Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2007-073IIIIII IIII III IIII IIIIII IIII IIII III III IIII 'NEW FILE• PA2007A73 .PORT r � n u •_ C7CiFppN�r CITY OF NEV POR*ACH ❑ ning Activity No. -OUO� � PLANNING DEPARTMEN " PA2007-073 `ar, GP2007-005,P:)2007-001,D1 _ 7•- $ 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVAF 001,ER2007-303 NEWFORT BEACH, CA 9Z One Hoag Cyr ve-Hoag Hospital — -%.we,.minent ❑ PC Text Amendment ❑ DA Amendment Supplemental EIR TIA - 7ZO-) r DOS MV01Dol,V►ml ERz.Oo1-0b3 Deposit Account No. 029- PART I: Cover Page Project Common Name (if applicable): FEES: APPLICANT (Prim): Langston Trigg- Hoag Hospital CONTACT PERSON (if different): Carol McCermott/Coralee Newman — Government Solutions Mailing Address: P.O. Box 6100, Mailing Address: 230 Vewport Center Dr., Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 Newoort Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 717-7943 Fax (949) 717-7942 E-mail: caroID-govsol.com & cora(M-govsol.com Phone: (949) 764-4488 Fax (949) 764-4466 Property Owner (if different from above): Same as Above Mailing Address: Phone: Fax PROJECT ADDRESS: One Hoag Drive Project Description (If applying for a variance, also complete attached form for required findings.): The project consists of amendmen: of the Development Agreement, amendment of the General Plan and amendment of the PC Text. See Attachment A for a more detailed project description and the SCEIR Notice of Preparation. PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I, Langston Trigg, Vice President = acilities Design & Con tructio depose and say that I am the owner of the property involved in this application. I further certiff, under enalty of perjury, that a foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information he ' h sub a in AU rasp true and correct to the best of (my) (our) kr-owledge and belief. Signature(s) L Date: AIMTG- On anent mew oinn fnr the nwinar if.uritten eP ithnr9-yet=nn fmrn the rne-~A rounar ie filed urith the annlir-efinn F DO NOT COMPLETE THE BOX�EA BELOW THIS LINE -FOR PLAWNG DEPARTMENT USE ONLY. Indicate Previous Modifications, Use Permits, Specialty Food Service Permits, etc. General Plan Designation: Zoning District: Coastal Zone: YES or NO Date Filed: Date Deemed Complete: _ Fee Pd: Hearing Date: Refund Amount Date: Posting Date: Mailing Date: Planning Director Action Date Appeal P.C. Hearina - P.C. Action Date Appeal C.C. Hearin a C.C. Action F:\Users\Plh\SharechForrns\New FormsWpplications\Use Permit.doc ✓��ILbYhtl�tis 1�10 c+w'j1�oN14.b 1R 45 b�- 5 �, A. w ,-,i cl N�1 l.r, ,rn •nn , —.^nr7 �l 1M 'A Ca >,j ;,•�.�s 9 ti A �_X) '� >A rJ� Receipt No: . PART II: Project Data Sheet • Project Common Name: Application Number(s): Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project Address/Location: Assessors Parcel Number(s): One Hoag Drive 423-011-25,28,30 Legal Description (Attach on separate sheet, if necessary): See attached Title Report — Updated Report to Follow Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Hospital Hospital Zoning District: Land Use Designation: Planning Community (PC) Private Institution Please complete all the following items that apply to the project: Existing Development Proposed Development Zoning Code Requirement Lot Area (sf) of Width (ft) of Depth (ft) etback Yards ront (ft) ide (ft) ide (ft) ear (ft) ross Floor Area (sf) loor Area Ratio uilding Coverage (%) uilding Height (ft) andscaping (%) aving (%) arking umber of Employees umber of seats welling Units ours of Operation r PART III: Plans - All plans sh! Pbe collated, stapled and folded to size of 8'/2" by 14" maximum. (N/A) Each application shall be accompanied by 8 sets of plot plans, floor plans, and elevations, drawn to scale on 24 inch by 36 inch sheets with margins not less than 1/2 inch as well as 1 set of plans reduced to 8 1/2 inches by 11 inches. 12 additional sets of final drawings (after staffs review) will be required prior to Planning Commission meeting, size to be determined. The required number of plans to be submitted for a Use Permit within the jurisdiction of the Planning Director's is 12 sets; 4 sets drawn to scale and 8 sets reduced. The Planning Director may require additional material(s) or plan(s) and may modify or waive individual items if deemed appropriate to support the review of the application. A. Plot Plan/Site Plan (N/A) Plot plans or site plans shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information on the subject property. The plot plan shall show these items abutting the property a minimum of 20 feet from the boundaries of the site: • Vicinity Map. • North arrow. • Scale of the plan. • Existing and proposed property lines • Required and proposed yard setback lines. • Locations, names, dimensions, and descriptions of all existing and proposed right of way lines, dedications and easements. • Locations of existing and proposed structures, additions, utilities, driveways, walks, and open spaces. • Any structures to be relocated removed or demolished. • Locations, heights, and materials of existing and proposed walls and fences. • Locations, dimensions and descriptions of parking areas. • Location, heights, size and materials of signs. • Existing and proposed grade elevations and any significant natural features. • An Information block containing the name and telephone number of the contact person and calculations in tabular form showing compliance with applicable property development regulations (i.e., density, floor area limits, height, parking, etc.) B. , Floor Plans (NIA) 0 • Floor plan's shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information: • Overall building and individual room dimensions, including square footage calculations. • All proposed interior walls and partitions. • Room identification. • Window and door locations. C. Elevations (N/A) Elevations shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information: • Exterior wall openings. • Exterior materials and finishes. • Roof pitches. • All roof mounted equipment and screening. • Heights above grade of all floors, eaves, and ridges. D. Optional Materials Materials board (specifications and samples of type, color and texture of proposed construction materials). • Color photographs of the subject and adjacent properties. Part IV: Other Information and Materials Each application shall be accompanied by the following: A. Property Owners' List and Assessor's Parcel Maps (See Attached) 1. Two sets of gummed address labels (Avery 5160 or equivalent) containing the names and addresses of owners of the subject property and properties within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property (excluding roads and waterways for commercial properties only) shall be submitted. The list shall also contain the addresses of occupants of residentially zoned property within the required prescribed radius only if the Planning Department makes the determination that the project is of significant public interest. Additional sets of gummed labels shall be required if the proposed development is appealed or called up for review. 2. An assessor's parcel map(s) indicating the 300-foot radius line and the subject property shall also be submitted. This information shall be prepared by a title company or an ownership listing service doing business in Orange County, utilizing names and addresses from the last equalized assessment roll and utilizing the most recent assessor's maps, or alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent names, addresses or maps. The information shall be verified by the Title Company or ownership listing service and be accompanied by a written affidavit. This information shall be prepared by a title company or an ownership listing service doing business in Orange County, utilizing names and addresses from the last equalized assessment roll and utilizing the most recent assessor's maps, or alternatively from such other records as contain more recent names, addresses or maps. The information shall be verified by the title company or ownership listing service and be accompanied by a written affidavit. B., Preliminary Title Report - & copy of a Preliminary Title Report lean 60 days old that identifies the legal description of property (See Attached — Updated Report To Follo C. Project Description and Justification — required for all projects. (See Attached Project Description) A statement describing the proposed project in detail. This will serve as the formal statement to the approving authority on what the project is and why it should be approved. Please include any relevant information which supports the application. See table below for findings and Sections in Zoning Code. Particular attention should be given relating this information to any findings that must be made in order to approve the application. Required Findings Application Section Transportation Demand Management Ordinance 20.64.040 Establishment of grade by the Planning Commission 20.65.030 (B-3) Sign Exception Permits 20.67.045 (B) Accessory Outdoor Dining 20.82.050 (B) Waiver of location restrictions for massace establishments 20.87.025 (B) Modification Permits (General) 20.93.030 Condominium conversions 20.83 and Title 19 Use Permits (General) 20.91.035 (A) To exceed base development allocations 20.63.040 (B or C) To allow mixed use developments with less than 0.25 FAR for commercial development 20.63.040 (E) To restore of damage or Destroyed nonconforming structures 20.62.070 Conversion of a Maximum FAR use to a Base FAR use or to a Reduced FAR use, or conversion of a Base FAR use to a Reduced FAR use 20.63.050 (B) To transfer development intensity 20.63.080 (1) To modify or waive of off-street pat -king and loading requirements 20.66.100 (A) For bars and cocktail lounges 20.82.020 (B) For take-out service, limited 20.82.020 (C) Variances (See page 8 of application) 20.91.035 (B) D. Environmental Informationorm: 6 The Environmental Information Form is intended to provide the basis information necessary for the evaluation of your project to determine its potential environmental effects. This review provides the basis for determining whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, as required by state law. After this information has been evaluated by the Planning Department, a determination will be made regarding the appropriate environmental documentation for your project. (The City has determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report will be completed for this project. Please see Notice of Preparation) E. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System WDES) Requirements: The following projects are identified as Priority Projects and require submittal of additional materials: • Residential development of 10 units or more; • Commercial and industrial development greater than 100,000 square feet including parking areas; • Automotive repair shop (SIC (codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, and 7536-7539); • Restaurant where the land area of development is 5,000 square feet or more including parking areas (SIC code 5812); • Hillside development on 10,000 square feet or more, which is located on areas with known erosive soil conditions or where natural slope in 25 percent or more; • Impervious surface of 2,500 square feet or more located within, directly adjacent to (within 200 feet), or discharging directly to receiving water within Environmental Sensitive Areas (ESA's); • Parking lot area of 5,000 square feet or more, or with 15 or more parking spaces, and . potentially exposed to urban runoff. Include a description of all permits and approvals that will be necessary from the City of Newport Beach and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project. Please attach project plans include the following: • Conceptual grading plan; • Drainage plan indicating the drainage and flood control facilities (size, type, etc.); Draft Water Quality Management Plan (WQMPs); and • Both construction and post -construction site Best Management Practices,(BMPs) Plan. Staff is available for clarification as to whether your project qualifies as a Priority Project. Variances: Required Findings: (No Variances are being requested with this application) 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. To aid staff in determining that the finding can be made in this particular case please answer the following questions with regard to your request. These findings must be made in order for a variance to be approved. (Please attach on separate sheet, if necessary.) 1. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? 2. Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights? 3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? 4. Why would the granting of this application not be consistent with the code and not a granting of special privilege? Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment Project Description & Justification April, 2007 Proiect Location and 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 just outside and along much of the northern boundary of the Lower Campus and separates the hospital from the Villa Balboa condominiums. In 1992, the City of Newport Beach adopted the Hoag Master Plan and the Hoag Memorial Hospital 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 Presbyterian Hospital" (the "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. 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. The newly adopted General Plan Land Use Element places Hoag Hospital in the Private Institutions land use category with an Upper Campus and Lower Campus. Each area is allocated square footage of developable area with the Upper Campus being permitted 765,349 square feet and the Lower Campus being permitted 577,889 square feet with a total square footage allocation for the hospital of 1,343,238 square feet. Amendment of the General Plan The General Plan Amendment being proposed would allow the transfer of up to 225,000 square feet from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Under the proposed amendment the General Plan would allow up to 577,349 square feet of development in the Lower Campus and up to 990,349 in the Upper Campus provided the total square footage for the Upper and Lower Campus combined does not exceed the existing allocation of 1,343,238 square feet. Amendment of the PC Text The PC Text currently includes Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for the Hoag Hospital site as the means to defining maximum allowable building area based on FAR's of 1.0 for the Upper Campus and 0.65 for the Lower Campus. The use of these FAR's by the PC Text was based on the prior General Plan which mandated these development standards. The current General Plan no longer uses FAR as a means of determining intensity. Instead, as noted above, it allows a specified square footage of development. That square footage is the same as previously authorized using the FAR's. The proposed amendment of the PC Text would replace Floor Area Ratios with maximum allowable building area to be consistent with the General Plan. 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 square feet and a maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus of 577,889 square feet. In no event, however, would the building areas of both the Upper and/Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 square feet. The PC Text will be amended to be consistent with this change. The PC Text also includes a provision that noise shall not exceed 55 dB at all Hoag Hospital property lines which was established prior to the enactment of the City Noise Ordinance. This noise restriction will be eliminated and replaced with a new noise standard that will be as follows: 1. The grease pit cleaning shall be exempt from the City Noise Ordinance ("CNO") as a maintenance activity and the monthly cleaning will be rescheduled so it occurs on a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. 3. Delivery truck noise on the Hoag Hospital property shall be exempt from the CNO between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 3. The CNO for the residential property adjacent to the loading dock shall be modified as follows: EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Daytime Nighttime I Residential Leq (15 min) 70 dBA 60 dBA 4. The CNO for the remainder of the property adjacent to Hoag Hospital shall be modified as follows: EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Daytime Nighttime I Residential Leq (15 min) 65 dBA 58 dBA 2 Amendment of the Development Agreement The Amendment of the Development Agreement would among other things: (a) Eliminate the 55 dBA noise level restriction at the Hoag Hospital property line and replace it with the noise measures described above to be included in the amendment to the PC Text; and (b) Allow up to 225,000 square feet of authorized development to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Supplemental EIR The City .of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project requires the preparation of a Supplemental EIR. For more details on the Supplemental EIR, please see the attFched Notice of Preparation. 3 • �„ 0 )nber. O-SA-1163530 Pag . mber. 1 0411 r First American Title 2 First American Way Santa Ana, CA 92707 Robert Sundstrom Huitt Zollars 430 Exchange, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602-1315 Phone: (714) 734-5100 Fax: (714) 734-S15S Customer Reference: Hoag Hospital Order Number: O-SA-1163530 Title Officer: Jeff Paschal (08) Phone: (714) 800-4909 Fax No.: (714) 800-3785 E-Mail: Vaischal@llrstam.com Buyer: Property Newport Beach, California PRELIMINARY REPORT In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, this company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the ate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, Insuring against loss which may be shined by reason of any defect, Ilen or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said Policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage of said Policy or Policies are set fortis in Exhibit A attached. Copies of the Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set fortis In Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be arefully considered. It is important to note that this preliminary report Is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is Issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the Issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability Is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title Insurance, a Binder or Wmitment should be requested. MrstAmerican Title �e -Pber: O-SA-1163530 Page Number: 2 Dated as of September 15, 2003 at 7:30 A.M. The form of Policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is: ALTA Standard Owners w/Reg I:xc 1992 A specific request should be made if another form or additional coverage is desired. Tide to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: The Hoag Memorial Hospital -Presbyterian, a California non-profit corporation The estate or Interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Report is: A fee. The Land referred to herein is described as follows: (See attached Legal Description) At the date hereof exceptions to coverage In addition to the printed Exceptions and Exclusions in said policy form would be as follows: 1. Taxes and assessments. Report to follow. Please verify before dosing. 2. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. Although the above supplemental taxes may be a lien, the installments thereof are not yet due or payable. 3. An easement for pole lines and incidental purposes, recorded March 13, 1914 in Book 250 of Deeds, Page 249. In Favor of: The Pacific Light and Power Corporation Affects: A portion of the land 4. An easement for pole lines and incidental purposes; recorded March 24, 1914 in Book 250 of Deeds, Page 324. In Favor of: The Pacific Light and Power Corporation Affects: A portion of -the land 5. An easement for road and incidental purposes, recorded May 13,1925 in Book 578 of Deeds, Page 55 and 57. In Favor of: The County of Orange Affects: The herein described land fbstAmerlcan 77ite • 00 tuber: O-SA-1163S30 Page Number: 3 6. The rights of way for necessary .pipe lines over the herein desulbed land, as reserved in the deed from The Irvine Company to La Habra Valley, -and and Water Company, recorded May 23, 1925 In Book 582, page 297 of Deeds. 7. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Encroachment Agreement" recorded September 9, 2003 as instrument No. 2003001098609 of Official Records. 1. According to the public records, there has been no conveyance of the land within a period of twenty-four months prior to the date of this re3ort, except as follows: None The map attached, if any, may or may not be a survey of the land depicted hereon. First American expressly disclaims any liability for loss or damage which may result from reliance on this map except to the extent coverage for such loss or damage Is expressly provided by the terms and provisions of the title insurance policy, If any, to which this map: is attached. FirstAmelfcan ride Amber. o-SA-1163S30 • Page Number. 4 WIRE INSTRUCTIONS First American Title Company, Demand/Draft Sub -Escrow Deposits Orange County, California First American Trust, FSB Santa Ana Branch 421 North Main Street Santa Ana, California 92701 ABA 122241255 Credit to First American Title Company Account No. 15040 Reference Title Order Number O-SA-1163530, and Title Officer Jeff Paschal Please wire the day before recording. Also, notify the Title Officer of your intent to wire. fiistAmerican Tde Ord ber. O-SA-1163530 Pag ben 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, described as f3llows: The Northwesterly 30.00 feet of Lbt 172 in Block 1 of Irvine's Subdivision, as shown on a map recorded in Book 1, page 88 of Miscellaneous Record Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. Except that portion thereof that lies Southwesterly of the Northeasterly line of the land described Jr the deed to the State of California, recorded October 7,1929 In Book 321, page 31 of Official Records. Also except that portion thereof that lies Northeasterly of the Northwesterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of Parcel "A" (Permanent Park) as said Parcel "A" is described in that certain Notice of Acceptance of Irrevocable Offer of Dedication recorded July 15, 1997 as Instrument No. 19970333829 of Official Records. FiistAmeiican Tide 01,fiber: O-SA-1163530 Page Number: 6 NOTICE Section 12413.1 of the California Insurance Code, effective January 1,1990, requires that any title insurance company, underwritten title company, or controlled escrow company handling funds in an escrow or sub -escrow capacity, wait a specified number of days.after depositing funds; before recording any documents in connection with the transaction or disbursing funds. This statute ailowi$or funds deposited by wire transfer to be disbursed the same day as deposit. In the case of cashier's checks or certified checks, funds may be disbursed the next day after deposit. In order to avoid unnecessary delays of three to. seven days, or more, please use wire transfer, cashier's checks, or certified checks whenever possible. If you have any questions about the effect of this new law, please contact your local First American Office for more details. flistAmelcan T/t/e •! On hber: O-SA-1163530 Page"Number: 7 EXHIBIT A MIST OF PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS (BY POLICY TYPE) 1. CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY -1990 SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not Insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notice of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records 2. Any facts, rights, Interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons In possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or daims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts In boundary Ones, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. S. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the Issuance thereof, (c) water rights, cairns or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the public records. EXCWSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason oft... 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to p) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (II) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (ill) a separation in ownership or a change In the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these taws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded In the public records at Data of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded In the public records at Date of Policy. ? Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3.. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the Insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the Insured claimant had paid value for the Insured mortgage or for the estate or Interest insured by this policy. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the h wred mortgage because of the Inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or - failure of any subsequent owner of the Indebtedness, to comply with applicable "doing business" laws of the state in which the land is situated. S. _ Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. - Any claim, which suites out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest Insured by their policy or the transaction creating the Interest of the Insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state Insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws. + 2. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY FORM B -1970 SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE I. Any taw, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or, regulating the character, dimenslons or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions of area of the land, or the effect of any violation of any such law, ordinance or governmental regulation. 2. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public records at Date of Policy. 3. Defects, Hens, encumbrances, adverse daims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant (b) not known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the Insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date such claimant acquired an estate or interest Insured by this policy and not disclosed In writing by the Insured claimant to the Company prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured'hemunder; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured datmant; (d) attaching or FIWAmefl0n Tide . • j ' • limber. O-SA-1163530 Page Number, 8 created subsequent to Date of Policy, or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the Insured claimant had Paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 3. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY FORM B -1970 WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American land Title Association policy is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy the exclusions set forth in paragraph 2 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. SCHEDULES This policy does not Insure against toss or damage by reason of the matters shown in parts one and two following: Part One 1. Taxes or assessments heshkth are not shown as existing (lens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, Interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an Inspection of said land or by making Inquiry of persons In possession thereof. 3. Easements, dalms of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts In boundary Ines, shortage In area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. S. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents or In Acts authorizing the issuance thereof, water rights, claims or tide to water. 6. Any hen, or right to a hen, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, Imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 4. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY -1970 WITH A.LT.A. ENDORSEMENT FORM 1 COVERAGE SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE 1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or protubittng the occupancy, use or enjoyment of tie land, or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land, or prothib drag a separation in ownership or a reduction In the dimensions or area of the land, or the effect of any violation of any such law ordinance or governmental regulation. 2. Rights of eminent domain or govmtmenW rights of police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public records at Date of Policy. 3. Defects, liens, enaumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant, (b) not known to the Company and not Mown by the pubic records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date such claimant aqu1md an estate or Interest Insured by this policy or acquired the insured mortgage and not disclosed in writing by the insured claimant to the Company prior to the date such Insured claimant became an Insured hereunder, (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (except to the extent insurance is afforded herein as to any statutory lien for labor or material or to the extent insurance Is afforded herein as to assessmments for street Improvements under construction or completed at Date of Polcy). 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured mortgage because of failure of the Insured at Date of Policy or of any subsequent owner of the Indebtedness to comply with applicable' doing business' laws of the state in which the land Is situated. S. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY -1970 WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American Land Title Association Lenders Polley is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy, the exclusions set forth In paragraph 4 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear In the policy. k• . SCHEDULES This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the matters shown in parts one and two following: Part One ' i. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing hens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, sights, interest:, or dalms which are notshown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making Inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easeamts, dalms of easement or encumbrances whkh are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts In boundary Ines,° shortage K area, encro_achmenta, or any other facts which a correct survey would disdose, and which are not shown by pubic records. S. Unpatented mining dalmi, reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the Issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Any ien, or right to a hen, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, Imposed by law and not shown by the public records. first American Title ,. Ordlkber: O-SA-1163530 Page Number: 9 6. AMMUCAN LAND TIRE ASSOCLA71ON LOAN POLICy -1992 WITH A.LTJL ENDORSEMENT FORM 1 COVERAGE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following mattem are expressly excluded frarn the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: I. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to bul(ding and'mning laws, ordinances, or regulations) resbktng, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land, (H) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (III) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or Qv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy; (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a. notice of a defect;, Alen or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse dalms, or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered,, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant, (b) not known to the Company, not recorded In the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the Insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the Insured claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (except to the extent that this policy insures the priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory Den for services, labor or material or the extent insurance Is afforded herein as to assessments for street improvements under construction or completed at date of policy); or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the Insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage. 4. Unenforceabillty of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the Insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the Indebtedness, to cumply with the applicable "doing business' laws of the state In which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the Insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any statutory Alen for services, labor or materials (or the Balm of priority of any statutory Alen for services, labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage) arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not financed in whole or In part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the Insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or Is obligated to advance. 7. Any dalm,•whlch arm out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee Insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankrupt* state insolvency, or simllar creditoW rights laws, that is based on: (1) the transaction creating the interest of the Insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (H) lire subordination of the Interest of the Insured mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine of equitable subordination; or (ill) the trumcdon creating the Interest of the Insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to limey record the Uatrument of transfer, or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or Hen creditor. 7. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY- 1992 WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American Land Title Association policy is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy the exclusions set forth in paragraph 6 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. ,. SCHEDULE B This policy does not Insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, Interests, or dalms which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons In possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts In boundary Ines, shortage H area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Ads authorizing the Issuance thereof; water rights, claims or Ude to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 8. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY -1992 RrstAmerfcan Tide • hhber: O-SA-1163530 Page Number. 10 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: I. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (Including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (I) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (11) the character, dimensions or location of any Improvement now or hereafter erected on the lard; (GI) a separation in'ownership or a change Id the dimenslons'or area of the land or any parcel of which the land Is or was a part;:or (Iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a. defect; lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect Alen or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 1. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded In the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 1. Defects, Bens, encumbrances, adverse daims, or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded In the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the Insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured claimant prior to the date the Insured dalmant became an Insured under this policy, (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the.insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy;= or (a) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the Insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar credltort rights laws, that is based on: p) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or (0) the transaction creating the estate or interest Insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the Instrument of transfer, or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. 9. AMERIt:AN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY -1992 WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American Land Title Association policy is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy the exclusions set forth in paragraph 8 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear In the policy. SCHEDULE B This policy does not Insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay wets, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: Part One: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing pens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or Balms ,which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making Inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. S. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the Issuance thereof; water rights, daims or title to water. 6. Any Gen, or right to a Pen, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, Imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 10. