickets, etc., and so far we have not observed ambient noise levels less than 50 dBA at the residential site. It is probable that even later at night in the 2 a.m. to 5 a.m. period that ambient noise levels drop below 50 dBA. Mitigation is recommended in Section 3.2.2 to address potential future conditions upon build out of the cogeneration facility Finally, it should be noted that whether the cogeneration facility is subject or not to the current PC Text is a matter of dispute. For reasons discussed in Section 1.4.4, it is our opinion that the cogeneration facility is subject to the City's noise ordinance and not subject to the current PC Text. As already discussed in Section 1.4.4, the noise levels are almost 15 dBA higher than would be allowed under the current PC Text since the restrictions in the current PC Text could be applied to the undeveloped parcel of land (not residential) located to the west of the cogeneration facility. The operation of the fourth cooling tower would cause the cogeneration facility to be about 16 dBA higher than would be allowed under the current PC Text. The use of the Noise Ordinance is also more consistent with standard acoustical practice. Standard practice examines locations where sensitive receptors are or would be expected to be located. Clearly the residential buildings fall into this category. The vacant land to the west of the cogeneration Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 48 facility would not be expected to have sensitive receptors late at night, and therefore, standard practice would be to not apply a noise standard to this area. 2.3.6 Changes in the Development Agreement/PC Text As discussed previously, the Project proposes changes to the Development Agreement that would change the noise limits imposed on noise sources located on Hoag Hospital property. The proposed changes have been presented previously in Section 1.1. Table 11 below contrasts the requirements of the current noise limits with those proposed for the four main categories of noise generators at Hoag Hospital. The second column of the table shows the current noise levels of the equipment. The third and fourth columns indicate the current noise limits and whether those limits are currently being met. The fifth and sixth columns show the proposed limit and whether the hospital would meet those limits without further mitigation. Table 11 of Noise Limits Grease Trap 77 Leq Exempt Yes Exempt Yes ...._ ..... Cogeneration Plant 49 Leq 60 Leq Day / Yes 60 Leq Day/ yes (nearest residence) q 50 Leq' 50 Leq Night Notes: 1. Highest of measured values 2. Based on current PC Text 3. Based on Mixed Use Residential standard contained in Noise Ordinance 4. Based on July 2, 2007 measurements at nearest residence The mechanical equipment currently located on the roof of the Ancillary Building and in the West Tower are currently not in compliance with the current noise limit of 55 dBA. The Ancillary Building and West Tower are in the "loading dock area," and therefore, would be subject to the noise limits that apply in that area. The proposed change to the PC Text would increase those limits to 70 dBA (Leq) during the day and 58 dBA (Leq) during the night (measured at the property line adjacent to the loading dock), and the mechanical equipment would be in compliance with the new limits. The proposed requirements would allow the mechanical equipment to operate at a level 15 dBA higher during the day and 8 dBA higher at Compliant With Current Noise Current Limit With Current Proposed Proposed Noise Source Level (dBA)' (dBA) Limit? Limit (dBA) Limit? Mechanical Equipment at West Tower & 58 Leq 55 Leq' No 70 Leq Day/ Yes Ancillary Building - -- 58 Leq Night Loading Dock (delivery vehicles and 68 Leq 60 Leq the loading/unloading 86 Lmax 80 Lmax 3 No Exempt Yes ops.) Loading Dock (non- None 60 Leq 70 Leq Day/ delivery operations) Observed 80 Lmax3 Yes 58 Leq Night Yes Grease Trap 77 Leq Exempt Yes Exempt Yes ...._ ..... Cogeneration Plant 49 Leq 60 Leq Day / Yes 60 Leq Day/ yes (nearest residence) q 50 Leq' 50 Leq Night Notes: 1. Highest of measured values 2. Based on current PC Text 3. Based on Mixed Use Residential standard contained in Noise Ordinance 4. Based on July 2, 2007 measurements at nearest residence The mechanical equipment currently located on the roof of the Ancillary Building and in the West Tower are currently not in compliance with the current noise limit of 55 dBA. The Ancillary Building and West Tower are in the "loading dock area," and therefore, would be subject to the noise limits that apply in that area. The proposed change to the PC Text would increase those limits to 70 dBA (Leq) during the day and 58 dBA (Leq) during the night (measured at the property line adjacent to the loading dock), and the mechanical equipment would be in compliance with the new limits. The proposed requirements would allow the mechanical equipment to operate at a level 15 dBA higher during the day and 8 dBA higher at Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 49 night than currently allowed. No specific projects are proposed at this time that would increase these noise levels, but if future projects were constructed that operated at the levels proposed in the new PC Text it would constitute a significant increase in noise and a significant noise impact due to the fact that the Project would modify the applicable noise limits to allow noise levels over those contained in the Noise Ordinance. Additionally, current equipment would not be required to be reduced to the 55 dBA limit currently in effect. The loading dock currently operates at levels higher than allowed by the Noise Ordinance. The proposed language of the PC text would exempt "delivery vehicles and the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles" within the loading dock area. Other activities in and near the loading dock area, such as the trash compactor, would be subject to the Leq limits of 70 dBA during the day and 58 dBA during the night when measured at the property line. The loading dock exceeds the current Noise Ordinance requirements by about 8 dB. The proposed changes to the PC Text would increase the noise limits to 70 dBA (Leq) for non - delivery operations and the loading dock would be in compliance with that level. (The focus of the discussion is on the daytime limits for the loading dock area since this operation only occurs during the day.) Delivery trucks and loading /unloading operations would be exempt. The proposed change to the PC text for non - delivery operations would increase the acceptable level (Leq) by 10 dB during the daytime, and would eliminate the Lmax requirement. Currently the non- delivery truck noise is relatively minor in this area except for the trash compactor. The noise measurements conducted in this area show that during the nighttime the HVAC equipment at the West Tower and Ancillary Building are the main sources of nighttime noise. The delivery truck noise and loading/unloading operations currently are about 68 dBA (Leq), but would be exempt under the proposed agreement. Since the Project would modify the noise limits in the PC Text and allow noise in the loading dock to occur over the levels contained in the Noise Ordinance, a significant noise increase would be allowed with the proposed Project, and a significant noise impact would occur. The grease trap operation is currently exempt from the Noise Ordinance since it falls under the maintenance of real property exemption. By incorporating the Noise Ordinance, the proposed project would allow for continued exemption of the grease trap cleaning. Since the proposed project would not modify the currently applicable limits, there would be no significant impacts from this particular activitv. The cogeneration facility is currently subject to a nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA (Leq) at the residences and is currently consistent with that limit. (The nighttime limit is the most critical limit because it is the lower limit of the day and night periods, and because the ambient traffic noise level is much higher during the daytime periods.) The proposed project would continue to apply the Noise Ordinance to the cogeneration operations. Since the proposed project would not modify the currently applicable limits, there would be no significant impacts from this particular activity. In summary, for activities and equipment in the loading dock vicinity, the proposed noise limits in the PC Text would result in a relaxation of the noise limits compared with the limits contained in the Noise Ordinance and current PC Text, and if the modified limits were attained by activities at the hospital then a significant impact would occur as noise would be allowed to occur in excess of the Noise Ordinance limits. Mitigation measures discussed below in Section 3.2.2 will Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 50 reduce noise levels generated by the Hospital, but not to a level of insignificance for the areas adjacent to the loading dock given the fact that the allowable limits would be above those contained in the Noise Ordinance. 2.4 Long -Term On -Site Noise Impacts The highest future traffic noise levels impacting the Project site are presented below in Table 12. The noise contours shown in Table 12 do not include any barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels, rather they are intended to identify areas that require a more refined assessment. Table 12 Future Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment @100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Hospital Road West of Hoag Dr. 58.1 RW 35 75 East of Hoag Dr. 59.9 RW 46 98 West of Newport Blvd. 59.9 RW 46 98 Pacific Coast Highway East of Balboa BlvdASuperior Ave. 68.6 80 173 373 West of Hoag Dr. 68.9 84 182 392 East of Hoag Dr. 65.9 53 114 247 West of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 66.2 55 119 257 Superior Avenue North of West Coast Hwy. 63.8 39 83 179 Hoag Drive South of Hospital Rd. 58.7 RW 38 82 North of West Coast Hwy. 54.9 RW RW 46 Newport Boulevard South of Hospital Rd. 68.9 85 183 395 1 From centerline. RW — Contour falls within right -of -way As discussed previously, the proposed Project only changes and reallocates the levels of development allowed for the Hoag Hospital site. No specific projects are proposed. Therefore a detailed analysis of the potential noise impacts on the uses developed under the Project is precluded. Specific uses developed by the Project will be required to comply with the City's General Plan Noise Standards presented previously in Exhibit 5. The standards applicable to the Hospital are the outdoor standard of 65 CNEL, the interior 45 CNEL standard for hospital uses (e.g. patient rooms) and 50 CNEL for office uses. The outdoor standard 65 CNEL standard is only applicable to outdoor patio areas where persons would be expected to congregate for extended periods of time. Any patio areas proposed to be located closer to the roadways than the 65 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 12 would be significantly impacted by traffic noise. Mitigation to eliminate these impacts is discussed in Section 3.3.1. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 51 Typical commercial construction includes mechanical ventilation that allows windows to remain closed. With closed windows, typical construction provides at least 20 dB of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction. Therefore, hospital buildings exposed to noise levels of 65 CNEL or less will experience indoor noise levels of 45 CNEL of less. Hospital buildings proposed to be located closer to roadways than the 65 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 10 could be significantly impacted by traffic noise. Mitigation to eliminate these impacts is discussed in Section 3.3.2. Office buildings exposed to noise levels of 70 CNEL or less will experience indoor noise levels of 50 CNEL or less. Office buildings proposed to be located closer to roadways than the 70 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 12 could be. significantly impacted by traffic noise. Mitigation to eliminate these impacts is discussed in Section 3.3.2. 