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY -1987 EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, you are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees and expenses resulting from: Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes building avid zoning ordinances and also laws and regulations concerning: • land use • Improvements on the land • land division • environmental protection This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters which appear in the public records at Policy Date. This exclusion does not iimit the zoning coverage described in items 12 and 13 of Covered Title Risks. firstAmertan Tde fhber: O-SA-1163530 Pag umber; 11 2. The right to take the land by condemning it; unless: • a notice of owdsktg the right appears in ate public records on the Polley Date the taking happened polo► to the Polley Date and is binding on you 1f you bought the land without knowing of the taking. 3. Title Rkks: ' • that are created, allowed, or agreed to by you • that are known to you, but not to us, on the Policy Date • unless they appeared In the pubic records • that result in no loss to you • that first affect your Ode after the Policy Date • this does not limit the labor and material Ilan coverage in Item 8 of Covered Title Risks 4. Failure to pay value for your VOL S. Lade of a right:•• • to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in Item 3 of Schedule A, or • in streets, alien or waterways that touch your land This exclusion does not limit the access coverage In Item 5 of Covered Tide Risks. 11- EAGLE PROTECTION OWNER'S POLICY CLTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE -1998 ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE -1998 Covered (Risks 14 (Subdivision Law Violadonl 15 (Building Permit).16 (Zoning) and 18 (Encroachment of boundary walls or fences) are subject to Deductible Amounts and Maximum Dollar Limits of Liability EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions In Schedule 8, you are not Insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: Governmental poke power, and the existence or violation of any law or govemment regulation. This Includes ordinances, laws and regulations concerning: a. building b. zoning c. land use d. Improvements on the land e. land division f. environmental protection This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters if notice of the violation or enforcement appears in the Public Records at the Poky Date. c This exclusion does not grnit the coverage described In Covered Risk 14,15,16,17 or 24. 2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of then; to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes if notice of the violation appears In the Public Records at the Policy Date. 3. The right to take the Land by condenuhing it; unites: a. a notice of exercising the right appears in the Public Records at the Poky Date; or b. the taking happened before the Poky Date and Is binding on You if You bought the Land without Knowing of the taking. 4. Risks: a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whedw or not they appear in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they appear in the Public Records at the Pocky Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 84, 22, 23, 24 or 25. S. Failure to pay value for Your Tide. 6. tack of a right: a. to any Land outside the area specifically described and referred to In paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. In streets, alleys, w waterways that touch the Land. This exduton does not limit the coverage described Ili Covered Risk 11 or IL 12. SECOND GENERATION EAGLE LOAN POLICY AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY(10/13/01) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly, excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or ehrpensses which arise by reason of: R stAmeftan Title • i lnber: O-SA-1163530 Page Number: 12 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws,. ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (II) the character, dimensions or location of any Improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (01) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the Land is or was a. part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, accept to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the Land has been recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 12,13, 14 and 16 of this policy. (b) Any governmental polio power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 12, 13,14 and 16 of this policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded In the Public Records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without Knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse dalms or other matters: (a) treated, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the Insured Claimant (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded In the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant (d) attaching or seated subsequent to Date of Policy (this paragraph does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 8, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 2S and 26); or (e) resulting In loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the pen of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of the Insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state In which the Land is situated. S. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and Is based upon usury, except as provided in Covered Risk 27, or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Real property taxes or assessments of any govemnental authority which become a lien on the Land subsequent to Date of Policy. This exdusion does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 7, 8 (e) and 26. 7. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lads of priority of the pen of the Insured Mortgage as to advances or modifications made after the Insured has Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A Is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 8. 8. Lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to each and every advance made after Date of Policy, and all interest charged thereon, over lien; encumbrances and other matters affecting title, the existence of which are Known to the Insured at: (a) The time of the advance; or (b) The time a modification is made to the terms of the Insured Mortgage which changes the rate of interest charged, if the rate of interest is greater as a result of the modification than It would have been before the modification. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 8. 9. The failure of the residential structure, or any portion thereof to have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. This exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes if notice of the violation appears in the Public Records at Date of Policy. SCHEDULE 0 This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: The following existing statutes, reference to which are made part of the ALTA 8.1 Environmental Protection lien Endorsement incorporated Into this Policy following item 28 of Covered Risks: NONE. 13. SECOND GENERATION EAGLE LOAN POLICY AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY (10/13/01) WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American Land Tide Association loan policy with EAGLE Protection Added is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy the exclusions set forth in paragraph 12 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. SCHEDULE 8 This policy does not Insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: Part One: I. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or dalms which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons In possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts In boundary Imes, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. Rrstkueican Tide •. ; .� �` Orr! nber. O-SA-1163530 Page Number: 13 S. Unpatented mining daims; reservations or.exceptions In patents or In acts authorliing the water. Issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to 6. Any Ileti or right to a Iles, for services, labor or material there rewrds. tofore or hereafter fwnlshed, imposed by law and not shown by the public Part Two: 1. The following existing statutes, reference to which are made part of the ALTA 8.1 Environmental Protection Uen Endorsement incorporated Into this Policy following item 28 of Covered Risks: None. First American Tide DK a10 ati JQ� . 0. BOS AC. oti a HOSP174L IN TRACT IZQI Igo �E� .--(pR/V17TF'h� LST ---- (y �, PROUCC7 936-76 Lor S. 957AC. NO /056 BL K. / POR. Lot 171 Mrr. 28 IaC. l B. 57? Ac 03 t/ 1 � L 1 0.4 PROJECT t 1RVINE SUB M. M. 1-88 MARCH, 1979 TRACT N0: 8JJ6 M. M. 439-8 to I? inc. TRACT NO. 10587 M.M. 449-5, 6 RECORD OF SURVEr R. S. 105-42 First American 77Ue Insurance Company THIS WiP 6 POR WFORYATION ONLYANO IS NOT A PART OF THIS T= EVIDENCE 0 S, Ownership Listing Solutions April l0, 2007 City of Newport Beach 330o Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 APN: 423-011-28, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, CA To whom It May Concern: I hereby certify that the attached assessor's parcel map and ownership records are the most current records available from the Orange County Assessor's office of all persons to whom property is assessed. The ownership records cover all the properties within a Soo -foot radius of the above mentioned parcel(s). A full map showing all surrounding parcels is also enclosed herewith. As this package contains ownership records only, it is important to verify with the appropriate agency if additional notice must be provided to all tenants located within the radius area. If you have any questions regarding this package, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Vicki Fetterman Associate Ownership Listing Solutions 23o Newport Center Drive Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 230 Newport Center Drive • Suite 210 • Newport Beach, CA • 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-2768 • Fax: (949) 717-7942 � . . � ---~ ._'_' _- _- � - � _�_ . -_.`-�-aps __or, -u p- ,Wit' 300,-'RadRus One _ct (of: pr 0, s te, Man 01itnilt vafto I ^f I Aim One Hoag Dr. �, '41 Y 71 SHELLPRINT C' �J S % F: ,,,HALYARD---w�WEDICAL LN 0 0 V -0 4 , T I P City Boundary 0�W ; _4 4 0 Bulk & Pierhead Stationing T Iv pf Bulkhead Pierhead W " , 4 — 'L —HOSPITAL RD V --"HOSF'!T_AL RD -10L t 0 (CRM) Mapped Eelgrass, Patch (CRM) Mapped Eefgrass Bed ;K'' (NMFS) Mapped Eelgrass 'V�tl�cg 'P Mooring Sites Y N Categorical Exclusion Zone Chamber of Commerce ,;10 _15N El City Office RO S NOAG 4i❑ Fire Station 4 --Sunset VioNi ry P; Libra Pariticammunity Center _A7 � --, -" �� - Y I I Cy Nam: IJ!� Post Office _1CLIFFDR_ El school 4 VC—W J T. Dincialmor W IC V Jr Every reasonable effort has been made to assure Channel Place Park 114LB04- covei—� 41.M the accuracy of the data provided, however, The a�VEIi City of Newport Beach and its employees and PI, v agents disdalm any and all responsibl1%., from or relating to arty results obtained in its use. The I GIS database and data in the product is subject A "P z:k 41LO to constant change and the accuracy and 04 ", I ! W, cannot 0 C completeness be and is not guaranteed. yp� 41NG BASIN I KI x- X, 0 http://www6.city.newport-beach.ca.uslservleticom.esri-esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=nb_map_public&C... 4/5/2007 v A -\� -A � pk L-• a N 10 0 Man (lntnnt Villa Balboa & Versailles HOA -1 • �Y,=6 ,y'11409 �409 1403.AO F..• .v fi//�`ai.! 2 �� ` ' �401 �d� t,t � ' i — A 19172212115291221224114 L t....� ',L•' '; — O r a! S00 MC NEIL N , :ao: •''i ;� °"+cn,�r�`� O 7 N_4 `ti ♦ `' 300 2 OF�ob� 1UOU, - S �� �.� City Boundary 3 rCgs 1�P� ` i:` ',-'�'•� 90930 0 Bulk & Pierhead Stationing y >f OP a I!'jl 200 e-a ; Bulkhead 89a74124490a�yyJQ *+�240 - i In */ l�j ' : Pierhead 1 !a J N w1 '�1G • a. J N a (CRM) Mapped Eelgrass Patch 3 - .:, •'n r f"1C +. ; .1h ; ���, z �' : (CRM) Mapped Eelgrass Bed y2 '''• i ` �c �;• (NMFS) Mapped Eeigmss Mooring Sites ve. 220 r 3 ,e -' 260 • , �gi•o d i �� , Categorical Exclusion Zone `,�F ?Q w �900, Chamber of Commerce f' , a i •' .y41, • ❑ City Office ,ems �/ a, �.•'$ •x, a• �•`200 i^/' -,. �F .: Fire Station i�. ^ +: r 1a ,: - • .�. 2E0 Ubrary Park/Community Center ,';i • i. i r y; '�• `_'YY���•—� �:��s • ® Post Office p • _ _� School t{ I tf/71tST4}iT1�iAM3i>NiM11M:1l131iMM; i' •eta;tr.:y . Dlaclaimer " + 4r (`� �.� t2 f� t 1 t.'. t,_.•. mot+►-•- a �' •:. 'e. i i . "� Every reasonable effort has been made to assure it , � ,^? t l �i• ' the accuracy of the data provided. however. The �.,•r i !�t4 S i , w�1•• •. } ;'l31 aril F . '._ �• .7: •. ' City of Newport Beach and its employees and 1L.,,. agents disclaim a and all responsibility frydin ituseThe W y •(x! i t , j . GISd a to any results obtained in its use. ub � .f �' -- •� - �f�. ` GIS database and data in the product is subject t '•� �� f X .: ` r ;ytti r `�;� to constant change and the accuracy and ry t• t !' ' .f O (� . a completeness cannot be and is not guaranteed. � �.;: � - - c-'yO.R ;'�-. a �•�.� .^+���: ,�,; . Ilk z. CO 3 ��'�•� 'k rt AST hWy •4 ,• 14 1PA '3 ib C17.18 �ES -34 httn://www6.city.newr)ort-beach.ca.us/servleticom.esri.e-,riman.E-.riman?ServiceN.qme--nh man rnlhlir.&r.. 4/9/?007 t� ;. yJ LOr// II oAsszAc.,q ' CI a aLn r•.n `r —,an• 27 0.805 AC. .%Q � �y Nas•.- / in i�..J % HOSPITAL /I.A `�,,. t • •• ROAD ; a .s1�' /TRACT i�►Q„I 11 y „ , ,.». , . " / TRACT PROJrcr 930- 77 ;y LANE ���••� i /RV/NE [it A/NI)E---_ 5774E£T1 t 1 PROVB[T 938.76 1 t ♦\♦ Lor 21 / cor/ Lorzt % ♦♦ O 3.9O1 tI 37AC. I \ \\ POR. L07 /69 0.4/B1 t t \ RB55 A t '\ KOAG NO. /0587 8O�aseacxl 5.79 AL 1� > Lore —/ COJIST ,. `f-.73 ` 1 ,Apr sT, 03 • 1 MARCH 1979 /RWNE SUB TRACT NO R:rj6 TRA r No. /OSR. 7 RECORD OF SURREY BLK. / POR. LO7 I7) 26 18.572 AC M.M. /-9B A!. AL 4J9 - & /"O /Y mc. ,V M. 94,l -5, 6 R. S. B3-//66 ro• 11 t ♦♦ LOT 3 tt + it ♦ \ 3 g ♦�,_`` 4./Lt7 aj" PAI7VECr 930-)1 1 s 17 1 O � 1 . /05.42 • --+ AV. t LOr /70 b POR. LOT /77 } PROJECT 930-T7 yVr HOAG tt BLK. 2 1t tt 1 % 1 . 1 t 1t 11 :- �;. sue. Nrl rr .- AS SE PARO VOW, I" = zoo O N O eVE• -• A • qLoo/ 1 l/i t � THIS 1OP WAS PREPARED FOR O4 425 - 27 : �:,'+'' ;°c:7�';`.+:: •:. COWTY ASSESSOR DEPT. P4RPOSES a Y. THE ASSESSOR AUKES NO GUARANTEE AS TO : ••: f : �5 { ; ;r:L iy„•11 ITS Acamer NOR ASSUWS ANY LIABILITY FOR DINEIP USES. or BE REPRODUCED. L RI M W AY m CCPr /R cHr O CONTY ASSESSOR 2WI - • Ow 425 • ti. ;•, v �• . ' � � � ' • . . Sy; .,..�:+..r:: ?'lritt�Lu •Y•.•Q 1•�'•.�%i'P5 %.� 00 . ` •:L y' ., r+:•..r ram.?.S `t '�,' ' -v. 40 ci ft ', d/• . e; . QR/lam J' � °•'� • �•' '�':. - r ••. 4i.s•=.,:.?,�'�-,, E: :.. .'� L5/ � ��y ��� yy� y�� :•; ter• •,•.c'�cr�.,r A �'�'+s� ,3 'v: •�•: •: i•.:, r..r��ti,e YL�.'�;ry'7: 6 IWRCN TR. NO f949 . //3AM;3T-/L�B19 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK A ASSESSOR'S MAP .. PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK. ••049. PAGC-Al SHOWN IN' CIRCLES I�:• ; t+�'' '"•'i'�>°�L'` ti'i ' • .. � COUNTY OiNGE RA'.•.":::''f.;�i�s�;:a:s:u rASORoTFOP ORANGE ES a&Y. 049-11 ASSESSOR AWES NO 'GUARANTEE AS Rn ITS ACCURACY NOR ASSURES ANY LIABILITY FOR ohmmusES. NOr r0.8£.REPRODU/C£0. ALL RIGHTS toCOPYRIGHT ORANGEOCOUNTY ASSESSOR 2004 - grREE% 3 • � sale• I..,_ too' i4VON ST. 10 ! POP. for F 31 ry, AC. 432) 160 10 A p.m. PAR 2 Q L ®O • ` s PAR.° h TRACT 1.004 s. ` W FOR. LOT F NO. 91, i4 * 1 0,. �• q ,1 331-32 . 1 .y 1 4 .-L o t'p O \•�a. a :8 H/GMWAY g ' a .p LJT9 •AC. PORR LOr /,V 6001 w Z • TRACT NO. 919 M.N. 29-jP NOTE = ASSESSOR'S BLOCK d ASSESSOR'S MAP MARCH 1949 7RVINE SUB. M.M. 1- 88 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK •049 'PAGE 1-1 PARCEL AMPS P.M. 60 25. 227-9. 331 32 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE rNIS YAP rA5 PREPARED FOR ORANGE C0lNTr ASSESSOR OEPr. PURPOSES OK r. "I E ASSESSOR MAKES AV W ARAMEE AS W Irs ACCL4RACY Na, ASSUIES ANY LIASIL ITr FOP OrNER USES. AIOr rD SE REPRODUCED. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. O COPYRIGHT ORAAcE ca NTY ASSESSOR 2005 ,i ol v� Y•� 22 IF IRVINE 1.421 AC. &K. 2 PO/I. cor 170 23 o.465 AC) t! R.S. 21-II jr L u.9• SEC. 28, T 6 S. R f0 N 049-1 3 i 12 s a ? t WWWAYlow' Li I AN I I LOr G I PW. LOT N OOIMAN/A1ITY P.Y. 118I 58 PAL �i 's. 7 O i __ ® KOrO /.2DAC.I LOT L , I I v I I Im.,; NO. 919 • . u.S.00 423-13 1' = fool I0M.I IRVINE SIB. N.N. .1-88 MARCH 1949 TR. NO. 919 N.M. 29=32.33 it 34P NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK A ASSESSOR'S MAP PARCEL MAP P.M. 199 39 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK. 049 PAGE 13 SHOW IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE �.. - -- • POR. SEC. 29, T.65, R, /OW, POP BA/41VING TRACT r� CQWs Vyr yk J ��js 424-04 19 n �: IB 17 a ss a l4� , ;?s,� �h�'. '�D •:,� :� :' .tic ... � �'�: � b Jlip na-21 SUPERIOR `3S�+ w - '/ lit �• •f;, s' �'`i •V+ � y �� ► . rl' O cc.;- �44) ' 0.1 5. ' �• P7. c1 � C MARCH 1957 424-4I � TR. N0..3/62 M M. 95- /6, /7, /g / NOTE • ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 8 PARCEL NUMBERS SHOWN IN CIRCLES AVSNUE fi/Gy�,AY ipr 'pow $ 1 p Flo �6 . MD.B3B7 L.A. G1 ✓hTY / �27- 47 `te f'/1GP /. 47AC / 45 v �L ASSESSOR'S MAP CDtlUUK 114 PAGE 21 COUNTY Of ORANGE )S'EPREPARED fQR ORANGC ALC65S07EPWPuRAEE SY7O I7SACCf/RACR ASSUAVS AM LIABILl77 423-' = ' • r P0R O V'ER USES. NOT 70 Bf REPRODUCED. 0 Ca l'RIGN7 W"CEOCOUN71 ASSESSOR ?OOt /!IGNWAY COAST (PRIVATE LOT EA / COVES au,• .•_� : BALBOA zs Lal6ac.N� „• «.,,. :; _�_+�• TRACT " -TRACT 1. = too' Ly PRavar sw-d6 Oz =, •i; ` 031 .* 15 y Is 17 Lor I 14 l* Is /7 O . 11 +� 4 e Y.73Ac O'o!4 ' M• y� �i IZ �� OR�,Yy B' Q ` ©AtC .~'+ II I�AI fo?I 3 �p WATERWAY i RIVER `� 3 7 �: • 10 ro t 1 15?? O x � q•\\ �,1 09> TE WAY ?z4 25 NO.'7530 LINE 29 /O// MOO RIVER /?s, MANNEL RESERMATIM PER. O,•R /4?•/ AVENUE y 4 s PLACE .s7 BULNNfAO _ _ — _, — _ _ LINE 05 .o c' 19 CHANNEL PLLACr v 1� • � MARCH 1981 TRACT NO. 1011 M.M. 36 37 to 40 inc. NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK a ASSESSOR'S MAP TRACT NO. 7530 M.M. Z9735 4 36 PARCEL NUMBER5 BOOK 423 PACE 03 SHOWN 1N CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE ' •. r 4 i 0 sf SANTA ANA BLUE PRINT 750.1061 - ALL OC RECORD MAPS AVA•:AdLE - 428 dA ••TR - 00.00.1097 - 0:18:00 PM • 01 " COAST R HIGHWAY N s \ /8J' CN4NNEL fTSCHANNEL REST R£sFAR�gq� AVENUE _ B�_A'NEaO RIVER LINE gULK►6AO • h .`!'raNNFL PLACE MARCH /98/ TRACT No. loll AxM. 36-37T040/NC. NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK d PARCEL NUMBERS SNnwm f►u r�or•ipe ALL /../001 ASSESSOR'S MAP BOOK423 PAGE 04 rnFjNTv nc no�.rrc 423-04 0 mod. SEE SOMA PAGE 424-049 FOR FEE T/TLE ASSESSMENT BELOW SURFACE \� 03 114-17 MARCH /97:r RANN/N6 TRACT TRACT NO. 463 am. 32-2 MACT NO. 2250 AM /04-6, 7 . TRACT NO. 7817 M.M. Mg-M,34 COAST i 114- 21 AVtEov$ ecoar e AUP= M/WERS svo*N /N C4PCGES ' NIGNwAY'� A.k MAP co& r 424 W,4wg- O . COf/A?7' OIL OR.gArrE ivre�o �o.ttN $37ma N/ moves 600 JMW Oft AVW SWi6AM 739Wrd d&W SAUSSMY 9 AR7M S,&V SiAW-jm •: erns ens a -at N N S9b ON 19 &i ' BL6/ H.9d�r/y MARCH 1978 • M 42a-02 424:OI a25�—} SUPER/OR r wsiowrl AVENUE $ - -- R �w TRACT ssiss 'A"' --- PM.PA LOr( / AWSACAOR LcNO DSVB' 8737 � /RV/NE SUB. TRACT NO. Bm - PARCEL MAPS 4/ PARCEL MAP PRWECr no-m PAR / 0 I I i 800AC to) /54 - i/RV/NE POW.Wr BLK/ PM. /.is *Di PAi4 / BLK. 2 I.66sAC/CJ * SUB. pok LOT fee M.M. /-BB M.AE 427-420 P.M- /-35,9-/9, /54-/ NOTE - ASSESSOR'S ROOC a PARCEL NUMlERS SNOW-N /N CIRCLES ASSESSOR'S MAP O 8009425PAGF it COUNTY OF ORANGE THIS MAP SAS PREPARED FOR OPANCE ALL. COIUNTY ASSESSOR DEPT. PURPOSES Z7Y. - 425' THE ASSESSOR MAKES NO GUUPAN/EE AS TO ITS ACCURACY NOR ASSWES ANY LIABILITY FOR OTHER USES. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. es O COPYRIGHT ORANGE cows ASSESSOR 2004 goAD T ,H IRVINE as • O �H1P ^. O $ col1 = fool 12 &K. 2 ,a 9 POR. LOT I69 O gn • !RV ENE s ' 9 11 d�• ,a. ' S 1.33 AC. a Q R. S. BO 37 �a• 3.3+ AC. n ��• M 20 r q 12 ! ,,.n' • r" a• , ,. 6 SUB. 2 — ` POR. L07 169 • R. S. • 15 - 30 �d R. S. B+ - zo 261 13 ; NO. 5854 p, O4 SUB. 2.193 AC. ICI 27 4$ t '9B1 IRVINE. SUB. M.M. 1 88 NOTE -ASSESSOR'S BLOCK d ASSESSOR'S MAP TRACT NO. •5854, M.M. P13-38. 39 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 425 PAGE 26 SHOWN .IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE .. . mp THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR GRANGE COIARTY ASSESSOR DEPT. PDRPOSES ONLY. 0 IIIS ACCURACY NOR ASVSUIESAANY LI B L/ IrY fGR OTHER USES. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. �ATy ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. • O COPYRIGHT GRANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR 2005 �S � 0 28 �1 L` 425- 2 7 1 _ too, �` P. AI�II79-1f 6 - 49-08 T '9 PAC17 °A o / . P faoa r• • 271 w r3 / '. /• i•PAi JJ / 38 �` t4 P./ AA a/ 10 1p 272 ` 3 ?. 26 MARCH 1981 TRACT NO. 27 M.M. 9 26 .NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK d ASSESSOR'S MAP v PARCEL MAP P.M. 163 31 _ PARCEL NUANERS . _. BOOK 425 PACC 27 SHOWN IN CIRCI F. S COUNTY Or ORANGE. r i 1 • t THIS AUP A'AS PREPARED FOR ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR DEPT. PURPOSES ORLY. THE ASSESSOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE AS TO ITS ACCURACY NOR ASSUAES ANY LIABILITY FOR DINER USES. NOT rO BE R£PROOUCED. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. O COPYRIGHT ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR 1005 I* 'a 425— 2 8 11= 1001 TRACT SOS-*PRA7 d�, Q1 to o PROUEcr 937-35-1f7-11I ,4� 3_S 237�99- 014,l Qy Ofj O A�� i 11 0.JBAC t4 • . O 15 3 35 - 31 $ io•e TRA 0.544 AC.' 937 35-098-099 ' O O t _ /\ 1� BLK. P.M. " - 262 3 7 1 ' 34 5 B B 11 u SIG 17 0 9f 6 282 5,. 0.155 C. BLK. i8� is ,,.•ri O O © O 0 �\ 1fi y 13 �t2 r PAR 33 3 �& 79 28 27 tl 25 24 1 L:Y � 21 20 10 i�0. 2� c. i6 0.913�AC. y H�• •,i � � �,. ZSi �0 � gar w rs lAeu+ i AE11pwr A BiOU"AW ' _ ow 97 TRACT NO. 27 M. M. 9 26 TRACT NO. 15981 M.M. 80237, 38 PARCEL MAP P.M. 146-11. 155-19, 156-47 MARCH .1981 PARCEL MAP P.M. 108-17. 243 9. 248 26 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK A ASSESSOR'S MAP PARCEL MAP P.M..252 36. 25430, 257-48 PARCEL NIIMBERS BOOK 425 PAGE 28 PARCEL MAP P.M. 25836, 263 24. 333 23 SHOWN IN CIRCLCS COUNIT OF ORANGE THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ORANGE THE NIV SSSESSOR MAKES NO CPUARANTEE AASGK YTO ITS ACCURACY NOR ASSUACS ANY LIABILITY eo FOR OTHER USES. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. 0` OCO'YR GNT ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR 1998 AZ3' 110 0 Nero 1 ` ' RAI.ARif� �„w 425- tjrwpORT NORtNAb O baArt a FA414,f�Ps"r 14 / �• rA� m ,� Ia des A�1 ss 13 12 aw N i y 4 11 R •' Mre i' PIS %L7 " — it -�� y ,1 li \. -A 49 If 4 � � 48 P 44 ~ 49 - 1 j av TRACT N0. 444 M.M. 19 29 TRACT NO. 1156 'M.M. 37-18. f9 i• - i7 PARCEL MAP P.M. 58 23. 119-6. 119 20 MARL/ 1981 PARCEL MAP P.M. 140 25. 147-30P31.32 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 6 ASSESSOR'S MAP PARCEL MAP P.M. 162 34r 182 25 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 425 PAGE 36 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE TOM DALY • ' Clerk -Recorder ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF RECORDS AND FINANCE 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 101 P.O. BOX 238 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702-0238 ' Web: www.ocrecorder.com PHONE (714) 834-2248 FAX (714) 834-2675 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SUBJECT: POSTING The attached notice was received filed and a copy was posted on co r`.�. • It remained'posted for 30 (THIRTY) days. Tom. Daly County Clerk -Recorder In and for the County of Orange By: Deputy Public Resource Code 21092.3 RECENED BY PLANNING DEPART MEW NOV 0 9 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SEP 21 2007 The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an'environmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of each county in which the project will be located and shall remain for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a period of 20 days, unless otherwise required by law to be posted for 30 days. The County Clerk shall post notices within 24 hours of receipt. Public Resources Code 21152 All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the clerk shall return the notice to the local agency with a notation of the period it was posted. The local agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. i NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Project Title: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update POSTED SEP .2-.1 2007 TOM DAL LERK- ECORDER BY DEPUTY Project 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 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. Project Location — City Newport Beach Project Location — County County of Orange Description of Nature and Purpose of Project: General Plan Amendment, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment, and' Development Agreement, to allow the reallocation of up to 225,000 square feet (sf) of approved but un-built, hospital - related development from the Lower Hoag Campus to the Upper Hoag Campus. A change to applicable noise standards is proposed and other revisions to the Planned Community Development Regulations including 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 existing height limitations; and clarification and updating the sign program and landscaping regulations. The proposed Master Plan Update Project includes an amendment to the Development Agreement would provide for an extension of the term of the agreement, 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, and modifications of the noise standards for Hoag. The Significant Effects on the Environment, if any, anticipated as a* result of the project: The City has determined that a Supplement to Final EIR No. 1;42 (SEIR) is required to evaluate the. potential impacts associated with the proposed modifications to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. The SEIR also provides an analysis of whether new and/or revised mitigation measures are appropriate. As a supplemental 'EIR, the Hoag Master Plan Update SEIR contains only the information necessary to 'make the previous EIR adequate for the *project as revised. This 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. This SEIR addresses the following topics: Land Use: 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 proposed 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 Final EIR No. 142 would continue to exist with buildout of Hoag under the proposed Project scenario. This is not considered a new impact. The proposed 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. The proposed Project, as conditioned, would be consistent with the City's General Plan. Transportation and Circulation: The proposed 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 Project would not result• in a vehicular increase 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 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. The proposed Project would be required to provide for adequate on -site parking and would not affect emergency circulation. The proposed Project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies. Air Quality: Although the proposed Project would not generate any significant air quality impacts not previously disclosed in Final EIR No. 142, grading and demolition activities may result in significant short- term particulate matter (PM10) impacts and would be expected to result in significant short-term nitrogen oxides (NOx) impacts. Volatile Organic Compounds (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 mitigation, but not to a level considered less than significant. Diesel particulate matter emissions would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not.result in a significant local air quality impact. Although the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact when compared to the air quality impacts identified for the existing Master Plan, the proposed Project would exceed thresholds of significance for three criteria • pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), VOC, and NOx. Ongoing operation of the cogeneration facility would have a less than significant impact health risk impact. The proposed Project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies. Noise: Construction activities conducted consistent with the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance is not considered a significant impact. Future demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate vibration; this impact can be mitigated. The proposed 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. Prior to mitigation, on -site activities could result in significant noise impacts thereby impacting sensitive receptors. All on -site activities would generate less than significant noise impacts with the exception of loading dock area activities. Loading dock area activities would generate a significant unavoidable noise impact. Prior to mitigation, future on -site land uses could be impacted from traffic noise; this impact can be mitigated. The proposed Project is consistent with the relevant goals and polices related to noise. Aesthetics: Final EIR No. 142 identified that the 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 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 proposed Project would be no greater than the existing Master Plan. 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. The proposed Project is consistent with the goals and policies set forth in General Plan. , Project Proponent Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 Langston Trigg, Jr. — (949) 764-4488 Lead Agency City of Newport Beach, Planning Department POSTED SEP 2-1 2007 TOM D LERI( RECORDER By DEPUrY Address where copies of the Draft SEIR and all documents referenced are available: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach CA 92663 The Draft SEIR can also be accessed at the City of Newport Beach Web page: http:%/www.city.newport- beach.ca.us and the following libraries: Corona del Mar Branch Library Central Library 420 Marigold Avenue 1000 Avocado Avenue Corona del Mar, California 92625 Newport Beach, California 92660 Mariners Branch Library Balboa Branch Library 1300 Irvine Avenue 100 East Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Balboa, California 92661 Date of Issue: Friday, September 21, 2007 Review Period: 45 days — review period concludes on November 5, 2007 Date, Time, and Location of Public Hearing, if any: The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on December 6, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA Contact Person Area Code - Telephone - Extension James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach, Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach CA 92663 (949) 644-3210 jcampbell @city.newport-beach.ca.us Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal For U.S. Mail: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 SCH# 1991071003 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613 Project Title: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Contact Person: James Campbell, Senior Planner Street Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard Phone: . 949-644-3210 City: Newport Beach Zip: 92663 County: Orange Project Location: One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, CA County: Orange City/Nearest Community: Newport Beach Total Acres: 38 Cross Streets: Hospital Rd., West Coast Highway, Newport Blvd. zip Code: 92663 Assessor's Parcel No.: Section: Twp: Range: Base: Within State Hwy. #: 1 (PCH) Waterways: Pacific Ocean ' 2 Miles: Airports: n/a Railways: n/a Schools: Newport Heights Elementary School; Newport - Harbor High School; Whittier Elementary School; Victoria �• Elementary School; Pomona Elementary School; Rea School; McNally School; San Joachim School; Mariners Elementary; Harper School; Mariners Elementary School; Horace Ensign Intermediate School Document Type: CEQA NEPA Other ❑ NOP ❑ Supplement to EIR ❑ NOI ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Consultation ❑ Subsequent EIR ❑ EA ❑ Final Document ❑ Neg. Dec. •❑ Prior EIR (SCH #) ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Other: ❑ Mit. Neg. Dec. ' ❑ Other ❑ FONSI Draft EIR (Supplement to Final EIR No. 142) , Local Action Type: ❑ General Plan Update. ❑ Specific Plan Rezone ❑ Annexation �l General Plan Amend. Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Dev. ❑ Use Permit ❑ Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ❑ Land Division (subdivision ❑ Other: parcel, tract maps, etc.) Development Type: Hospital Units/Sq. Ft. Acres Employees Type -.Size ❑ Residential ❑ Water. Facilities MGD ❑ Office P O S ❑ Transportation ElCommercial T E D ❑ Mining Mineral: ❑ Industrial ❑ Power MG ❑ Educational SEP 2A 2007 ❑ Waste Treatment MGD ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste ` ❑ Other TOM D K•RECORDER Other: Hospital: transfer of up to 225,000 sf of By. existing entitlement between the Lower Campus OEPUTY Total Acres (approx.) 38 acres and Upper Campus Project Issues that May Have a Significant or Potentially Significant Impact:. ; Aesthetics/Visual ❑ Fiscal ❑ Recreation/Parks ❑ Vegetation ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ Schools/Universities ❑ Water Quality Air Quality ❑' Forest Land/Fire Hazard ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Water Supply/Groundwater ❑ Archaeological/Historical ❑ Geologic/Seismic ' . ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Riparian ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Minerals ❑ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ,f Growth Inducement Coastal zone Noise ❑ Solid Waste Land Use ❑ Drainage/Absorption ❑ Population/Housing Balance ❑ Toxic/Hazardous Cumulative Effects ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Public Services/Facilities 4 Traffic/Circulation ❑ Other: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: Hospital; Hoag Hospital Planned Community (PC) Text and District Regulations; Public InstitutionsA. Project Description: The project proposes amendments to the General Plan, PC Text, and Development Agreement. . 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 Land Use Element 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 will be amended to be consistent with the General Plan Amendment change. 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. 1. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag property line adjacent to the loading docks shall be as follows: 7AM-1oPM Daytime 1oPM-7AM 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'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 and updating the sign program and landscaping regulations. 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: (1) 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 sf 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 above (see PC Text): Reviewing Agencies Checklist Air Resources Board 4 Native American Heritage Commission ❑ Boating & Waterways, Department of ❑ Office of Emergency Services ❑ California Highway Patrol ❑ Office of Historic Preservation Caltrans District #12 ❑ Parks & Recreation ❑ Caltrans Division of Aeronautics ❑ Pesticide Regulation, Department of ❑ Caltrans Planning ❑ Public Utilities Commission ❑ Coachella valley Mountains Conservancy ❑ Reclamation Board ❑ Coastal Commission ❑ Resources Agency ❑ Colorado River Board Commission ❑ S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission ❑ Conservation, Department of - ❑ San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mountains Conservancy ❑ Corrections, Department of ❑ San Joaquin River Conservancy ❑ Delta Protection Commission - - ❑ Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy ❑ , Education, Department of - ❑ State Lands Commission ❑ Office of Public School Construction ❑ SWRCB: Clean Water Grants ❑ Energy Commission ❑ SWRCB: Water Quality ❑ Fish & Game Region # ❑ SWRCB: Water Rights ❑ Food & Agriculture, Department of ❑ Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ❑ Forestry & Fire Protection ❑ Toxic Substances Control, Department of ❑ General Services, Department of . - ❑ Water Resources, Department of ❑ Health Services, Department of ❑ Other: ❑ Housing & Community Development ❑ Other: ❑ Integrated Waste Management Board Local Public Review Period Starting Date: September 21, 2007 Ending Date: November 5, 2007 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Consulting Firm: BonTerra Consulting Address: 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 City/Slate/Zip: Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Contact: Dana C. Privitt, AICP Phone: 714-444-9199 Applicant: Hoag Hospital Address: One Hoag Drive Office: 361 Hospital Road, Suite 229 P.O. Box 6100 City/State/Zip: Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 Contact: Langston Trigg, Jr. Phone: 949.764.4488 Signature of Lead Agency Representative: POSTED SEP 2-1 2007 TO MY, CLERK -RECORDER By SC)_._ DEPUTY Date: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code, Reference: Section 21161', Public Resources Code. R:%ES InformationWotice Fonns\Notice of Completion%NOC Form Appendix C.DOC Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment Project Description May, 2007 Proiect Location and 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 open space to the west. Superior Avenue is the closest major cross street to the west. Sunset View Park is a linear/consolidated park that extends immediately adjacent to the property along the northern boundary of the Lower Campus and separates the hospital from the Villa Balboa condominiums. In 1992, the City of Newport Beach adopted the Hoag Master Plan and the Hoag Memorial Hospital Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations ("PC Text"). In 1994, the City adopted Ordinance No. 94-8 approving the "Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Presbyterian Hospital" (the "Development Agreement"). The PC Text and the Development Agreement set forth the development standards as well as the terms and conditions by which the Hoag Hospital site would be developed; it included the maximum permissible building area, building height limits, and permitted land uses. 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. The newly adopted General Plan Land Use Element places Hoag Hospital in the Private Institutions land use category with an Upper Campus and Lower Campus. Each area is allocated square footage of developable area with the Upper Campus being permitted 765,349 square feet and the Lower Campus being permitted 577,889 square feet with a total square footage allocation for the hospital of 1,343,238 square feet. Amendment of the General Plan The General Plan Amendment being proposed would allow the transfer of up to 225,000 square feet from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Under the proposed amendment the General Plan would allow up to 577,889 square feet of development in the Lower Campus and up to 990,349 in the Upper Campus provided the total square footage for the Upper and Lower Campus combined does not exceed the existing allocation of 1,343,238 square feet. Amendment of the PC Text The PC Text currently includes Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for the Hoag Hospital site as the means to defining maximum allowable building area based on FAR's of 1.0 for the Upper Campus and 0.65 for the Lower Campus. The use of these FAR's by the PC Text was based on the prior General Plan which mandated these development standards. The 5/112007 current General Plan no longer uses FAR as a means of determining intensity. Instead, as noted above, it allows a specified square footage of development. That square footage is the same as previously authorized using the FAR's. The proposed amendment of the PC Text would replace Floor Area Ratios with maximum allowable building area to be consistent with the General Plan. 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 square feet and a maximum allowable building area on the Lower Campus of 577,889 square feet. In no event, however, would the building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 square feet. The Planned Community (PC) Text will be amended to be consistent with this change. Other revisions are minor and include: general clarification of definitions and proposed uses; updating of references to completed activities; refinement of exhibits to better reflect height limitations; clarification and refinement of the sign program and landscape regulations; as well as modification to the Building Area Statistical Analysis to establish square footage limitations, as mentioned above. The PC Text also includes a provision that noise shall not exceed 55 dB at all Hoag Hospital property lines; this was established prior to the enactment of the City Noise Ordinance. This noise restriction will be eliminated and noise generated at Hoag Hospital shall be governed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance, with the exception of the following: 1. The applicable noise standard at the Hoag Hospital property line adjacent to the loading dock shall be as follows: 7AM—l0PM l0PM-7AM 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: 7AM-10PM l0PM-7AM 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. 5111 t2007 2 .s- 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. Amendment of the Development Agreement The Amendment of the Development Agreement would, among other things: (a) Eliminate the 55 dBA noise level restriction at the Hoag Hospital property line that is currently contained in the PC Text and replace it with the noise standards described above; and (b) Allow up to 225,000 square feet of authorized development to be transferred from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus. Supplemental EIR The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project requires the preparation of a Supplemental EIR. For more details on the Supplemental EIR, please see the Notice of Preparation. 5/11/2007 3 Laserlink Jet Filing Labels www.avery.com Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5366Tm I PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg 1-800-GO-AVERY UP -ETC' LABELSI UP -ETC I LABELS UP -ETC LABELS aA%MRY® 5366T- UP-ETC PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- LABELS 001,ER2007-003 One Hoaa Drive -Hoag Hosoital — Lanaston Trim UP -ETC PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- LABELS 001,ER2007-003 One Hoaa Drive -Hoag Hospital — Lanaston Triaa UP -ETC PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- LABELS 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg UP -ETC PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- LABELS 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg UP -ETC LABELS PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- UP -ETC 001,ER2007-003 LABELS One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 i One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg ! UP -ETC PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- LABELS 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg UP -ETC PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- LABELS 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg UP -ETC LABELS UP -ETC LABELS UP -ETC LABELS UP -ETC LABELS A113AW09-008-1, ­99ES OAMBAV ® wor/Gane-nnnnnn PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001;ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg PA2007-073 for GP2007-005,PD2007-001,DA2007- 001,ER2007-003 One Hoag Drive -Hoag Hospital — Langston Trigg 3W99ES41jege6 al zesum aj3ua,p4al/aasel 4uawessep ap sauanbl;� pk AVf pk ERY HOAGOne Hoag Drive PO Box 6100 Newport Beach CA 92658-610-6100 . 949/645-8600 HOSPITAL www•hoaghospital.org June 6, 2007 Jim Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Hoag Hospital - Development Agreement Annual Review Dear Mr. Campbell: Please find attached the required documentation to demonstrate Hoag's compliance with the' Development Agreement between Hoag Hospital and the City of Newport Beach. At the City's direction, Mestre Greve Associates prepared a Noise Mitigation Assessment, dated May 9, 2007. This Assessment is included in Section 7, Noise, of this Annual Review. We have highlighted areas of this report in the discussion of the Ancillary Services Building and the Cogeneration Plant. As you are aware, the last review of the Development Agreement that was conducted by the City Council was on June 28, 1999. Per the Development Agreement however, Hoag is deemed to be in compliance with the provisions of its Development Agreement since its adoption in 1992 (and 1994) through December 2005 in that the City did not request the review information from Hoag Hospital until May 2, 2006. Further, while the City did.not conduct public hearings, Hoag submitted Project Status Report(s) for the period of January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2003 and for the period of January 1, 2004 through June 30, 2006. Those reports are attached for your review. The enclosed Project Status Update is for the period of July 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007. Vice President Facilities Design & Construction Enclosure A NOT -FOR -PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS The Gas ' Company A Sempra Energy utiiity- May 15, 2007 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Attention: James Campbell PO Box 3334 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92806.6114 RECEIVED aY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 18 �pDi CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Subject: Will Serve Letter for Notice of Preparation for Hoag Memorial hospital Thank you for your inquiry regarding the availability of natural gas service for your project. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non -utility laws and'regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect actual construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made, and construction has begun. Contact the New Business Project Manager for your area at (714) 634-3229 or visit our web site www.socalgas.com for information on current energy efficiency programs, gas equipment, or to find out how to get your line extension project started. 'Thank you again for choosing clean, reliable natural gas, your best energy value. Sincerely, Michael R. Harriel Technical Services Supervisor Pacific Coast Region- Anaheim MRWmm `` Ribaudo 260 Cagney Lane No. 320 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. James Campbell -Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Campbell, 16 May 2007 ��Al11Ni �i`r' b AW MENT CI1Y OF NEWPORT BFA CH As a resident of 260 Cagney Lane for the past 24 years I must strongly protest the proposed amendment to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. Usually hospitals request that the noise level be kept down in their zones, i.e. "Quiet Please Hospital Zone". Hoag is requesting just the opposite. Since 1992 we at Villa Balboa have been subjected to constant construction along two of our borders. We have tried to cooperate with their plans, but our patience is wearing thin. No other community in the city of Newport Beach has had to live with these conditions for such a long period of time; and, we have at least 4 to 5 more years of this type of activity to contend with. Over the years we have had some noise problems on the service road, but nothing that was not addressed and corrected. Having been to almost every meeting regarding the Hoag Hospital Plan, including Parks Commission, Planning Commision, City Council Meetings, and every other meeting called by Hoag, I have learned that sometimes the issue presented by the hospital is somewhat of a diversion from the real issue. The loading dock noise is something that hasn't changed in all the years I have been here, therefore I strongly feel the real issue lies somewhere else. I firmly believe the hospital is looking for a way to justify the fact that they cannot meet the noise restriction at the power plant (co -generating facility), and this is a way to circumvent that problem. The plant should not have been built in the first place. If you check you will find that the facility probably exceeds the 551)b noise level and that is the real reason the hospital is asking for this amendment. Their response is that "We are still testing". I understand that recently measurements have been taken at the co -generation site. We had people present at that time and the 551)b level had been exceeded. Mr. James Campbell -Senior Planner page two 5-16-07 Please give this your attention. It is a very important issue to all who live in Villa Balboa, Villa Versailles and Newport Crest. S' qe ely your ,) R ss Ribaudo k7 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 s (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov RECENED BY May 25, 2007 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner MAY 2 9 2007 City of Newport Beach Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mr. Campbell: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Hoag 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 (IS/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 require 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 (CARB) approved URBEMIS 2002 Model. This model is available on the SCAQMD Website at: www.ggmd.gov/cgga/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 trips). Operation -related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis. The SCAQMD has developed a methodology for calculating PM2.5 emissions from construction and operational activities and processes. In connection with developing PM2.5 calculation methodologies, the SCAQMD has also developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. The SCAQMD requests that the lead agency quantify PM2.5 emissions and compare the results to the recommended PM2.5 significance thresholds. Guidance for calculating PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 significance thresholds can be found at the following internet address: bo://www.Lagmd.goL/Ma/handbook/PM2 5/PM2 5.htm1. Mr. James Campbell -2- May 25, 2007 In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts the SCAQMD recommends calculating localized air 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 air quality analysis can be found at http://www.agmd. og y/Ma/handbook/LST/IST.html. 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 internet address: http://www.ggmd. og v/cgga/handbooktmobile toxic/mobile toxic.html. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. 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 11 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additional mitigation measures can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA webpages at the following internet address: www.agmd. og y/Ma/handbook/mitigation/MM intro.html Additionally, SCAQMD's Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction -related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Other measures to reduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be found at the following internet address: ho://www.agmd.gov/prdas/agguide/agauide.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: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf 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 (ho://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, J&,,0,e 5,4*tA Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources SS:CB:li ORC070516-02LI Control Number VILLA BALBOA CODIlfUNITY ASSOCIATION HOAG HOSPITAL LIAISON EXECUTIVE COM IITTEE 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 Project 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. 2 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 (Ley) 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 SUR 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 Quality I . The air quality analysis must address not only PM,o, 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 I. 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. 4 Noise 1. 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 Lq 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 SE1R 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 EM 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) �v Linda S. Adams Secretary for Environmental Protection June 11, 2007 Department of Toxic Substances Control •~ Maureen F. Gorsen, Director 5796 .Corporate Avenue RECEIVED BY Arnold Schwarzenegger Cypress, California 90630 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Governor JUN 15 2007 Mr. James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) FOR HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT (SCH# 1991071003) Dear Mr. Campbell: 1 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 EIR should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies: • National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). • Envirostor (formerly CalSites): A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website (see below). • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database.of RCRA facilities that is.maintained by U.S. EPA. 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. , Is 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. M Mr. James Campbell June 11, 2007 Page 4 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Al Shami, Project Manager, at (714) 484-5472 or at "ashami @ DTSC.ca.gov". Sincerely, 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 RECEAMY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 ' s 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 JUN 7 20017 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Tel: (949) 724-2241 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI� energy arpower! Pax: (949) 724-2592 Be energy efficient! 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 T3osnital 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. ahlCerely, y Ryan Chamberlain, Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "Caltrans improves mobility across California" MITIGATION MEASURE ASSESSMENT FOR HOAG HOSPITAL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared For: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Submitted By: MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Fred Greve P.E. Mike Holritz 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 .. 9499349.0671 z io a.. Repor Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page ii Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE.........................................1 2.1 Noise Criteria Background..............................................................................1 2.2 Noise Assessment Metrics.............................................................................2 2.3 Noise Limits.....................................................................................................2 2.3.1 City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance....................................................3 2.3.2 Hoag Hospital Development Agreement....................................................5 2.4 Existing Noise Levels......................................................................................6 2.4.1 Previous Noise Source Measurements......................................................6 LoadingDock Activities.....................................................................................................7 MechanicalEquipment...................................................................................................... 8 2.4.2 Additional Noise Measurements................................................................8 RooftopEquipment............................................................................................................9 AirHandler Equipment...................................................................................................... 9 CogenerationPlant..........................................................................................................10 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES....................................................................11 3.1 Mechanical Equipment..................................................................................11 3.1.1 Rooftop Exhausts at the Ancillary Building..............................................11 3.1.2 Air Handlers at the West Patient Tower...................................................13 3.2 Loading Dock.................................................................................................13 Additional Measures for Loading Dock............................................................................14 3.3 Grease Trap Cleanout...................................................................................16 APPENDIXA...............................................................................................18 APPENDIXB................................................................................................19 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This assessment examines the potential and feasibility for mitigation of several noise sources at Hoag Hospital. There are three noise issues that are outstanding for Hoag Hospital. The three outstanding issues are the loading dock, rooftop mechanical equipment, and Co -Generation (CoGen) Facility. The grease pit cleanout had also been identified as a noise source exceeding the ordinance levels, and has been discussed in other documents ("Noise Assessment for Hoag Hospital Master Plan," Mestre Greve Associates, November 30, 2005). Additional information in regards to the control of this operation is presented in this report. Previously measurements were made of the loading dock and mechanical equipment. This report looks in greater detail as to how or if these noise sources can be mitigated. The CoGen Facility has recently begun operation and the City has received some complaints regarding its operation. This reports presents the results of noise measurements of the CoGen Facility. 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE 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 1 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 0 dBA threshold of hearing (0 dBA) o@ 20 �h rustling of leaves (20 dBA) whispering at 5 feet (20 dBA) 40 quiet residential area (40 dBA) �)ll refrigerator (50 dBA) 60 air -conditioner at 100 feet (60 dBA) sewing machine (60 dBA) / J normal conversation (60 to 65 dBA) dishwasher (55-70 dBA) car at 25 feet at 65 mph (77 dBA) living room music or TV (70 -75 dBA) 80 diesel truck at 50 feet at 40 mph (84 dBA) garbage disposal (80 dBA) propeller airplane flyover at 1000 feet (88 dBA) ringing telephone (80 dBA) motorcycle at 25 feet (90 dBA) vacuum cleaner (60-85 dBA) lawnmower (96 dBA) shouted conversation (90 dBA) backhoe at 50 feet (75-95 dBA) 100 snowmobile (100 dBA) pile driver at 50 feet (90-105 dBA) car horn (110 dBA) baby crying on shoulder (110 dBA) rock concert (110 dBA) leaf blower (110 dBA) 120 ambulance siren (120 dBA) stock car races (130 dBA) jackhammer (130 dBA) 140 Sources: League For The Hard Of Hearing, www.lhh.org Handbook of Nose Control McCraw Hill, Edited byCyril Harris,1979 Measurements by Mestre Greve Associates Mestre Greve Associates Exhibit 1 Typical Noise Levels Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 2 interference, physiological responses and annoyance. Each of these potential noise impacts on people are 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. 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. 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. The City of Newport Beach uses the equivalent noise level, or Leq, scale in their noise ordinance. 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 or 15 minute periods. 2.3 Noise Limits The Noise Ordinance applies to noise on one property impacting a neighboring property. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 3 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 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 2.3.2. 2.3.1 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. Table 1 presents the Noise Ordinance standards contained 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 public 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.). Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 4 Table 1 Citv Of Newoort Beach Noise Ordinance Standards Noise Level Not To Be Exceeded Zone Noise 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Metric (daytime) (nighttime) EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS I Residential Leq (15 min) 55 dBA 50 dBA Lmax 75 dBA 70 dBA II Commercial Leq (15 min) _ Lmax III Mixed Use Residential* Leq (15 min) Lmax IV Industrial/Manufacturing Leq (15 min) _ r Lmax INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS I Residential Leq (15 min) Lmax III Mixed Use Residential* Leq (15 min) Lmax 65 dBA 60 dBA 85 dBA 80 dBA 60 dBA 50 dBA 80 dBA 70 dBAr� 70 dBA 70 dBA 90 dBA 90 dBA 45 dBA 40 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 45 dBA 45 dBA 65 dBA 65 dBA * Residential within 100' of a commercial property where noise is from said commercial property Residential areas (i.e., Zone 1) are provided with the most noise protection. It should be noted that portions of Villa Balboa which are within 100 feet of the western property line of Hoag Hospital are in Zone III, Mixed Use Residential, and have slightly less stringent criteria. Portions of Villa Balboa that are more than 100 feet from the Hoag Hospital property line are protected by the Zone I criteria. 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 during the nighttime period. If the HVAC equipment includes a timing device that will deactivate the equipment between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., then the standard is raised to 55 dBA. The timing device option is aimed primarily at private residences or businesses that do not operate during the nighttime. It has little practical application for Hoag Hospital since it operates around the clock. 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, Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 5 "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. 2.3.2 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 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 (se 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 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." It should be noted that Development Agreement has precedence over the Noise Ordinance contained in the Municipal Code. Changes to the Development Agreement can be made and it would still maintain its precedence over the Noise Ordinance. In most cases, noise generated by activities at the Hospital should be able to be mitigated to below the Noise Ordinance limits without Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 6 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" (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. The restriction above only applies to HVAC equipment as interpreted by the City. 2.4 Existing Noise Levels Noise measurements of critical Hoag Hospital operations were performed previously as part of the noise study for the Master Plan EIR ("Noise Assessment for Hoag Hospital Master Plan," Mestre Greve Associates, November 30, 2005.) These noise levels were critical in determining the noise levels and identifying how much noise reduction is necessary to bring the operations into compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Section 2.4.1 again presents the noise measurements that were made for the Master Plan EIR. Section 2.4.2 presents the supplemental noise measurements that were conducted for this study. 2.4.1 Previous Noise Source Measurements In responses to the Notice of Preparation, residents of the condominiums along the eastern boarder 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 letter 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. 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. General ambient noise measurements were also performed to provide a general description of the existing noise environment around the project site. The measurement survey utilized a Briiel & Kjwr 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 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 7 equipped with Brael & Kjxr 1/2-inch electret microphones and was calibrated with a Brdel & 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 2 shows the location of the loading dock, grease pit cleaning area and the noise measurement sites. 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. Site 1 was located on the balcony of 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. 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 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 "9 _'� aR '�► � J un �� ' ► � � ,;�Ey'� (:� vim'":! � _' + �, Noise Measurement Location r , NCD - 5f Iff Exhibit 2 - Existing Noise lsot a A----I-t-- Source Measurement locations Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 8 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 shoot up instantly 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 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 1 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. In summary, the loading dock noise (Leq) was measured as high as 68 dBA at the residences. This is 8 dB higher than the 60 dBA (Leq) limit in the Noise Ordinance. Therefore, any mitigation for the loading dock noise must provide at least 8 dB of noise reduction to bring the facility into compliance. 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. The District Regulations have precedence for HVAC equipment at Hoag Hospital. In summary, the mechanical equipment noise would need to be reduced by 3 dB to bring it into compliance with the Noise Ordinance. 2.4.2 Additional Noise Measurements Based on our site inspection it was determined that the mechanical equipment noise that was being heard was emanating from two sources, which we will refer to as "rooftop equipment" and "air handlers" (Exhibit 3). The rooftop equipment represents the fans and exhausts located on top of the Ancillary Building. Generally they are clustered around the central portion of the roof. In general, this equipment is exhaust fans for the kitchen and other areas within the building. r L L J• Main Area for Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Typical Air Handler Intake / Exhaust Exhibit 3 - Rooftop Mechanical Equipment and Air Handlers MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 9 The air handlers are located in the adjacent building to the south in the West Tower at about the third floor level. The air handlers intake air or exhaust air through the vented sides of the building. Noise measurements of the rooftop equipment and air handlers were made close to the sources to determine the relative contribution of the two sources. Additionally, octave band measurements were made of the rooftop and air handler units. The octave band measurements are included in Appendix A. Rooftop Equipment The site was visited on September 8, 2006 to measure the noise levels from the mechanical equipment on the rooftop of the ancillary building. The noise monitor used to measure the noise levels was a Bruel & KjTr Type 2260 Sound Level Meter. The measurement system was calibrated before and after the measurements with a Bruel & Kjaer Type 4231 sound level calibrator, with calibration traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Photos taken at each site are included in Appendix A. Measurements were performed for several pieces of equipment near the west side of the hospital facility. The noise measurements were performed between 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The exhaust fans are numbered per Exhibit 4. The results of the noise measurements are presented below in Table 2. Table 2 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS FOR THE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT Source Distance from Source Measured LEQ EF-17 3' 75.5 EF-16 3' 83.0 EF-18 3' 76.5 EF-9 3' 75.0 EF-10 3' 75.3 EF-12 3' 79.9 The air handlers are in a narrow range of noise from 75.3 to 83.0 dBA. If one or two air handlers were the dominant noise, then sound traps or mufflers could be effectively used to reduce the noise level. Since, there are many pieces of equipment with similar noise levels, it is more efficient to use a screen wall to control the equipment noise. The use of a screening wall is discussed more in Section 3. Air Handler Equipment The site was visited on September 8, 2006 to measure the noise levels from the air handlers that have intake or exhaust vents the west face of the hospital building. The noise monitor used to measure the noise levels was a Bruel & KjTr Type 2260 Sound Level Meter. The measurement EF-1O9 EF-38 EF-13 EF-10 e+ FC-4' 1 EF-8 we � 7; Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 10 system was calibrated before and after the measurements with a Brael & KjWr Type 4231 sound level calibrator, with calibration traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Measurements were performed for several pieces of equipment along the west side of the hospital facility. The noise measurements were performed between 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The results of the noise measurements are presented below in Table 3. Table 3 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS FOR THE AIR HANDLER EQUIPMENT Distance Measured Source from Source LEQ EF-8 3' 68.6 FC-4 3' 69.6 SF-1 3' 73.4 Similar to the rooftop equipment, there does not appear to be one air handler unit that is clearly dominant. Therefore, measures that address all of the equipment will be presented in Section 3. Cogeneration Plant 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 engines were not yet in operation at the time of the measurements. The noise monitors used to measure the noise levels were a Briiel & Kjaer Type 2260 Sound Level Meter and a Bruel & Kjaer Type 2236 Sound Level Meter. The measurement systems were calibrated before and after the measurements with a Briiel & Kjaar Type 4231 sound level calibrator, with calibration traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 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 building nearest to the cogeneration facility building (Exhibit 5). Near the balconies one measurement was made at 5 feet above ground (approximate ear level elevation) and at 24 feet using a 24 foot tall heavy tripod. The noise measurements were performed between 11:10 p.m. and 11:57 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 CoGen Facility could be determined between groups of cars. Since traffic noise was a significant contributor to the overall noise levels, however, the noise levels from the CoGen Facility were steady. Therefore, the Lmin (minimum) noise level is representative of the noise levels due to the chiller vents alone. The noise levels listed below in Table 4 are represent the steady noise levels of the chiller vents of the CoGen Facility. Ilk A �« � � l __��...' � • .. ' [i '• ors � Yi •ram cK: '^-.� ".� _ ✓ "'^.f'a.1bUAMI -fir, j �- * 4 � �� -ti /h �ir•.�t � '�''-1 N ',� `"Ty'a� (t MIN .j• • ' • F' 1rT � , � y ''!, sa•¢ L � a� ^/���! f?ti a '..,�..•"� �- j,�.'T r-- CJrn M1 1}., -IM t1 . P.4 Exhibit 5 - Co -Generation Facility Measurement Locations MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 11 Table 4 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS FOR CHILLER VENTS AT COGENERATION FACILITY Distance Measured Location from Source Noise Level Edge of Park 140' 49.8 Nearest balcony (first floor level) 217' 43.0 Nearest balcony (elevated 24') 217' 46.1 The Noise Ordinance regulations apply to this facility since we are not interpreting as a HVAC operation that would be regulated by the Development Agreement. Additionally, the residential areas are greater than 100 feet from the Hoag Hospital property line and therefore, would be protected by the Zone 1 — Residential criteria. The noise criteria for Zone 1 is 50 dBA (Leq) during the night and 55 dBA during the day. The noise levels for the CoGen 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 CoGen Facility are in compliance with the noise ordinance and no mitigation is recommended at this time. According to Hoag staff, within the next 4 to 6 months the originally planned engine generators (3) will be started and put into operation. All three of the generators will be located within the building. 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) engine 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 CoGen operation is in compliance 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 insure that it remains in compliance. Only if the CoGen facility is shown to not be compliance with the noise ordinance will the City have the right to require noise mitigation of the facility. 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 Mechanical Equipment For assessment purposes mechanical equipment is divided into two parts; the rooftop exhausts and the air handler units. As shown above, the mechanical equipment needs to achieve an overall 3 dB noise reduction to come into compliance with the current Development Agreement. 3.1.1 Rooftop Exhausts at the Ancillary Building Hoag Hospital has initiated plans to revamp the HVAC system for the Ancillary Building. Paulo Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 12 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 suggested mitigation measures. Currently the kitchen exhaust fans (identified previously as EF-16, EF-17, and EF-18) 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 residents. 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. However, once the fans are selected, we are recommending that a noise study be prepared that shows that the kitchen fans in combination with the other HVAC equipment in the area will comply with the requirements of the Development Agreement. Specifically, noise levels cannot exceed 55 dBA at the residential property line. 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 be 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 result in a significant improvement in the noise levels. A noise study should be required to show that the new fans, in combination with the other mechanical equipment, will meet the noise ordinance requirements. Mitigation options are available, if needed, that would insure that the new fans could comply with the ordinance. In addition to the new kitchen exhaust fans, twenty-two (22) new exhaust fans would be located on the roof of the Ancillary Building. (The fans are identified in plans by Fundament as EF 1-1 through EF 1-19 plus EF 4-5, EF 5-1, and EF 5-2.) 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 will 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. The direct line of sight between the residents and the mid portion of the building is not broken by the screen wall. 