2.5 Comparison of impacts with 1991 EIR The previous EIR found that the build out of the Master Plan would not result in any significant traffic noise impacts but would contribute to existing noise level exceedances along five road segments; (1) Coast Highway from Superior Avenue to East of Bayside, (2) Balboa Boulevard southeast of Newport Boulevard, (3) Superior Avenue between 15th Street and Placentia, (4) Newport Boulevard between Balboa Boulevard and north of Hospital Road, (5) Dover Drive north of Coast Highway, and result in a significant cumulative impact. The currently proposed Project will not increase noise levels along these roadways by more than 0.1 dB and in many cases results in a slight reduction in projected noise levels for the roadways analyzed in this study. As discussed previously, the 1991 EIR found that an exhaust fan was generating excessive noise levels resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was defined, but it does not appear that this mitigation was applied because there is some mechanical equipment in the same general location as the exhaust fan previously analyzed generating noise levels in excess of the mitigation requirements. Mitigation described in Section 3.2.2 is intended to mitigate this impact and should be fully implemented. Loading dock noise was not identified as a noise issue in the 1991 EIR. However, the noise measurements performed for the exhaust fan analysis were in the general location of the loading dock. As discussed previously, it does not appear that the loading dock is generating considerably more noise now than it was in 1991. Grease traps were not in use at the Hospital in 1991 and have only recently been implemented to comply with water quality regulations. Therefore, noise generated by the grease trap cleaning was not analyzed in the previous EIR. The previous EIR also assessed traffic noise impacts within the Hospital boundaries resulting from buildout of the Master Plan . As specific projects were not defined at that time a specific analysis was not performed but it was concluded that patios and buildings located within the 65 CNEL contours of the roadways could be significantly impacted. Mitigation similar to that described in Section 3.3 of this document, requiring specific acoustical studies for projects as they came forward, was called for in the 1991 EIR. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 52 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 Temporary Impacts 3.1.1 General Construction Noise It is unknown exactly what procedures will be used in the Project's construction. It is anticipated that usual and customary construction methods and procedures will be employed as the area develops. In order to not result in a significant noise impact the construction activity will need to comply with the Noise Ordinance. The City of Newport Beach has adopted a Noise Ordinance that excludes control of construction activities during specific periods of time. Limiting construction to these hours will ensure that the construction of the Project does not result in a significant noise impact. The proposed mitigation measure is: Control of Construction Hours - The City of Newport Beach has adopted a Noise Ordinance that excludes control of construction activities during the hours between 7.00 a.m. and 6:30 12.m. Monday through Friday and between 8700 a.m. and 6700 12.m. on Saturday and at no time on Sundays or national holidays All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to these hours 3.2 Long Term Off -Site Impacts 3.2.1 Traffic Noise The analysis presented in Section 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.3 showed that neither the Project nor the Project Alternative will result in long -term off -site traffic noise impacts when considered alone or cumulatively. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 3.2.2 On -Site Activities The analysis presented in Section 2.3.5 concluded that the loading dock and existing mechanical equipment operation exceed current requirements, and therefore, result in a significant noise impact. Further, future mechanical equipment implemented as a result of the build out of the Hospital could result in a significant noise impact. Mitigation for these impacts is discussed below. However, the proposed changes to the PC Text would allow higher noise levels in excess of the City's Noise Ordinance adjacent to the loading dock area, and this modification to the applicable noise limits would result in a significant impact despite the application of the mitigation measures described below. Mechanical Equipment The analysis presented in Section 1.4.3 showed that existing HVAC equipment exceeds the noise level limit defined in the previous EIR prepared for the Hospital, which is not to exceed 55 dBA. The hospital is currently redesigning the mechanical equipment system for the Ancillary Building and planning to install acoustic louvers around the mechanical equipment in the West Tower. These measures are discussed in detail in Section 2.3.5. In summary, the hospital is planning to use quieter ventilation equipment, a reconstructed doghouse on the roof to house some of the equipment, and a 7 foot screening wall on the Ancillary Building. While final plans are not available, the preliminary analysis indicates that noise levels less than 55 dBA could be Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 53 achieved. In the West Tower, the hospital is planning on installing Industrial Acoustic Noishield Louvers Model R around the mechanical equipment floor and use sound traps where necessary. These measures will reduce the mechanical equipment noise to less than 55 dBA (the level allowed by the current PC Text and a level below the proposed PC Text) in the West Tower. Since plans for the Ancillary Building are not finalized, the following mitigation measure is proposed. The final HVAC plans for the Ancillary Building and West Tower shall be submitted to the City for review. The plans should be reviewed by an Acoustical Engineer to insure that they will achieve the 58 dBA nighttime limit when measured at the property line adjacent to the loading dock. These plans need to be submitted within six months of the certification of the SEIR. If Hoag-Hospital does not go through with the redesign of the HVAC systems for the Ancillary Building and West Tower, the hospital shall submit to the City within six months of the certification of the SEIR a plan detailing how they will bring the current equipment into compliance with the proposed PC Text. The above measure and the planned facilities would mitigate the HVAC equipment noise that is generated by the Hospital at the Ancillary Building and West Tower to a level meeting the revised PC Text level (58 dBA at night) and also is expected to meet the 55 dBA level from the current PC Text. As specific projects are brought forward the following mitigation measure will ensure that HVAC equipment complies with the applicable standard. Prior to issuance of building_ permits for any proiecUhat includes—HVAC equipment an acoustical study—of the noise generated by the HVAC equipment will be performed. This report shall present the noise levels generated by the equipment and methodology used to estimate the noise levels at nearby esidential uses or property boundaries as applicable and demonstrate that combined noise levels generated by all new and existing HVAC equipment does not exceed the applicable PC Text limits. This study-shall be reviewed and approved by the City_ prior to issuance of building permits. After installation of the equipment, noise measurements shall be performed demonstrating compliance with the applicable noise level limits and provided to the City. It should be noted that the Project would modify the Development Agreement to allow mechanical equipment in the vicinity of the loading dock to operate at a noise level higher than the City's Noise Ordinance. These modifications proposed by the Project will create a significant and unavoidable noise impact. Loading Dock As discussed in Sections 1.4.2 and 2.3.5 the loading dock activity generates noise levels that exceed the Noise Ordinance limits defined in Table 1. Two options were considered for mitigating the loading dock noise impact; a soundwall at the property line and a cover over the loading dock area. The hospital has existing time restrictions Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 54 for the loading dock operations. Truck deliveries can only occur during daytime hours between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Currently the loading dock is subject to the Noise Ordinance. Specifically, residences are located within 100 feet of the property boundary and therefore, the Zone III — Mixed Use requirements would apply. Specifically, the loading dock noise should not exceed 60 dBA (Leq) or 80 dBA (Lmax) to be in compliance with the daytime requirements of the noise ordinance. A soundwall could be constructed along the Hoag Hospital westerly property line to reduce noise levels at the residences. However, the geometry in this area is not favorable for the construction of a soundwall. The hospital property is lower than the residential property, and therefore, the soundwall would in effect be constructed in a hole. That is, the wall would need to be exceptionally high to provide the appropriate level of noise reduction for the residents on the top floor. Our calculations indicate that the soundwall would need to be 25.5 feet high to provide the 8 dB noise reduction to bring the loading dock noise into compliance with the noise ordinance. A 25.5 foot soundwall is not feasible. Caltrans for example, limits soundwalls along freeways to 16 feet high. In addition to being very costly, a soundwall this high and that is so close to the residents would probably not be supported by the residents since it would result in many residences looking straight into a solid block wall when on their balcony. As a second option, a cover over the loading dock area was investigated. The cover would incorporate a solid roof and the structure would be open on the sides. The cover would extend over the loading dock area all the way to the west property line. The area covered would be about 6,400 square feet. There are several design questions that are not addressed by this report such as what would the roof material be, how would lighting be provided, where would the support columns be located, etc. The loading dock cover would not provide the 8 dB noise reduction necessary to bring the loading dock operations into compliance with the noise ordinance. Some residents located west and to the south of the loading dock would only get about 5 dB of noise reduction. These residents would have a sight line in through the side of the covered area, and therefore, the noise reduction benefit to them is minimal. It does not appear that there is a reasonable and feasible measure to bring the loading dock noise into compliance with the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. As concluded above, there are no feasible measures that would bring the loading dock area into compliance with the City's noise ordinance. However, there are several measures that would provide some improvement in the noise levels associated with the loading dock. In most cases, the noise level improvement with these additional measures will be minimal or cannot be quantified. The measures do represent feasible measures that will provide some noise relief, and therefore, many of them are recommended as mitigation measures. Reconfiguration of Loading Dock Area. Hoag Hospital has preliminary plans that would reconfigure the loading dock area. According to Hoag Hospital the reconfiguration is intended to service the truck unloading more efficiently and not to accommodate a significant increase in truck deliveries. The plan would reconfigure the loading dock area so that more trucks could be serviced at any one time. The plan could have two significant benefits from a noise standpoint. First, the trash compactor and baler are being re- located into a new area. If this area was an enclosed structure with solid walls and a solid roof, then it would eliminate the noise impact of these activities on the nearby residents. In fact the structure could be a three sided structure with Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 55 the open side facing away from the residents and still eliminate the noise impacts due to the baler and compactor. (A measure addressing the compactor and baler enclosure is presented later in this subsection.) The second benefit is that there are times when all of the trucks cannot be serviced and they end up parking in the alley parallel to the property line. The truck engines will run sometimes when they are waiting. The reconfiguration would, according to Hoag staff, eliminate most of the truck parking in the alley. Trucks idling in the alley close to the residents would be mostly eliminated. (Measures to eliminate idling are discussed later in this section.) The preliminary plans for the reconfigured loading dock show that the dock would be moved or extended further to the west and closer to the residents. This is a negative impact of the reconfiguration since moving the dock closer to the residents would increase noise levels generated in that area and heard at the residents a slight amount. However, it should be noted that most of the noise generated in the loading dock area is due to the trucks arriving, leaving and idling. Measures that facilitate a quick arrival, a quick departure, and eliminate idle would reduce noise levels. Currently, the gates to the loading dock area are closed at 7 p.m. and opened at 7 a.m. No truck deliveries are allowed during this period. To insure that