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 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 13 (Site 2, refer to Exhibit 2) 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 Development Agreement criteria of 55 dBA at the property line. Even when the other fans in the area are added in, these new fans will not add significantly to the total noise level. It should be noted that fan EF 1-16 is substantially louder than the other 21 fans. If fan EF 1-16 were eliminated (or if it was somehow mitigated) the total noise level for the remaining 21 fans would be 37.0 dBA at Site 1 and 37.8 dBA at Site 2. 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 Development Agreement limitations. 3.1.2 Air Handlers at the West Patient Tower The air handlers in the west face of the West Tower must also be reduced by 8 dBA. 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 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 should be used all around the perimeter of this floor. EF-12 protrudes through the side of building, and is one of the louder fans. Based on my discussions with Fundament, we are recommending that a sound trap be provided on EF-12, and that the ducting not protrude through the side of the building. Acoustic louvers should be provided around the outside perimeter of this floor as shown in Exhibit 6. Industrial Acoustics Noishield Louver Model R or equivalent could be used to attain the necessary noise reduction. The brochure for this product is also provided in Appendix B. Calculations were performed using the transmission provided by the Model R louvers and the measured frequency data to confirm that 8 dB of noise reduction would be provided. The louvers do have a small pressure drop associated with them, but this usually is not sufficient to cause any problems with the air handler units. In summary, it appears feasible 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 Development Agreement. 3.2 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. The hospital has existing time restrictions for the loading dock operations. Operations can only occur during daytime hours starting at 7 a.m. The most critical noise requirement for the operation of the loading dock is 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. Since the loading dock is closed during the nighttime, the nighttime restrictions contained in the noise ordinance do not have much relevance. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 14 A soundwall could be constructed along the Hoag Hospital westerly property line to reduce noise levels at the residences. 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, it 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 that is that 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. Additional Measures for Loading Dock As concluded above, there are no 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. We encourage Hoag Hospital (and in fact Hoag Hospital has suggested many of these measures) to further investigate and implement those measures that are feasible. Since, they cannot be quantified and since they are not a solution that would bring the loading dock into compliance with the noise ordinance, these measures are not being recommended as required 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 and 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 15 the open side facing away from the residents and still eliminate the noise impacts due to the baler and compactor. 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. 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 7) 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 7) 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.industrialacoustics.com/usa/index.htm) 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. Compactor Enclosure. The compactor would be relocated with the new loading dock plan, and this provides an opportunity to redesign the new compactor enclosure 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 Interim Phase-5 R .. ... • j IVIED. GAS - 'DOC$: • INTERIM DOCK COMPLETE �► � - _JI COMPACTOR. SOILED DOCK • BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ' �- i ( ENCLOSURE 1 MWW CANBEGIN + tt r •. ECEIVING CLEAN sL m.t C'Ad` Q DOCK W846 Or I�i1► : . NEW 100000 CONSTRUCTION �K RECYCLINIDF- HOAG HOSPITAL MD Wall for Absorptive Panels Exhibit 7 Future Loading Dock Plan Mestre Greve Associates Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 16 to leak out. The doors must be kept closed when the compactor is operating. Post No Idling Signs. "No Idling" should 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. 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 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. 3.3 Grease Trap Cieanout Grease trap cleanout is considered by the City to be property maintenance activity and therefore is not subject to the noise ordinance.. Hoag Hospital has continued to examine ways in which this operations 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 Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 17 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. Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 18 APPENDIX A NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA Mechanical Equipment at Hoag, 9-8-06 Measurement of EF-17 Mechanical Equipment at Hoag, 9-8-06 Measurement of EF-16 (Low Position) Mechanical Equipment at Hoag, 9-8-06 Measurement of EF-16 (High Position) Mechanical Equipment at Hoag, 9-8-06 Measurement of EF-18 I Mechanical Equipment at Hoag, 9-8-06 Measurement of EF-9 m - NNI Elm rwIr -- _ s- Mechanical Equipment at Hoag, 9-8-06 Measurement of EF-10 Mechanical Equipment at Hoag, 9-8-06 Measurement of EF-12 Mechanical Equipment at Hoag, 9-8-06 Measurement of FC-4 Mechanical Equipment at Hoag, 9-8-06 Measurement EF-8 Mechanical Equipment at Hoag, 9-8-06 Measurement of SF-1 Mechanical Equipment at Hoag, 9-8-06 Measurement in Alley (all equipment) Mestre Greve Associates Hoag Hospital Master Plan Page 19 APPENDIX B PRODUCT BROCHURES SULLETIN 0.0103*2 ARCHITECTURAL NOISEnFOIL %C— SOUND ABSORPTION SYSTEMS FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE NOISE REDUCTION IN HIGH NOISE LEVEL AREAS • ACOUSTICAL CONDITIONING thm REVERBERATION CONTROL OR: P 1 RINTINGXSS AUD?f@f lUMS TEXTILE PLAINTS GYMNASIUMS CONVENTION CENTERS PRESS SHOPS MACHINE SHOPS CONCERT HALLS SHEET METAL SHOPS STRUCTURAL SHOPS PLATE FABRICATION TANK FABRICATION SHOPS ENGINE TEST FACILITIES SCHOOLS, THEATERS PLASMA SPRAY SHOPS CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES BROADCASTINGIRECORDING STUDIOS TRANSIT SYSTEMS ANY LOCATION REOUIRING NOISE REDUCTIONS UP TO 10 dBA ACOUSTICALLY UPGRADING CONCRETE. STUD, OR SHEETROCK ENCLOSURES FEATURES: CONSTRUCTION: ABUSE RESISTANT METAL JACKETED HIGH SOUND ABSORPTION: NRC 0.95 THERMAL INSULATION: LOW HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS ATTRACTIVE FINISH OPTIONS: VINYL - TEDLAR - POLYESTER PAINTS POWDER COATINGS INCOMBUSTIBLE: CLASS AFIRE RESISTANT MATERI READ:LY INSTALLED: FLUSH A!RSPACE MOUNTED ON LS AND CEILINGS VERTICALL SPENDE� FROM ROOFS AN IUNGS ■ I M& AMY CORPS OF EN HYDRO -ELECTRIC POWER PLANT. CARTERS LAKE. INDUSTRIAL ACOUSTICS COMPANY ■ Now Sound•Absorbing Panels Reduce Plant wise Levels Noise-FoilITM Sound Absorbing Modules rite practical and effective for reducing high noise levels in indusidbl and commercial faclides. Although pwidirV little noise reduction near noise sources. Noise -Foil will benefit workers further away.. vacrr eruwn -`� 4= ( WIL a I OISTANCF MGM so" --t Operators at a — not helped:. personnel at b — benefit from reduced noise levels: as reflected sound is absorbed 'en route Risk of hearing loss is reduced and speech intelligibility Is improved. Noise reduction of 3 to 5 dB is "!oat; as much as 8 to 10 dB in highly reverberant areas, Noise -Fail Sound Absorption Panel Systems reduce reflected noise and provide acoustical conditioning for taiga andsmall spaces. -Can be attached to walls or suspwided from ceiling. NOISE -FOIL PANEL, TYPES ITMPE j ACcusm im ants C£SCRIPTION APPUCAMNS NF I NRC 0.70 to 1,30 Open bwl,,-non-weldeerepnstruct orF Wa9rnwnt _ ASTM C423.&a Face shelllu5yperforetW Mail VA12h 14-(35&nm)--2- (5imm) think 18'(45AAm)-4' (102mra) thick N4airspaace No joiner,: requu'ad .+ _ +lvailebit: in 1r!niahed materials. steel � alxnauan MP-11 INFIC 0,70 to 1.30 Olsen back -welded steelcorairucl*A WaS mount JASTMC42344a Face sheel tul'y perforatedNoaair lAvaiiablainow e j= .Max vnd:h 40- t1216rm) - 4- (io2mm) efokILfieyYOt.�fiint t2brica�ipn . NF-Ill iN¢3C4.70101.30 ASTfA C 42M40 Fully pertorated-&anta—mm t-na"Neldett=structim ° Max width 42x fib- x x thick 11067 x 167B it 51 rr ffo lAvabblein Cei6r hung, Wda! mount viiih air space s . - ' (Apply M total panel surface area, 38` x t�2 x a` thick(M x 1575 x 102mM) e; both sides) at-tfthod materials. steal& aA rrinu ► NF.1V 114AC O.&i- ASTM C 423434a Closed back parcel AAA trm room melhod Max wkPh; 42` x 6o x Z* thick (10g7 x 4f sx 51mm) 1,r 4 stud; and wEng Wd ASTM E 413 30' x N- x a' thl& IM x 1575 x 102Mm) I Aveit-ble in tkwhed meter fs siesta: abn*wm Nt-V 1,00 en t ack ASTM C 2�ya Fa Fare margined. perforations Ideal lot auk1w appllcalkirs Max width 24' (610mm) - 2W (64nwn) thick NO air space. Avaltabteinpre-firrshedtneta-dats,galimraed steel No Nojonersrequired Aeceferated Weather Tested - 40M h ASI M a 117 TYPao I TYPE terlENatrrTErrT, col�I-uruous TYPE it CONIMWOUS NOISE -FOIL INS' TYPED CEILING HUNG Type tit 418SPACE MOWT rALLATION �i TYPE IV WALL MOUNT DETAILS TVPErV CCIUNGCMD WPM STUD UDUNT "VIE V WALLUX)HU IT Noise-Foirer Sound Absorption Systems - Design Guidelines TABLE 1- CONTINUOUS, WALL -MOUNTED TYPES 1. no Ill. and SOUND ABSORPTfON COEFFICIENTS Fib I'h ocu" Br•M Censer �ragw cn its i 115.' 250 ' sm I {:K 21t 4K NBG wl-- Co molt prexer awn 1.0 pull **a CM00 t va -, 11 W *WT iklx�aaar�re sirr�A.57MG42� 72tr- s.65rnrJ. (`ormo�Jar:, a,taa;.�nrxar awgdad tOPS s,emm E4zWdkvnmereafiem crEJo1J•dtow. TABLE 2 -1NT TNT,INALL�4IOUNTED TYPES I,11,111, andnd IV N E TOTAL ABSORPTION, SABINSIARRAY FIB L Q, 16 wave Bane Ce entat Fr_ cpeney, HI i Pn>SeC11at Option ln. ) t.25 ^250 3110 'tK 2K , ! tt•. 1 98 4i 14 0581 1 81 1 110 1 140 1 117 1 112 1 100 -P 3 7B 87 74 1 0 7t1 08 1 75 ib ., S Ti 1 '$1 E?3 77 t F7 -PS 3 t 47 t 1 t as 1.58 14r35811 63 tC2 IDS I 84 r E7 t2' lMM Th1ck 5 Paertts I Ir 1 110' 1457 ae TOW &r€r175 t!f _N 3 M1f 24 1 48 Be 9a 66 = -s5 19 LM 114, 107' F2_ -P a 25 42- 54 1 64 so €5 10 s-7 32 61 E8 63 $ 3 rR- 37 72 as 16 (4571 1 3.0 ti I SB dEi 82 n 1j% CElU 4 3 - E:ILING�HUNG TYPE 111 TOTAL ABSORPTION, SAaiNSIPAN�EL Protection tAaelaw! Bernd �. Ht Option K(Mr") 1 125 1 250 1 SW i 19 1 2K i 4K r24'9.pb11a7i11Tr11CK42 .14 ,-[T, 32 t3135 7Yfifi_ $ 1057xYE71s�_ 10 tip - �� � 12 10 �92 1 9 93 16 2Tt :0 42 1067t 6 l 12 13 16 1 a5 17 631eoa +t IS 23 25 t 3/ /2 1t ri 1 12 12 ( 1a i 12 1 7 1 1 1i 1B 20 12 42 1 s is ( 15 t 2s' tb � 53 t6" 6 15 23 27 i 30 rt8 -PS A t 5 12 11 12 a i3 I e 32 913it S 14 Ls i 1s 21 ?2. _4 11067al___5 .-1 to 1 17 1__-22 27 5 f e3 r111004 1 s 1 191 1 a_ I X < in. �Itl7anen s Thkk 3H in_>C � s 1S 13 t 5 11 1 1 r 1 29 t7znp 3 12 - 1.3 3 21 '12' 33 '' I a 1i 29'! 21 2,7., .�5 S710 �� t S I IS -28 t 2�2• icy_ - .,p 13 - 7 10 1 12 t 11' 119 1 .7 29 7 41 16 17 1 t8 t1 38 ' i 13 19 1 19 1 23 1 14 37t1 7 iS 2a 25 i 27 1 18 _P5 13 $ 1a 12 13 1 12 11 !1 pB pe cm _ 2t I 22 1 24 1 29 IYa �. om 157(1144E)i S a to 13_ a 1 f4 1 28 1 30 1 29 1 16 Sound Absorption Is Affected by Panel•lutoduts Placement as demonstrated in the IAC NVLAP-accredited Aero-Acoustic Laboratory. Ceiling -Hung Panels were tested in several oanliguralions as per ASTM C 423. Sound absorption per Sq ft of panel area Impmvved with incrcasad spacing. In the Speech Frequencies, 500. 1000. and 2000 Hz. a 63 in. (1600mm) panel spacing provides highest number of Sabins per module (Sabin or Metric Sabin is the equivalent of 1 sq ff or 1sq m respectively of'a perry sound absorptive surface). However, increased spacing reductestotalnumberof panels that can be fitted and sound absorptive Satins that can be provided. Cost-effective applications can be maximized by considering tailing, stung andlor oeHinglwatl-mounted configurations. WallfCeilrng-Mounted Noise -Foil Modules canbevary effective in long marrow spaces and relatively low ceilings, See Table I for sound absorption coefficients in continuous and Tebte2 for Sabins per array in intermittent installations; Table 3 gives Satins .per module for ceii"Ing•hung arrangements. Ceiling -Hung Noise -Fait Type ill Modules can be tried to great advantage where there are large floor areas with widely spaced walls. For cost-effective recom, mendatians piease check with IAC, Noise-Fofi Testing In IAC Aero-Acoustic Laboratory NOW TOOESIGNSTE'NOrS2401L CODE FOR FILL PROTECTION PANELS' OPTICKS OW -i .-2 -PS x-'Notopml ebw TYPE: � f P-,4lwrappadin� THICtOrE$S : PS -P111w app otlawsm FILL PROTECTIW OPTION tacit byamostic spacer Specifications for Noise -Foil" Sound Absorption Systems 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Scope of Work -1Ws Section covers the furnishing of materials and products for the fabrication of specified sound ab- sorbing module systems, The extent of work shall be as specified and include but not be limited to the following: -Sound absorbing panel modules. -Acoustical lnstriation. -Metat support systems. 1.2 Manufacturer of sound absorbing metal finer panels shall be Industrial Acoustics Company, 1160 Commerce Avenue, Bronx, NY 10462, Tel.: (718) 931-6000, Fax: (718) 653.1.138. 1.3 Product Submittals shall include materials spocilicawns, installation, and maintenance instructions with cleaning proco• dates. 1.4 Certified Test Reports shall be submitted with bid demonstrating complianco with sound absorption cooificionis or Sabin specified herein and shall have been conducted in a laboratory accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Ac- credlation Program, NVLAP, for Sound Absorption Tests by the Reverberation Aoom Mcthod. ASTM C 423. 2.0 MATERIALS 2.1 Face shoots shalt be minimum 20 gauge GOO, 0.0396 in. (1.01mm), galvanized (per ASTM A S25) pre -finished steel or aluminum (select one) The face panel shall have .suff clone rigidity to provfdo panel fatness not exceeding a do2ection of U240 as d d' 2A. Face sheet perforations shall be round and diagonally centered with a mexlmum diameter of If:e In. (4,76mm) on Its In. (9.53mm) staggered centers: Open Brea of approximately 23%. 2.5. Acoustical insulation shall be sound absorbing fiberglass Infill. U.L. fire classified with flame spread 25 maximum, smoke developed 50 maximum per ASTM E 84. 2.6 Fill Protection Options (Select one or both) 2.6 f inlill shall be enclosed In polyethylene wrap as recommonded by acoustical metal knot panel manufacturer, shall be U.L. classified with flame spread 25 maximum and smoke developed .50 per ASTM E 84. 2.6.2 fnNY shellbe separated' from perforated face sheet by eft In. (6.35mrn) acoustic reactive sped 2.7 All exposed metal trim shall be minimum 1�8 gauge (1.31mm) GOO galvanized (per ASTM .A 525) steel. 3.0 ACOUSTICAL PERFORMANCE 3.1 Panel Modules, "an tested in accordance with ASTM C.423.shall produce minimum (sefectoneormore)soundsbsorptiors coefficients, Table 1; Satins per panel array. Table Z or Sabina per parcel. Table 3. as follows: 113Octave Bend Center Frequency, My, _ t25 260 I W ION ' 20M 4000 3iRC 6'LSen APPR DV a VAWS Dom TRW 1, 2. o►3 meaQure , ago naily across the panel, 2.2 Pre -finished Materfal Options (all NF Types except NF4i), Panels shall be finished with (select one) 8 mil (0.203mm) thick 4.0 PANEL PENETfRATtONS vinyl, 3 mil (0.076mm) thick polyester powder, or a 1 mil 4:1 A channel -shaped steel molding shall be installed on (0.025mm) polyester baked enamel. All trim pieces shall be fac- panels whatever panels have to be cut to fit. The molding must tory-painted with a. modified alkyd -bilked enamel to match close the panel to preclude any loss of panel fill materials. All preflnished color selected by architect Or owner, reinforcing channels shall be Installed so as not to compromise 2.3 Painted Option (act NF Types) ; All parle!s and trim shall the acoustic and structural properties of system. Any fasteners be factory -painted with a modified alkyd -baked enamel, Color to which may be required due to field cutting shall be concealed be selected by architect or owner. wherever possible. AN designs and speciEra.?ons suhjecr to change athour malice. (Metric dimensions in parentheses () nomlivQ. OTHER APPLICATIONS Correctional Facil...W, Perin Beach Cowtv, Florida Water Pumping Station, Eghum, England 01KiDUST(ROAL A-COU STUCSS OOMP&MV SINCE 1949 - LEADERS fN NOfSE CONTROL ENGINEERING, PRODUCT$ AND SYSTEMS UNITED STATES UNITED KINGDOM OEIIMAMT 1150 COMMEPCE AVE.Ius CENTRAL TRAtXW ESTATE SONLWEG 17 8110N3t. NEW YORK 10462.5599 aTAiNES. M UDLESE7t TR18 08 0.41372NI=6EAKRNCHT`dI PFONE,171E11131.MM PHONE 10?941466.251 PHONE: K214316431 FAX:173) 063.113E PAX., (0786) dr;9-M. TELEX:25516 PAX, 1021531 F0618 TECHNICAL REPRESENTATION IN PRINCIPAL CITIES TUROUG14OUT THE wOi140 pftwnpimaA noishield/slimshield architectural noise control ventilation ventilation lowers lit ' F' ` decorative facades lilill A e0p(nent screens weather shields noise barriers silencers k housings NIP .•.� „� INDUSTRIAL USTICS COMPANY BULLETIN 1.0502.6 iac acoustical noishield P=Emw�Ng control noise ... permit airflow Ln ��__ w.+.r.�.��- _ �.,i- � ✓wit"` - NoishleW Louver cooling tourer inlet screentnoise barrier. Note how "clean" lines, color, and mitered comers pro, vide attractive, uncluttered appearance architecturally compatible with the surroundings. cer � Dusk 8nd 8e,ro nam dyic p Erfolman ce with an unmatched array of irnpottant features• 2 RUGGED ALL-SEEEs GALVr'NM CONSTRUCTION, S?AG4UM STEEL., "APUIMINUM -MHER MATERIALS ALSO AVAILABLE 2 INERT, V81MIAPR00F, Y/F1#IMMIATED NONCOMBUSTME ACOUSTIC KLL 3 ALRFC?L SIikRO SPLiiTER•BL►lOE FOR MMML M ROME REOUCTIC'L %VITR TJ NIMUM PRESSIME DROP. 4 PERFORATED SAITTER Lih'DERSME FOR .MUNO ABSORP aN. 6 WEATHER STOP Ih71_BITS RAI.`l(S 3111 ENTRY. 6 ONLY 12 I.V. 1305 ciml DEEP. 7 AV LABLE IN A VAKETY OF BURAB1E, .ATTRACTIVE FINISHES. B MOIIULAR SIZES ISEE PAGE 51 EN,MM ASSEMBLY OF SECTIUNEA:R LOUVER '1VAUS" OF ►CLAIM ANY SIZE. 9 SPOENLADE ORIENTATION BLOCKS HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT, THMEBY I'KHAtdi7 S BOTH. AESTHETICS AND ACOUSTIC PERSTIRMANCE. 10 M IN. V3 mml DETACHABLE GALVA42ED BIRO BEN FURNISHED AS STA* BARD ON BACK SEBE OF LOUVER, eaoyloxaa�F. �ssieeresed Deters t xs, e�pwte6Opdoer i�h�atrusrar�ueca�9ncs cOun►9aY t.+c a ...available for any application ... in any size The NAG NoishielP louver is a multipurpose tower used to permit the flow of .air while Welding the environment from noise. Noishield lowers are availab'.e in two models and standard modular sizes to Feet a wide range of performance requirements where space is limited and architectural standards of appearance must be met. typical uses include ❑ FRESH AIR i ,TAKES FOR VENTILATIO►J SYSTEMS II N.C:SE BARRIERS 0 C"ECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENS OR PENffflOUSES ❑ PRD^ESS AIR � JAKES 13 CORRIOCH RETURN AIR INTAKES a CROSS TALK S:lEt: FRS 0 CODLING TOWER INLET SaEN'CERS OR SCREENS ...in a variety of colors and finishes Noishield louvers can be provided in primed or unprimed galvanized steel or mill finish aluminum for field painting. In add. tion. thf .can be furnished in a range of architectural colors .and gloss levels in any the the following finishes, IAC engineers can provide you with details on any of these options. (3 AUTOMOTIVE QUALITY PHENOLIC PAINT * ANODIZED ALUMINUM * VINYL COATED STEEL D STAINLESS STEEL IN A RANGE OF SURFACE FINISHES * R,UGHOPOLYMER, VINYL, POLYURETHANE AND OTHER PAINTS WITH SUPERIOR WEATHERABILITY Noishield louvers provide decorative protection against weather and forced entry for air Intakes and discharges. s �(R- ���0' �WWSM can be installed flush -mounted to fit into masonry or other building structures or as free-standi ng barriers or screens field assembly MODULE ASSEMBLY ATTACHmc„� CORNER ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT SOTS ROOF ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT y methods of instailafm FLUSH E)(TERIOR LOWER : °e ;,o � ,� ►_ . EXTEROR CAULK FLAN G ED E)rERIC R CAJLK t J •. -s w LOUVER j • o'+ EXTERIOR FLUSH INTERIOR CAULK E R CONCRETE 14SERTS ANCHOR i----- --� INSERT I LOUVER • : r 'o CAULK MASONRY ANCHORS MASONRY STRAP LOUVER QC)Q.o M a X GROUT v"4 IVORTAR BOLTED CONNECTION 1 How To Specify 'NoNhield Louvers Furnish and insiAl Noishield Louveds! as manufac. tuned by IndustrWr Acoustics Company. Outer casings Shell be Of 16 giulle 11 .6 13 mall 16tariked steal:. Louver baffles shag be of airfo i. configutatian and be made of 22 gauge 10.8534 mml g*anized steel. That' shad be packed with Limn, vermin and moisture proof' mheral ffbar, and provide the acoustical perlotmence as- limited in Tattle 11, Louvars. shall have Ifaish v.th color. Static premure drop of louvers shall not exceed i w.g.1 Pal at a face Velocity of fpm .1.____,._, misli far Model R and IPM I m1sl for Model LP. Rl k aW#Priale va& Manufacturer .shall submit cer- tified data from ene leboretaiv substent0 ing both tlts specified acoustic, and asiodynamic performarim. Simplified Selection Procedure Louvers aro retell in the IACaeronousgt: laboratory rrr accordance with AtSTtA Stan. dard x90-75. and oitrer oppiecal)M lest standaros. TO an3[yze sPeclfic louver ,aPPltcaVans, ask tor tAC SNAP 11 (Bulie:dn l.0s03). This S}9uQtrtiry Noise A, e:yars :Procedure errabt_s YOU 10 Ovatial.e Me e0 ecis of '114 ecaus7ical snvironmrrt In Whidh The source is located and to determine louver rnodol and size selecliok Module Sizes rAoishield toum Model I 04to�e_I}1Yidifi»" :,M+�dul�:,Hei Modd R—Q irnum WDiZqW �0r t to rr�11C8 dl nW_i11a1 24, 36, or 48 12 t2.144:In 12 k kxrerrlat;s pleswe chap 1610. gt4 or 12191 1305 to 3553 in 305 mm marlte,tiel Model LP —Normal amusibl o ►ih n*N1n 24, 36, or 48 14 t'S.140 iu t4 iai>i mwa Famedrop t610, 04 or 1219 1356 to 3656 ia 355 ntyn ikremasl. PADi 3sr�r� arr4rhrr�thtd.�aikkrrs ufsa�e8>rr t Ftaal:as Nrcasw.rlibarAain. �S4rtrn)1m+lm rrauarinai.. rrtaas�ra'd'tnut�ia��raQe 1rYEtr�Qi1#—.fB�t�(4�8k�jot3a�ar�, certified performance data __._ ��'Stetuc sauna 0rolq, �w:g. Pal � j Noia>udll 0.05 1702.4l, 0.10 0.115 1137.41 10,20 0.25 10.30 10.40 10.50 1. 8:&o 10.75 ; 10 1A LN&W mom 1.24.91 1140A. 162-31 [174-111 MAI 11124.511110.611 t186,01124t.11 09.41 velocity, tent tFwsl Mudd R 215305 375 430 4601 525 610 675 745 830 W 1070 1.091 1551(.91 r218 2.44l27 .1of 13.431 13.701 V4 11 1A111fe1 L7' 270 1 380 465 t7.37k 11.931 540 600 OG0 ?so 050 ' 925 1W 1 13'10 :' 1?361 1%741 I3.E6r1 13.35. 13.8fi1 14.3.1 t4.]p1 15.281 .18.1QI Call Table II —Transmission iLoss (T.L.) — L1enned.as iP,e ratio, in decbel!s, of acdustrc energy smasnxted lnrough'the lower,to, thal;In• cidentupon ii_ ;t)cta Blind Center 'r�23a 3 7V 0 1 Frtlquorq. Rz. 500 1K 2K a 8K 1411del8 [Model 1 7 11U!S 13 14 12' 9 LP _ � 812 1 9:7 6 Table I Aerodynamic Performance Table 1111-Noise Reduction (N.A.) The trse4ield now reduction• of a tourer is tilediference. in decibels: betwiet n thosound Pressure level an the noise source std® of the fouver and Heat messuf0d dtldoors an she side of fouvox away lro-A We noise source'. 0icar,a itand'Centar —`f ' 2`" 8 l`1 fluency. lux 63 1 125 250 508 tK 2K 4KK G �*dd t odellP 11L13 10 11 1= 1a t5 T92ct�l1S 18 1fi f 13 12 nilawr u arm", aslance .fin 44OWd Lamar 1 67, 2 125 3 250 9 500 5 1r; 6 2K 7 4K 8 8K i It to 1D 3.05 23 25 29 30 31 32 30 27 60 15.24 37 39 43 44 45 46. 44 41 100 30.40 43 45 49 50 51 52 50 47 200 60.96 - 49' 51 55 56 ' 57 58 fit 53 500 152,40 51 59 53 54 65 66 54 61 100Q 304.80 1 63 B5 1 0 1 70 1 71 1 72 1 70 67 ;' rev MaWIL IP Arroetwiw S rlWRACT i telWiT wear traA>,is * avb rite dsei ©E0UC7� 1 7 3 3 1 5 fi 3 Table IV Attenuation Isource FWL fro: 10-1Y 1Nattsk CaMbines Ilse Ro shlettl L ouver's Iran3rrosslon vith she. reduction or soured energy as n. fyttction of distance from .the noise source., (Type a altenvnnon labtrtated: MUM . for Type LP as noted). NOTE: Additional olienyotlor► am be realized front room of Plenwril afpearption charactotiollim Far tletat!ed method of catcu'.alion refer to 1.A0 8atlfeEia t.o503. 4 D� o���•VEN'f� LOUVER Slim(ghie ....a compact silences/louver thaPs only 4 or 6 inches /102 or features 0 EASY TO INSTALL 152mm1 deep 0 LOW PRESSURE DROP E7 COMBINATION SILW.CER AND LOUVER 0 RUGGED GALVANIZED STEEL CONSTRUCTION 0 STAINLESS STEEL AND OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE CMD NOISE REDUCTION CHARACTERISTICS IN ALL OCTAVE BANDS — B di REDUCTION IN SPEECH FREQUENCIES 0 MOOMA.R SIZEES CAN BE RE►SOILY ASSSMBLE© INTO RECTILINEAR LOUVE3 "BANKS" OF VIRTUALLY ANY SIZE 10 CHOICE OF SEVERAL DURABLE FINISHES IN A VAHIETY OF ATTRACTIVE COLORS Ises Pot 31 13 IAC'S AEROACOUSTIC LJ ORATORY WILL DEVELOP SUMSHIELO TO' YOUR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS typical uses AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT Q RETURN AIR AND SUPPLY SYSTEMS 0 VENTILATION! OPENINGS CROSSTALK SILENCERS a COOLING TOVIERS o KITCHEN AND BATHROOM VENT SHAFTS LD LIBRARIES ± ❑ RECORDING AND BROADCASTING STUDIOS M COMPUTERS j r3 AIR CONDITIONING AND REFWGERATION EQUIPMENT L3 EQUIPMENT ROOMS INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT C3 FANS. Q HOSPITALS o HOTELS AND MOTELS 0 BOILER ROOMS Q CONFERENCE ROOMS 1 0 DIESEL GENERATOR SETS a NOISE BARRIERS riTRACTORS 0 MARINE OR PROPULSION FANS o ELECTRIC MOTORS E3 AIR COOLERS 0 MACHINERY ENCLOSURES E3 TRUCKS AND BUSES E3 PUP BPS a GAS TURBINES D LOCOMOTIVES 0 BULLDOZERS 0 OIL COOLERS 0 TRANSFORMER BARRIERS E3 AIR COMPRESSORS 1 El DIESEL POWERED VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 0 INDUSTRIAL COOLING TOWERS s � � 4 Now to Specify Slimshield Quiet -Vent Louvers FumM and instal Slimshield Louvers Is) as manufac- wred by Industrial Acotstics Comparri. Outer casings and sp5tter blades shal be of 22 gauge 10.8534 mm) gahanged steel, louvers shal be packed with inert, verm.n and moisture proof mineral fiber ar:d prov:de the acoustical performance as indicated in Table VI. louvers shal have finish vvith color. Static pressure drop shal not exceed i.w.g. I Pal at a face velocity of On I allot. full 1n apprapr+sra t r). Manufacturer shag submit data from one laboratory substantiating both the specified acoustic and aerodynamic performance. Simplified Selection Procedure Ark lot SNAP ti (IAC SutleLn 1.0503) :or Systemic Hose Analyst Proceaure wntcrt can be used in slzing area se'ecung sllmghatp louvers. Now For aonbcattons war nig,n sate vetouaes consul: rectory to check. tnet S :msnuelo Louver sell.no=3o to rot excessive. Standard Slimahield Module Sizes Width in.lmml 4 in.1102mm) Gap Height 6 in. 1152rnn11Dap Heart it iron k nrn 1213051 16 406 12 305 2418101 24 610 24 610 361 914) 32 013 38 914 48 112191 40 1016 48 1219 48 1219 NOT1:5:1.tar�rrraduias�al�t�blecnrs�st 2.tonsu�tkcray/ars�rucraralr�ra>� or ma�ule a��: 8.4 in r1A2rim) alxat s7�nsr�ire tang is�r ir— � 1� rt9.5 +) d t�ae a�a � airzrsar�a)rh,�rS7imstJeldcaw►rrxtiQrrt—nil �t (29311��)atfictarra, certified performance data SrtW 1rfi Ure Qsit; 70.05 0.1611 0.15 1 C.29 T 0.25 0.?0 r 0.431 0.50 r 0.60 i 0.75 1.6 i.w.g_ IN .117.411124.91I l37dl 1149.81 1 i62.311174.711 193.6! It24.51.1149.'.11116S.81'1249.11 i I Face VCDdly. ! m kips! 4 in. 1102n-ni 202 1235 353 404 452 495 511 939 7p ]65 934 Deep ,11.031 11.451 11.781 12.05! : i2.30! 12.511 12.931 (3.95) ; 11561 , 13..991 11.591 228 440 SIC 6 in 115 ft 0 5911105 10.071111 51.1.11-301111.431 i1.6•J.138411.12Q11 12.241-12.6111, - lCenter Q.t2're Bated 1 T 2 3 T4 5 6 1 a Frequery, Hz 6a 1125 25C 500 1 VK A 4K 8K 4 1102rnrr1 l m-'smi»'t lost, d8 5 4 1 5 6 f 9 13 1 14 13 OR; Free F;e'] Nirise Hed ion, d8 11 1D 11 12 15 10 20 19 5 1 11 52ay.1 IT, ansr-,:ien loss, dB 6 5 8 13 14 18 10 15 Be" 7q F;e'd ftse Ree=Ean, 69 12 1 12 34 i 11 1 20 24 1 25 . 23 . L. 0 r- /oil 10 Slimsttiold Quist -Vent' Lowers can be installed In walls and doors for air �..� transfer or plenum lk silencers. Also. In plenum or or machinery enclosures, or as an Integral intake silencer and weather louver on - mechanical equipment. TABLE V Aerodynamic Performance TABLE VI Acoustic Performance 7 r As IAC HVAC Noise Control Products &Systems Gutot4)uctsSilencers are angi- nooted until with proven acous• float eilicioncy In aft nualing fan nabs. Easily lifted irlto exispting vpte ms.Sze,;fcrpracarcalye►eiy ippice5arn. Bulletin 1.0301 Energy Saver Conic-Flovta Silencer Tail Cones, — For any size .JAC Conlc4%w Silencer. amoen►_ Dccreesessllai=pressure drop and TAU ye -cut _ tra ailerc senergy consumuch fion c h erakng costs by t� much as 3396 with no change In acoustic charactedsucs End AD increase in duct length re- qulrements. BalloUnSOS14 :CrIM1'dilf�"`' Special Air Handling Systems — Cusor., engineered 24,030 cim air -Mao- diing sywom including slancers, liters, coils, varsa:aal tan and acoustic -plenum undot lost in IAC'S 10.000IPfeeerbe:a!ien room. SVSIO n is designed to mootcorsullanrs NO 35 criterlon for each floor of a fifty -story bulid'ng. The re+rerbmatior room is part of IAC s Aero-Acoustic Lecratoq whch includes otosed loci wino tunnel for estatIh ning OIL, soli -ulnae, and pressure drop :sings of full-scale silencers and ohar HVAC system components. -Bulletin 1.0004 SNAP Farm — IAG s Systemic Noise Anatysfs Procedure for de!er� minblg aeoustcal requirements of HVAC sW,oms, Bulletin 1,0110 SNAP 11 Form — IACs Systemic Noise Analyfsis ProcedUro for determining acoustical requirements and applications Involving NoishiaidsAoousticLouve s. 13ulieUnl.0503 }�" m C/ r 4 � � qq �J r` E6 A2 TAl' el 2niPwyd�i iC felt 4.1 - •I D+tY+ 7a9ad bok Al o It t dt SB 9 5 7' le FREEM-9T, lk 01111t Ft ACOUSTICAL EFFICIENCY ENERGY SAVINGS Typo Es `Energy Saver Silencer — For many years, me 'Type S Oulot-OuctSllsncorshave been the Industry standard for max mm nolse reduction with miltbnum length The Es 'Energy Savor Rectangular Silencers providothe same high level of acoustic porfomancecombined wilt a marked decrease in energy consumption. Bulletin SOS 12 Conic Flovic Silencers control. noise of axialdlow-tans In %elit the duct length required for lined duct. Alloy efficient air flow In both high. ,pressure and low systems. 18 standard slzos Bulletin 1.0301 Ultra•PaISTU Packless Silencers — Qu M33fl,A 'Op a'o MIMS et111vIiiS hAn SAM= ft*d lr OL IAC`s aced imcfNe, sdencers use no acoao:,''•o ill of any klnd. Readily Gleaned utth dean% Plot waterehEnfibal sditrls and(or vmrumod. Ideal for electronic equlprse d2see IT%'. ArMMOM U. fical, food and da1ymanufncturing,. �n roomorprooess epplkatlotls, htfB =l opemling morns, arld n)- search fpcl em Bulletins SCS21,24;5 and 28 E-MAIL: INFOQI'4DUSTRfAL4C0USTICS.00lA WESSITE HTTP-.I;'NWW INDUSTRIALACOUSTICS00M ACOUSTICS COMPANY SINCE 1949 — LEADERS IN NOISE COflTROL ENGINEERING, PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS NNrT E0 STATSS U NITSD IrrNGOOM IUCINDUSTRIAL GERKAN V t I62 CCri1MCRCC AVCNUC IAC MUSE. MOORSIDE ROAD SOHLINEG 17 BRONX. NY i0462 S M VYNCHESTER, HAtAPSHIRS, S023 7US 0-41372 NIr0l:RKr%0"_ iTrN TFI-ifIH 3I.WKI TFI: (019E9 exit= TFI.: (n 10M 8431 F9X•(718j5$,7.t1$F FAX (g1eF?;573111.7Fl;:X;t7117 rAXI 1n7168fNn6ttt iNf Y ti%= e+Sllfii TECHNICAL REPRESENTATION IN VIIINCl/AL CIT198 THROUGHOUT THE WORLD F11� U B,AN Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal For U.S. Mail: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 SCH# 1991071 303 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613 Project Title: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Contact Person: Street Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard Phone: City: Newport Beach Zip: 92663 County: Project Location: One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, County: Orange City/Nearest Community: Cross Streets: Hospital Rd., West Coast Highway, Newport Blvd. Assessor's Parcel No.: Section: Within State Hwy. #: 1 (PCH) Waterways: Pacific Ocean 2 Miles: Airports: n/a Railways: n/a P�NItiG �0 BY James Cam vor Planner 9 -3210 g Ora 4 JQC% "'l UFN" Newport Beach � 8 Zip �#663 Twp: Range: Base: Schools: Newport Heights Elementary School; Newport Harbor High School; Whittier Elementary School; Victoria Elementary School; Pomona Elementary School; Rea School; McNally School; San Joachim School; Mariners Elementary; Harper School; Mariners Elementary School; Horace Ensign Intermediate School Document Type: CEQA ❑ NOP ® ❑ Early Consultation ❑ ❑ Neg. Dec. ❑ ❑ Mit. Neg. Dec. ❑ ❑ Draft EIR Supplement to EIR Subsequent EIR Prior EIR (SCH #) Other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ NEPA NOI EA Draft EIS FONSI ❑ ❑ ❑ Other Joint Document Final Document Other: Local Action Type: ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ® Rezone ❑ Annexation ® General Plan Amend. ® Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Dev. ❑ Use Permit ❑ Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ❑ Land Division (subdivision ❑ Other: parcel, tract maps, etc.) Development Type: Units/Sq. Ft. Acres Employees Type Size ❑ Residential ❑ Water Facilities MGD ❑ Office ❑ Transportation ❑ Commercial ❑ Mining Mineral: ❑ Industrial ❑ Power MG ❑ Educational ❑ Waste Treatment MGD ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste ❑ Other ® Other: Hospital: transfer of up to 225,000 sf of existing entitlement between the Lower Campus and Upper Campus Total Acres (approx.) 38 Project Issues that May Have a Significant or Potentially Significant Impact: ® Aesthetics/Visual ❑ Fiscal ❑ Recreation/Parks ❑ Vegetation ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ Schools/Universities ❑ Water Quality ® Air Quality ❑ Forest Land/Fire Hazard ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Water Supply/Groundwater ❑ Archaeological/Historical ❑ Geologic/Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Riparian ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Minerals ❑ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ® Growth Inducement ® Coastal Zone ® Noise ❑ Solid Waste ® Land Use ❑ Drainage/Absorption ❑ Population/Housing Balance ❑ Toxic/Hazardous ® Cumulative Effects ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Public Services/Facilities ® Traffic/Circulation ❑ Other: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: Hospital; Hoag Hospital Planned Community (PC) Text and District Regulations; Public Institutions Project Description: 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: 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 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. In no event, however, would the total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. The PC Text will 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; see paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above. 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 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. " Reviewing Agencies Checklist ® Air Resources Board ❑ Boating & Waterways, Department of ❑ ❑ California Highway Patrol ❑ ® Caltrans District # ❑ ❑ Caltrans Division of Aeronautics ❑ ❑ Caltrans Planning ❑ ❑ Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy ❑ ❑ Coastal Commission ❑ ❑ Colorado River Beard Commission ❑ ❑ Conservation, Department of ❑ ❑ Corrections, Department of ❑ ❑ Delta Protection Commission ❑ ❑ Education, Department of ❑ ❑ Office of Public School Construction ❑ ❑ Energy Commission ❑ ❑ Fish & Game Region # ❑ ❑ Food & Agriculture, Department of ❑ ❑ Forestry & Fire Protection ❑ ❑ General Services, Department of ❑ ❑ Health Services, Department of ❑ ❑ Housing & Community Development ❑ ❑ Integrated Waste Management Board Locai ruonc Keview Ferioa Starting Date: May 11, 2007 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Consulting Firm: BonTerra Consulting Address: 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 City/State/Zip: Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Contact: Dana C. Privitt, AICP Phone: 714-444-9199 Native American Heritage Commission Office of Emergency Services Office of Historic Preservation Parks & Recreation Pesticide Regulation, Department of Public Utilities Commission Reclamation Board Resources Agency S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mountains Conservancy San Joaquin River Conservancy Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy State Lands Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB: Water Rights Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Toxic Substances Control, Department of Water Resources, Department of Other: Other: Ending Date: June 12, 2007 Applicant: Hoag Hospital Address: One Hoag Drive Office: 361 Hospital Road, Suite 229 P.O. Box 6100 City/State/Zip: Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 Contact: Langston Trigg, Jr. Phone: 949-764-4488 Signature of Lead Agency Representative-k Date: - . 