this practice continues and to partially offset the impact of the proposed Development Agreement which exempts truck deliveries, the following measure is proposed. Truck deliveries to the loading dock area are restricted to the hours of 7700 AM to 8:00 PM. It is noted that special situations may arise that require the delivery outside of these hours Installation of Acoustic Panels. Currently some of the loading dock noise heard at the residents is generated on the loading dock and reflects off of the building face back towards the residents. Installation of acoustic panels would nearly eliminate this reflected noise. Sound absorption panels on the east wall of the loading dock are recommended. The preliminary plans for the modified loading dock (Exhibit 11) show that up to six trucks could back in to the "Clean Dock" area. This loading dock abuts a building wall (shown as a bold blue line in Exhibit 11) that has about 84 lineal feet. Putting absorptive panels on this wall would help reduce reflected noise generated on the dock back to the residents to the west. Therefore a noise, such as the banging of a cart as it is unloaded from a truck, will not bounce off the building wall towards the residents. To be most effective the sound absorption panels should cover about 2/3 or more of the building wall. (Covering 2/3 of the building wall would require approximately 448 square feet of absorptive panels.) Complete coverage is usually not possible, because there are pipes and vents on the wall that cannot be covered by panels. If the entire wall cannot be covered, which is likely, it is important to spread the panels throughout the wall area and not concentrate them in only one section of the building wall. The absorptive panels should start 1 foot above the surface of the dock and extend up 8 feet (to 9 feet above the dock surface). A typical absorptive panel is made by Industrial Acoustics ( www .indusl.rialacouslics.co_m. /uti +/index.htIn) and is referred to as their Noise -Foil panels. This panel or an equivalent is recommended. Even if the loading dock area is not reconfigured, acoustic panels should be employed to reduce reflected noise. The following measure is recommended. Approximately 450 square feet of absorptive panels shall he used to cover maior portions of the back wall of the loading dock area The Noise Foil panels by Industrial Acoustics Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 56 or a panel with an equivalent or better sound rating will be used Compactor and Baler Enclosure. The compactor would be relocated with the new loading dock plan, and this provides an opportunity to redesign the new compactor and balerenclosure as a sound enclosure. The compactor will have an enclosure and if designed properly will act to eliminate compactor operation noise at the residential area. Three components of the enclosure are critical; the roof, walls, and openings. All three components must be of sufficient density to stop noise from passing through. The walls should be concrete block or similar masonry construction. The roof could be lightweight concrete roof or a plywood surface with concrete tiles. A built -up roof with 5.5" of insulation on the inside would also be acceptable. A built -up roof without insulation or a tin roof would not be acceptable. The east side of the enclosure (facing away from the residents) can be open. The west side of the enclosure will have to have doors for access. Heavy metal doors should be used on this side. It is also important that the edges of the doors overlap with the door opening otherwise there will be a gap around the edge of the doors that will allow noise to leak out. The doors must be kept closed when the compactor is operating. The following mitigation measure is proposed: The trash compactor and baler will be enclosed in a three sided =cture The walls should be concrete block or similar masonry construction The roof will be lightweight concrete roof or a plywood surface with concrete tiles. A built-um-roof with 5.5" of insulation on the inside would also be acceptable The oven side will face away from the residents Doors may be on the side of the enclosure facing the residents but must be closed when the baler or compactor are operating The compactor and haler will only be overated between the hours of 7 a.m. and TD .m. Post No Idling Signs. "No Idling" shall be posted in the loading dock area. These signs help to minimize the idling time of trucks by reminding them that idling for long periods of time is prohibited. It also makes the Dock Manager's job a little easier when he can tell the truck drivers to shut down their engines and point to a sign to emphasize that it is a hospital policy that he is trying to enforce. The following measure is recommended. Post "No Idling" signs in the loading dock area and any area where the trucks might queue. Interim Phase-5 - Wall for Absorptive Panels MeMeOrmAmdon Exhibit 11 Dock/Acoustic Panels Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 58 Modifications to Residences. There are two measures that could be employed at the residences that would reduce noise impacts, but would not bring the loading dock noise into compliance with the City's noise ordinance. These measures, which could be done either individually or in combination, consist of providing balcony barriers and providing window upgrades. Balcony barriers would consist of extending the balcony enclosures up to a height of 6 or 7 feet. Typically, the balcony barrier extension would consist of 3/8" tempered (safety) glass or 5/8" plexiglass. The balcony barrier would reduce the noise levels on the balcony by about 6 dB, but would not bring the balcony area into compliance. As stated earlier, about 8 dB reduction is needed to bring the balcony areas into compliance with the noise ordinance. A variation of the balcony barrier would be to enclose the balcony completely with glass, in effect making it a sun room. This measure would achieve more than the 8 dB reduction needed, but would be subject to homeowner and homeowner association approvals. A second measure would be to upgrade the windows in the residences. How much noise reduction would be achieved would depend on the quality of the existing windows and the quality of the retrofit windows. A noise reduction would only be accomplished if the windows were in the closed position. It should be noted that the indoor noise ordinance criteria is applied with the windows in the Open position, and no benefit would occur with the windows open. Measures that would modify the residences are not recommended, but are offered for consideration by the lead agency. The acceptability of enclosing balcony areas or modifying windows to the homeowners and homeowner association is unknown and the feasibility is questionable. Therefore, these measures are not recommended at this time. Grease Trap Hoag Hospital has continued to examine ways in which the grease trap operation would be less intrusive to the neighbors. Currently the traps are cleaned during the morning on a weekend day about once per month. The typical cleanout operation lasts for 2 to 2.5 hours. The operation; according to Hoag staff, involves three trucks; one 10,000 gallon tanker, one 7,500 gallon tanker and a support van. All three trucks show up together to minimize down time. However, each tanker must be filled separately due to limited access to the underground storage tanks. Two tankers cannot physically occupy the available parking and street area adjacent to the access points for the underground tanks. Therefore, the option of bringing in more trucks to simultaneously pump out the grease traps and shorten the time of operation is not feasible. Moving the cleanout operation to a weekday would probably be less annoying to the residences and was investigated by Hoag staff. The area necessary for access by the tankers requires that the trucks occupy the vehicular parking above the underground tanks, as well as one drive aisle in West Hoag Road. On Saturday and Sunday the twenty (approximately) parking stalls needed to park the truck can be reserved for the trucks with limited impact on Hospital operations. During the week these stalls, directly adjacent to the ancillary building and HVI outpatient facility, are important for safe and accessible parking to the hospital. As noted above, the tankers also occupy one drive aisle during the cleaning operation which while manageable on a Saturday morning or afternoon would pose a significant hurdle to safe operations during the week as West Hoag Road is very busy with patient and staff traffic as well as emergency traffic. The grease trap operation is exempt from noise regulations. However, the residents have Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 59 complained about the noise and Hoag Hospital has indicated that they will agree to certain time limits. The following measure is proposed: Limit the crease trap cleaning operation to Saturday between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. This is an improvement over existing conditions that allow the grease trap cleaning to occur at any time. Often the grease trap cleaning occurs during the early morning, which is a less desirable time than midday. Cogeneration Facility The operation of the fourth cooling tower at the cogeneration facility could result in an exceedance of the Noise Ordinance. The exceedance of the Noise Ordinance would be marginal at most. Therefore the following measure is recommended: Once the fourth cooling tower is installed additional noise measurements will be ierformed to determine whether a violation of the Noise Ordinance is occurring or not. The measurements shall be made and a report submitted to the City within 3 months of the commencement of operation of the fourth cooling tower. If a violation is occurring then the problem must be corrected and a second set of measurements submitted to the City showing compliance with the Noise Ordinance within 1 year of the commencement of operation of the fourth cooling tower. 3.3 Long Term On -Site Impacts The analysis presented in Section 2.4.1 showed that development within the 65 CNEL traffic noise contour could be significantly impacted by traffic. Mitigation must be provided to ensure that these noise levels do not exceed the City of Newport Beach noise standards. Section 3.3.1 presents the measures that will be required to meet the outdoor noise standards. Section 3.3.2 presents the measures that will be required to meet the indoor noise standards. 3.3.1 Outdoor Traffic Noise Mitigation Any patio areas proposed to be located closer to the roadway than the 65 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 10 could be significantly impacted by.traffic noise. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall /berm) is the most efficient method of reducing outdoor noise exposure levels. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and receiver is broken by the barrier. The greater the distance the sound must travel around the barrier to reach the receiver, the greater the noise reduction of the barrier. To be effective, noise barriers are required to have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks. They may be a solid wall, an earthen berm, or a combination of the two. They may be constructed of wood studs with stucco exterior, 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 60 Wood and other materials may be acceptable if properly designed as a noise barrier. For small patios and balconies, the barriers must run along the entire edge of the patio or balcony from building face to building face. Even if patios are located adjacent to the roadways shown in Table 10, the maximum noise barrier to reduce noise levels below 65 CNEL on the patio would be less than 7 feet high. Patio locations and final grading plans are not yet available for the Project. These plans are required to determine the final barrier heights and ensure compliance with the appropriate standard. The above analysis shows that this standard is achievable with feasible barrier heights. Application of the following mitigation measure will ensure that the City's outdoor noise standards are met in the on -site hospital areas. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any hospital patio use proposed to be located closer to the roadway then the 65 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 10 a detailed acoustical analysis study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the City. This acoustical analysis report shall describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the area and the measures required to meet the 65 CNEL exterior hospital noise standard. The final building plans shall incorporate the noise barriers (wall berm or combination wall/berm) required by the analysis and the hospital shall install these barriers The analysis above shows that feasible noise barriers will reduce exterior noise levels to below the City of Newport Beach noise standards. The detailed acoustical study required above will ensure that these standards are met based on final grading plans for the Project. With these measures outdoor noise impacts on the Project will be mitigated to less than significant. 