0. Tnrnns nrp 2c Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code, Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code. R:\Projects%NewportW0081Revised IS%NCC Form-051007.DOC Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal For U.S. Mail: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 SCH# 19910?1003 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613 Project Title: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Contact Person: James Campbell, Senior Planner Street Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard Phone: 949-644-3210 City: Newport Beach Zip: 92663 County: Orange Project Location: One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, CA County: Orange City/Nearest Community: Newport Beach Total Acres: 38 Cross Streets: Hospital Rd., West Coast Highway, Newport Blvd. Zip Code: 92663 Assessor's Parcel No.: Section: Twp: Range: Base: Within State Hwy. #: 1 (PCH) Waterways: Pacific Ocean 2 Miles: Airports: n/a Railways: n/a Schools: Newport Heights Elementary School; Newport Harbor High School; Whittier Elementary School; Victoria Elementary School; Pomona Elementary School; Rea School; McNally School; San Joachim School; Mariners Elementary; Harper School; Mariners Elementary School; Horace Ensign Intermediate School Document Type: CEQA ❑ NOP ® ❑ Early Consultation ❑ ❑ Neg. Dec. ❑ ❑ Mit. Neg. Dec. ❑ ❑ Draft EIR Supplement to EIR Subsequent EIR Prior EIR (SCH #) Other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ NEPA NOI EA Draft EIS FONSI ❑ ❑ ❑ Other Joint Document Final Document Other: Local Action Type: ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ® Rezone ❑ Annexation ® General Plan Amend. ® Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Dev. ❑ Use Permit ❑ Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ❑ Land Division (subdivision ❑ Other: parcel, tract maps, etc.) Development Type: Units/Sq. Ft. Acres Employees Type Size ❑ Residential ❑ Water Facilities MGD ❑ Office ❑ Transportation ❑ Commercial ❑ Mining Mineral: ❑ Industrial ❑ Power MG ❑ Educational ❑ Waste Treatment MGD ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste ❑ Other ® Other: Hospital: transfer of up to 225,000 sf of existing entitlement between tr? Lower Campus and Upper Campus Total Acres (approx.) 38 Project Issues that May Have a Significant or Potentially Significant Impact: ® Aesthetics/Visual ❑ Fiscal ❑ Recreation/Parks ❑ Vegetation ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ Schools/Universities ❑ Water Quality ® Air Quality ❑ Forest Land/Fire Hazard ❑ Septic Systems ❑ water Supply/Groundwater ❑ Archaeological/Historical ❑ Geologic/Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ 'A/etland/Riparian ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Minerals ❑ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ® Growth Inducement ® Coastal Zone ® Noise ❑ Solid Waste ® Land Use ❑ Drainage/Absorption ❑ Population/Housing Balance ❑ Toxic/Hazardous ® Cumulative Effects ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Public Services/Facilities ® Traffic/Circulation ❑ Other: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: Hospital; Hoag Hospital Planned Community (PC) Text and District Regulations; Public Institutions Project Description: 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: 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. In no event, however, would the total building areas of both the Upper and Lower Campuses exceed 1,343,238 sf. The PC Text will 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; see paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above. 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 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. Reviewing Agencies Checklist ® Air Resources Board ® Native American Heritage Commission ❑ Boating & Waterways, Department of ❑ Office of Emergency Services ❑ California Highway Patrol ❑ Office of Historic Preservation ® Caltrans District # ❑ Parks & Recreation ❑ Caltrans Division of Aeronautics ❑ Pesticide Regulation, Department of ❑ Caltrans Planning ❑ Public Utilities Commission ❑ Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy ❑ Reclamation Board ❑ Coastal Commission ❑ Resources Agency ❑ Colorado River Board Commission ❑ S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission ❑ Conservation, Department of ❑ San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mountains Conservancy ❑ Corrections, Department of ❑ San Joaquin River Conservancy ❑ Delta Protection Commission ❑ Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy ❑ Education, Department of ❑ State Lands Commission ❑ Office of Public School Construction ❑ SWRCB: Clean Water Grants ❑ Energy Commission ❑ SWRCB: Water Quality ❑ Fish & Game Region # ❑ SWRCB: Water Rights ❑ Food & Agriculture, Department of ❑ Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ❑ Forestry & Fire Protection ❑ Toxic Substances Control, Department of ❑ General Services, Department of ElWater Resources, Department of ❑ Health Services, Department of ❑ Other: ❑ Housing & Community Development ❑ Other: ❑ Integrated Waste Management Board Local Public Review Period Starting Date: May 11, 2007 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Consulting Firm: BonTerra Consulting Address: 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 City/State/Zip: Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Contact: Dana C. Privitt, AICP Phone: 714-444-9199 Ending Date: June 12, 2007 Applicant: Hoag Hospital Address: One Hoag Drive Office: 361 Hospital Road, Suite 229 P.O. Box 6100 City/State/Zip: Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 Contact: Langston Trigg, Jr. Phone: 949-764-4488 Signature of Lead Agency Representative: f it Date: - . ( 0. G Iai11ns� ni) Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code, Reference: Section 2116- , Public Resources Code. R*%Projects%NewportU0081Revised IS%NOC Form•051007.000 i NOTICE OF PREPARATION ���Tvtfl�• 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 trusteeagencies 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. j b. The Applicant is requesting an amendment of the Development Agreement to eliminate the 55 dBA noise level restriction at the Hoag Hospital t 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 relatedjo 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.. . RAProjectsWewporN0081Revised ISWOP-051007.doe 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. Project 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. Proiect 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 for the project site. R:%ProjectslNewpor11J00t11Revised (SWOP-051007.doc 2 • Notice of Preparation Kegional Location Exhibit 1 Hoag Hospita; Master Plan Amendment N wE 10 S 0 10 Omma Miles Y04 '.rf CONSULTING PACIFIC OCEAN, '. Upper • - Lower• M a� b Project 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. In no event, however, would the RAProjects%NewportW008\Revised ISINOP-051007.doc 3 Notice of Preparation 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 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 a 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. R:\Projects%Newport\J0081Revised (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 RAProjec1s%NewportW0081Revised ISWOP-051007.doc 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. R:IProjects%Newpon%J00MRevised ISINOP-051007.doc 6 Notice of Preparation Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 (1r- 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. RAProjectslNewportU008\Revised MInitial Study-051007.doc 1 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial 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 R:%Projects%Newport1J008%Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 2 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 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. 9. 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 andior 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:%Projects%Newport%J008\Revised 01nitial Study-051007.doc 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 ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Agriculture Resources ® Air Quality ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ HydrologyMlater Quality ® Land Use/Planning ® Noise. ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Recreation ® Transportation/Traffic ® Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to 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 -poinog C-TH\iib- Printed Name Date ��4ICs �ra- For R:%Projects%Newport1J0081Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 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. RAProjectslNewportW0081Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc 5 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 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 14). Included in each discussion are mitigation measures, as appropriate, that are recommended for implementation as part of the proposed project. +':; • :. �.. �; : 7,• . - Potentially t Significant. "• ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ' Potentially : unless . Us's:Than Mitigation, significant No ( See attachments for information sources) -.;.significant Impact Incorporated . , Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 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? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining 'whether' impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the 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? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the 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)? RAProjects\NewportW008\Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 6 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Potentially ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES '": ' 4 Significant Potentially unless Less Than (See attachments for information sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ® ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. 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 ❑, ❑ ❑ 19 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? RAProjeclslNewponU0081Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 7 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Potentially Significant ENVIRONMENTAL. ISSUES Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No (See attachments for information sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑21 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ ® ❑ ❑ liquefaction? 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-B 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? VI. HAZARDS AND. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: 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? RAProjects%NewportU008\Revised Ginitial Study-051007.doc 8 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Potentially Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially unless Less Than (See attachments for information sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: 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? RAProjects\NewportU0081Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 9 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Potentially Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Unless . _ • Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No (See attachments for information sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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. LAND USE AND PLANNING. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would 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. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ® ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or 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:1Projects%Newpon1J008\Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 10 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Potentially Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially unless Less Than (See attachments for information sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) 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? 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? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED Other Public Facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 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? RAProjectMewportW006\Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 11 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Potentially Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially unless Less Than (See attachments for information sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No . Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ ❑ ® Cl 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)? 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? R:%ProjeclslNewport1J0081Revised IS11nitial Sludy-051007.doc 12 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study i ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (See attachments for information sources) Potentially Significant Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal 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? RAProjectslNewportU008\Revised ISltnitial Study-051007.doc 13 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. 43.1 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 1 Mitigation measure numbering reflects that provided in Resolution No. 92-43 for certification of Final EIR No. 142. R:1Projects%Newport%J00SXRevised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc . 14 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 requited. 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:1Projects%Newpor11J008\Revised 01nitial Study-051007.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. 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. 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. II. 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. R:%Projects\Newport1J0081Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 16 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study III. 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:%Projects%Newport1J008\Revised 01nitial Study-051007.doc 17 City of Newport Beach 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. RAProjectslNewportU008%Revised ISllnilial Study-051007.doc 18 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. Mitigation 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. StFikeout-text 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. If the new emissions when added to existing nrnieGt PF OF tG .66-1-1-ARGe Of -any peFFAft fGF that phase of develepmeRt. EaGh subsequent. aiF quality analysis shall be Feviewed and appFGved by the SGAQMD. 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. St_rikee,_+t-text 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: R:\Projects%NewportW008\Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 19 City 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. tFansit exists OF as antiGipated to exist within 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. 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. RAProjectMewportW0081Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc . 20 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 strakeeut (deleted text) and italics (new text). ` 121. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each individual phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall GOndurt 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. R:%Projects%Newport%J008%Revised Winitial Study-051007.doc 21 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 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 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 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, 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 RAProjectMewporNOWRevised 01nitial Study-051007 doc 22 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 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: 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 r 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:%Proieds%NewponW0081Revised 01nitial Study-051007.doe 23 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 RAProjectsWewportW0081Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.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:\Projects\Newport%J008\Revised 01nitial Study-051007.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. 1. 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 RAProjectslNewponW008\Revised 01nitial Study-051007.doc 26 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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:\Projects%Newporl1J0081Revised IS1lnilial Study-051007.doc 27 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 over time. 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 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. RAProjecls\NewportW008%Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 28 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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%Newport%JOOB%Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 29 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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:\Projects%Newport1J00B%Revised IS1lnitial Study-051007.doc 30 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv 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 R:\Projects%Newpor1U0081Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 31 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 —arid 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. RAProjectslNewportW0081Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc 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. R:\Projects%Newport%J008%Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 33 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. StF+keeut te*t 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. theStateDepartment of 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. R:%ProjeclslNewport1J0081Revised IS11nilial Study-051007.doc 34 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. R:1Projects%Newport1J00B%Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 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 %-mile of Hoag Hospital. R:\Projects%Newport%JOOB\Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 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 Impact. 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 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 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:1Projecls%Newpon1J008\Revised ISllnilial Study-0510W.doc 37 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Vill. 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. R:1Projects%Newport1J0081Revised 01nitial Study051007.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. StFike, 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. RAProjectMewportW008\Revised MInitial Study-051007.doc 39 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 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 neededaFi appliGation to the dewatering GF subdrainPregram is determ;Red neeessaryy by the B i'�;g , WateF Quality GORtF91 13eaFd, Rnnha AM Region. The Fesults ef this testing assist—ind-etermin0A9 the spesE#6satieRsfer the —NPPES--perms The,PFejest 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. RAProjectsWewportW008%Revised MInitial Study-051007.doc 40 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study • 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 Maragement 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. RAProjectMewportW008%Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 41 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. R:\Projects%Newport1J0081Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 42 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital P. asbytedan Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Mitigation 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). eeatte)t 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, adeptien ef the MasteF RtanT adoption of an Amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulations, approval of an Amendment to the Development Agreement, grading permits, and building permits for some facilities. The California Coastal DevelepFwePt Commission has the discretionary responsibility to issue a Coastal Development Permit for the Lower Campus l`ewls. 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 of ise-of the Estate AFGhite,.+ California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Hoag Hospital shall submit to OSHPD the State AFGhite a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that review of the senetFUstion development plans has been completed and that the plans are in compliance with all City requirements. Mitigation Measures No Longer 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, RAProjeclMewportW008\Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 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 RAProjectMewponu0081Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc 44 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. R:\Projects\Newport%J008\Revised IS\Initial Study051007.doc 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 service/access 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. R:1Projects%Newport1J00ti1Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 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 a part of the implementation of the proposed RAProjectslNewportW0081Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 47 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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:%ProjectsWewport%J0081Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc 48 • City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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:1Projects%NewportW008\Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 49 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. RAProjectslNewportU0081Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc 50 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study StFikeeut-test is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. 27. Subsequent to Gempletien of Phase 1 MasteF Plan development, the PFGjerA appFGved by the Gity T-Faft EngineeF. This study shall analyze whetheF the tFaffir. �bs phases of d t (Phases 11 and 111) well tee-geraeralted f�the-s�;�equefi#�,�revelep�efl�ez„��-..m eXGeed 1,856 P.M. peak heWF tFiPS when added to the tFiPS geneFW I I . 11 , existing (ORGIuding Phase 1) Hoag Hospital development. This stud� 1 11 1 W -development. 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 Regulation 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 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, 1 by Regulation XV 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. SUsq-reetes -he iRGIuded in the above GGR6tFWGti9A tFaft plan. 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 RAProjecis\NewporNOWRevised IS1lnitial Study-051007.doc 51 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 Measures No Longer Required 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:%Projects%Newport1J008\Revised 01nitial Sludy051007.doe 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 Mitioation 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. RAProjectslNewpon00081Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc 53 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv 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 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. 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)? RAProjectslNewporIM008\Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc 54 City of Newport Beach 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. Previously Adopted Mitigation 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. RAProjectMewpon%J008\Revised IS1lnitial Study-051007.doe 55 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. R1ProjectMewportW008\Revised IS1lnitial Study-051007.doc 56 City of Newport Beach 1 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-XPro1ectsWewp0r&J00ffiRevised ISWOP-051007.doe 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.neVvport-beach.ca.us. Project 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. 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" (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 for the project site. RAProjeds\Newpor W008\Revised (SWOP-057007.doo 2 • Notice of Pn paration r . Lan seer i O Oyu, Wit'tr�'' Palmdale)N m X v1a' I ` J y Vletorvllle I%15 �y A Tr Cal j� 3 1 Santa ✓ } �` i fig rr�} *, .� 4 •'�„�, i p Claritayj_T 'r x H f 1'� ._I ' a, dt i _ f/t� rFa�x xY� It r aj may, :r,� r f• y1 n Angeles �: . • J. fl+y Mf � l" �i. ram' �:� - • `, � '� .y�� r r✓�:r #` i- ric+ '+6`G o P - National Simi Valley Fore t �. Iy l+ ftp I 17, 46 74 7� Glendale - '� i� J p- _ -.-N r". fr 3 r"'rr:•:" s' ty.- rr / ����hCucamonga Cdabrisas l "' ',�r YJ vG- "f L, '"; j,� t f► z Pasadena ao West Hollywood 7 Santa Monica. West Covina' « ' Los Angeles 'r < Ontario r" ' - 6 r Whittler `-` ft,' Riverside r r. • J y 42^ Down �f •✓ r; 1.�{ '- Hawthorne' Ora - �. 71 i y 0, Yorba Llr de r, 0 19 ka ood - „ fy:?�.�; Corona ,y •, 1 Buena F irk Anaheim Carson `` Palos Verdes � Long Beach •- 7, tmI c r f tAL S Beach Santa Ana 26 �Cleveland� ` : t! Nattonal' as Forestyi.�/' Hu ngt n Costa M a PACIFIC Be h Irvine a ncho OCEAN We J No '. rgarlta. _ t Beach 73 F eac, lesl n�, - l } 4� Project t s , Viol - 'tea 7 la; Location � `, � • ; ` ' _' ', �� � dnaBeach a� u +' an JuariI es Capistrano' , r_ Of S kaitillna clam Camp Cemp ter'"tslends �� Pendleton Regional Location Exhibit 1 Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment AAN wE 10 S 0 10 s Miles _� w CONSULTING MODMI RL 022a05.pd1 PACIFIC OCEAN m .,r'' ,""�,� ram" _ � � �����'�� .. • ." �F��� �. 's.►�r ,. , � ►tea :► I - • `+*Ay ' •s. '. 1 i y. �` ro _ i - .. +s + Ate' ' + N ) ILk Fn vw WOO 1. ��r� '` \t- • �'- :w i. h+i�." l •' %jam f�rA •'" + Y�.• .rs � •�.�Mte+ a -i"r ...w �i� ` b �i �`,.� -"mil! - � e�+,. �. ` 'ill, ' �•,, _,�,,,, '�•. _�.. = �., , ,�. • _`,eel! /;rp:�r,�_ .. , �.��(!��� r`' � , •, . e�;.� �; . 46 i • / , r Upper Campus; ��,,:Jo? Fcl Lower Campus lo .r • `♦ _ p Project Site Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment N w�e 400 200 0 400 s9 Feet I Exhibit 3 CpN51/(i _ 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. In no event, however, would the RAProjectMewport1J00BIRevised IS\NOP-051007.doc 3 Notice of Preparation 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 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 a 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. R:\Projects%Newport1J0081Revised IS%NOP-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:IProjeclsINewport%J008%Revised ISINOP-051007.doc 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. RAProjects\NewportW008\Revised IS%NOP-051007.doc 6 Notice of Preparation B Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 (so 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. RAProjectMewportU0081Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc I City of Newport Beach 9 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial 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 R:%Projects%Newport1J0081Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 2 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 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. 9. 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:1Projects%NewportW0081Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 3 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 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. ® Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Agriculture Resources ® Air Quality ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ HydrologyMater Quality ® Land Use/Planning ® Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Recreation ® Transportation/Traffic ® Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to 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 -1 ignca C �r►�rl�" Printed Name OU Date --An s C =0 , air: Ionwr- For R:1ProjectslNewport1J008\Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc 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. R:\Projects%Newport1J008\Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 5 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 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 14). Included in each discussion are mitigation measures, as appropriate, that are recommended for implementation as part of the proposed project. Potentially Significant .` -t: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially - unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No (See attachments for information sources)... Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 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? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the 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? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the, following determinations. Would the 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)? RAProjectstNewponU0081Revised GInitial Study-051007.doc 6 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Potentially Significant _ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No (See attachments for information sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ® ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ ED 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.1ProjectMewportU00l31Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 7 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Prosbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv Potentially Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No (See attachments for information sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 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? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 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? 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? VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: 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:1Projects%NewportW0081Revised ISUnitial Study-051007.doc 8 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Potentially Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No (See attachments for information sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? R:1Prolecls%NewponW0081Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 9 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Potentially .; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Potentially unless ! Less Than (See attachments for information sources) Significant Mitigation F Significant No Impact .:. incorporated �`- Impact.. Impact h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ ED 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. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would 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. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ® ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or 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:1Projects%NewportU0081Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc 10 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Potentially Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No (See attachments for information sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) 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? 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? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ 59 Other Public Facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 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 i roads or highways? RAProjectMewponU0081Revised GInitial Study-051007.doc 11 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Potentially Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No (See attachments for information sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the 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)? 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? RAProjectMewportW0081Revised Glnitial Study-051007.doc 12 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Potentially Significant ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Y, Potentially unless Less Than 7 Significant Mitigation Significant ' No (See attachments for information sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal 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? n R:1Projects%Newport%J00B%Revised ISllnitial Study-051007.doc 13 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. 43.1 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 1 Mitigation measure numbering reflects that provided in Resolution No. 92-43 for certification of Final EIR No. 142. R:1Projects%Newport1J00B%Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 14 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 requited. 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:1Projec1s%Newpor1W0081Revised 01nitial Study-051007.doc 15 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv 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. 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. 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. R:%Projects%Newport1J008\Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 16 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study III. 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. RAProjec1s1Newpor11J0081Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 17 City of Newport Beach 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. RAProjectMewponU008\Revised 01nitial Study-051007.doc 18 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. Mitigation 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. StFikee„t 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. if the Re.w, eFRis inne when .+.-,dn,d to exists.,,. pFGjecA aiF quality analysis shall She relliewed and appFGved by the SGAQMD. 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. 2-tri4e^,ti�p-xt 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: RAProjecls%Newpor1U0081Revised IS1lnitial Sludy-051007.doc 19 City 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. tFaRS-it eviStS OF is aRtinipated to exist within five yens 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. R:\Projects%Newpar1U008%Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 20 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 StFikeeut (deleted text) and italics (new text). 121. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each individual phase of development, the Project Sponsor shall sepdust 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. RAProjectMewportU0081Revised 01nitial Study-051007.doc 21 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 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 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 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, 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 RAProjects\Newportu0081Revised Minitial Study-051007 doc 22 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 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: 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. RAProjectMewportU0081Revised 01nitial Study-051007.doc 23 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study • 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 RAProjectslNewponW0081Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.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? RAProjectMewportU008%Revised 0Initial Study-051007.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 R:1Projects%Newport1J0081Revised IS1lnitial Study-051007.doc 26 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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:1Projects%NewportW0081Revised 01nitial Study-051007.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 over time. 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 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:\Projects%Newport1J0081Revised MInitial Study-051007.doc 28 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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:1ProjeGs%NewportU008\Revised 01nitial Study-051007.doc 29 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. RAProjectslNewportW0081Revised 01nitial Study-051007.doc 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 (SubpartM) 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 R:1Projet:ts%NewportU0081Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 31 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. RAProjectstNewportU0081Revised IS1lnitial Study-051007.doc 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. RAProjectMewport00081Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 33 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. eeat tPxXt 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 Department ,.f Management DiStFid- far 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 Sponsor shall ensure that the Wilshire oil well, o r R:1Projects%NewportW0081Revised ISUnitial Study-051007.doc 34 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. ' 4 -.. 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. RAProjeclslNewportW008\Revised 01nitial Study-051007.doc 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 %-mile of Hoag Hospital. RAProjectstNewportW0081Revised MInitial Study-051007.doc 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 Impact. 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 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 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:1Projecls%Newpor1W00@1Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 37 City o/ Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Vill. 