3.3.2 Indoor Traffic Noise Mitigation Typical construction achieves at least 20 dB of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction with windows closed. With windows open outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction falls to 12 dB. Therefore, buildings requiring more than 12 dB of noise reduction require adequate ventilation per the Uniform Building Code to allow windows to remain closed. Typically, this is provided through mechanical ventilation which is assumed to be present in commercial buildings. With extensive building upgrades, outdoor -to- indoor noise reductions of up to 32 dB typically can be achieved for commercial construction. Even if a hospital building was located adjacent to the roadways shown in Table 10 it would require less than 32 dB of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction to meet the 45 CNEL interior standard. Detailed calculations are required to demonstrate a building achieves more than 20 dB of noise reduction. Architectural drawings are required to analyze the actual noise reduction achieved by a building. The following mitigation measure will ensure that hospital buildings exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL and office buildings exposed to noise levels in excess of 70 CNEL will achieve the required outdoor - to- indoor noise reduction levels to achieve the City's 45 CNEL interior hospital noise standard and the 50 CNEL interior office noise standard. Prior to issuance of building permits a detailed acoustical study using architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the City for hospital buildings proposed to be located closer to the roadwav than the 65 CNEL contour distance shown in Table 10 and for office buildings proposed to be located closer Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 61 to- indoor noise reduction provided by the design in the architectural plans and anv upgrades required to meet the City's interior noise standards (45 CNEL for hosvital uses and 50 CNEL for office uses) The measures described in the revort shall be incorporated into the architectural ylans for the buildings and implemented with building construction The analysis above shows that it is feasible to reduce indoor noise levels to below the City of Newport Beach interior noise standards with appropriate construction. The detailed acoustical study required above will ensure that these standards are met based on final architectural plans for the Project. With these measures indoor noise impacts on the Project will be mitigated to less than significant. Mestre Greve Associates 4.0 UNAVOIDABLE NOISE IMPACTS Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 62 The proposed changes to the Development Agreement/PC Text could eventually result in higher noise levels at the nearby residences (compared to existing conditions). Mitigation measures are recommended above and it has been determined that no other feasible mitigation exists that would reduce impacts from the loading dock area to below a level below the limits contained in the City's Noise Ordinance. Modification of the Development Agreement/PC Text as proposed will allow noise to exceed the Noise Ordinance criteria in the vicinity of the loading dock only, even after application of the feasible mitigation measures discussed above; therefore, the proposed changes must be identified as resulting in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. Mestre Greve Associates APPENDIX Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 63 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 64 Traffic Data Used for Noise Modeling Table A -1 presents the average daily traffic volumes (ADT), speed, and traffic mix index used for traffic noise modeling. The speeds were taken from Figure 3 of the traffic study. The traffic mix used to calculate CNEL levels is presented in Table A -4. ADTs were estimated from the peak hour traffic volumes as described below. The traffic study prepared for the Project only presented AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. ADTs are required to calculate traffic noise CNEL levels. ADTs were provided by the traffic engineer for 2015 and 2025 conditions without the Project, and 2025 conditions with the Project and with the Project Alternative for 16 of the 24 intersections analyzed. The ratio of these ADTs to the AM and PM Peak hour traffic volumes were determined for these roadway links and are presented in Table A -2. In Table A -2, the first two columns of numbers show the percentage of ADT that the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes represent for 2015 No Project conditions. The next two columns of numbers show the percentage of ADT that the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes represent for 2025 No Project conditions. The fifth and sixth column of numbers show the percentage of ADT that the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes represent for 2025 With Project conditions. These percentages were used to estimate the ADT volumes for the 2015 With Project, and 2025 With Project conditions as described below. The seventh and eighth column of numbers show the same information for the 2025 With Project Alternative conditions. These percentages were used to estimate the ADT volumes for the 2015 With Project Alternative, and 2025 With Project Alternative conditions as described below. The final two columns show the average of the percentages for the 2015 and 2025 No Project conditions. These were used to estimate the existing No Project ADT traffic volumes. Table A -3 shows the peak hour percentage of ADT that was used to estimate the ADTs for the scenarios and links where ADTs were not provided (i.e.; existing conditions, and 2015 conditions with the Project and the Project Alternative, and the links not shown in Table A -2 for all scenarios). The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for each scenario were divided by the percentages shown in Table A -3 and the average of these two numbers was used to estimate the ADT shown in Table A -1. The last column of Table A -3 also shows the links used to estimate the percent of ADT for those links where ADT data as not provided. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 65 Table A -1 Average Daily Traffic Volume and Speed Data Used For Noise Modeling Speed - - - - -No Project ----- -- -With Project -- -- - -- -With Alt.-- - Roadway Segment (mph) Mix Exist. 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025 west of Newport Ave. ... .- --._. 25 1 19,716 ._ 20,816 25,226 21,496 24,864 ... _._.... 21,792 --- ---- -_ 25,207 east of Newport Ave_. 25, _ 1 10,150 11,027 122306 - 11,144 12,554 _.._ 11,026 - --- ----- -. 12,432 Broadway,.. 30 1 3,241 3,529 6,039 3,555 6,169 3,517 6,103 east of Newport Blvd. 25 1 3,008 3,299 3 519 -_-- 3,272 3,595 3,239 3,557 18th Street ... _._ 1 4,527 4,547 5,364 5,257 5,319 5,233 5,297 west of Newport Blvd. 30 1 - ...__. 8,235 _. 8,967 6,814 - -- -- 9,121 7,048 - - 9,025 - 7,016 Rochester Street 30 1 3,749 4,055 3,172 4,142 _ 3,243 _ -_ --. .. _ --- - - - --- east of Newport Blvd, __. 25.. _ 1 3969 - 5,287 _ -- -- _ ----- 4,349 ... _ _ -- - 5,404 - - - -- 4,304 5,345 17th Street .. 1 8,182 7,000 12,000 - 8,445 _.-- - -- -_ -- 8 303 -- -- 12,.000... west of SuQenor Ave_ 351 1 13974 13,988 18,319 16,304 18,136 16,224 18,047 east of Superior Ave_ 35 _ 1 27,473 27,576 31 921 31,920 31,606 31,775 31,452 west of_Newport Blvd, 35__ 1 23,029 24,990 29,937 25,357 30,588_ _ 25,086 30,259 east of Newport Blvd. 35 1 24,831 27,018 28.941 27.191 29.493 _.- 26.903 29.215 west of Superior Ave. 30 _ 1 5,645 5,668 5,966 _ 6,557 5,912 6,528 5,885 west of Newport Ave. 30 1 1,749 1,909 3,876 1 913 3,957 1,893 --- ----- ---- 3,916 east of Newport Ave; 30 1 3,241 3,529 6,039 3,555 6,169 3,517 6,103 Industrial Wa ..... .. -- east of,Superior Ave. 30 .,. 1 4,527 4,547 5,364 5,257 5,319 5,233 5,297 west of Newport Blvd. 30. -___ 1 5,096 5,506 . 4,867 5,639 --_ 4,977 5,577 4,921 ..._ --. east of Newport Blvd. 30 1 3,749 4,055 3,172 4,142 _ 3,243 _ -_ --. 4,097 ___- 3,207 Hospital Road _ .. - east of Superior Ave. 30 1 8,182 7,000 12,000 - 8,445 -- 12,000 _ 8 303 -- -- 12,.000... west of Hoag Dr. - .. 30 1 7,340 6,000 - - 10,000 - 6,882 - 10,000 -- 6,801 - .- . 10,000 east of Hoag Dr. -^ .._ 30 1 15,337 . --- 14 000 .... _14,000._ 12,303 15,000 - 0 -- 12,298 - -- -- 15,000 -1 ---- west of_Newport Blvd. 30 _..__.._ 1 15,856 14,000 _. 14,000 -- 11,662 -- -- 15,000 -8-- -0 __ 11,762 15,000 east of Newport Blvd. 30 1 6 300 8 000 8 000 8,- 8;649 8,000 _.._. 8,514 ..- -0.0 8,000 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Roadway Segment Speed (mph) Mix ----No Project---- Exist. 2015 2025 - -- -With Project— 2015 2025 ---With Alt: -- 2015 2025 Pacific Coast Highway 73,000 68,631 74,000 east of Bayside Dr. 45 1 49,741 57,000 65,000 . ... . west of Orange St. . ............. ............. 45 1 44,365 . ......... 54,000 .. _50,0 0 0 ... 48,511 50,000 . 48,230 50,000 .east .91.Orange qt: 45 1 .......... Aj 817_ 54 000 50 000 ......... . 48,?39 . ........... 50.000 47.962 50,000 !ALest of 50,000 43,771 50,000 Vla Lido .. ........... I ............. 50.000 ­ 49,931 50,000 _eas! of 45_ -m 1 43,439 ' 54,000 50,000 5 ___9.053 50,000 49,770 50,000 west of Balboa BIWASuperior Ave. 45 T_ 47."667 . . 52,000 _47.000 58.63-9 52,000 58,443 52,000 east of Balboa SlvdAS'Upsri'or'Avs, 45 1 37.889-.-- . .. 44 .00 0"-, I— .. ­1 25 44.133 45,000 44.741 461,10,00 west _0_LF!oag_Dr. .4.5. 1 36,655 44.000 ....... " 47.000 48,366 48 ,000 4 5,737 46 ,A0LO east of Hoag _Pr. 35 1,146 . ...... 28,366, 34,000 51,000 40,976 45.000 49,000 west of Newport .!�Iydqp.Q� Ramp . . .... 35 1 29,722 �41666 5i,000 4j, �52 4§,,992. 13,050 49,000 east of New ort Blvd. SB Off Ramp 38 1,467 2,000 _.§4!Qqg'.,.56,000 25 51,873 56 000 ... 4 51,5 9 ..... 56,000 west of Riverside Ave. ... ... ... ..... . . . ­.........' ........... . .. . . .......... 35 1 63,908 60,000 6 0.0 0 0 5 1 .0 9 6 59,000 .. 51,637 60,000 east or Riverside Ave. 35 1 46,196 52,0 0 54,000 46,403 53,000 47,040_....54,000 12,000 west of Tustin Ave. - - ­_ 35 1 43,929 ' ---- 0L,090 47. ,.1....8...2 ... . 0 4 69 8. 0 50I ,,0. 0 0 east of �usii n Ave 40 1 41 149 ___ '51._..0Qq._ ., 4800048000 ...§- 45,422 ... _50,00 47,000 . 45,225_47 1 000 west of Bav Shore Dr.\Dover Dr. 40 1 45.370 4766n q f 44 Rq4 ss nn n A r 4 q n sF n n n west qLQanL1qe Dr. 40 1 62,175 70,000 ........... 74,000 ...... 67,852 73,000 68,631 74,000 east of Bayside Dr. 45 1 49,741 57,000 65,000 . ... . - -- -------- 61,501 ....... . ..... 65,000 61.384 . ........ .... 65,000 west of Marine Dr.\Jamboree Rd. ............. 45 1 55,579 ... .... - ------ 57,000 62,000 55,781 ........ 61,00 56,559 62.000 east of Marine Dr.Wamboree Rd. 45 1 49,682 47,000 50,000 .. I .......... 43,764 .............. 50,000 43,771 50,000 Vla Lido . east .of Newport .E3lvd. . ... .... .. 30 1 10,000 13,000 12.561 13,000 12,633 13,000 Orange Street north of West Coast Hwy 25 1 845 1.000 1,000 ............... 983 1,000 .. ..... ......... . . ... 983 . 1,000 south of West Coast Hwy.__`_ 1 1,395 2,000 11000 1,146 1,000 1,146 . ...... 1,000 Prospect Street . . .. ............ .. north of West Coast Hwy, .1 . . . ...... ... .. ... . . 25 1, 2�4 2,000 2,000 1,467 2,000 1,467 2,000 sou - th i o - f West - Coast Hwy- 25 1 709__., 1,074 956 800 956 800 ------ 956 Placentia Avenue ------ . .... ....... - - north of Superior Ave. ........... ....... .. 40 ..... 1 . ..... 12,596 . ... ..... ..... 14000 ­­ . ...... 12,000 15,125 12,000 14,877 12,000 south of Superior Ave. 40 1 7,385 9,000 10,000 9,640 10,000 9,487 10,000 north of Hospital Rd[ Table Continued on Next Page 11.306 11.000 17 17 Page 66 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 67 Table Continued on Next Page Speed ----No Project---- -- -With Project— - -- -With Alt.- - Roadway Mix Exist. 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025 superior Avenue ................ ... ..... . ......... north of 17th St. ... ... . .... 35 1 ....... 7 . 7,590 . 1.1,762. i 17?9 1,7113 south of 17th St. 40 1 20,569 20,610 . 21,637 .9,Q9L _-A 24,073 21,559 23,957 21.52-1 north of 16th StAIndus- .trial Wad -south -o�i'dih--S-t ----- AO -1- 1 .... .. 17,qpg ............. . .... ..... 21,410_20,419 21,332 20,31.6 _21,294 \I-n-d--ustria-I Way 17,519 17,498 21 194 ...... _20,581 21,121 20,475 21,085 north of Placentia Ave. .­ - -------- - ----------- 40 1 14,598 1 Y�tOOO 15 000'......21,03i- -- -- -- - ­- --- Ave. south of -I.acenti.a-A.Y 1 P . 1. ­.. . ­ .. - - ---- 40 1­11..... 1 _ 21 , ,448 25,000 15,000 22,859 15,000 22,701 15,000 north of_H ital R. . d. ... .. ..... .. ..... ...... ---4---0- . f ....... ?2,QQQ 18,00Q .20 18.000 2-1,224 ------ 18-,-0'0'0-- south of Hospital Ad. 40, 1 25,0,09,_ _21q!.02�9_25,0 0 69 25,869 25,000 north of West boast !jy*v­ 40 1 23,387 26,000 14.000 20,168 14,000 19,06 4,666'' Balboa Boulevard south of West Coast Hwy I . .............. 1 15,626 ...... 20,000 ------ 14,000 15,584 ....... 14,000 ....... 15,643 14,000 Hoag Drive. - .......... . ... ......... south of Hospital Ad. 25 1 4,489 5,000 15,000 11,912 17,000 . ... ...... - 11,304 17,000 north of West Coast Hwy . ........ --- .... 25 1. 3.4482 7,000 4,258 Harbor Boulevard west of Newport Blvd. 40 1 10,569 .. . ....... 11,538 16,339 11,498 ..... . 16,624 11,378 16,488 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 68 Speed - ----No Project --- -- - -- -With Project - -- -- --With Alt.--- Roadway Segment (mph) Mix Exist. 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025 Newport Boulevard .... north of 19th St ... ... _._..._.. _... . _. .. 1 7.5__,447 .... ... 8. 1_,_862 89 6.24 ._L 8.2,287 .. .. 90,764 8.1_,407 90,263 .... south of 19th St _ .... ......... 35 ..... 1 56,970 ... . 61,830 ... _ 66,168 ....... 61,905 ... 66,784 ..... 61,243 66,550 north of Broadway. ___'__35._. 1 _ „58,074 63,035 63,457 63,112 64,017 63,812 south of_Broadway _ _ 35 1 56,870 61.715 62,287 61,801 62,822 ,62,438 61,141 62,630 ., -. -.north of Harbor Blvd. _ _ _ _ 35 1 56,211 61 022 - . 631622 - 61,050 64,176 60,399 -63 974 _ south of Harbor Blvd. 35 1 64 842 70,430 77,620 70,446 78,410 69,696 78,097 north of 18th St. /Rochester St. , , , 35 1 65,040 70,678 76,409 70 627 77 178 69 876 76,876 south of 18th St /Rochester St 35 1 60,649 65,907 72,224 65,712 72,812 65,013 72,515 north of 17th St. 35 1 58,541 63,489 69,047 63,534 69,576 62,853 69,308 south of 17th St. .., 35 41,724 45,303 __492240 44,877 49,263 44,398 . ........... 49 251_ „_ north of 16th St 35 1 40,220 43,677 46,116 43,216 46,072 42,755 46,094 south of 16th S,1 ,._..,.... 45 .... 1 39,760 43 178 48,484 42,709 48,493 42,253 48,488 north of Industrial. We _ ___ 45 1 39,988 43,402 50,470 42,984 50,515 42,525 50,493 south of Industrial Way 45 ,. 1 38,887 42,219 46,865 _ 41,759 46,830 41,,313 46,848 north of Hospital Rd._ 45 1 40,987 41,000 48,000 40,767 48,000 40,327 48,000 south of Hospital Rd: __ _ _ _ 45 1 _ ..._._.. 48,029 48 000 __50 000 40 794 49 000 - -- 40,502 -- - ...._ 49,000 ,north of Via Lido 30 1 55,587 52,000 51,000 42,933 51,000 43,006 51,000 ,._south of Via. Lido _ 30 . 1 42 417 38,000 40,000 32,347 40,000 32_,347 40,000 Riverside Avenue _ _ north of West Coast Hwy. _ .. 30 1 10,508 . ... 10,000 10,000 7 969 10 000 7 887 - 10,000 Tustin Avenue _. north of West Coast Hwy - - -.- -- - -__30 ... 1 ..... 1,329 2,000 _ - _ 31000 .. 2 889 3 000 ... _. 2,889 3000 Dover Drive north of West Coast Hwy, - 40 1 31,690 31,000 30 000 28 802 30 000 28,917 30,000 Bay Shore. Drive .. _ _. __. south of West Coast Hwy, _ 25 1 3,888 4,000 1,000 21452 _1,000_ 2 452 _ _ 1 000 _ Bayside Drive _north of East Coast Hwy, 25 1 1,649 4 000 6 000 _ 500 ___6 - 000 5,008 6000 - - 11 1 _ south of East Coast Hwy 25 1 10 690 11,000 14,000 11 607 14,000 11,666 14,000 Jamboree Road - _ ..._ _north of East Coast Hwy, _ 50 _ 1 37 121 36 000 40 000 --._._ 33,719 ._.,_. 40,000 .. 33 631 _ 40,000 Marine Drive south of East Coast Hwy. 35 1 14,374 13,000 15,000 12,000 15,000 12,045 15,000 Mestre Greve Associates Table A -2 Peak Hour Volumes as Percentage of ADT From Data Provided Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 69 From Data -------- ._.. °° - ° Calculated 2015 No Proj. 2025 No Proj. 2025 Project 2025 Alt No Proj. Avg Road segment AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM _East of Superior Ave,. 8.3% 10.9% ... _ 6.6% ..... -- 9.5% ---- _. --- ------- 6 8% _ ............................. 9.5% ...... 6 9% 9 6% 7.4% 10.2% _ West of Hoag Dr. /Placentia-Ave 9.2% 10.7% .._. 7.6% 9.7% 7.7% 9.4% .... 7.8% - 9.5% - -- 8.4% .- 10.2% East of Hoag Dr./Placentia Ave _ ,- 10.2% 10.6% _ 11.0% - - 15.2% - - - -... 10.9% - - -- 14.6% - ....- 10.8% 14.7% -- 10.6% - _ 12.9% _West of _Newport Blvd. 8.8% 7.4% 10.1% 11.1% 10.2% 10.8% 10 0% 10.9% 9 5% 9.2% East of_Newjort.Blvd_ 9.1% 12.1% 10.4% 9.4% .... - 9.3% -.. -. 9.3% .. - . -.. -- 9.6% _--- .._ 9.3% -.. .. - - -- 9...... 8% ....._ 10.8 % °_ Pacific Coast Hwy. - -- .. _ ....._ - West of Orange St. - 9.3 %9.5% 10.3% 10.6% 10,_2% 10.6% - . _. 10.6% _ -------- 9.8% - ... 10.1% East of Orange _9.3% . . 9.5% _ 10.4% 10.7% 10.3% 10.7% 10.4% 10.7% 9.9% 10.1 % West of Prospect St...... _ -_- 9.4% _ 9.5% 9.9% 10.3% - 9.9% _ 10.4% 9.9% 9_9% 97% East of Prospect St. 9.6% 10.8% 10_1 %° 10.7% 10.0% 10.8% 10.1 % .._ __ 10.3% _. ---.- 9 9% West of Balboa Blvd /Superior Ave 8.8% 11.0% - 8.9% 9 4% 8 8% 9.3% 8.8% -- - - -- 9.4% 8.8% ... .......... 10.2% East of Balboa Blvd /Superior Ave - 8 5% ... 10 7% - -.. . 8.4% . - -._.. ..._- 9 9% . - -.. -. 8.6% _ - 10.0% 8.5 %° __ - - 9.8...% -.. - B 5% - - 10.3 %° 9.1_% 9.2 %°_._.. -_ 8.1% 9.0% 7.7 %°- 8.5% 8.2% 9_0% . 8,6% 9.1% East of Hoag Dr,..._... _. 11..7 %° 12.2% 8.6% 8.8% _ 9..0 %.. 9.4% 8.6% 8 8 %...... 2 %....._..10.5 . %... _West of_Newport Blv_d_SB Off -Ramp 11.8 %. 13.9% 11 10.2% .... 8.9% - 10.2% _ 8 9% 10.3% 8.9% -10 11 0% 11 4% East of Newport Blvd SB Off -Ramp - 7.7% 9.4% 8.7% 9.1% 8 7% 9.0% ... 8.7% - - - -- 9.1% ........ 8.2% ...." 9.3% ___West of_Riverslde Ave 7A% 68% 8.5% 10.1 % _ 8.5% 10.2% 8 5% . 10 1 % 8.0% 9 4%° East of Riverside Ave. .._ -. . -.. 7.7% 9.0% _ . 8.5% 9.8% 8.5% 9.9% 8.4% 9.8% 8.1 % 9 4% _West of Tustin Ave. _._..._. -_ 8.1% 9.4% 8,8% 10.1% ...... 8.7% .. _. 10.1% .. 8.7% _ .. ....._ 10.1% . ... . ....... 8.4% ..__...... 9.7% East of Tustin Ave. 8.8% 10.0% 9.0% 10.5% 9 1 % -1-0.6 % 9.1 % 10 7% 8.9% 10--.2% West of Bay Shore.Dr- /Dover Dr, 8.6% 10.0% 8.8% 10,3% 8.9 % 4°/% 8 % 10 2% 8.7% 10.1% East of Bay Shore Dr-/Dover Dr. % 9.7% 8.2% - 9.8% -- _10 9.9% 8.2% - - -_- 9.8% - __- -. -. &1% % 9 8% West of- Bayside Dr. % 9.7% 8.3% 9.8% 8 -3% 9.9% 8.2% 9.8% 8.2% 9.7% East of Bayside Dr._. - -- _.._ 8.9% _ 10.3 %° 8.2% 9 6 %° 8.2% 9.6% 8.2% 9.6% 8.5% 10.0% _West of Jamboree_Rd_ 8.9 %°_10.7% 8.9% 10.8% 9.0% 11 0% B 9% - 10 8% 8.9% 10.7 %° East of Jamboree Rd, 7.5 °/ - -- 9.0% -- - 8.1% - -- . 9.6% -. 8 1% 9 6 %° 8 1% 9.6% 7.8% 9.3 %° Via Lido __.. East of Newport Blvd. 9.5% -- 11.2% 7.2% _.._ 9.5- -. % ...-_9.5_%__7.0_%_ 7.1 _ % - - ..- 9.5% 8.3% _ --. -.. 10.3 10.3% Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 70 South of Superior Ave, From Data 9.8% 8.7% 9.5% Calculated 9.7% 2015 No Pro]. 2025 No Proj. 2025 Project 2025 Alt No Proj. Avg Road Segment AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Orange. St-....... ...... I ............ ..... - ... . . ......... .. .......... ..... ............. ........... North of West Coast Hwy North .......... . .. .... ... . .. ... 1.?.0.%. 111.1 13.0% 10.0% - - 17-0% - 10.0% '-- 17.0% 10.0% 17.0% 11.0% 15.0% --- South of West Coast Hwy.. ." . ............ ............ ..... ... . . . . . 7no% ........ 8.5% 13.0% 14.0% ........ 13.0% . ............ . 11-1 14.0% ----- - - 13.0% 14.0% 10.0% 11.3% -,Prospect l§!---I-r-------.-'--' .. 9.6% 9.4% North of Hospital Rd. 10.0% 8.3% 9.1% 9.9% 9.3% North of West Coast 9,5% 7.5% __ „_15 .0% 9.0% .... ............. 15.0% ........ 9.0% 15.0% 9.0% ..... .... 12.3% 8.3% South of Superior Ave, 9.7% 9.8% 8.7% 9.5% 8.4% 9.7% 8.5% 9.9% 9.2% 9.6% North of Hospital Rd. 8.9% 10.5% 6.9% 9.5% 6.7% ......... 9.6% .......... .. 6.8% 9.6% 7.9% 10.0% Superior Ave ........... North of Hospital Rd. - 9.5% 9.3% 8.8% 7.3% 8.8% 7.5% 8.8% 7.5% 9.2 % 8.3% South of Placentia Ave. 6.9% 10.1% ' 10.2% 9.5% 10.2% 9.7% .. 9.6% 9.4% North of Hospital Rd. 10.0% 8.3% 9.1% 9.9% 9.3% 9.8% 9.3% 9.9% 9.6% 9.1% South of Hospital 6.0%" 8.4% 9.9% 8.6% 9.8% 8.6% 9 %% 9.2% 9.5% North of West Coast Hw y ...... ---- % 10.9% 9-9% 11.3% 9.5% 11.3% 9.7% 9.6/ 8.8% Balboa -8.3% - -- - - - ------7----.-8--- - --- South o f West 6.1% 7.4% 8.9% ---- - . - --- ..... ---- -- - -- . . ...... - ........ . . - -- --- South of Hospital Rd. 8.4% 10.0% 4.2% .............. . . . . . ... 4.9% .. ... . . ............. ... 4.1% ..... . 4.5% 4.3% 4.8% 6.3% 7.4% North of west boast VI" --.1-1- ...... ............ 10.6% 9.7% 12.8% 7.6% 12.1% 7.7% 13.0% 7.9% 11.7% 8.7% Newport Blvd. North of ...- nwital.N: . .. .... - ----- 9.2% 8.6% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.0% South of Hospital Rd. 7.4% ...6.4%- 7.6% 8-0% .9.3% 7.8% 9.4% 7.9% 9-5% - 7.7% -- 8.5% North of Via Lido -South- 6.7%-----6.7% 9.7% 6.7% 9.7% -6-.7% 9.7% 6.5% 8.2% of Via Lido 6.5% 6.6% 6-4% 9.6% 6.4% 9.6% 6.4% 9.6% 6 4% . ... . 8-1 �; " .. ....... ............ Riverside Ave.- North of West Coast Hwy 6.8% 8.90/0 8.6% 11.0% 8.5% 10.8% 8.6% 10.9% 7-7% 10.0% Tustin Ave. I - - ............ ....... .. North of West Coast Hwy I West .... ...... 111. - ---- - 7.5% --------- I --- 15.5% --- 6.3% 9.0% 6-0% 9-0% 6.0% 9.0% 6.9% . . ............... 12.3% ... ............. Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 71 8.5% South of East Coast Hwy. 7.5% 10.0% 8.5% 10.3% 8.5% 19—/68 i-% 10 .l% 8. 0% --- 1-0-.l%- From Data Calculated 2015 No Proj. 2025 No Proj. 2025 Project 2025 Alt No Proj. Avg Road Segment AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM B ide Dr. .. ..... .....North of East Coas - t Hwy. 7.0% 9.0% ----------- --- - ---- - - 5.2% 7.8% -7.-7-% -9-.4% 5.2% 7-8% .. ........ 5.2% 7.8% ------------- 6.1% 8.4% §��ih of Coast Hwy. - -W 9.1_% 8.'B'%" 7- .3% -- 9.3% 7.8% . . .... ............. . 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% South of East Coast Hwy. 7.5% 10.0% 8.5% 10.3% 8.5% 19—/68 i-% 10 .l% 8. 0% --- 1-0-.l%- Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 72 Table A-3 Peak Hour Volumes as Percentage of ADT Used to Calculate ADT's ... West. of Superior Ave. Exist 2015 NP 2025 NP Project ---.. _ 8,8% Alt Link Used Where Road Segment AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Data Was Not Provided 19th St. 7.5% 8.8% 7.5% Superior Ave.: South of Placentia Ave. _Yypst of Newport Blvd, 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% 8.6% West of NewportBlvd. 8.5% 10.3% 8.5% 10.7% 8.4% 9.9% ----------- _­ 8.6% .. .. 10.0% . .. . .......... 8.5% 9.8% .. . . .......... ...... West Coast Hwy.: West of Hoag Dr. . ...... East of, Newport Blvd. .... ­ - 8.9% - - ----------------- 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% 8.6% 9.3% . ... .. .................... 8.4% 9.1% . .... ...... .................... 8.5% 9.2% Newport Blvd.: South of Hospital Rd. diroadwa.. West of Superior Ave. 9.2% 8,3% East of Newport Blvd. 8.9% 9.0% 92% 8.6% 8.6. % . .. 9 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% Newport_Blvd,. South of Hosptal Rd. 18th St.- .. ........... .. ... . . . .............. 9.2% 8_6% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% Newport Blvd South of Hospital _East of Phyd. West of Newport Blvd -.,8..-9% ....... ------- ..9.2%. - --- _.__ ..-.8..6.% 8.6%'_9.3%8% 8.4% - - -- - -- 9.1% - ----------- 9.1 % 8_5%.. 9-2%.. ...... .... .. ........... ...... NewpIPyd,:.South of Hospital. Rd. Rochester St. ... .... .... ...... East of Newport Blvd. ... . ........ 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9,2% Ne ort Blvd.: South of Ho I Rd. ... West. of Superior Ave. 9.2% .... .... .. 8.3% 9.5% .... . ..... 9.3% ---.. _ 8,8% 7.3% 8.8% 7.5% 8.8% 7.5% - --------- -_------_- Superior Ave.: South of Placentia Ave. ....East .of.Superior Ave.. 9.2% 8.3% 9.5% 9.30/. 8,8% 7.3% 8.8% 7.5% 8.8% 7.5% Superior Ave.: South of Placentia Ave. _Yypst of Newport Blvd, 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% Newport Blvd., South of Hospital ..East of Newport Bl. v.d.., ... 8.9% 9.0% 92% 8.6% ....... 8... .6% . ...... 9.3% .. 8,4% 9.1% 8,5% 9.2% .. .... . ......... . .. Newport ..Blvd .So -Rd u th qH_Hospital Rd, 16th St. West of Superior Ave. 9.2% 8,3% 9.5% 93% 8.80/6 7.3% 8.8% 7.5% 8.8% 7.5% Superior Ave.: ............ ... South of Placentia Ave. West of Newport Blvd, 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 8_6% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% Newport Blvd South of Hospital _East of Phyd. 8.9% 9.0% ------ --- 9.2% 8.6% 8.6% . ..... . . 9.3% 8.4% - - -- - -- 9.1% - ----------- 8.5% 9.2% Newport Blvd.: ._Newport South of Hospital Rd...... Industrial 1. Way ... .... . ... .... .... ...... East of Superior Ave. 9.2% 8 ' .3% 9.5% - - 9,3% 8.6% 7.3% 6.8% 7.5% 8.8 % 7.5%- Superior Ave.: South of Placentia Ave, West of Newport Blvd. 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8,5% 9.2% Newport t Blvd.: South o f Hospdal Rd. East of Newport. Blvd_- 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% Newport Blvd.: South of Hospital Rd. Hospital I.. .11d, .. .. ........... East of Superior Ave. I ...... Superior 8.3% ....... 