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. RB-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. R:1Projects\Newport%J0081Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 38 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Studv 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. StFikeeut 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. R:1Projects\Newport%J008\Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 39 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 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 neede an appliGatien to the RegieRal VVateF Quality G9F;tFa_l _Rn_ard_ far -;an NIP -DIES peFFAit of a 9WRAtR 'At* gFound long and analysis, and sm-brnit it te the GalifGFAia Regional VVateF Quality GentFel BeaFd, Santa Ana Region. The Fesults of this testing assist on del:ermining the pe6ifisations fer the NPPESPerM;tThe PPjest 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. RAProjecis\NewportW0081Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 40 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study • 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. RAProjectMewportW008\Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 41 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. R:1Projects%Newport1J0081Revised 01nitial Study-051007.doc 42 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study Mitigation 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). wee-d tPX4 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, adeption of the MasteF P4aR-, adoption of an Amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulations, approval of an Amendment to the Development Agreement, grading permits, and building permits for some facilities. The California Coastal Development Commission has the discretionary responsibility to issue a Coastal Development Permit for the Lower Campus hewer Campus. 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 9#ise-of-the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Hoag Hospital shall submit to OSHPD a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that review of the senetFUstien development plans has been completed and that the plans are in compliance with all City requirements. Mitigation Measures No Longer 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, RAProjectslNewportU008\Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 43 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 RAProjectslNewportW0081Revised Mir itial Study-051007.doc 44 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. RAProjeclslNewportU0081Revised 0Initial Study-05=7.doc 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 service/access 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. R:\Projects%Newport%JDOB%Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 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 a part of the implementation of the proposed R:1Projects%Newport1J00B%Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc 47 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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: FL . 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:%Projects%Newport%JOOB%Revised Ginitial Study-051007.doe 48 • City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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:\Projec1s%NewponW008\Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 49 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Pr sbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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. RAProjects\NewportW0081Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 50 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study StFilEeeut text is used to show deleted wording and italic text is used to show wording that has been added. 27. to be geneFated by the s bseq ueRt phases of development (Phase 11 and 111) will existing (iRduding Phase 1) l4eag Hospital development. This --study shall be 111 development. 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 Regulation 5 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 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, 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. SUGh-Feates 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 R:1ProjectS%NewportW0081Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc 51 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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 Measures No Longer Required 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 RAProjects\NewportW008%Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 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:1Projecls%Newport1J008\Revised IS11nitial Study-051007.doc 53 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. 2-trikeei-d- 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 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. 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)? RAProjectslNewpon00081Revised 0Initial Study-051007.doc 54 City of Newport Beach 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. Previously Adopted Mitigation 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. RAProjectMewportU0081Revised IS\Initial Study-051007.doc 55 City of Newport Beach Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Amendment Initial Study 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). 20.05 (February). Hoag Hospital Records Search (Prepared for BonTerra Consulting). Fullerton, CA: SCCIC. RAProjectMewportW0081Revised IS1lnitial Study-051007.doc 56 City of Newport Beach .� RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMf;NT 7 2007 C O N S U L T I N G CIN OF NEWPORT BEACH Letter of Transmittal TO: Jim Campbell DATE: June 27, 2007 City of Newport Beach CLIENT CODE: Newport Planning Department PROJECT CODE: J008 3300 Newport Blvd REGARDING: Hoag Hcspital Newport Beach, CA 92660 VIA: Overniie Express The following was sent to you by: Dana Privitt, AICP, Associate Principal Quantity Description 1 Project Description 1 Executive Summary 1 Air Quality and Human Health Risk 1 Aesthetics 7 From: Diana Godinez Administrative Assistant Hoag Master Plan Entitlement to Use Schedule EIR-PC Amendment & DA March 2007 Hoag Master Plan — Team Document Review 2/8 Complete Hoag Master Plan — Hoag Team's EIR Comments to Bonterra 2/12 Complete Hoag Master Plan — Mtg w/ City & EIR Consultant 3/1 Complete Hoag Master Plan — Noise Mitigation Report Complete 3/9 Hoag Master Plan — DA Annual Review Report City Submittal 3/17 Hoag Master Plan- DA Annual Review City Council Hearing 4/10 Hoag Master Plan — EIR Revised NOP Issued 4/15 Hoag Master Plan — Updated Traffic Analysis Complete 5/7 Hoag Master Plan — EIR Screencheck 5/14 Hoag Master Plan — Preparation of Draft EIR Complete 5/31 Hoag Master Plan — Notice of Completion- Draft EIR 7/16 End of Public Comment Period Hoag Master Plan — Study Session w/ Planning Commission 8/2 Hoag Master Plan —EIR Response to Comments Complete 8/6 Hoag Master Plan — 1st Planning Commission Hearing (EIR) 8/16 Hoag Master Plan — Staff Report & Findings Complete 8/20 Hoag Master Plan — 2"d Planning Commission Hearing 9/6 Hoag Master Plan — Is` City Council Hearing 9/11 Hoag Master Plan — City Council Approval 9/25 March 15, 2007 Jim Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Hoag Hospital- Development Agreement Annual Review Dear Mr. Campbell: Please find attached the required documentation to demonstrate Hoag's compliance with the Development Agreement between Hoag Hospital and the City of Newport Beach. As you are aware, the last review of the Development Agreement that was conducted by the City Council was on June 28, 1999. Per the Development Agreement however, Hoag has been deemed to be in compliance with the provisions of its Development Agreement since its adoption in 1992 (and 1994) through December 2005 in that the City has not made request for usual review information from Hoag Hospital until May 2, 2006. . Enclosed is a copy of the project status report for the tenth through the thirteenth annual review. Sincerely, Mr. Langston Trigg Vice President Facilities Design & Construction Enclosure ,n-- . 1 Project Status Report January 1, 2004 through April 2007 Annual Review of Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian I. Introduction On August 4, 1993, the Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian was recorded. On February 14, 1994, the City Council amended the Development Agreement to incorporate revisions requested by the California Coastal Commission, and the revised Development Agreement was subsequently recorded on March 23, 1994. On April 4, 1994, the California Coastal Commission approved Hoag Hospital's Development Agreement with the City. Section 5 of the Development Agreement requires an annual review to be conducted by the City of the Hospital's good faith substantial compliance with the Development Agreement. Based on the California Coastal Commission's approval of the Development Agreement on April 14, 1994, the annual review period was, therefore, initially established as April 15 of each year following the approval of the Development Agreement by the California Coastal Commission. Documentation from Hoag Hospital substantiating good faith compliance with the Development Agreement has previously been submitted to the City for its Development Agreement annual reviews as follows: 1. First Annual Review - Compliance documentation for the year April 14, 1994 through April 14, 1995 submitted by Hoag Hospital to the City on June 25, 1995. The City subsequently conducted its annual review and found Hoag to be in compliance with the Development Agreement, 2. Second Annual Review - Compliance documentation for the year April 15, 1995 through April 15, 1996 submitted by Hoag Hospital to the City on May 8, 1996. At the request of City staff, compliance documentation was subsequently amended to include information for the time period of April 15, 1995 through October 2, 1996. The . City subsequently conducted its annual review and found Hoag to be in compliance with the Development Agreement. 3. Third Annual Review - Compliance documentation for the year July 1, 1996 through July 1, 1997 submitted by Hoag Hospital to the City on July 8, 1997 (reporting period changed by City staff), At the request of City staff, compliance documentation was subsequently amended to include information for the time period of July 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997. The City subsequently conducted its annual review and found Hoag to be in compliance with the Development Agreement. Hoag Development Agreement Annual Review Tenth through Thirteenth Annual Review April2007 4. Fourth Annual Review - Compliance documentation for the year January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998 was submitted by Hoag Hospital to the City on February 3, 1999. The City subsequently conducted its annual review and found Hoag to be in compliance with the Development Agreement. 5. Fifth Annual Review - The City of Newport Beach did not conduct a Development Agreement Annual Review during the fifth annual reporting period (i.e., January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999). As specified in Section 5.7 of the Development Agreement, the "...City's failure to conduct an Annual Review shall not constitute or be asserted by the City as Hoag's Default." 6. Sixth Annual Review - The sixth annual review period was January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. At the request of City staff, on June 20, 2001, compliance documentation was submitted to the City for the fifth and sixth annual review periods, since a review of the Development Agreement was not conducted in for compliance during the fifth annual review period. However, the City did not conduct a Development Agreement Annual Review based on the documentation submitted by Hoag Hospital for the fifth and the sixth annual review periods. 7. Fifth through Ninth Annual Reviews - Based on a written request by City staff (dated December 16, 2003), compliance documentation was submitted to the City by Hoag for the fifth through the ninth annual review periods on January 23, 2004. However, the City did not conduct a Development Agreement Annual Review based on this documentation. 8. Tenth through Thirteenth Annual Reviews - The last Development Agreement Annual Review conducted by the City Council was on June 28, 1999. Since January 23, 2004 (the ninth annual review period), the City had not made a request for annual review information from Hoag Hospital until May 2, 2006. As specified in the Development Agreement (Section 5.4), Hoag has been deemed to be in compliance with the provisions of its Development Agreement since its adoption in 1992 (and 1994) through December 2005 (the end of then last Development Agreement annual review period). Therefore, although information is being submitted in order to respond to City staffs request for the time period January 1, 2004 through April 2007 in accordance with the Development Agreement itself, compliance will be determined based on the current annual review period only. 11..._- 7 Hoag Development Agreement Annual Review Tenth through Thirteenth Annual Review April 2007 H. PROJECT STATUS FOR TENTH THROUGH THIRTEENTH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ANNUAL REVIEWS This project status report includes a review of projects initiated or in process during the tenth through the thirteenth annual review periods, commencing on January 1, 2004 and ending on April, 2007. Tower Renovation Project In 2004 and 2005, improvement work proceeded on the Tower Renovation project and was completed on floors 7, 6 and 5. Starting in 2006, work began to convert the 4th floor nursing unit into two to ten critical care bed units. The work is anticipated to be completed the first quarter of 2007. (Needs to be updated) Women's Pavilion During 2004 construction on the Women's Pavilion project continued and was completed on October 7, 2005. The Women's Pavilion consists of eight floors, as well as a basement and an interstitial level, as follows: • Basement - clinical lab, security and telecommunications • First Floor - women's outpatient health and registration • Interstitial - mechanical and electrical • Second Floor - outpatient surgery center, including recovery • Third Floor - patient beds • Fourth Floor - patient beds • Fifth Floor - labor and delivery, c-section and recovery, antepartum beds • Sixth Floor - TIICU, post partum and fetal diagnostics • Seventh Floor - Post partum and newborn nursery • Eighth Floor — mechanical City staff identified all applicable mitigation measures for the Women's Pavilion project. Hoag obtained City staff sign -offs documenting compliance with each of these mitigation measures. 'n--.. A Hoag Development Agreement Annual Review Tenth through Thirteenth Annual Review April2007 Cogeneration Plant Once operational, the Cogeneration Plant will provide electricity to serve the Campus. Additionally, the Cogeneration Plant will provide the Women's Pavilion project, and other future Upper and Lower Campus development with chilled water. Cogeneration Plant work was ongoing during the tenth through thirteenth annual review periods. The bulk of the building construction took place during 2004 and 2005. The natural gas fired chiller, electrical chiller and natural gas fired boiler and cooling towers associated with the Cogeneration Plant have been installed and are being used to support Hospital operations. Two of the five planned generators have been installed and are operational. The remaining three generators will be operational by no later than September, 2007. Landscaping will be added around the Cogeneration plant to visually screen the plant. A green screen wall will be installed on the northerly side of the plant and large specimen trees will be planted to screen the plant from Pacific Coast Highway. A noise analysis has been completed by Mestre Greve and Associates and which verified that the existing operational generators and equipment fall below the noise requirements of 55 dBA along residential property lines. Once the plant is completely operational, additional noise monitoring will occur. James Irvine Addition The James Irvine Surgery Center is an outpatient surgery center that contained approximately 5,400 square feet prior to 2005. Plans were processed with the City of Newport Beach to expand the James Irvine Surgery Center by 1,000 square feet to accommodate additional storage and space for equipment sterilization. In April of 2005, the City issued permits to Hoag for the expansion project, which was completed in October 2005. Lower Campus Site Development The Lower Campus Site Development project covers approximately 8.06 acres of the 19.65- acre Lower Campus. r_-- C Hoag Development Agreement Annual Review Tenth through Thirteenth Annual Review April2007 The Lower Campus Site Development project includes 212,000 cubic yards of grading (with approximately 106,000 cubic yards of cut and 100 cubic yards of fill, of which approximately 105,900 cubic yards will be exported from the Hoag campus). Additionally, the Lower Campus Site Development project includes construction of retaining walls up to a maximum of 30-feet high, construction of parking and areas and access roads, and installation of support utilities. As part of the Lower Campus Site Development the 466 existing parking spaces (existing as part of the Lower Campus Lower Tier Parking Lot and Upper Tier Parking Lot and the existing Child Care parking lot) will be replaced with 215 parking spaces. These 215 spaces (exclusive of the 19 parking spaces associated with the Child Care relocation project) are all auxiliary parking spaces. Amendment to Coastal Development Permit 5-93-253-A2 was issued by the California Coastal Commission on April 11, 2006 for the Lower Campus Site Development project. Mitigation measures related to the Lower Campus Site Development project were completed and the City issued a grading permit and building permit for the project in April of 2006. Construction commenced on April 20, 2006, and is anticipated to be completed in ???. * Child Care Relocation (Needs to be updated) The Child Care Relocation project consists of construction of a new 11,890-square-foot Child Care facility on Hoag's Lower Campus adjacent to the access road from West Coast Highway. The existing Child Care facility, which will be demolished as part of the Lower Campus Site Development project, contains approximately 7,800 square feet. The new facility will allow more children to be accommodated. Construction on the Child Care Relocation project will commence once a pad is created as part of the Lower Campus Site Development project. Children will remain in the existing child care facility until the new facility is constructed. It is anticipated that construction will commence in August of 2007 and be completed in February of 2008. Amendment to Coastal Development Permit 5-93-253-A2 was issued by the California Coastal Commission on April 11, 2006 for the Child Care Relocation project. , ,n--. L Hoag Development Agreement Annual Review Tenth through Thirteenth Annual Review April2007 Mitigation measures related to the Child Care Relocation project were completed and the City issued permits associated with the Child Care Relocation on April 24, 2006. It is anticipated that the State of California will issue a building permit (for the modular facility) by the end of the year. * Ancillary Building (Is this Lower Campus) The Ancillary Building project consists of renovation and expansion. of the existing Emergency Care Unit (ECU) and the Imaging Department. The total project area is 50,070 square feet, including a 4,021-square-foot addition to the existing ECU. The ECU expansion will allow growth from thirty beds to fifty-two beds. The Imaging Department provides twenty procedure rooms. The Ancillary Building has two projects running independently. The first project is the structural upgrade project, which involves adding a new structural roof deck system over the existing roof, and includes shear wall and shot crete wall upgrades. This project was approved by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development on March 20, 2006, and is scheduled to commence construction in August 2006, with an approximate ten-month construction period. The second Ancillary Building project includes construction of the new addition. Plans for this project are currently at the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development for review. It is anticipated that plans for grading and landscaping will be submitted to the City in September. III. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ANNUAL REVIEWS First Annual Review (April 14. 1994 through April 14,1995) The project status report for the first annual review documented Hoag Hospital's compliance with the Development Agreement as related to three development projects undertaken during that annual review period: the 5,990-square-foot Cardiac Services Addition on the Upper Campus, the Emergency Care Unit Parking Lot/Entry Reconfiguration (also located on the Upper Campus), and the Flare Relocation/Scrubber Installation project, located on the Lower Campus. The Cardiac Services Addition and the Emergency Care Unit Parking Lot/Entry Reconfiguration were completed during the 1995-1996 annual review period. The plans for the Flare Relocation/Scrubber Installation project, which were originally approved by the City on November 4, 1994, were not implemented, based on subsequent modifications to the project, which are discussed further below. Hoag Development Agreement Annual Review Tenth through Thirteenth Annual Review April2007 Second Annual Review (April 15, 1995 through June 30, 1996) During the second annual review period, the Lower Campus Parking Lot project was reviewed for compliance with the Development Agreement. A Coastal Development Permit for the construction of the 346-space ancillary parking lot was received on October 11, 1995. On March 7, 1996, plans for the Lower Campus Parking Lot were submitted to the City. The Flare Relocation/Scrubber Installation project plans were revised during the second annual review period, based on City plan check comments, and the City re -approved the project on November 15, 1995. However, these plans were not implemented; as the City and Hoag Hospital initiated legislation to fund the relocation of the flare and to install a system that would better meet the needs of the West Newport area by more efficiently extracting methane gas. The legislation was subsequently withdrawn by the City because the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) agreed to fund $750,000 for the Flare Relocation/Scrubber Installation project. Third Annual Review (July I.1996 through December 31, 1997) On September 17, 1996, the City issued permits for the construction of the Lower Campus Parking. Lot project. During the bulk of the third annual review period, the Lower Campus Parking Lot was under construction. The project was constructed and final City approval was received on June 11, 1997. On September 9, 1996, the City Council approved a Cooperative Agreement between the City and Caltrans to formalize funding commitments and fund disbursement procedures/require- ments for the Flare Relocation/Scrubber Installation project. During the third annual review period, the City and Hoag explored options for the relocation of the flare and the installation on an upgraded system. On October 23,1996, the South Coast Air Quality Management District issued a Permit to Construct the project. Based on additional revisions to the plans, to include additional monitoring and safety devices, the plans were resubmitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District on June 17, 1997, for a new permit. On September 19,1997, a permit to Construct was issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. *n___ 0 Hoag Development Agreement Annual Review Tenth through Thirteenth Annual Review April2007 Plans for the flare project were also submitted on June 20, 1997, to the California Coastal Commission for a revision to the existing Coastal Development Permit which allowed modifications to the existing flare system. On October 27, 1997, the California Coastal Commission granted an amendment to the Coastal Development Permit for the Flare Relocation/Scrubber Installation project. The plans for the Flare Relocation/Scrubber Installation project were submitted to the City on June 10, 1997. The mitigation measures related to the original flare project were all completed and approved by City staff in 1994. As part of the upgraded flare project, the Planning Department reviewed all mitigation measures completed for the originally proposed project to determine which measures would be required to be readdressed as part of the upgraded project. Based on that review, a revised mitigation monitoring. plan was prepared and submitted to the Planning Department for the City's use in its review of the project plans. The Newport Beach City Council approved the design and relocation of the methane gas system on December 8, 1997. During the third annual review period, Hoag Hospital also processed plans for an addition to its central plant to include emergency generators. The Planning Department determined that a separate mitigation monitoring plan would not be required for the generator project, due to the narrow scope of the project. However, the Planning Department did identify several mitigation measures that were required to be fulfilled. These mitigation measures were satisfied during the third annual review period. Construction of the additions to the central plant commenced on January 2, 1998. Fourth Annual Review (January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998) The flare system received permits from the City of Newport Beach on January 16, 1998. Construction commenced on January 27, 1998, and was completed on July 23, 1998. Also during the fourth annual review period, the City and Hoag Hospital entered into a Cooperative Agreement to ensure that the fields, which were authorized in 1996, were received from Caltrans for the Flare Relocation/Scrubber Installation project. The Central Plant was also under construction during the fourth annual review period. During the fourth annual review period, Hoag also initiated its Tower Renovation project, to adhere to the seismic upgrade requirements of Senate Bill 1953. The Planning Department determined that a separate mitigation monitoring plan would not be required for the Tower Renovation project, as the majority of the work related to the project is internal to the existing tower. At the end of the fourth annual review period, plans had been approved by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). n..-_ n Hoag Development Agreement Annual Review Tenth through Thirteenth Annual Review April2007 Finally, in 1998, plans for the 87,556-square-foot Support Services Building and its associated 368-space parking structure were reviewed by the City. A mitigation monitoring program was prepared, and all applicable measures were approved by City staff as part of its building permit review process. A Coastal Development Permit for the Support Services Building was received from the California Coastal Commission on March 3, 1998. Grading and building permits from the City of Newport Beach for the Support Services Building were received on April 16, 1998, and construction commenced on April 20, 1998. During construction, minor modifications to the project's building permit were approved by the City, which resulted in a 3,578-square-foot increase in the project (for a total of 91,134 square feet). Fifth Through Ninth Annual Reviews (January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2003) Construction on the Central Plant project was completed, and final occupancy was received from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development on March 7, 2001. Construction on the Hoag Conference Center (also known as the Support Services Building) continued during 1999. On November 1, 1999, modifications to the parking structure plans for the Hoag Conference Center were approved by the City. Among other things, these modifications included an increase in the number of parking spaces provided (from 368 to 372). Upon completion of the Hoag Conference Center, the Planning Department ensured compliance with the mitigation measures that were required to be verified prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. On February 18, 2000, Hoag Hospital obtained a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Newport Beach for the Hoag Conference Center. In May of 1999, the California Coastal Commission granted Hoag Hospital a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 5-99-102) for the development of a 209-space parking lot, creation of a construction access road, placement of construction trailers and fenced areas with dumpsters and bins, placement of temporary power poles, placement of temporary office trailers and grading activities associated therewith. City staff did not require that mitigation measures be implemented for the construction of the Lower Campus Terrace Lot due to the temporary nature of the facility, and based on a determination that significant environmental effects associated with the project were not anticipated. The City issued a grading permit for construction of the Lower Campus Terrace Lot — Upper Tier on June 25, 1999 (Grading Permit No. G9900076). Construction commenced on June 28, 1999 and was completed on July 14, 1999. n--- 1 A Hoag Development Agreement Annual Review Tenth through Thirteenth Annual Review April 2007 In anticipation of the Women's Pavilion project, Hoag constructed a six -level 455-space parking structure (the East Tower Parking Structure). In order to accommodate the East Tower Parking Structure, the 12,034-square-foot Grace Hoag Conference Center was demolished. The City of Newport Beach issued a demolition permit for the Grace Hoag Conference Center on February 10, 2000, and demolition was completed on March 14, 2000. The City issued grading permits for the East Tower Parking Structure on June 14, 2000 and August 7, 2000. Grading commenced in June of 2000, and was completed in early July 2001. As part of the construction of the East Tower Parking Structure, Hoag Hospital and the City entered into a Cooperative Agreement for the addition of a right turn lane on the southerly side of Hospital Road west of Newport Boulevard on April 24, 2001. As part of this Agreement, Hoag managed the. roadway improvement project. Encroachment Permit No. 1200-6MC-0716 was issued by the California Department of Transportation on June 22, 2001 for construction of street improvements, including electrical traffic signal modifications, with Newport Boulevard (SR-55). Improvements were initiated on September 12, 2001 (under Grading Permit No. G2001-0360), and the project was completed on January 31, 2002. The Original Building Upgrade project was the first phase of the Women's Pavilion project. Demolition and construction plans for the Original Building Upgrade were submitted to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development in August 2000. The main permit from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development was issued on August 15, 2001 (.vith an additional permit issued on January 29, 2002). Construction commenced on August 28, 2001, and was completed on December 23, 2003. Grading Permit No. G2001-0360 was issued by the City on September 3, 2002 for the Women's Pavilion project. Grading was initiated on October 12, 2002. The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development approved plans for the Women's Pavilion project on October 18, 2002. During the remainder of 2002, site utility installation was undertaken and excavation was commenced. During 2003, site utility installation was completed, grading was completed, concrete foundations were installed and structural steel was erected. Hoag Development Agreement Annual Review Tenth through Thirteenth Annual Review April2007 During 1999 and 2000, major utility work was completed for. Sze West Tower, the air handlers were provided and improvements were completed for the roof and part of the 10" floor. During the years 2001 and 2002, the improvements were completed on the 9th and loth floors. In 2003, improvements were made to the Sth floor, and improvements were initiated on the 7th floor. The City provided approval -in -concept for the Cogeneration Pro; ect on September 17, 2002, and the California Coastal Commission approved the project on December 10, 2002. Coastal Development Permit No. 5-02-325 was subsequently issued on June 12, 2003. Several permits were issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management for the Cogeneration Plant project. The grading permit for the Cogeneration Plant was issued by the City on July 22, 2003, and project implementation was commenced on August 26, 2003. At the end of the annual review period, shoring for the Cogeneration Plant was underway, as was insulation of and trenching for the chilled water pipe for the facility. IV. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM As part of the approval of the Development Agreement by the City, and its subsequent approval by the California Coastal Commission, the City was required to formally adopt a mitigation monitoring plan. On June 13, 1994, the City adopted ti-e Hoag Hospital Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Section 5.4 of the Development .Agreement requires that the annual review include a detailed report of compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the mitigation monitoring plan. The mitigation annual review is included in the Appendix to the Project Status Report. Appendix: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Development Agreement Mitigation Annual Review January 1, 2004 through April 2007 I. INTRODUCTION On May 11, 1992, the City of Newport Beach certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 142 for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan, and adopted a Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulations for the implementation of the Master Plan. At the same time, the City entered into a Development Agreement with Hoag Hospital. The Development Agreement was subsequently amended to incorporate changes requested by the California Coastal Commission in conjunction with its review of a mass grading permit application by Hoag Hospital. Section, 5 of the Development Agreement requires that the City conduct an annual review of the Development Agreement in order to evaluate Hoag Hospital's good faith substantial compliance with the Development Agreement. As part of that annual review, a review of compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program (adopted by the City on June 13, 1994) for Hoag Hospital is also required. Specifically, Section 5.4 of the Development Agreement states: Mitigation Review: The annual review shall include a detailed report of compliance with the various conditions and mitigation measures contained within the mitigation monitoring plan. The report shall include an analysis of the view impacts of buildings constructed in comparison to the anticipated views as depicted in the EIR. For the five year monitoring period imposed by the Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration. Agreement entered into between the Department of Fish and Game and Hoag, the annual review shall also assess the success of any off -site wetlands mitigation. Five years after the completion of the Department of Fish and Game monitoring period, Hoag shall submit a final report assessing the success of the off - site wetlands mitigation in its annual review. If the survival and cover requirements set forth in the Streambed Alteration Agreement have not been met, Hoag shall be responsible for replacement planting to achieve these requirements. Hoag shall be found in compliance with this Agreement unless the City Council determines, based upon the evidence presented at the Annual Review, that Hoag has not complied with all mitigation measures and conditions including those imposed as a result of subsequent environmental analysis, applicable to the grading of, or building on, the Property as of the date of the Annual Review. n--.. , Appendix: Hoag Development Agreement Mitigation Annual Review Tenth Through the Thirteenth Annual Review April, 2007 Based on requests by City staff, the annual review period has been modified several times over the past years. For some time, the annual review period had been based on a calendar year. This review is being completed in the Spring of 2007 in order to bring reviews current. In order to fulfill its obligations under the Development Agreement, Hoag Hospital submitted the required documentation for Development Agreement annual reviews for the first through the fourth years of the term of the Development Agreement, and the City subsequently conducted annual reviews, finding Hoag Hospital to be in compliance with the provisions of the Development Agreement. Documentation was also submitted by Hoag at the request of City staff for the fifth through the ninth annual review periods; however, the City did not conduct any annual reviews of the documentation submitted for that time period. Since January 23, 2004 (the ninth annual review period), the City had not made a request for annual review information from Hoag Hospital until May 2, 2006. As specified in the Development Agreement (Section 5.4), Hoag has been determined to be in compliance with the provisions of its Development Agreement since its adoption in 1992 (and 1994) through December 2005 (the end of the last Development Agreement annual review period): The annual review shall include a detailed report of compliance with the various conditions and mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring Plan ... Hoag shall be found in compliance with this Agreement unless the City Council determines, based upon the evidence presented at the Annual Review, that Hoag has not complied with all mitigation measures and conditions including those imposed as a result of subsequent environmental analysis, applicable to the grading of, or building on, the Property as of the date of the Annual Review. Based on the May 2, 2006 request by City staff, the current annual review documentation is being submitted for the tenth through thirteenth Development Agreement annual review periods (i.e., January 1, 2004 through April 2007), although Hoag has been deemed to be in compliance with the Development Agreement through January 31, 2005. Although information is being submitted in order to respond to City staffs request for the time period January 1, 2004 through April 2007, in accordance with the Development Agreement itself, compliance will be determined based on the current annual review period only. Appendix: Hoag Development Agreement Mitigation Annual Review Tenth Through the Thirteenth Annual Review April, 2007 II. FORMAT/CONTENTS OF THE MITIGATION ANNUAL REVIEW There are three categories of mitigation measures included in the adopted mitigation monitoring program - measures that need to be completed only once, measures that relate to individual development projects undertaken by Hoag Hospital, and mitigation measures which are required to be implemented on an ongoing basis and documented annually. The "Hoag Hospital Development Agreement Mitigation Annual Review" (Table 1) summarizes, in matrix format, the applicability of mitigation measures to each of three categories of mitigation measures. During annual review periods when mitigation monitoring plans completed for specific projects are being reviewed by the City, individual projects are identified for compliance. Also, as stated above, Section 5.4 of the Development Agreement requires that for the ...five year monitoring period imposed by the Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement entered into between Department of Fish and Game and Hoag, the annual review shall also assess the success of any off -site wetlands mitigation." On January 22, 1997, the first annual report for wetlands mitigation was submitted to the reviewing agencies. The field measurements undertaken as part of the first annual monitoring report found that the first year coverage standard had been exceeded. The second annual monitoring reports also found that performance standards had been exceeded. The third annual report (dated January 29, 1999, p. 3) for wetlands mitigation determined that: While the project has not yet reached its third year, the field data indicates that the fifth -year final success standard of 80-percent cover has been satisfied: native plant species cover 91.2 percent of the non -open water portion of the project site. As a result of fifth -year performance standards being exceeded prior to the completion of the third year of the wetlands mitigation project, the United States Army Corps of Engineers discontinued its requirement for monitoring (December 20, 1999). The California Department of Fish and Game also determined that the requirements of the Streambed Alteration Agreement had been met, and, therefore, discontinued its requirements for additional monitoring (March 14, 2000). The Development Agreement also includes the requirement that "...Five years after the completion of the Department of Fish and Game monitoring period, Hoag shall submit a final report assessing the success of the off -site wetlands mitigation in its annual review." In November of 2005, Hoag submitted the tenth -year monitoring report to the City and the California Coastal Commission ("Tenth Year Monitoring Report for the Hoag Hospital Mitigation Project: 6.08 Acre Freshwater Marsh Creation at the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve: Irvine, California", November 11, 2005, Glenn Lukos Associates). Appendix: Hoag Development Agreement Mitigation Annual Review Tenth Through the Thirteenth Annual Review April, 2007 That report stated that success of the off -site wetlands mitigation for the tenth -year monitoring period would be ...based on the fifth -year goal of 80-percent cover of non - open water by target native emergent species". The results of the tenth -year monitoring report found that ...approximately 99-percent of the project site is covered by wetland vegetation, less than 1-percent bare ground and less than 1-percent non-native cover". III. PROJECT -SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE Project -specific mitigation measures relate to individual projects processed under the Hoag Master Plan. These measures may be applicable to only one specific project, or they may be applicable to more than one project. The following projects were processed for mitigation compliance during the fifth through the ninth annual review periods: • Lower Campus Site Development • Child Care Relocation These projects are discussed in the Project Status Report. Mitigation applicability is shown on Table 1, "Hoag Hospital Development Agreement Mitigation Annual Review". All identified mitigation measures for the above -referenced have been completed. IV. ANNUAL COMPLIANCE As part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted for the Hoag Master Plan by the City of Newport Beach on June 13, 1994, several mitigation measures were required to be implemented on an on -going basis and to be monitored for compliance on an annual basis. These mitigation measures and a summary of the compliance with these measures is provided below: •_ Mitigation Measure # 11 requires routine vacuuming of parking lots/structures. Compliance: All parking lots/structures were cleaned/swept by Hoag Hospital on a weekly basis during the tenth through the thirteenth annual review periods. • Mitigation Measure # 15 requires that master plan development comply with the Hospital's Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infectious Control Manual. ,n--.. i L Appendix: Hoag Development Agreement Mitigation Annual Review Tenth Through the Thirteenth Annual Review April, 2007 Compliance: The Infectious Control Manual and Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program were amended several times during the annual review periods to address various facets of the operation of the Hospital. The Infectious Control Manual and Hazardous Material and Waste Management Plan have both been updated periodically during the tenth through the thirteenth annual review periods. • Mitigation Measure # 28 requires adherence to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations that pertain to trip reductions. Compliance: Hoag complies with trip reduction requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District by submitting a Rule 2202 Registration Form which specifies Hoag's policies/programs that are designed to reduce vehicle trips. Hoag continued its compliance with Rule 2202 during the tenth through the thirteenth annual review periods. The most recent filing of Rule 2202 documentation to the South Coast Air Quality Management District by Hoag Hospital was on January 5, 2006 for the year 2005 period. (Updated ?) • Mitigation Measure # 29 requires that Hoag comply with the City of Newport Beach Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. In the past, compliance with this Ordinance has been documented as part of specific projects. However, as part of its approval of the applicability matrices for the Lower Campus Site Development and Child Care Relocation projects, City staff requested that this item be documented as part of the Development Agreement annual review process Compliance: In accordance with the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, Hoag promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, including ridesharing, carpooling and vanpooling. Hoag has a compressed work week program that is available to some employees that reduces the number of peak -period vehicle trips generated by the Hospital. Also, Hoag also provides facilities that support alternate modes of transportation, including preferential parking for carpools/vanpools and providing bicycle racks and shower facilities for cyclists. The closest facilities to the Child Care Relocation project are in the Cancer Center (showers) and in the parking structure associated with the Hoag Conference Center (preferential parking and bicycle racks). (Update?) T.. -- 117 Appendix: Hoag Development Agreement Mitigation Annual Review Tenth Through the Thirteenth Annual Review April, 2007 • Mitigation Measure # 31 requires adherence to measures that were part of Hoag's pilot program to monitor and manage use of the Upper and Lower Campus service roads during non -working hours. Compliance: Since 1991, Hoag has been implementing measures to reduce usage of West Hoag Road during non -working hours. These measures include signage and access controls. These measures continue to be implemented. o Mitigation Measure # 35 requires that Hoag Hospital provide new employees information on rideshare services and programs. Compliance: Hoag continues to provide all new employees rideshare service/program information, and new employees were most recently (January 2007) included in documentation submitted by Hoag to the South Coast Air Quality Management District for calendar year 2005. This document (Rule 2202 Registration Form) specifies Hoag's policies/programs that are designed to reduce vehicle trips. Hoag continued its compliance with Rule 2202 during the tenth though the thirteenth annual review periods. • Mitigation Measure # 42 requires that the City of Newport Beach send a letter to each emergency vehicle company serving Hoag Hospital requesting that they turn off their sirens upon entering Hospital property in order to minimize noise impacts to adjacent residents. Hoag Hospital is required to provide the City with, a list of all emergency vehicle companies serving Hoag Hospital. Compliance: Table 2, "Emergency Units Responding to Hoag Hospital", provides a current list of the emergency vehicle companies that serve Hoag Hospital for use by the City. (Hoag to provide update of Table 2) • .Mitigation Measure # 84 requires that Hoag Hospital continue compliance with its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infectious Control Manual. Compliance: As stated above, under Mitigation Measure # 15, Hoag Hospital continues to comply with the above -referenced documents, as well as continues to comply with all new regulations that have been Appendix: Hoag Development Agreement Mitigation Annual Review Tenth Through the Thirteenth Annual Review April, 2007 adopted since the Hoag Master Plaza Final Environmental Impact Report was certified. The Hazardous Material and Waste Management Plan had been updated periodically during the tenth through the thirteenth annual review periods to respond to regulation changes as well as routine internal Hospital operations. Mitigation Measure # 117 requires that the usage of the Hospital's heliport/helipad be limited to emergency medical purposes or the transport of critically ill patients in immediate need of medical care not available at Hoag Hospital. Further, this mitigation measure requires that, to the extent feasible, helicopters shall arrive at, and depart from, the helipad from the northeast, to mitigate noise impacts on adjacent residences. Compliance: Hoag Hospital continues to comply with Mitigation Measure # 117. • Mitigation Measure # 119 requires that non -vehicular activities, such as the operation of the trash compactor, which occur in the vicinity of West Hoag Road, be operated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., daily. Compliance: Hoag continues to comply with Mitigation Measure # 119. V. ONE-TIME COMPLIANCE MITIGATION MEASURES (Section needs to be updated) Some of the mitigation measures required as part of the mitigation monitoring program for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan are specialized studies or clearances from the City and other governmental agencies that may or may not be related to a specific- building or building site. Some of these mitigation measures are required to be satisfied only once to fulfill the requirements of the mitigation monitoring program, while some of the requirements may be required to be satisfied more than once, subject to certain criteria being met. Documentation prepared to fulfill these one-time mitigation measures may be amended from time -to -time, as warranted by project site conditions or proposed development projects. Appendix: Hoag Development Agreement Mitigation Annual Review Tenth Through the Thirteenth Annual Review April, 2007 Table 1, "Hoag Hospital Development Agreement Mitigation Annual Review" identifies the status of all one-time compliance mitigation measures. The one-time compliance mitigation measures completed during the tenth through the thirteenth annual review periods included the following: • Mitigation Measure # 25 - This mitigation measure required that, subsequent to Phase I of the Hoag Master Plan, that Hoag conduct a Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis for subsequent phases of Plan development. On November 8, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Traffic Study 2001-002 which included a Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis for Phase II of the Hoag Master Plan. During the eleventh annual review period, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Traffic Study 2005-001, which included a Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis for Phase III of the Hoag Master Plan. • Mitigation Measure # 27 - This mitigation measure required that, subsequent to Phase I of the Hoag Master Plan, that Hoag conduct a project trip generation study. On November 81, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Traffic Study 2001-002 which included a'project trip generation study for Phase II; and on July 21, 2005 (during the eleventh annual review period), the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Traffic Study 2005-001, which contained a trip generation study. Mitigation Measure # 32 - This mitigation measure required that, prior to the issuance of approvals for development subsequent to Phase I of the Hoag Master Plan, that a study be submitted and approved by the City that identifies the Appropriate parking generation rates. On November 8, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed- and approved Traffic Study 2001-002 which included a project parking generation rates study. During the eleventh annual review period (July 21, 2005), the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Traffic Study 2005-001, which contained an identification of appropriate parking generation rates. r--- nn Transmittal Page 1 of 1 HOAG� HOSPITAL Transmittal Project [8640] - FD&C Department View Date 3/29/2007 General Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Facilities Design & Construction One Hoag Drive, PO Box 6100 Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 Phone: 94.9.764.4488 Fax: 949.764.4466 Transmittal No. 8640- 00388 To Mr. James Campbell Date 3/29/2007 City of Newport Beach Items listed are being sent P O Box 1768 Enclosed 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Mi Under Separate Cover USA Via Hand Delivered Phone: 949.644.3210 From Ms. Lisa Brockman (Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian) Subject Review of Access and On -Site Circulation Analysis We are transmitting the following to you: M Product Data r Samples 1J Shop Drawings Mi O&M Manuals Ml Plans r] Architectural Drawings r Letters r Specifications r Prints r Addenda r Engineering Drawings r Change Orders r Submittal r,' Access & On -Site Circulation Analysis Remarks Attached please find two copies of the above mentioned analysis report for your review. Thank you for your time and assistance. Received By Printed Name Date REC IVED By PLAN NINGEDEPAR M ENT MAR 29 2007 CITY OF NEWPORt BEACH https://secure.constructware.comICommonNiewIDocument Display.asp?DocumentType=... 3/29/2007 ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN NEWPORT 11FACH, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 361 Hospital Road, Suite 229 Newport Leach, California 92663 Prepared hy: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614-4731 (949)553-0666 LSA Proiect No. ANM0601 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT L S A CITY OF iVEWPORT BEACH March 23, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECTDESCRIPTION......................................................................................................... 1 . HOAG MASTER PLAN VEHICLE TRIPS...........................................:.................................... 4 ACCESSAND ON -SITE CIRCULATION................:............................................................... 4 CONCLUSIONS............... :........................................................................................................ 13 FIGURES Figurel : Project Location................................................................:............................;........................ 2 Figure2: Site Plan.................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3: Trip Generation Sources......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Trip Generation Destinations...................................................................................................8 Figure 5: Existing Plus Master Plan Peak -Hour Volumes ........................................ :............................ 9 Figure 6: Hoag Drive/Hospital Road Figure 7: Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway...................................................................................... 12 Figure 8: Vehicle Queuing Along Hoag Drive (Lower Campus)........................................................ 14 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 LOS Summary .................................................... 10 Table D: Existing plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan Vehicle Queues at Hoag Drive/Hospital Road ... 10 Table E: Existing plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan Vehicle Queues at Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway....................................................................:................................................................. 13 APPENDIX A: HCM SHEETS P: ANM060INTraffidAccess Analysis.doc «03/23/07» i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS MARCH 2007 HOAC IIOSPITAI. 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 891,900 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 would be replaced by a patient drop-off/valet parking area. The Lower Campus consists of the Cancer Center; Conference Center, and Child Care Center. 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. In the Lower Campus, a new medical office building and a new 313-space parking structure (Crescent structure) are planned and approved adjacent to the existing Cancer Center. As part of these improvements, the Child Care Center will be relocated and reconstructed to the west of its present location. The Hoag Hospital Master Plan is currently being updated -to transfer 225,000 sf of medical uses, currently approved for the Lower Campus, to the.Upper Campus. An additional 29,807 sf of support and outpatient uses will be added to the main hospital on.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 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 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 Master Plan EIR, Linscott Law & .Greenspan Engineers, May 16, 2006. IMANM06ORTra idAccess Analysis.doc 1(03/23/07)) �.� -ter �; 1r��_ � ✓ , PIP � 9:. Y \ r l�r'i ♦r/1 ,�e 'ice .� .N. • �' Ar Lew i ` •-,�, ,i=Y`�i�� �( �j r-f _�:J �y,- �lL�v `� Itl,f+�.I/I .` r .I74 i«:w • ,, + .a i "=�; lY . �, >� . i`'�' 41i' • . M ,� .la�, �� 4/� Sr'''� 4•'71.' �.r„�i ♦ {`<i� NMI 41 JIl- rW b ti� i �.��'0� � .�.'� fir•"' ,l�V�j�+ ��-�rY� t !r {"".r �' ��� ° y �S,`,'�✓-%y►a��I/' r.�1��/ j li` 'tom w ,� ��, �,,'`�� �i:. " ,,4� v1�1 •° - �\ � j� /,.ry�Vi.. �1 1�ryirt> �•r • ''t I� ; `: �''�-�f�'�`bl � ��?� �,l i ��'�; ,; >,. f'� . i l�i►y�'��� . A� �.•--�i. ✓ �--- ��• fit! ��i `• ..;y„�°� ��' �� .�, '�/' `fit' �"��, •; ,q llir � f '� :,ate ,• �)�' '��';,•� t �,;t,. =� �.;s��. 0 L .. 1�1 `� � : r � r �, ;`'tart ������,► � \ � � � NOORTAL ROAD HOAG ',' a.: /fir \�� ugp4rfluiipir I `j IN. 51SA N o tso sao FEET SOURCE: RBB Architects. Inc. FIGURE 2 Hoag Hospital Site Plan 1:1ANM0601VGISite Plan.cdr 13/6/011 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ACCESS AND ON.SI.1-E CIRCULATION ANALYSIS MARCH 21107 NOAG 11.OSPITAI: MASTER 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 lI 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 2005. 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, as well as allowing an additional 29,807 sf of outpatient and support uses to both campuses. rMaster 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 Road/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. 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 the trip generation for each land use on -site, while Figure 4 shows the assignment of these vehicle trips to each parking structure and parking lot. The fia trip assignment was overlaid onto the existing volumes at the access intersections, which were obtained from the Traffic .Study. The resulting existing plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan traffic volumes. at the access intersections and on the project site are shown in Figure 5.. ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Signalized Intersection Operations methodology has been used to determine intersection LOS at the Upper and Lower Campus entrances. The 2000 HCM 'Unsignalized methodology has been used to determine intersection LOS at the Lower Campus driveways along Hoag Drive (see HCM sheets in Appendix A). The City considers LOS D to be the upper limit of satisfactory operations. As shown in Table C, all analyzed intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better). 11 PAANM0601%Traflic\Access Analysis.doc «03/23/07)> 4 ti UA ACSCN:INMR. INC. - Table A - Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR Trip Generation Summary Existing' + Future Addition Existing' + Future Addition= + Project' Land Use ' Existing' Size JUnTitADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour' Size Unit 1ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size Unit ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak hour In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Upper Campus Outpatient (James Irvine expansion) 6.430 TSF 217 8 8 16 8 16 24 6.430 TSF 217 8 8 16 8 16 24 6.430 TSF 217 8 8 16 8 16 24 . Inpatient/Inpatient (South Building) 643.436 TSF 10,552 376 290 666 205 425 630 710.664 TSF 10,552 376 290 666 205 425 630 774.771 TSF 12,513 446 344 790 243 504 747 Outpatient (MRI Waiting) Support (Emergency Gen. Addtn.) Outpatient (South Building) Support (South Building) Outpatient (Imaging/ECU Expansion) Total 0.500 5.335 649.271 TSF TSF TSF TSF TSF TSF 17 0 10,569 1 0 377 1 0 291 2 0 668 0 0 205 1 0 426 1 0 631 0.500 5.335 716.499 TSF TSF TSF TSF TSI TSF 17 0 10,569 1 0 377 1 0- 291 2 0 668 0 0 205 1 0 426 1 0 631 0.500 5.335 26.268 121.635 14.127 942.636 TSF TSF TSF TSF . TSF TSF 17 0 898 0 483 13,911 1 0 47 0 25 519 1 0 37 0 20 402 2 0 84 0 45 921 0 0, 25 0 14 282 1 0 59 0 32 596 1 0 84 ' 0 46 878 G Outpatient (Cardiac Serv. Bldg. 1995) 5.544 TSF 190 10 8 18 5 12 17 5.544 TSF 190 10 8 18 5 12 17 5.544 TSF 190 10 8 18 5 12 17 Outpatient (Women's Pavillion) 15.392 TSF 526 28 • 22 50 15 35 50 15.392 TSF 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 15.392 TSF 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 Support (Women's Pavillion) Total 27.114 42.506 TSF TSF 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 27.114 42.506 TSF TSF 526 • 28 22 50 15 35 50 27.114 42.506 TSF TSF 526 28 22 50 15 35 50 Total 703.751 TSF 11,502 423 329 752 233 489 722 770.979 TSF 11,5o2 423 329 752 233 489 722 997.116 TSF 14,844 565 44o 1,005 310 659 969 Lower Campus Outpatient (Cancer Center) 65.000 TSF 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 65.000 TSF 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 65.000 TSF 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 Allowable Use,"' TSF 225.000 TSF 7,693 403 317 720 . 218 506 724 TSF Outpatient (Outpatient Building) Outpatient (Medical Office Building) Total 65.000 TSF TSF TSF 2,222 116 92 208 63 146 209 130.000 30.027. 450.027 TSF TSF TSF 4,445 1,027 15,387 233 54 •806 183 42 634 416 96 1,440 126 29 436 293 68 1,013 419 97 1,449 110.000 78.697 253.697 TSF TSF TSF 4,445 2,007 8,674 233 105 454 183 83 358 416 188 812 126 57 246 293 132 571 419 189 817 Support (Child Care Center) Total Support (Child Care Center Ex1188.149 7.800 7.800 TSF TSF TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.800 4.713 12.513 TSF TSF TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ho- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.800 4.713 12.513 TSF TSF TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outpatient (Conference Center)13.270 Support (Conference Center)77.864 Total 91.134 TSF TSF TSF 454 0 454 24 0 24 19 0 19 43 0 43 13 0 13 30 0 30 43 0 43 13.270 77.864 91.134 TSF TSF TSF 454 0 454 24 0 24 19 0 19 43 0 43 13 0 13 30 0 30 43 0 43 13.270 77.864 91.134 TSF TSF TSF 454 0 454 24 0 24 19 0 19 43 0 43 13 0 13 30 0 30 43 0 43 Support (Cogeneration Buildin24.215 Total TSF TSF 0 1 2,676 0 0 140. 1 111 0 0 0 251 76 1 176 0 1 252 24.215 TSF 577.889 1 TSF 0 0 115,8411 830 0 1 653 0 11,4831 0 449 0 11,043 0 11,492 24.215 TSF 0 0 0 381.559 1 TSF 1 9,128 1 478 377 0 •0 855 259 0 0 601 860 Total Trip Generation 1 891.900 1 TSF 114.178 563 1 440 1,003 309 665 ' 974 11348.8681 TSF 27-343 1,253 982 2,235 682 1,532 0,214 1,378." TSF 123,9721 1,043 817 18601 569 12601 1,829 Notes: TSF = Thousand Square Feet 'Year 2005 Z Addition of previously approved but not yet constructed uses (i.e.. approximately 456.968 TSF of outpatient and support uses). 3 Transferring approximately 225 TSF of outpatient use from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus and addition of 29.807 TSF of outpatient and support uses. Calculated using Outpatient trip rates. RNANM060I %TrafficUripgen.xlsVroject (3/23/2007) ISA AW)CIM'FS• INC. Table B - Hoag Hospital Master Plan EIR Trip Generation and Destination Summary Parking Lot/Structure Land Use Existing + Future Addition + Project Trip Generation In Out Handicap (P4) Dist In Out Dolphin Dist ' (P6) In Out Dist South (P10) In Out Crescent (P7) Dist In Out Conference Center (PS) Dist In Out Child Dist Care Center (P9) In Out ' Upper Campus AM PM 8 8 8 16 0 0 .0 0 •100% 100% 8 8 8 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 F AM PM 519 282 402 596 0 0 0 0 25% 25% 130 71 .101 149 75% 75% 389 212 302 447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G AM PM 10 5 8 12 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 100% 100% 10 5 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •0 0 0 0 AM PM 28 15 22 35 0 0 0 0 65% 65% 18 10 14 23 35% 35% 10 5 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lower Campus AM PM 454 246 358 571 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 0 0 70% 70% 318 172 251 400 0 0 0 0 30% 30% 136 74 107 ' 171 AM PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 AM PM 24 13 19 30 - 0 0 0 0 1 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 100% 100% 24 13 19 •. 30 0 0 0 0 AM PM 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0'. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal AM PM 1,043 569 817 1,260 0 0 0 0 156. 88 123 188 409 222 317 471 318 172 251 400 24 13 19 30 136 74 1 07 171 Total AM PM 1,043 1 569 817 1,260 8 4 6 9 148 84 117 178 409 222 317 471 318 172 251 400 24 13 19 30 136 74 107 171 Notes: t Handicap parking is 5% of the subtotal at the Dolphin structure (P6). P:WNM0601%Traffic%tripgen.xliM)estinations (3/9R007) In I `11SA � N 0 320 240 FEET SOURCE: RBB Architects, Inc. Hoag Hospital AM: 519/402 PM:282/596 1� O � Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute AM: 10/8 — PM: 5/12 Hoag Conference v� Center AM: 24/19 PM: 13 3tS� • wV �r r_ � I 'Kathryn G. Fishback Child Care Center AM: 60/53 PM: 114/55 LEGEND XX/YY - In/Out Trip Sources Y James Irvine Surgery Center q AM:8/8 I_ 9� PM:8/16 Ur/: o Sue and Bill Gross Women's Pavillion 28/22 lr�r� PM: 15/35 ® - O Patty and George Hoag Cancer Center and =E= =L Outpatient Building AM: 454/358 ' 1 �nllllPM: 246/571 r O0 FIGURE 3 Hoag Hospital Trip Generation Sources I:%ANM0601\G\Trip Gen Sources.cdr (3/9/07) i Ilk , �, �. 11 .:,r;,' ±;;. ',•�� ':►� \ -•��= � . - , l � �1� a �r ,L J A LEGEND FIGURE 4 XX/YY - In/Out Trip Destinations N 0 120 240 Feer Hoag Hospital �SOURCE:,RBB Architi:cts, Inc. Trip.Generation Destinations LWNM0601\G\Tnp Gen Destmahons.cdr (3/9/07) • e-3601368 991 f 145/174 f 229/331 J + r 402/220 HOSPITAL RD 393/333 61/90 8/15 -r m 264/206 m G ? '68/37 a Dolphin wa - Structure • - f 482/739 a a &-33/19 211 485/741 J 1W -4_-395/604 J 596/326-► 20/11-r 596/326� r 116/65! 503/273 6/3 t N 525/312 A � = Drop -ON t0 o Area . L 1/2 r 45/24 e Q N _ N < Q J .- 40/60 �► 5429 r 35/52 t • � a R-- 5/8 its V� J -0- 761113 * South Structure Rr 160/237, t Child Care Crescent N Center Structure 4- oC e e � 71/44 N A 4-73/76 n n 66/36 307/368 g m 76/41 i-280/434 J 1w �323/434 J� 1116 J1. i-323/313 -a-275/178 r, t 35/19 -A 99/54 r 77/41 ! HOAG DRIVE 156/91 372251 343269 13I7-` ^ V 327/323 231/328 Conference Center N 52 �L 307/167 Structure m N f- 906/2279 J 2/14 104/57 -' 'I r PACIFIC COAST HWY 2407/118110 m 9/9 a L S A LEGEND rttsuxr. 3 XX/YY - AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes * - Driveways Combined N Hoag Hospital SCHEMATIC -NOT TO SCALE Existing Plus Master Plan Peak Hour Volumes 1:\ANMO601\G\Ex+MP Vols.cdr (3/8/07) 1 1 1 I I 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 211117 ACCESS AND ON SITE. CIRCULATION ANALYSIS IIOAC HOSPITAL MASTER ELAN Table C: Existing plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan LOS Summary Intersection Existing plus Master Plan AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour Dela sec LOSI Delay(sec) LOS 1 Hoag Drive/Hospital Road 19.2 B 14.7 B 2 Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway 5.0 A 5.8 A 3 West Hoag Road/Hoag Drive 10.8 B 11.0 B 4 Crescent Structure Dwy (E)/Hoag Drive 16.4 C 16.9 C 5 Crescent Structure D (W)/Hoag Drive 18.7 C 20.1 . , C 6 Child Care Center D (E)/Hoag Drive 17.5 - C 16.7 C 7 Child Care Center D (W)/Hoa Drive 13.4 1 B 17.9 C Figure 6 illustrates the Upper Campus entrance at Hoag Drive/Hospital Road. As shown in this figure and in Table D, 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 B, 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. Table D: 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 .154 176 Westbound left 200 176 88 ft = feet Figure 7 illustrates the Lower Campus entrance at Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway. As shown in this figure and in Table E, the existing turn pocket lengths are sufficient to accommodate the inbound and outbound vehicle queues during both peak hours. P: AW0601WraffidAccess AnahSis.doc «03/23/07n 10 it m n" m s Mao m m 1m ew* it As r L S A N o ao so FF.FT r1UURr, b Hoag Hospital Hoag Drive/Hospital Road P AN W160 RG\Hong Dr&Hospital Rd.cdr (3/7/07) m m m Mao � m W m am no mm M =-OR m� m Aj =-:.=IIOAG DRIVE. el MOIL N Am u W 7- L - 7 OAST 265' _=7 PACIFIC COAST WWY L S A FIGURE 7 40 so Hoag Hospital mu Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway 1:1ANM06011G\HoagDr&PCH.cdr(3/7/07) 1 I 1 1 A I 1 1 Ll I.SA ASSOCIATES. INC. ACCESS AND ON•SITI! CIRCULATION ANALYSIS MARCH Y1111� IIOAC IIOSPITAI. MASTER PLAN Table E: Existing plus Hoag Hospital Master Plan Vehicle Queues at Hoag Drive/Pacific Coast Highway Turn Lane Pocket Length (ft) Average Vehicle Queue AM Peak Hour ft PM Peak Hour ft Southbound left 125 66 66 Southbound through 125 0 0 Southbound right 100 22 22 Eastbound left" 265 22 44 Because the Lower Campus is expected to generate a substantial number of vehicle trips with build out of the Master Plan (as shown in Table A), a comparison of vehicle queue length and the distance between driveways has been provided for the Lower Campus driveways along Hoag Drive. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether the existing two-lane Hoag Drive will be adequate. to accommodate future traffic, or whether additional lanes, such as a center turn lane, will be required to avoid excessive, queue formation. As shown in Figure 8, each driveway is separated by at least 200 feet (ft). The westerly driveway into the Crescent parking structure and the driveway into the Conference Center parking structure are offset by 35 ft but are treated as a single intersection for this analysis. Although the 35 f. offset is not ideal, the low volume of vehicles making left turns into these driveways during the peak hours translates to less than 2 vehicles per minute. Hoag Drive is a low - speed, two-lane internal drive with adequate sight distance to either side of the driveway; therefore, vehicles would be able to make left turns in a safe manner by yielding to one another on the rare occasions when there are vehicles turning into both driveways. The longest vehicle queue forecast at the four intersections illustrated in Figure 8 is 57.2 ft (less than three vehicles) at the westerly Child Care. Center driveway/Conference Center driveway. Approximately 320 ft separates the two driveways into the Child Care Center parking lot. The 57.2 ft of westbound queuing can be accommodated, as the 320 ft of driveway separation provides sufficient vehicle storage. The vehicle queues at the remaining driveways are less than 6.6 ft and can be accommodated along the two-lane Hoag Drive without affecting the circulation on site. CONCLUSIONS 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. I'AAW060ATraliidAccess Analysis.doc «03/23/07» 13 �■r �r �r �rir a� a� rr • � � ■s � a� ar �s as �r r � ,i. LOS Child Care Center LOS LOS Crescent LOS AM: B Parking Lot AM: C AM: C Parking Structure AM: C PM: C PM: C PM: C PM: C __j Max. Queue Max. Queue �AM=26.4ft AM=Oft PM=57.2ft PM=Oft To Pacific Coast Hwy 1 Max. Queue AM = 2.2 ft PM = 2.2 ft 320' HOAG DRIVE Note: Distances between driveways measured from centerline to centerline. 22 foot of queue length is approximately one vehicle. L S A Y SCHEMATIC - NOT TO SCALE 200' Max. Queue AM = 6.6 ft PM = 2.2 ft Max. Queue AM = 4.4 ft PM = 2.2 ft Conference Center Parking Structure 295' rivunr. o Hoag Hospital Vehicle Queuing Along Hoag Drive (Lower Campus) 1AANM06011G\Hoag Dr Queuingxdr (3/9/07) LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCII 2007 APPENDIX A HCM SHEETS ACCESS AND ON-SIl'E CIRCULATION ANALYSIS IIOAC IIOSPITAL MASTER PLAN PAANM0601%TraRic\Access Analysis.doc a03/23/07» Page 2-1 Existing + Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Tue Mar 6, 2007 13:34:14 ' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report . 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Hoag Dr/Hospital Rd Cycle (sec): 30 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.923 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.2 Optimal Cycle: 56 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Hoag Dr Hospital Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T,- R L,- --------- T - R L - -----------� T - R. ------------------- Control: 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 -11---------------� 1 0 1 1 0 ---------------- Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 0 0 311 0 31 61 264 0 0 145 360 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 0 311 0 31 61 264 0 0 145 360 Added Vol: 53 114 315 0 146 0 0 0 68 402 0 0 PasserByVolc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 53 '114 315 311 146 31 61 264 68 402 145 360 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 PHF Volume: 53 114 315 311 146 31 61 264 68 402 145 360 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 53 114 315 311 146 31 61 264 68 402 145 360 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 53 114 315 ��---- 311 ----- 146 31 ------��----------------- 61 264 68 -��- 402 145 360 -,--- ------ � ----- ------ ---------------- 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 0.41 0.92 0.92 0.54 0.85 0.85 Lanes: 0.32 0.68 1.00 1.47 0.44 0.09 1.00 1.59 q.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 593 1276 1615 2675 800 170 787 2782 716 1026 1612 1612 ------------1--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: ----- ----- --------------- ---------------� 0.22 Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.20 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.08'0.09 0.09 0.39 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.21 0•.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.42 0.92 0.59 0.92 0.92 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.92 0.21 0.53 Uniform Del: 10.2 10.2 11.6 10.9 11.8 11.8 5.4 5.5 5.5 8.2 5.5 6.4 IncremntDel: 0.7 0.7 29.8 1.1 21.9 21.