10.9% 8.3% 10.9% 6.6% 9.5% 6,8% 9,5% 6.9% 9.6% Direct West of Hoag 9.2% 10.7% 9.2% 10.7% 7.6% 9.7% 7.7% 9.4% 7.8% 9.5% Direct East of Hoag Dr./Placentia Ave 10.2% 10.6% 10.2% 10.6% 11.0% 15,2% 10.9% 14.6% 10.8% 14.7% Direct West of-Newport Blvd. 8.8% 7,4% 8.8% 7.4% 10.1% 11.1% 10.2% 10.8% 10.0% 10.9% Direct ............. - ------ ------ -- ---------- East of Newport Blvd. 9.1% 12.1% 9.1% 12.1% 10.4% 9.4% 9.3% 9.3% 9.6% 9.3% Direct Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 73 Table Continued on Next Page Exist 2015 NP 2025 NP Project Alt Link Used Where Road Segment AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Data Was Not Provided Pacific Coast Hwy. ., - _. - -- _ .............. .......... ........... _ _. ...... West of Orange St., 9.30/9 9.5% 9.5% 10.3% 10.6% 10.2% 10.6% 10 3 %° 10 6% Direct East of Orange St 9 3% 9.5% ,9.3% 9.3% 9.5% 10.4% 10.7% 10.3% 10.7% 10.4% 10.7% Direct West of Prospect St. 9.4% 9 5% 9.4% 9.5% 10 4% 9 9% 10 3% 9 9 %° 10 4% 9 9% Direct ...... East of Prospect St. ,. 9 7% 9 6% - 9.7% 9.6 %° 10.8% 10.1% 10.7% 10.0% 10.8% ... 10 1 % Direct .. _.. _.._ West of Balboa 8-8% 11.0% 8.8% - - 11.0% -- 8.9% 9.4% 8.8% 9.3% 8.8% 9.4% Direct Blvd /Superior Ave_. __. _... - ..__.._ East of Balboa 8.5% 10.7% 8.5% 10.7% 8.4% 9.9% 8.6% 10.0% 8.5% 9.8% Direct Blvd/Superior Ave West of Hoag Dr_ „_. 9 1 % 9.2% 9.1% 9 2% 8.1% % 9.0% 7.7% 8.5% 8.2% 9 0% Direct 1. East of Hoa Dr_ 11 7% 12 2% 11 7% . _. 12.2% 8.6% 8 8% 9.0% 9 4% 8.6% 8.8% Direct West of Newport Blvd 11 8% 13.9% 11.8% 13.9% 10.2% 8.9% 10.2% 8.9% 10.3% 8.9% Direct SB.Off -Ramp,._ -- _ . - East of Newport Blvd 7.7% 9.4% 7.7% 9.4% 8.7% 9.1% 8.7% 9.0% 8.7% 9.1% Direct SB Off -Ramp West of Riverside Ave. 7.4% 8.8% 7.4% 8.8% 8.5% 10.1% 8.5% 10.2% 8.5% 10.1% Direct .. _._......... East of Riverside Ave. ........ -- 7.7% .............- ...._.. 9.0% - ._._....._.... 7.7% -- - 9.0% - -._ ,- .. 8.5% . ..... 9.8% - -l. 8.5% .. ,.._.. 9.9% ._,.... I- - ........... 8.4% ._ „_._,_,... 9.8% - ---...T_ _......_.... Direct ..... ---- ... West of Tustin Ave. 8.1% 9.4% 8.1% 9.4% 8.8% .. 10.1% ......_ 8.7% 10.1% 8.7% 10.1% ....__. Direct East of Tustin Ave. 8.8% 10.0% 8.8% 10.0% 9.0% 10.5% 9.1 % 10.6% 9.1 % 10.7% Direct _._ West of Bay Shore - ......... 8.6% 10.0% 8.6% 10:0% 8.8% 10.3% 8.9% 10.4% 8.8% 10.2% Direct Dr. /Dover Dr. East of Bay Shore 8.1% 9.7% 8.1% 9.7% 8.2% 9.8% 8.2% 9.9% 8.2% 9.8% Direct Dr. /Dover Dr. _ _ West of Bayside Dr _ 8 1 % 9 7% ..... 8.1 % _ 9.7% 8.3% _- 9 8% 8.3% 9.9% 8.2% 9 8% - _,_ .... ............ __-___ Direct .... _ . ....... East of Bayside Dr_ 8.9% 10...3...% 8.9% 10.3% -.. -- 8.2% _ . _ 9.6% -- 8.2% 9.6% ..... 8.2% 9.6% _.__... Direct _...... West of Jamboree . -- -- - - 8.9% 10.7% 8.9% 10.7% 8.9% 10.8% 9.0% 11.0% 8.9% 10.8% Direct Road East of Jamboree Road 7.5% 9.0% 7.5% 9.0% 81% 9.6% 8.1% 9.6% 8.1% 9.6% Direct ...... Via Lido Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 74 North of 16th Exist 2015 NP 2025 NP Project Alt Link Used Where Road Segment AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Data Was Not Provided Orange _St..._._. . .. .......... .... F of 16th §OUh 9.2% 8.3% 9.5% 9.3% 8.8% 7.3% North of West Coast 12-0% 13.0% 12.0% 13.0% 10.0% 17.0% 10.0% 17.0% 10.0% 17.0% Direct 8.7% 9.5% 8.6% 9.5% Direct North of Hospital Rd. 9.5% ..................... 9 .5% 9.3% 8.8% 7.3% South of West Coast 7.0% 8.5% 7.0% 8.5% 13.0% 14-0% 13.0% 14.0% 13.0% 14.0% Direct -- ----------- 9.5% 10.2% 9.7% Direct North of Hospital Road 10.0% 8-3% ........................ 8.3% - ------ - - ----- Prospect St. 6,8010 4.3% 6.9% Direct North of West boast 10.6% 9.70/. - - -------- ---- -- - 12.8% - - -- - ------------ North of West Coast 9.5% 7.5% 9.5% 7.5% 15.0% 9.0% 15.0% 9.0% 15.0% 9.0% Direct Hwy. South of West Coast Prospect Street: South of West Coast 12.3% 8.3% 9.5% 7.5% 15.0% 9.0% 15.0% 9.0% 15.0% 9.0% Hwy. _ -- ----- ... .. ... ...... .............. .. . .. .. ..................... .... PlacentiaAve . --------- ....... ............... ............ North of Superior Ave. 10.0% 9.9% 10.0% 9.9% 8.3% 10.3% 8.3% 10.0% 8.3% 10.3% Direct South of Ave. 9.7% 9.8% 9.7% 9.8% 8.7% 9.5% 8.4% 9.7% 8.5% 9.9% Direct . ..... . ..... - - -------- North, of Hospital Road 8.9% 10.5% 8.9% 10.5% 6.9% --------- I -- 9.5% ----- 6.7% 9.6% - -- 6.8% 9.6% - Direct . Superior uparior Ave. -- --- ---------- ---- -- - - -- -- . ...... ..... ....... ......... ...... ... North of 17th St. 9.2% 8.3% 9.5% 9.3% 8.8% 7.3% 8.8% 7.5% 8.8% - 7.5% ---- S.Ype.rio.r-.Ave.: South, .o.f-. Placentia Ave. . South ',-of,1-7-th, St. 8.3% ... 9.5 %-- 9.3% - ---- -8-.- 8-%,-- 73% 8-.8- % 7,-.5-% 6.8% 7.5% Superior Ave.: South of Placentia Ave. North of 16th 9.2% 8.3% 9.5% 9.3% 8.8% 7.3% 8.8% 7.5% 8.8% 7.5% Superior Ave.: South of Placentia Ave. StAnd Ustrial Way .-- . . .. .......... .... F of 16th §OUh 9.2% 8.3% 9.5% 9.3% 8.8% 7.3% 8.8% 7.5% 8.8% 7.5% Superior Ave.: South of Placentia Ave. St..\Lqdustr al Way 6.1% . ..... . ...... 6.1% 8.2% 8.6% 9.6% 8.7% 9.5% 8.6% 9.5% Direct North of Hospital Rd. 9.5% 9.3% 9 .5% 9.3% 8.8% 7.3% 8.8% 7.5% 8.8% 7.5% Direct . . ---- South of Placentia .1 % ... 8. .. 9% --. 9.2% 8.90/6 10.1% 9.8% 10.2% 9.5% 10.2% 9.7% Direct North of Hospital Road 10.0% 8-3% 10.0% 8.3% 9.1% 9.9% 9.3% 6,8010 4.3% 6.9% Direct North of West Coast 8.3% 7.8% 8.3% 7.8% 10.9% 9.9% 11.3% 9.5% 11.3% 9.7% Direct .......... .... Ba"Iboa Blvd. ..... . . . ....... . . ... . ...... South of West Coast 6.1% 8.2% 6.1% 8.2% 8.6% 9.6% 8.7% 9.5% 8.6% 9.5% Direct .Hwy.. I.... .......... - r ... ......... .. ......... - . . ..................... ....... Hoag Dr. .......... . .. ..... . .. .. . ..... .. ....... .. South ofHospital Road 8.4% 10.0% 8.4% 10.0% 4.2% 4.9% 4.1% 4.5% 4.3% 4.8% Direct North of West boast 10.6% 9.70/. 10.6% 9.7% 12.8% 7.6% 12.1% 7.7% 13,0% 7.9% Direct Hwv. Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 75 Exist 2015 NP 2025 NP Project Alt Link Used Where Road Segment AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Data Was Not Provided Harbor Blvd. West -- - _ _-- - - -__ . .. . .. ....... ............... .. . . . q!. Newport .Blvd ........8...9,% ------ 9.9%_ 9.2% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% Newport Blvd.: South of Hospital Rd. ---------- --- ------ .. .. .. .... - - -- -------------------------- North of 19th St. 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% 8_6% -- 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% . ... .. ... Newport Blvd.: South of Hospital Rd. .... South of 19th St. -Nort-h- -Broadway 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% Newport Blvd.: -- Newport _ --------- South of Hospital Rd. of - ----- Blvd. 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% Newport Blvd.: South of Hospital Rd. South of Broadway -------------------­--------- -­ ......... ... ..... - --- - - - ­-_ - ------- Blvd. 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% Newport Blvd.: South of Hospital Rd. North o-f--H-, -ar,b' -or- - Blvd. -8 _- 6 %­, ­64%,'", 9.0-% 9-.2%-- -,9.'2'% 8.-6%-""- 8,-6,%--*,-,9,.3% 8.4% -8 --- 9.1% -6-1-OX.'' 8.5% 9.2% ------ - Newport Blvd,: -Newp South of Hospital Rd. South of Harbor B, lv'd'. . .... .... 9.-0%- 6. 6 % 8.6% 9.3% 4-%­ ... ....... 8.5%'' 9.2%---- _qrt Blvd.: South of Hospital Rd- North of 16th St /Rochester St. 8.9% 9.0% 9_2% 8.6% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% Newport Blvd.: South of Hospital Rd. South of 18th St /Rochester St. 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% 8.6% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.2% Newport Blvd-: South of Hospital Rd. North of 17th St. 8.9% Soutn or 16th bt. - 8.-9"% 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% ,North ofIndustra[WavB.9%9.0% -- --- , 9.2%8.6% _ qy8.9% _. 9.1% 9.0% 9.2% 8.6% North of Hospital Road 6.n. - _&_6% _ _ ­ 9.2_%_8 _ 6% 6.4% 6. 8S% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.5% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 9.3% 8.4% 9.1% 9.3% - I—.. � ... . .. ........... .. 8.4% I..... � . 1.11 .. ........... 9.1% 9.3% ---------------- 8.4% _. 9.1% 9.3% 7.8% 9 4% 9.7% &.S 9.6% 6.4% 9.6% 6.8% 8.9% 6.8% 8.9% 8.6% 11:0% 8.5% 10.8% 8.6% 10.9% Direct Tustin Ave. .......... orth of West Coast Hwv 7.5% 15.5% 7.5% 15.5% 6.3% 9.0% 6.0% 9.0% 6.0% 9.0% Direct orth of West Coast Hwy. 6.9% 8.6% 6.9% 8.6% 7.6% 9.1% 7.7% 9,1% 7.6% 9.0% Direct Table Continued on Next Page Blvd.: Blvd.: of Hospital Rd. of Hos�oita(Rcl. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 76 Exist 2015 NP 2025 NP Project Alt Link Used Where Road Segment AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Data Was Not Provided B Sho Dr. I.-ay re -11 . ......... .. .. -------------------------- - - - - -- South of West Coast 7.0% 8.5% 7.0% 8.5% 15.0% 11.0% 16.0% 11.0% 16.0% 11.0% Direct tvy- ----- ..... . ..... ..... .... . ..... . -- ---- ----- --------- - 6@yside D!.___ North of East Coast 7.0% 9.0% 7.0% 9.0% 5.2% 7.8% 5.2% 7.8% 5.2% 7.8% Direct ------------------ -- South of East Coast 9.1% 8.8% 9.1% 8.8% 7.7% 9.4% 7.9% 9.3% 7.8% 9.3% Direct Hwy. ........ ...... - --- ----- ------------- -- - ------- ----- .. . ...... - - ---- --- Jamboree Rd. .. ... ------- North of East Coast 8.3% 9.9% 8.3% 9.9% 8.8% 10.7% 8.7% 10.7% 8.7% 10.7% Direct tya.. .. .11. . ... - - - ----- - ------------ . ......... ... . I -- ----- ---------------- - ------ ---- - . .............. .. Marine Dr. South of East' Coast'"' 1. 7.50/6 10.0% 7,5% 10.0% 8.5% 10.3% 8.5% 10.1% 8.5% 10.1% Direct Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 77 Table A -4 presents the day /evening /nighttime traffic mix by vehicle type auto, medium truck (MT), and heavy truck (HT) used for the traffic noise modeling. The arterial mix (index 1) was developed by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency based on traffic surveys at arterial intersections throughout the county. Table A -4 Traffic Distribution Used for Traffic Noise Modeling 1. Arterial Roadways Day Eve Ni ht Auto 75.51% 12.57% 9.34% MT 1.56% 0.09% 0.19% HT 0.64% 0.02% 0.08% Mestre Greve Associates Existing Traffic Noise Levels Table A -5 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 78 Table Continued on Next Page CNEL Distance To CNEL Contour (feet)t Roadway Segment @ 100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 19th Street west of Newport Ave. 59.4 RW 42 91 east of Newport Ave. 56.5 RW RW 58 Broadway east of Newport Blvd. 51.2 RW RW RW 18th Street west of Newport Blvd. 57.3 RW 31 66 Rochester Street east of Newport Blvd. 52.4 RW RW 31 17th Street west of Superior Ave. 60.8 RW 52 113 east of Superior Ave. 63.7 38 82 177 west of Newport Blvd. 63.0 34 73 158 east of Newport Blvd. 63.3 36 77 166 16th Street west of Superior Ave. 55.6 RW RW 51 west of Newport Ave. 50.5 RW RW RW east of Newport Ave. 53.2 RW RW 35 Industrial Way east of Superior Ave. 54.7 RW RW 44 west of Newport Blvd. 55.2 RW RW 48 east of Newport Blvd. 53.9 RW RW 39 Hospital Road east of Superior Ave. 57.2 RW 30 65 west of Hoag Dr. 56.8 RW RW 61 east of Hoag Dr. 60.0 RW 46 100 west of Newport Blvd. 60.1 RW 47 102 east of Newport Blvd. 56.1 RW RW 55 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 79 Table Continued on Next Page CNEL Distance To CNEL Contour (feet)t Roadway Segment @ 100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Pacific Coast Highway west of Orange St. 68.5 80 172 370 east of Orange St. 68.6 80 173 372 west of Prospect St. 68.4 78 167 360 east of Prospect St. 68.4 79 169 365 west of Balboa Blvd. \Superior Ave. 68.8 83 180 387 east of Balboa BlvdASuperior Ave. 67.8 72 154 333 west of Hoag Dr. 67.7 70 151 325 east of Hoag Dr. 63.9 39 84 181 west of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 64.1 40 87 187 east of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 66.1 55 119 255 west of Riverside Ave. 66.7 60 129 278 east of Riverside Ave. 66.0 54 116 251 west of Tustin Ave. 65.8 52 113 243 east of Tustin Ave. 66.9 62 134 289 west of Bay Shore DrADover Dr. 67.3 66 143 308 east of Bay Shore Dr.\Dover Dr. 69.0 86 185 398 west of Bayside Dr. 68.7 82 176 380 east of Bay side Dr. 69.0 86 185 399 west of Marine Dr.\Iamboree Rd. 69.5 93 199 430 east of Marine DrAlamboree Rd. 69.0 86 185 399 Via Lido east of Newport Blvd. 57.9 RW 34 72 Orange Street north of West Coast Hwy. 45.7 RW RW RW south of West Coast Hwy. 47.9 RW RW RW Prospect Street north of West Coast Hwy. 50.4 RW RW RW south of West Coast Hwy. 44.9 RW RW RW Placentia Avenue north of Superior Ave. 61.8 RW 61 131 south of Superior Ave. 59.4 RW 43 92 north of Hospital Rd. 61.3 RW 57 122 Superior Avenue north of 17th St. 58.2 RW 35 75 south of 17th St. 63.9 39 84 182 north of 16th St.\Industrial Way 63.2 35 75 163 south of 16th St.\Industrial Way 63.2 35 76 163 north of Placentia Ave. 62.4 31 67 145 south of Placentia Ave. 64.1 40 87 187 north of Hospital Rd. 64.6 43 94 202 south of Hospital Rd. 65.2 48 103 221 north of West Coast Hwy. 64.5 43 92 198 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 80 t From roadway centerline RW — Contour does not extend beyond fightof -way CNEL Distance To CNEL Contour (feet)t Roadway Segment @ 100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Balboa Boulevard south of West Coast Hwy. 60.1 RW 47 101 Hoag Drive south of Hospital Rd. 53.0 RW RW 34 north of West Coast Hwy. 51.8 RW RW RW Harbor Boulevard west of Newport Blvd. 61.0 RW 54 117 Newport Boulevard north of 19th St. 68.1 75 161 348 south of 19th St. 66.9 62 134 288 north of Broadway 67.0 63 136 292 south of Broadway 66.9 62 134 288 north of Harbor Blvd. 66.8 62 133 286 south of Harbor Blvd. 67.5 68 146 314 north of 18th St. /Rochester St. 67.5 68 146 315 south of 18th St. /Rochester St. 67.2 65 140 301 north of 17th St. 67.0 63 136 294 south of 17th St. 65.5 51 109 234 north of 16th St. 65.4 49 106 229 south of 16th St. 68.0 74 159 344 north of Industrial Way 68.1 74 160 345 south of Industrial Way 67.9 73 157 339 north of Hospital Rd. 68.2 76 163 351 south of Hospital Rd. 68.9 84 181 390 north of Via Lido 65.6 51 109 235 south of Via Lido 64.4 42 91 196 Riverside Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 58.3 RW 36 77 Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 49.3 RW RW RW Dover Drive north of West Coast Hwy. 65.8 52 113 243 Bay Shore Drive south of West Coast Hwy. 52.3 RW RW 31 Bayside Drive north of East Coast Hwy. 48.6 RW RW RW south of East Coast Hwy. 56.7 RW RW 60 Jamboree Road north of East Coast Hwy. 68.9 85 182 393 Marine Drive south of East Coast Hwy. 60.9 RW 53 115 t From roadway centerline RW — Contour does not extend beyond fightof -way Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 81 Traffic Noise Level CNEL Changes and Future Levels With Project Table A -6 Traffic Noise CNEL Changes With Change in 2015 Change In 2025 Over Due to ! Over Due to 19th Street west of Newport Ave. 0.4 0.1 1.0 -0.1 east of Newport Ave. 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.1 Broadway east of Newport Blvd. i 0.4 0.0 ! 0.8 0.1 18th Street west of Newport Blvd. 0.4 0.1 -0.7 0.1 Rochester Street east of Newport Blvd. 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.1 17th Street west of Superior Ave. 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.0 east of Superior Ave. 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 west of Newport Blvd. 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.1 east of Newport Blvd. 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.1 16th Street west of Superior Ave. 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.0 west of Newport Ave. 0.4 0.0 3.5 0.1, east of Newport Ave. 0.4 0.0 2.8 0.1 Industrial Way east of Superior Ave. 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.0 west of Newport Blvd. j 0.4 0.1 -0.1 0.1 east of Newport Blvd. 0.4 0.1 -0.6 0.1 Hospital Road east of Superior Ave. 0.1 0.8 1.7 0.0 west of Hoag Dr. -0.3 0.6 1.3 0.0 east of Hoag Dr. -1.0 -0.6 -0.1 0.3 west of Newport Blvd. -1.3 -0.8 -0.2 0.3 _east of Newport Blvd. 1.4 0.3 1.0 0.0 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 82 Roadway Segment i Change in 2015 Change In 2025 Over Due to Over Due to Existing Project ! Existing Project Pacific Coast Highway west of Orange St. i 0.4 -0.5 i 0.5 0.0 east of Orange St. 0.3 -0.5 0.5 0.0 west of Prospect St. 0.7 -0.3 0.7 0.0 east of Prospect St. 0.6 -0.3 ' 0.6 0.0 west of Balboa Blvd. \Superior Ave. 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.0 east of Balboa Blvd.\Superior Ave. 0.7 0.0 1 0.7 -0.2 west of Hoag Dr. 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.1 east of Hoag Dr. 1.6 0.8 2.0 -0.5 west of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramps 1.6 1.0 2.1 -0.3 east of Newport Blvd, SB Off Ramp 0.4 -0.2 i 0.7 0.0 west of Riverside Ave. -0.2 -0.7 0.4 -0.1 east of Riverside Ave. 0.0 -0.5 0.6 -0.1 west of Tustin Ave. 0.3 0.3 1 0.6 0.0 east of Tustin Ave. 0.4 -0.2 0.6 -0.1 west of Bay Shore DrADover Dr. -0.1 -0.2 0.8 -0.1 east of Bay Shore Dr.\Dover Dr. 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 west of Bayside Dr. 0.4 -0.1 0.7 -0.1 east of Bayside Dr. 0.9 0.3 1.2 0.0 west of Marine Dr.\Jamboree Rd. 0.0 -0.1 0.4 -0.1 east of Marine DrAJamboree Rd. 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 Via Lido east of Newport Blvd. 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.0 Orange Street north of West Coast Hwy. 0.7 -0.1 0.7 0.0 south of West Coast Hwy. -0.9 -2.4 -1.4 0.0 Prospect Street north of West Coast Hwy. 2.3 1.3 0.9 0.0 south of West Coast Hwy. 0.5 -1.3 1.3 0.0 Placentia Avenue north of Superior Ave. 0.8 0.3 -0.2 0.0 south of Superior Ave. 1.2 0.3 1.3 0.0 north of Hospital Rd. 0.7 0.8 1.8 0.0 Superior Avenue i north of 17th St. 0.7 0.8 1.9 0.0 south of 17th St. 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.0 north of 16th StAlndustrial Way 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.0 south of 16th St.\Industrial Way 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.0 north of Placentia Ave. 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 south of Placentia Ave. 0.3 0.4 1.6 0.0 north of Hospital Rd. 0.5 0.2 1.3 0.0 south of Hospital Rd. P j -0.2 0.2 -0.4 0.0 north of West Coast Hwy. 0.6 1.1 2.2 0.0 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 83 Change in 2015 Change In 2025 Over Due to Over Due to Roadway Segment Existing Project Existing Project Balboa Boulevard south of West Coast Hwy. i 0.0 -1.1 0.5 0.0 Hoag Drive south of Hospital Rd. 4.2 3.8 5.8 0.5 north of West Coast Hwy. 0.9 -2.2 3.0 1.5 Harbor Boulevard west of Newport Blvd. 0.4 0.0 2.0 0.1 Newport Boulevard north of 19th St. + 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.1 south of 19th St. 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 north of Broadway 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 south of Broadway 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 north of Harbor Blvd. 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 south of Harbor Blvd. 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 north of 18th St. /Rochester St. 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 south of 18th SURochester St. 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 north of 17th St. 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 south of 17th St. 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 north of 16th St. 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 south of 16th St. 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 north of Industrial Way 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 south of Industrial Way 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 north of Hospital Rd. 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 south of Hospital Rd. 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 north of Via Lido -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 south of Via Lido -1.2 -0.7 -0.3 0.0 Riverside Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 1.2 1.0 0.2 0.0 Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 3.4 1.6 3.5 0.0 Dover Drive north of West Coast Hwy. -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 0.0 Bay Shore Drive south of West Coast Hwy. -2.0 -2.1 -5.9 0.0 Bayside Drive north of East Coast Hwy. 4.8 1.0 5.6 0.0 south of East Coast Hwy. j 0.4 0.2 1.2 0.0 Jamboree Road north of East Coast Hwy. -0.4 -0.3 0.3 0.0 Marine Drive south of East Coast Hwy. -0.8 -0.3 02 0.0 Mestre Greve Associates Table A -7 Future Traffic Noise Levels With Proiect Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 84 Table Continued on Next Page CNEL Distance To CNEL Contourt (feet) Roadway Segment @ 100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 19th Street west of Newport Ave. 60.4 RW 49 106 east of Newport Ave. 57.4 RW 31 67 Broadway east of Newport Blvd. 52.0 RW RW RW 18th Street west of Newport Blvd. 57.7 RW 33 70 Rochester Street east of Newport Blvd. 53.8 RW RW 38 17th Street west of Superior Ave. 61.9 RW 62 135 east of Superior Ave. 64.4 42 91 196 west of Newport Blvd. 64.2 41 88 191 east of Newport Blvd. 64.0 40 86 186 16th Street west of Superior Ave. 56.3 RW RW 57 west of Newport Ave. 54.1 RW RW 40 east of Newport Ave. 56.0 RW RW 54 Industrial Way east of Superior Ave. 55.4 RW RW 49 west of Newport Blvd. 55.6 RW RW 51 east of Newport Blvd. 54.3 RW RW 42 Hospital Road east of Superior Ave. 58.9 RW 39 85 west of Hoag Dr. 58.1 RW 35 75 east of Hoag Dr. 59.9 RW 46 98 west of Newport Blvd. 59.9 RW 46 98 east of Newport Blvd. 57.5 RW 32 68 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 85 Table Continued on Next Page CNEL Distance To CNEL Contourt (feet) Roadway Segment @100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Pacific Coast Highway west of Orange St. 69.0 86 186 400 east of Orange St. 69.0 86 186 400 west of Prospect St. 69.1 87 186 402 east of Prospect St. 69.0 86 186 401 west of Balboa Blvd. \Superior Ave. 69.7 96 207 445 east of Balboa Blvd. \Superior Ave. 68.6 80 173 373 west of Hoag Dr. 68.9 84 182 392 east of Hoag Dr. 65.9 53 114 247 west of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 66.2 55 119 257 east of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 66.8 61 132 285 west of Riverside Ave. 67.1 64 137 295 east of Riverside Ave. 66.6 59 128 275 west of Tustin Ave. 66.3 57 123 264 east of Tustin Ave. 67.5 68 146 315 west of Bay Shore Dr.\Dover Dr. 68.2 75 163 350 east of Bay Shore Dr.\Dover Dr. 69.7 95 205 442 west of Bayside Dr. 69.4 91 196 423 east of Bayside Dr. 70.2 103 221 477 west of Marine Dr.Vamboree Rd. 69.9 98 212 457 east of Marine Dr.Uamboree Rd. 69.0 86 186 400 Via Lido east of Newport Blvd. 59.3 RW 41 89 Orange Street north of West Coast Hwy. 46.4 RW RW RW south of West Coast Hwy. 47.0 RW RW RW Prospect Street north of West Coast Hwy. 49.4 RW RW RW south of West Coast Hwy. 46.2 RW RW RW Placentia Avenue north of Superior Ave. 62.6 32 69 148 south of Superior Ave. 60.8 RW 52 112 north of Hospital Rd. 63.1 34 74 160 Superior Avenue north of 17th St. 60.0 RW 47 101 south of 17th St. 64.6 44 94 202 north of 16th St\Industrial Way 64.1 40 86 186 south of 16th StAlndustrial Way 64.0 40 86 185 north of Placentia Ave. 64.0 40 86 185 south of Placentia Ave. 64.4 42 91 195 north of Hospital Rd. 64.4 42 91 195 south of Hospital Rd. 65.3 49 105 225 north of West Coast Hwy. 63.8 39 83 179 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 86 t From roadway centerline RW - Contour does not extend beyond right -of -way CNEL Distance To CNEL Contourt (feet) Roadway Segment @100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Balboa Boulevard south of West Coast Hwy. 60.0 RW 47 101 Hoag Drive south of Hospital Rd. 58.7 RW 38 82 north of West Coast Hwy. 54.9 RW RW 46 Harbor Boulevard west of Newport Blvd. 63.0 34 73 158 Newport Boulevard north of 19th St. 68.9 85 1.83 394 south of 19th St. 67.6 69 149 321 north of Broadway 67.4 67 145 312 south of Broadway 67.3 66 143 308 north of Harbor Blvd. 67.4 67 145 312 south of Harbor Blvd. 68.3 77 166 357 north of 18th St. /Rochester St. 68.2 76 164 353 south of 18th St./Rochester St. 68.0 73 158 340 north of 17th St. 67.8 71 153 330 south of 17th St. 66.3 56 122 262 north of 16th St. 66.0 54 116 250 south of 16th St. 68.9 85 182 392 north of Industrial Way 69.1 87 187 403 south of Industrial Way 68.8 83 178 383 north of Hospital Rd. 68.9 84 181 390 south of Hospital Rd. 68.9 85 183 395 north of Via Lido 65.2 48 103 222 south of Via Lido 64.1 41 88 189 Riverside Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 58.1 RW 35 75 Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 52.9 RW RW 34 Dover Drive north of West Coast Hwy. 65.5 50 109 234 Bay Shore Drive south of West Coast Hwy. 50.3 RW RW RW Bayside Drive north of East Coast Hwy. 54.2 RW RW 41 south of East Coast Hwy. 57.9 RW 34 72 Jamboree Road north of East Coast Hwy. 69.2 89 192 413 Marine Drive south of East Coast Hwy. 61.1 RW 55 119 t From roadway centerline RW - Contour does not extend beyond right -of -way Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 87 Traffic Noise Level CNEL Changes and Future Levels With Project Alternative Table A -8 Traffic Noise CNEL _ With Project Alternative Change in 2015 Change in 2025 Due to Due to Over Project Over Project Roadwav Senmr±nt `. Exictino Alternative) Existing Alternative 19th Street west of Newport Ave. 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.0 east of Newport Ave. 1 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 Broadway east of Newport Blvd. 0.3 -0.1 0.7 0.0 18th Street west of Newport Blvd, 0.4 0.0 -0.7 0.1 Rochester Street east of Newport Blvd. 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 17th Street west of Superior Ave. 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.1 east of Superior Ave. 0.6 0.6 0.6 -0.1 west of Newport Blvd. 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.0' east of Newport Blvd. 0.3 0.0 1 0.7 0.0 16th Street ' west of Superior Ave. 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 west of Newport Ave. 0.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 east of Newport Ave. 0.4 0.0 2.7 0.0 Industrial Way east of Superior Ave. 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.1 west of Newport Blvd. 0.4 0.1 -0.2 0.0 east of Newport Blvd. 0.4 0.0 -0.7 0.0 Hospital Road east of Superior Ave. 0.1 0.7 1.7 0.0 west of Hoag Dr. -0.3 0.5 1.3 0.0 east of Hoag Dr. -1.0 -0.6 -0.1 0.3 west of Newport Blvd. -1.3 -0.8 j -0.2 0.3 east of Newport Blvd. 1.3 0.3 1.0 0.0 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 88 Change in 2015 Change in 2025 Due to Due to Over Project Over Project Roadway Segment Existing Alternative! Existina Alternative Pacific Coast Highway west of Orange St. 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 east of Orange St. j 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 west of Prospect St. 0.7 -0.3 0.7 0.0 east of Prospect St. 0.6 -0.4 0.6 0.0 west of Balboa Blvd. \Superior Ave. 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.0 east of Balboa Blvd. \Superior Ave. 0.7 0.1 0.8 -0.1 west of Hoag Dr. 1.0 0.2 1.0 -0.1 east of Hoag Dr. 1.8 1.1 2.4 Q.2 west of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp; 1.6 1.0 2.2 -0.2 east of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 0.4 -0.2 0.7 0.0 west of Riverside Ave. -0.2 -0.7 0.5 0.0 cast of Riverside Ave. 0.1 -0.4 0.7 0.0 west of Tustin Ave. 0.3 -0.4 ! 0.6 0.0 east of Tustin Ave. 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.1 west of Bay Shore DrADover Dr. 0.0 -0.1 0.9 0.0 east of Bay Shore DrADover Dr. 0.1 -0.1 0.7 0.0 west of Bayside Dr. 0.4 -0.1 0.8 0.0 cast of Bayside Dr. 0.9 0.3 1 1.2 0.0 west of Marine DrAlamboree Rd. 0.1 0.0 I 0.5 0.0 east of Marine Dr.\Jamboree Rd. -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.0 Via Lido east of Newport Blvd. 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.0 Orange Street north of West Coast Hwy. 0.7 -0.1 0.7 0.0 south of West Coast Hwy. -0.9 -2.4 -1.4 0.0 Prospect Street north of West Coast Hwy. -2.3 -1.3 -0.9 0.0 south of West Coast Hwy. 0.5 1.3 1.3 0.0 Placentia Avenue north of Superior Ave. 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 south of Superior Ave. 1.1 0.2 1.3 0.0 north of Hospital Rd. 0.7 0.8 1.8 0.0 Superior Avenue north of 17th St. 0.7 0.7 1.9 0.0 south of 17th St. 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.0 north of 16th St\Industrial Way 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.0 south of 16th St\Industrial Way 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.0 north of Placentia Ave. 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 south of Placentia Ave. 0.2 -0.4 -1.6 0.0 north of Hospital Rd. -0.5 -0.2 -1.3 0.0 south of Hospital Rd. -0.3 0.1 1 -0.4 0.0 north of West Coast Hwy. -0.7 -1.2 -2.2 0.0 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 89 Change in 2015 Change in 2025 Due to Due to Over Project Over Project Roadway Segment I Existing Alternativel Existing Alternative Balboa Boulevard south of West Coast Hwy. ( 0.0 -1.1 -0.5 0.0 Hoag Drive south of Hospital Rd. 4.0 3.5 5.8 0.5 north of West Coast Hwy. 0.7 -2.3 3.6 -1.0 Harbor Boulevard west of Newport Blvd. 0.3 -0.1 1.9 0.0 Newport Boulevard north of 19th St. 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 south of 19th St. 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 north of Broadway 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 south of Broadway 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 north of Harbor Blvd. 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 south of Harbor Blvd. 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 north of 18th St. /Rochester St. 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 south of 18th St./Rochester St. 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.0 north of 17th St. 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 south of 17th St. 0.3 -0.1 0.7 0.0 north of 16th St. 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.0 south of 16th St. 0.3 -0.1 0.9 0.0 north of Industrial Way 0.3 -0.1 1.0 0.0 south of Industrial Way 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.0 north of Hospital Rd. 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 south of Hospital Rd. -0.7 -0.7 j 0.1 -0.1 north of Via Lido -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 south of Via Lido -1.2 -0.7 -0.3 0.0 Riverside Avenue j north of West Coast Hwy. -1.2 -1.0 -0.2 0.0 Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 3.4 1.6 3.5 0.0 Dover Drive north of West Coast Hwy. -0.4 -0.3 0.2 0.0 Bay Shore Drive south of West Coast Hwy. -2.0 -2.1 -5.9 0.0 Bayside Drive north of East Coast Hwy. 4.8 I.0 5.6 0.0 south of East Coast Hwy. 0.4 0.3 1.2 0.0 Jamboree Road north, East Coast Hwy. -0.4 -0.3 0.3 0.0 Marine Drive south of East Coast Hwy. 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.0 Mestre Greve Associates Table A -9 Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project Alternative Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 90 Table Continued on Next Page CNEL Distance To CNEL Contourt (feet) Roadway Segment @100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 19th Street west of Newport Ave. 60.4 RW 50 107 east of Newport Ave. 57.4 RW 31 67 Broadway east of Newport Blvd. 5.1.9 RW RW RW 18th Street west of Newport Blvd. 57.7 RW 32 70 Rochester Street east of Newport Blvd. 53.7 RW RW 38 17th Street west of Superior Ave. 61.9 RW 62 134 east of Superior Ave. 64.4 42 91 195 west of Newport Blvd. 64.2 41 88 189 east of Newport Blvd. 64.0 40 86 185 16th Street west of Superior Ave. 56.3 RW RW 56 west of Newport Ave. 54.0 RW RW 40 east of Newport Ave. 56.0 RW RW 54 Industrial Way east of Superior Ave. 55.4 RW RW 49 west of Newport Blvd. 55.6 RW RW 51 east of Newport Blvd. 54.2 RW RW 41 Hospital Road east of Superior Ave. 58.9 RW 39 85 west of Hoag Dr. 58.1 RW 35 75 east of Hoag Dr. 59.9 RW 46 98 west of Newport Blvd. 59.9 RW 46 98 east of Newport Blvd. 57.4 RW 31 67 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 91 Table Continued on Next Page CNEL Distance To CNEL Contourt (feet) Roadway Segment @ 1 00' t 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Pacific Coast Highway west of Orange St. 69.0 86 186 400 east of Orange St. 69.0 86 186 400 west of Prospect St. 69.0 86 186 400 east of Prospect St. 69.0 86 186 400 west of Balboa B1vd.\Superior Ave. 69.7 96 206 444 east of Balboa B1vdASuperior Ave. 68.7 82 176 379 west of Hoag Dr. 68.7 82 176 379 east of Hoag Dr. 66.2 56 121 261 west of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 66.2 56 121 261 east of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 66.8 61 132 285 west of Riverside Ave. 67.1 64 139 299 east of Riverside Ave. 66.7 60 129 278 west of Tustin Ave. 66.3 57 123 264 east of Tustin Ave. 67.5 68 146 315 west of Bay Shore DrADover Dr. 68.2 76 165 355 east of Bay Shore DrADover Dr. 69.7 96 207 446 west of Bayside Dr. 69.5 92 198 427 east of Bayside Dr. 70.2 103 221 477 west of Marine Dr.Uamboree Rd. 70.0 100 214 462 east of Marine Dr.Uamboree Rd. 69.0 86 186 400 Via Lido east of Newport Blvd. 59.3 RW 41 89 Orange Street north of West Coast Hwy. 46.4 RW RW RW south of West Coast Hwy.. 47.0 RW RW RW Prospect Street north of West Coast Hwy. 49.4 RW RW RW south of West Coast Hwy. 46.2 RW RW RW Placentia Avenue north of Superior Ave. 62.5 32 68 147 south of Superior Ave. 60.8 RW 52 112 north of Hospital Rd. 63.1 34 74 160 Superior Avenue north of 17th St. 60.0 RW 47 100 south of 17th St. 64.6 43 93 201 north of 16th StAndustrial Way 64.0 40 86 186 south of 16th StAndustrial Way 64.0 40 86 185 north of Placentia Ave. 64.0 40 85 184 south of Placentia Ave. 64.3 42 90 194 north of Hospital Rd. 64.4 42 91 195 south of Hospital Rd. 65.3 48 104 225 north of West Coast Hwy. 63.8 38 83 178 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 92 t From roadway centerline Rw — Contour does not extend beyond right -of -way CNEL Distance To CNEL Contourt (feet) Roadway Segment @ 100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Balboa Boulevard south of West Coast Hwy. 60.1 RW 47 101 Hoag Drive south of Hospital Rd. 58.7 RW 38 82 north of West Coast Hwy. 55.5 RW RW 50 Harbor Boulevard west of Newport Blvd. 62.9 34 73 157 Newport Boulevard north of 19th St. 68.9 84 182 392 south of 19th St. 67.6 69 149 320 north of Broadway 67.4 67 144 311 south of Broadway 67.3 66 143 307 north of Harbor Blvd. 67.4 67 145 312 south of Harbor Blvd. 68.3 77 165 356 north of 18th St./Rochester St. 68.2 76 164 352 south of 18th St. /Rochester St. 67.9 73 157 339 north of 17th St. 67.8 71 153 329 south of 17th St. 66.3 56 122 262 north of 16th St. 66.0 54 116 250 south of 16th St. 68.9 85 182 392 north of Industrial Way 69.1 87 187 403 south of Industrial Way 68.8 83 178 383 north of Hospital Rd. 68.9 84 181 390 south of Hospital Rd. 68.9 85 183 395 north of Via Lido 65.2 48 103 222 south of Via Lido 64.1 41 88 189 Riverside Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 58.1 RW 35 75 Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 52.9 RW RW 34 Dover Drive north of West Coast Hwy. 65.5 50 109 234 Bay Shore Drive south of West Coast Hwy. 50.3 RW RW RW Bayside Drive north of East Coast Hwy. 54.2 RW RW 41 south of East Coast Hwy. 57.9 RW 34 72 Jamboree Road north of East Coast Hwy. 69.2 89 192 413 Marine Drive south of East Coast Hwy. 61.1 RW 55 119 t From roadway centerline Rw — Contour does not extend beyond right -of -way Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 93 Traffic Noise Level CNEL Changes With Project vs. Project Alternative Table A -10 Traffic Noise CNEL Level Changes With Project vs. Project Alternative (dB) Roadway Segment 2015 2025 19th Street west of Newport Ave. 0.1 0.1 east of Newport Ave. 0.0 0.0 Broadway east of Newport Blvd. 0.0 0.0 18th Street west of Newport Blvd. 0.0 0.0 Rochester Street east of Newport Blvd. 0.0 0.0 17th Street west of Superior Ave. 0.0 0.0 east of Superior Ave. 0.0 0.0 west of Newport Blvd. 0.0 0.0 east of Newport Blvd. 0.0 0.0 16th Street west of Superior Ave. 0.0 0.0 west of Newport Ave. 0.0 0.0 east of Newport Ave. 0.0 0.0 Industrial Way east of Superior Ave. 0.0 0.0 west of Newport Blvd. 0.0 0.0 east of Newport Blvd. 0.0 0.0 Hospital Road east of Superior Ave. -0.1 0.0 west of Hoag Dr. -0.1 0.0 east of Hoag Dr. 0.0 0.0 west of Newport Blvd. 0.0 0.0 east of Newport Blvd. -0.1 0.0 Table Continued on Next Page Mestre Greve Associates Roadway Segment 2015 2025 Pacific Coast Highway west of Orange St. 0.0 0.0 east of Orange St. 0.0 0.0 west of Prospect St. 0.0 0.0 east of Prospect St. 0.0 0.0 west of Balboa Blvd. \Superior Ave. 0.0 0.0 east of Balboa Blvd. \Superior Ave. 0.1 0.1 west of Hoag Dr. -0.2 42 east of Hoag Dr. 0.2 0.4 west of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 0.0 0.1 east of Newport Blvd. SB Off Ramp 0.0 0.0 west of Riverside Ave. 0.0 0.1 east of Riverside Ave. 0.1 0.1 west of Tustin Ave. 0.0 0.0 east of Tustin Ave. 0.0 0.0 west of Bay Shore Dr.\Dover Dr. 0.1 0.1 east of Bay Shore Dr.\Dover Dr. 0.0 0.1 west of Bayside Dr. 0.0 0.1 east of Bayside Dr. 0.0 0.0 west of Marine Dr.\Jamboree Rd. 0.1 0.1 east of Marine Dr.\Jamboree Rd. 0.0 0.0 Via Lido east of Newport Blvd. 0.0 0.0 Orange Street north of West Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 south of West Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 Prospect Street north of West Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 south of West Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 Placentia Avenue north of Superior Ave. -0.1 0.0 south of Superior Ave. -0.1 0.0 north of Hospital Rd. 0.0 0.0 Superior Avenue north of 17th St. 0.0 0.0 south of 17th St. 0.0 0.0 north of 16th StAlndustrial Way 0.0 0.0 south of 16th StAindustrial Way 0.0 0.0 north of Placentia Ave. 0.0 0.0 south of Placentia Ave. 0.0 0.0 north of Hospital Rd. 0.0 0.0 south of Hospital Rd. 0.0 0.0 north of West Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 Table Continued on Next Page Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 94 Mestre Greve Associates Roadway Segment 2015 2025 Balboa Boulevard south of West Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 Hoag Drive south of Hospital Rd. -0.2 0.0 north of West Coast Hwy. -0.2 0.6 Harbor Boulevard west of Newport Blvd. 0.0 0.0 Newport Boulevard north of 19th St. 0.0 0.0 south of 19th St. 0.0 0.0 north of Broadway 0.0 0.0 south of Broadway 0.0 0.0 north of Harbor Blvd. 0.0 0.0 south of Harbor Blvd. 0.0 0.0 north of 18th St. /Rochester St. 0.0 0.0 south of 18th St. /Rochester St. 0.0 0.0 north of 17th St. 0.0 0.0 south of 17th St. 0.0 0.0 north of 16th St. 0.0 0.0 south of 16th St. 0.0 0.0 north of Industrial Way 0.0 0.0 south of Industrial Way 0.0 0.0 north of Hospital Rd. 0.0 0.0 south of Hospital Rd. 0.0 0.0 north of Via Lido 0.0 0.0 south of Via Lido 0.0 0.0 Riverside Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 Tustin Avenue north of West Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 Dover Drive north of West Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 Bay Shore Drive south of West Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 Bayside Drive north of East Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 south of East Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 Jamboree Road north of East Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 Marine Drive south of East Coast Hwy. 0.0 0.0 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 95