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 25.2 0.0 0.5 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 11.0 11.0 41.4 12.0 33.8 33.8 5.7 5.6 5.6 33.4 5.5 6.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 11.0 11.0 41.4 12.0 33.8 33.8 5.7 5.6 5.6 33.4 5.5 6.9 LOS by Move: B B D B C C A A A C A A HCM2kAvgQ: 2 2 7 3 8 8 1 1 1 8 1 3 Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 U 1 n Ll 1 1 I I� 1 Existing + Project PM Tue Mar 6, 2007 13:34:25 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Hoag Dr/Hospital Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 30 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.836 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.7 Optimal Cycle: 43 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hoag Dr Hospital Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 0 0 307 0 75 99 206 0 0 174 368 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 0 307 0 75 99 206 0 0 174 368 Added Vol: 82 176 481 0 80 0 0 0 37 220 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 82 176 481 307 80 75 99 206 37 '220 174 368 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 1.010 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 82 176 481 307 80 75 99 206 37 220 174 368 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 82 176 481 307 80 75 99 206 37 220 174 368 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 'Final Vol.: 82 176 481 307 80 75 99 206 37 220 174 368 -------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.98 0.98 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.49 0.93 0.93 0.59 0.85 0.85 Lanes: 0.32 0.68 1.00 1.50 0.26 0.24 1.00 1.70 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 594 1275 1615 2688 465 436 933 2990 537 1129 1621 1621 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.14 0.30 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.19 0.11 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Volume/Cap: 0.39 0.39 0.84 0.56 0.84 0.84 0.39 0.25 0.25 0.72 0.40 0.84 Uniform Del: 7.2 7.2 8.9 10.7 11.4 11.4 8.9 8.5 8.5 9.9 8.9 10.3 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.4 10.3 0.8 10.7 10.7 1.0 0.1 0.1 7.9 0.2 9.3 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 7.6 7.6 19.2 11.5 22.1 22.1 9.9 8.7 8.7 17.8 9.1 19.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 7.6 7.6 19.2 11.5 22.1 22.1 9.9 8.7 8.7 17.8 9.1 19.6 LOS by Move: A A B B C C A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 2 2 8 3 6 6 1 1 1 4 2 7 Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 11 r�L ' Existing + Project AM Tue Mar 6, 2007 13:34:14 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' '� -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection 03 Hoag Dr/PCH ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 30 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.671 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.0 Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Hoag Dr PCH Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T.- R L - T - R L - T - 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 1! 0 1 1 0 -•-------------- 2 1 0 1 0 ---------------� 3 1 0 ------------ Volume Module: I --------------- AM Peak Hour ----------- Base Vol: 11 0 12 0 0 0 0 2407 9 2 906 0 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: it 0 12 0 0 0 0 2407 9 2 906 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 241 0 82 104 0 0 0 0 307 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 11 0 12 241 0 82 104 2407 9 2 906 307 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 PHF Volume: 11 0 12 241 0 82 104 2407 9 2 906 307 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 11 0 12 241 0 82 104 2407 9 2 906 307 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 11 0 12 241 0 82 104 2407 9 2 ------ 906 --------� 307 ------------ Saturation Flow --------------- Module: ---------------01--------------- - Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.93 1.00 0.93 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.88 0.88 Lanes: 0.48 0.00 0.52 1.75 0.00 1.25 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 826 0 • 901 3077 0 2209 1805 5163 19 1805 4990 1663 ------------ Capacity Analysis I --------------- Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------� Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.06 �0.47 0.47 0.00 0.18 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.17 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.53 0.53 1 Volume/Cap: 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.32 0.35 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.34 0.35 Uniform Del: 14.6 0.0 14.6 12.7 0.0 12.2 11.1 2.6 2.6 15.0 4.0 4.0 IncremntDel: 41.3 0.0 41.3 3.7 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 234.8 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: 55.9 0.0 55.9 16.4 0.0 12.3- 11.8 3.1 3.1 249.7 4.1 4.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 55.9 0.0 55.9 16.4 0.0 12.3 11.8 3.1 3.1 249.7 4.1 4.1 LOS by Move: E A E B A B B A A F A A HCM2kAvgQ: 1 0 1 3 0 1 1 6 6 0 2 2 Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 A 1 1 1 d 1 1 Existing + Project PM Tue Mar 6, 2007 13:34:25 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Hoag Dr/PCH Cycle (sec): 30 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.630 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.8 Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Hoag Dr PCH Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------I.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 01 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1! 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 1 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 6 0 18 0 0 0 0 1181 9 14 2279 0 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: 6 0 18 0 0 0 0 1181 9 14 2279 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 375 0 126 . 57 0 0 0 0 167 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 6 0 18 375 0 126 57 1181 9 14 2279 167 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 PHF Volume: 6 0 18 375 0 126 57 1181 9 14 2279 167 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 6 0 18 375 0 126 57 1181 9 14 2279 167 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 6 0 18 375 0 126 57 1181 9 14 2279 167 ------------ I---------------II---------------II--------------- II --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 0.89 0.93 1.00 0.93 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes:. 0.25 0.00 0.75 1.75 0.00 1.25 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 3.73 0.27 Final Sat.: 422 0 1266 3081 0 2205 1805 5143 39 1805 6379 467 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.12 0..00 0.06 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.36 0.36 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.05 0.60 0.60 0.02 0.57 0.57 Volume/Cap: 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.30 0.63 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.63 0.63 Uniform Del: 14.5 0.0 14.5 11.1 0.0 10.4 14.0 3.2 3.2 14.5 4.4 4.4 IncremntDel: 29.2 0.0 29.2 1.6 0.0 0.1 13.4 0.1 0.1 6.6 0.3 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 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 11-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 140 1.00 Delay/Veh: 43.8 0.0 43.8 12.7 0.0 10.5 27.4 3.2 3.2 21.1 4.7 4.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 43.8 0.0 43.8 12.7 0.0 10.5 27.4 3.2 3.2 21.1 4.7 4.7 LOS by Move: D A D B A B C A A C A A HCM2kAvgQ: 1 0 1 3 0 1 2 3 3 1 5 5 Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 11 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 Existing + Project AM Tue Mar 6, 2007 13:34:14 Page •4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 41Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #15- W. Hoag Rd/Hoag Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.501 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.8 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Street Name: W. Hoag Rd Hoag Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T'- R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 124 156 231 0 0 275 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0' 0 0 0 0 124 156 231 0 0 275 0 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 PHF Volume: 0 0 0' 0 0 124 156 231 6 0 275 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 0• 0 124 156 231 0 0 275 .0 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 124 156 231 0 0 275 0. ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40.0.60 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.:' 0 0 0 0 0 695 311 461 1 0 0 760 0 - ----------- I --------------- --------------- --------------- -----------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.18 0.50 0.50 xxxx xxxx 0.36 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 .11.9 11.9 0.0 0.0 10.1 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 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 8.6 11.9 11.9 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 LOS by Move: * * * * * A B B * * B ApproachDel: xxxxxx 8.6 11.9. 10.1 Delay Adj: xxxxx 1.00 1.00 .1.00 ApprAdjDel: xxxxxx 8.6 11.9 10.1 LOS by Appr: * A B B AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0..2 0.9. 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 1 1 I 1 11 Existing + Project PM Tue Mar 6, 2007 13:34:25 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #15 W. Hoag Rd/Hoag Dr Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.542 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.0 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Street Name: W. Hoag Rd Hoag Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01. 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 177 91 328 0 0 178 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 177 91 328 0 0 178 0 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 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 177 91 328 0 0 178 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 0• 0 177 91 328 0 0 178 0 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 177 91 328 0 0 178 0 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.22 0.78 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 0 0 720 168 605 0 0 725 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.25 0.54 0.54 xxxx xxxx 0.25 xxxx Crit,Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 12.6 12.6 0.0 0.0 9.2 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 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 12.6 12.6 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 LOS by Move: * * * * * A B B * * A ApproachDel: xxxxxx 8.9 12.6 9.2 Delay Adj: xxxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: xxxxxx 8.9 12.6 9.2 LOS by Appr: * A B A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 Page 5-1 . Existing + Project AM Tue Mar 6, 2007. 13:34:14 ' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Uns'ignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #17 Crescent Structure (E)/Hoag Dr Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 16.41 Street Name: Crescent Structure (E) Hoag Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ----------- ---------------� ------------------ --------------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled ' Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 --------------- 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ----------------- ---------------� --------------•------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 60 0 60 77 327 0 0 323 76 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 60 0.. 60 77 327 0 0 323 76 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.O6 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 PHF Volume: 0 0. 0 60 0 60 77 327 0 0 323* 76 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 60 0 60 77 327 0 0 323 76 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 I --------------- --------------- 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx --------------- ----------� ------------ Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 842 xxxx '361 399 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 337 xxxx 688 1171 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 319 xxxx 688 1171 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.19 xxxx 0.09 0.07 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx --------------- 11-------- -------� •------------ I --------------- .--------------- Level Of Service Module: • 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ' LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT -.LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 436 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx'xxxxx 1.1 xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 16.4 xxxxx 8.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * C * A ApproachDel: xxxxxx 16.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * C Note: Queue reported is the number -of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 I7 u 1 1 1 1 '� I 1 1 �1 Existing + Project PM Tue Mar-6, 2007 13:34:25 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #17 Crescent Structure (E)/Hoag Dr Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 16.91 Street Name: Crescent Structure (E) Hoag Dr Approach North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L T - R L - T• - R --------- ------------------------------------------------- :-- Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0. 0 1• 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 --------------------------- --------------- -------------------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '.0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 96 0 96 41 323 0 0 313 41 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 96 0 96 41 323 0 0 313 41 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 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 96 0 96 41 323 0 0 313 41 R•educt Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 96 0 96 41 .323 0 0 313 41 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3' 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------- I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 739 xxxx 334 354 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 388 xxxx 713 1216 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 378 xxxx 713 1216 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.25 xxxx 0.13 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------- I --------------- ------------ --------------- ---------------� Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * .* * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT -'LTR - RT LT - LTR -.RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 494 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.8 xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 16.9 xxxxx 8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS : * * * * C * A * . * * * . * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 16.9- xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * C Note: Queue -reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA L ' Project AM Tue Mar 6, 2007 13:34:14 Page 6-1 Existing +' --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------------------------------------=-------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ' 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection 018 Crescent Structure (WI/Hoag Dr Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 18.71 ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Crescent Structure (W) Hoag Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L ---------------� T R ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 --------------- --------------- 0 0 ---------------� 1! 0 0 --------=---1--,------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 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 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 11 0 8 52 0 79 99 343 13 11 307 66 ' PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 11 0 8 52 0 79 99 343 13 it 307 66 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 PHF Volume: 11 • 0 8 52 0 79 99 343 13 11 307 66 Reduct Vol: 0 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 11 0 8 52 0 79 99 343 13 11 307 66 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 xxxx 6.2 7.1 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx --------------- 2.2 --------------- xxxx xxxxx 1 --------------------------- --------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 949 xxxx 350 914 xxxx 340 373 xxxx xxxxx 356 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 242 xxxx 698 256 xxxx 707 1197 xxxx xxxxx 1214 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 199 xxxx 698 235 xxxx 707 1197 xxxx xxxxx 1214 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.06 xxxx 0.01 0.22 xxxx 0.11 0.08 xxxx xxxx ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- 0.01 ---------------� xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.3 xxxx xxxxx 8.0 xxxx xxxxx ' LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 285 xxxxx xxxx 393 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx 1.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 18.5 xxxxx xxxxx 18.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * C * * C * * * * * * ApproachDel: 18.5 18.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: C C ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.01151(c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Existing + Project PM Tue Mar 6, 2007 13:34:25 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #18 Crescent Structure (W)%Hoag Dr Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 20.11 Street Name: Crescent Structure (W) Hoag Dr Approach': North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L T - R L - T - R --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- ---------------� Control: Stop Sign - Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 U 1! 0 0 0 0 1!, 0 0 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- --------- ------ volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 17 0 13 83 0 125 54 269 7 6 368 36 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 17 0 13 83 0 125 54 269 7 6 368 36 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 PHF Volume: 17 0 13 83 0 125' 54 269 7 6 368 36 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 17 0 13 83 0 125 54. 269 7 6 ,368 36 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: '7.1 xxxx 6.2 7.1 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx- FollowUpTim:. 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ----=---------------------- --------------- 11 --------------- ---------------� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 841 xxxx 273 785 xxxx 386 404 xxxx xxxxx 276 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 287 xxxx 771 313 xxxx 666 1166 xxxx xxxxx 1299 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 224 xxxx 771 295 xxxx 666 1166 xxxx xxxxx 1299 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.08 xxxx 0.02 0.28 xxxx 0.19 0.05 xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx --------------- --------------- ---------------� Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.2 xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * • * * A * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT 7-LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 323 xxxxx xxxx 444 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx xxxxx 2.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 17.3 xxxxx xxxxx 20.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * C * * C ApproachDel: 17.3 20:1 xxxxxx xxxXXX ApproachLOS: C C Note: Queue'reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Existing + Project AM Tue Mar 6, 2007 13:34:14 Page 7-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Uns{ignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #20 Child Care Center Dwy (E)/Hoag Dr ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.51 Street Name: Child Care Center Dwy (E) Hoag Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------{--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0. 0 1 0 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 83 0 28 35 372 0 0 323 73 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 ' 83 0 28 35 372 0 0 323 73 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 PHF Volume: 0 • 0 0 83 0 28 35 372 0 0 323• 73 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 83 0 28 35 372 0 0 323 73 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ {---------------{-------------- -11--------------- ---------------{ Capacity Module: Cnflict'Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 802 xxxx 360 396 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 356 xxxx 689 1174 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 34.8 xxxx 689 1174 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.24 xxxx 0.04 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I --------------- -------------- --------------- ---------------� Level Of Service Module: , 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx•xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT . LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 398 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx•xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.1 xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 17.5 xxxxx 8.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * C * A ApproachDel: xxxxxx 17.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * C Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane:. ' Traffix 7.8.0115'(6) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to•LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 1 IExisting + Project PM Tue Mar 6, 2007 13:34:25 Page 7-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #20 Child Care Center Dwy (E)/Hoag Dr Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: C( 16.71 Street Name: Child Care Center Dwy (E) Hoag Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound L T R East Bound L T R West Bound L T R Movement: L T R ------------- --------------------------- --------------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign --------------- Uncontrolled 7--1 Uncontrolled ' Rights: Include Include 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Include 0 1 0 0 0 Include 0 0 0' 1 0 Lanes: 0 ��--------------- ��--------------- ��---------�-----� --------------------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 79 0 44 19 251 0 0 434 76 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 79 0 44 19 251 0 0 434 76 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 ' PHF Volume: 0 0 0 79 0 44 19 251 0 0 434 76 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 79 0 44 19 251 0 0 434 76 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 I --------------- --------------- 2.2 xxxx xxxxx --------------- xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ---------------� ------------ Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 761 xxxx 472 510 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 376 xxxx 596 1065 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 371 xxxx 596 1065 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.21 xxxx 0.07 ------------ I ---------- :---- 11--------------- 0.02 xxxx xxxx --------------- xxxx xxxx xxxx -----------� Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * 8.4 xxxx xxxxx A xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 429 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.2 xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 16.7 xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 8.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * C * A ApproachDel: xxxxxx 16.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * C ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. L1 Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA J 1 Existing + Project AM Tue Mar 6, 2007 13:34:15 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 41Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #21 Child Care Center Dwy (W)/Hoag Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.579 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.4 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Child Care Center Dwy (W) Hoag Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T- R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign 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 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------------------------------------ --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 54 357 50 43` 0 0 0 0 280 0 71 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 . 54 357 50 43 0 0 0 0 280 01 71 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 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 54 357 50 43 0 0 0 0 280 0 71 Reduct Vol: 0 0 ••0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 54 357 50 43 0 0 0 0 280 0 71 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 54 357 50 43 • 0 0 0 0 280 0 71 ------------------------------------------ --------------- ------:--------� Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.46 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.00 0.20 Final Sat.: 0' 617 700 '297 255 0 0 522 581 483 0 123 ------------ I -----'---------- --------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.09 0.51 0.17 0.17 xxxx xxxx 0.00 0.00 0.58 xxxx 0.58 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 8.9 12.4 10.3 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 15.9 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 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 8.9 12.4 10.3 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 15.9 LOS by Move: * A B. B B * * * * C * C ApproachDel: 11.9 10.3 xxxxxx 15.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 11.9 10.3 xxxxxx 15.9 LOS by Appr: B B * C AllWayAvgQ: 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.2' 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115(c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Existing + Project PM Tue Mar 6, 2007 13:34:25 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #21 Child Care Center Dwy (W)/Hoag Dr Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.759 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Child Care Center Dwy (W) Hoag Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------------------------------------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign 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 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 30 194 76 67 0 0 0 0 434* 0 44 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 30 194 76 67 0 0 0 0 '434 0 44 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 PHF Volume: 0 30 194 76 67 0 0 0 0 434 0 44 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- Reduced Vol: 0 30 194 76 67 0 0 0 0 434 0 44 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 30 194 76 67 0 0 0 0 434 0 44 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.47 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.09 Final Sat.: 0 557 624 285 251 0 0 535 597 572 0 58 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.05 0.31 0.27 0.27 xxxx xxxx 0.00 0.00 0.76 xxxx 0.76 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 9.1 10.3 11.4 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 23.4 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 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 9.1 10.3 11.4 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 23.4 LOS by Move: * A B B B * * * * C * C ApproachDel: 10.2 11.4 xxxxxx 23.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 ApprAdjDel: .16.2 11.4 xxxxxx 23.4 LOS by Appr: B B * C Al1WayAvgQ: 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS INC June 21, 2007 To: Jim Campbell City of Newport Beach - City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644-3210 From: Julie Cavanaugh (949) 717-7943 (949) 717-7942, fax Via: ® Messenger ❑ Mall ❑ Federal Express For: ® Review & Comment ❑ Approval ❑ Reply Notes: Please see attached documents: 3 copies - Revised Hoag PC 3 copies - Revised Hoag PC (redline) Thank you. CC: ❑ Other: ❑ Other: 230 Newport Center Drive, Suite 210 • Newport :Beach, CA 92660 • (949) 717-7943 • (949) 717-7942, fax www.govsol.coni GOVERNMENT, ■ ■ RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTNIINY Transmittal May 10, 2007 To: Jim Campbell, Senior Planner From: Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Via: ® Messenger ❑ Mail ❑ Federal Express For: ® Review & Comment ® Approval ❑ Reply Notes: Jim - MAY 10 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Julie Cavanaugh Government Solutions, Inc. 230 Newport Center Drive, Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 717-7943 (949) 717-7942, fax ❑ Other: ❑ Other: Please find attached a total of six copies of the Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations for Hoag Hospital. Three of these copies are "red - lined", while the other three are not "red -lined". As I indicated to you in my voice mail, we would like the opportunity to submit the three exhibits to be included in the document later this month. I am looking forward to working with you again! If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 717.7943 or julie@govsol.com. Thank you, Julie Cavanaugh CC: Carol McDermott, Coralee Newman 230 Newport Center Drive, Suite 210 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • (949) 717-7943 • (949) 71.7-7942, fax www.govsol.com E OC °� 3'z-3 U '-----•_ _. �>. JCS.'•/,�3F 0 �s +\ Z•• ;� 1 `� 38 ., r `- 26 P F �0> -SGAGApv // 7►/ � ` % '••.. '•...' �' 40�43-071 /� 41� PE M 9-73- ...\.. f. \ ri 51� 9 i+l� 2� ... Jy ✓� �` N �s �? \ ./�A4.4.. s �p Oh�� A 9 '\ 9 �` R s'3oo'� �o 4P, $ G 1�/V 4? y \ h\`� } � P� Sj� `� / J'o a 17 S4 50� , a oFNr s z .. • _ •... • � s As yb, ��' � �� —or,1. A S/+b�9 ��J 1,ti+►q�1ti�•''a► �' �,, r f/hti� / y / f\o� �9J \ �: j \k09 b `• h'' \ 'i41 v \ti7y►° hoe`tiy `►�+�,� b"'ry►� �1� +I+ 'l• / / / h0 19 i'Ji` •6`\ 3� / /o s� `- r� ♦ y'7 ��0^\'°ti 1\ 4� 0 n q�► , 5"� ,bq ��ah�g ,a s� d' ,,gg rtiY`� f �' s • 2 gkA \(�,�9 / 0�, �/ '� f 1'�ti r d` h h + ✓� ryo �f5Ati v + h p (e , A n C, ti o y o o 1h �� G • �p \ r \ < P to \� 9 0 S 41 �^! •o• �✓o 0 �•• ✓��+b . rj o tG �i� y1L �00y� ti 5 y`E' '�11K � 01�1 51 / • '' /U y / q A ' , • \\ � , ��.. + � b9 fig\ \ \ • � �P � 5 �. to�2• � h a :u h4k y\ '\O Ctim � ' ��S +{'00 ��,1\4� D� �� �M A �0 �0 �%l p IT,' a \ \\ Bi�9 / w � ��' r'�4 4 4 �. •� Y y �, G + °y+ ^ti 419 '�, �0 /' n / �.� b / h 5 \� Q�` ° � ����`h °q��\ev f y 4�y •b h:;, �rv� \'�� i,;gy�p v�\``O:.%hJo^�� �q \1°�/°r•� '� ��,�. �1� h� /�10 - /•ti / � / A9 f� j%1��� a\�+ \ r! 8r/ '�� / ,, i. •' '... � `/ � .*0\ 33I P� \ PVT• �� � 3° ''M'' co •, k '(� `:. ./ hi:; � Ob 19 a �,o,, �° •, y oe z„ .Pf 0 by a e,J ti �e f \y a / �►09 p4L°' h \ �' / I I _ <" V. r �� K �? +'� �., 9y ::.. G,� !n „? 1� ?. �'7lK , 5 ^ ry .•d 00 � ♦f 9 1 ' j �� .� �i►3' � � � / i � 1 ' zz � y J i► � {f ` �1 tow ell v vs .:+ :a y�� ,�Op` °�► 0 gip% �� ao yl po C 8 '� '+' 0� �� � `�`ya ��� �S i b IV-V \ �!/j 1 /4 °► �� 9 a i s / r1 ,+ �_N �Me/ rititi K°j bb• �0 itk � � 0�, 6,�/ � �Og •�b � \ ( o., �O,,Y � � 3S. \_� n` � � :: h` `��,♦• '! i� + `'b '� v n b +� ��y ,4� \k�` pS� �1 ��K/ �40 i 9 b v S- 26 • `'� 'c ° 'i �•• o rW y,+ y p h 41e�' ,( �Fc ag �t / h �fr .h /•p3 - Q:o:}:. 0o rh��` k f0 ti� n' ti��0 V �tr h \9 a• �' `� O� ' o� S ! 2 / b 0,4 4, \ : }E. •;�.-. ►•• (�� . ` o a c � `•y �!a. 0 � , 90 �k � s3 /f�+ ���'� � %;\ ,f``'e`o � •` / - v \ �, ` \°1\°,' •_' �� + k 9 9 9° jR ++b 10 ® ,' �0 / �, f •Pg6-a �� �. �` J / '•`� .'1. � � �1 �'' 6•. � (4 ,r. ' ,,/!/% e9 'a /, � e7 p7 \.� o ,o h y- , �► J \� 3> ,'� �YB� w.s �r�` _ o . • r ' „ rn k 9 �k ,� • 1�� /� 7 - / !J i� \ '�� R�` 6r� r _ \ `' 9p y •/j ' 62c��1 1 v, ti` O N P o°x v r• • �� •,° - oo v ,\ ,/o e k �\ ? ,° �' hoc c b y�\t�` h' 1 4, 1 = �Z �t�3�366 2 _ U cV c — Lf Iv C T ` ` ` M M ✓O\f Ci ,;� ► i s, • J y ^y �. �'�" s ��1� `X ,� \tea$ SC 3 0 C • •'�' 't .V a`° °� ✓ C` • ,' O W Q� , Ti ''1r�• Jr'2 '1 :•• is � J'o"' 0 9 .� 'moo ,� /��t � - `�. - 0 ,,,� � \ 7L+::'. O L lit �` '+� �' _n Dj b ✓ 4r 0 Ii ; '•::r.: �� ij n� a,, M . �1,M 5\ qOt �o h ,��1 , i� `. lJ� 1 ��`\ �Q1 s� / _-"s;.8-39 W '�'\. •. .,♦ : °��� �' �CA •y ty K S ^ �` •o •/,, �5 :J , „ .� ,. � 1 ••fhb �� �-.-�_ CD w v) 'low s i a N I: F 51s :I 1 ►• M 14 � 53S M it - I- F- �'' r �9- �$a � ` I r Q . 90 ►° t 'y Q \ 1? ' ,Ip .3 , _ 6 0'?l?8 +i " `� ; ^► �+ cQ, y 350 - c cn 6� a �3 zo v s g �r� a r IV 6I-9 � � h N a� l =zt 9- _ - w a � h •'i: IN \ v ,nM 2. :� o -pw �1'vim. ,.0''i "w CP r y� "1 90 ' T '� �M > Q 0 0 `.E' t- �: k9 k� n� \1a '� 4' eP 2 v � 4 �'A 6 it . r- ~•�% �.! Z�jZ �, c fs � �. � BA t 7'r a'► t ,-� C89 "� �.� - qo` I,� o,° �, �� eDq, o '` ti a o` ,�c �y ,t /�i• d8 �•'�3A ! y p �5 r, 'kyp3V O h 981, V /11 ,h �® $ � N '9 �� St 5 : ,g ,4 �Ot , ( •i .'\ .1�1 d Q ' - -j? e4L E/o'r 1 '� �� ° ', �, �� \ C•- �jA 1 ,, If 31kb ® * v ,\ \ >r ,Z^ Q 4 :1• : ' .. QC1Q? !V v Sir IV 0 ,r e • i11t N N 9 r e I' a$' 1 w Y M i00 `. i` ,4Z 1 ✓^`a 1' A tl!alsb J� k5o 669 ` °.�':� Al 6N �'%1� '6a b 6' ` \\ A�CID :••�:•.i'• \�Y '1o1'�lr� 3 Y 0 1 �, O \ Cq "�A `+\ r H' G J �Zd_IZ �z •'�'?p 0� _ * ,+ q - .I • `�:t:::•: y 6\5 1�y Q ? �, F' p, �t �, s �� car �.1�;VP/ �'aS s� f , \ w +n °� h A 1, �i' c •Pir y" la o '� h h j I - _: -^f _ o \� :� :;i:+:: ,1�\y p •9 3� .� ?jl� 1. @' '4i' 01 it S. - t GQ V- w "�-w• ��. i4 U ILLJ - �/ , k�y09✓cg I �' �., ` F.2o y� 9 Cv�vi FrRj► 3y "` a �� Y , ap�✓•0 g h ^ �ti A'f ® '3 8� A, NNLLJ ✓ ', R I �i oQ Y �1 `r * �/ u.` o 0 6tiy *+ sr> ;cr Ld % i > _ ,� `�j �� ✓ �a'L�/ - 'fir ��' ` �J` "� + o — ::• u y o a ►� OC oc 341-3 341-1 15-MAY-2007 06:39 � ���� �rl����Ivrlc,Ns�lo INAP yISy APF'ROXIMA'rE WN ON Thil;, ONLY WILL EXPECT TO UE REIMBURSED FOR COST OF REPAIRS TO ITS F rFIE COMPANY FACILITIES IF AMAQED ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•-----------------------------------------------------___ Rl`1 CAIIFORNfA GAS CO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 107�J-56.STATE COLLEGE BLVD. 100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet ANAHEIM,0Au oRNIA 92803 rEX 3334 I ub l 1 shed Data a SCALE: 1 00: 1 , Not at De-Fa4_..I I t Map Sca I e �f 0C 341-2 OC 342-4 moo - CD v� ® Q h, �a R • F TPEM. -A ji A1 1 2 \ `\ t ` \ e`�%j C/ \ \^� -\ ��3I so . LLJ CD P. Q' sti k�Aw p / \tiV `19`- �� lu \ / p�P� • / ,� \ \ ( I 39a A 01 Q /DO' ' " \ 14 ��uj 1'c' _ q I-�,�-�f e, \ 6 65 \ \ h �b o 1� ro i 000'.01 ?0 ti �x >"°k.o .off Up AZ OF/ / ~r�� 1 5� P, /� / �• \AAA ,% �110S j �' .T '� �B 41. .Q�'%eis �^.� `� ��5 / \ \ O\PG SE / �' I ,r Q� f`O `O� �(�� \ \ •% v0♦ ti 1'' S \ Gp,� ' aSQL? '• �. 15 -1 � ♦ /"` � �! _ � Z sow t3 Q,Iiii6 S �4 / " •' s,F� „ `\ \ ' ! S-1 C Z1// v 74 C>/ .Ay81c \���� \\ . N �N�FtpN s 3O' \ e`� MPS 0100, 71 X.0 2211 � Q \ \ 8 ►\ �o\ �'/ a, ,gyp '�' �� DP ✓' \ \ �" ..". . �24' -••-_ / __ - � S `g @4� �+. ♦ti`0 �9A/o to ry,� 00-P-lae�ti ep,P� `� $ ��� �.F;r� m h / \ NPVT . - _ - _ _ i' /QpS f' w N 1 ��as `�`�� c- f m _ - - - - - 7 / / Z ;��u t tom} N "- .�v , a 1 • -.. _ I _No - _ -- / \ 22,/k %. J '' r�� ,u �o _ cJ' ..- _ T. "`�'---N_""" �— _' �PvAl--- --"— (—�f �—'—__-�— L___��, �-�12a'\ NJ /� II 1 �,� so e .?�`�' ��• , Xt PVT_ _ _ _. _ - - - - 1 o PAR STRUCTURE o. 3h .a KING - - - _ `PCB , _ _ . 28 P_2 c6�" o - _ ;n - - - - - - - — N - s PVT. _ - v±' `_?cr i`'1 \25 \ J I ' i� L o / / P�2 7¢ 1 �. s PST• --------- > -- - -- - - - -� a' -_ ," ---_ "' �_'' "� ` \ vs = { 3 u 3�s3Ozj,� pl ,- ?- _ ! �, CANCER CENTER c-_, - 8 A CHILD ��'� ✓ 'e y' ohs N CD CARE \ { o� \tea, \ / F �, ,Qti. - ��� w tql� - N N r (J N r `.• _ _. .—. _ R• �• _ _ . { X� \ {//p'• 3 I I Q i !{ / // / J25 �22'{/ /� /� `%M \ 1-.�� / / `` p` a / /�O/r�S V► M M Q. ,o / 1 / ,/ • / • O (/ {j P V T. O N t-- - _ - - / _ - 3' P X M t _ 3�XT-1 _/ (3 P { / / \ / / / e Ji 40 s• .� �i� F• Q, t 4�t Y - 839• E N O ~1----------�2Q'l f--- 3'PX SVC. (AS MAIN 90-U-61916 .3-90) { { / �idt o OF p� SUPERIOR L Vp, U 3 (l �t '� �� �� �� i�, P - ``' _ _ n 1 1 I I I ' I { 28 / �' / / /0 e o o ��,\ �� —_ vr• ____—_, 122' L I� { �/ o S �( o_ ``� � w - PVT. { /' 60 �1� �22��0 \ �P � � �C �•'j8//B "` S —___ �/� 1 / --►—__ M \__== _ � ` /.// I--Q S L 3S �- SUPPORT I 29 � a 2os ID 2675-OC 1 / °RT SERVICES 1 — _ _PST M / RS 6398 1 / BLOU. S / h. -- I P. M. • yes 1939 �. \ PARKING STRUCTURE cy.. / YQ c p R-4�9oi - c- ti a ash rl !e 0 j' L 3 38118-m_�y3s•• i08�21 ' o SL 35-266967 P 4 ~ �Ot� A 10 9 �Id yy fps y`�, V - �._ - I2'H 17 47 p Z t 2O �� ETS b �0 d y*� h �`1 S .11 �� /3 'ij► _'�". C.o w �� CP 2� S.L.3S_ ?6,,a,P7 r1 �12 v s ,� �o a♦.Z 1� b \ �IE4:r � 20i+ 193 N �Z . ��I� o of E o p o s• q s I r~ r•ti a hT ♦M♦� f�y�Q�� 1 \` ,•t 1 - - - _ - 9 S�"20%+ 1936 B0. / / / BO =� HWY. 3 R-sis to /// I i h .\ GP - S�.�SZ j"7�I �� , T4583 8' H T4963 6'H CP 8=98 ' -� _ - - - - - rh �, _ 4 ►� I -� 6 Z09. f ►. 10-97 - Ifio.S _ . - - o °' t g 61w 1 4 ' �r w: NI CP - 103'- _ BO - -Eli � -v G ♦ + ij ifi _ ,1 'V I � - f/.ylp/Q �' �7 -� �+ . 684 u�r I S.L. 35-26 _ _ S.L.35-26 _ I smys 20y1i 12.90.... I !h3'_ - - - ' - ' -��' �`�- 91 95-A-71377 C-25550 ® •• I f I! I; 'r9 �Q/p - - �; / C-25550 > d �M /� 4 �Sail�lf `/ � T ~' ,'- - ,b r Gp _ C 23,Z6/e-'y9 t' { 201'- I L BO 95-A-71377 m co N 1 S,d7a�s•� 1 t U j �1j�� 1 0 i,� A N__ '� C N� �. C /� cO Y' lop-303/'f No 0 Mo a t +t •4 , 911 2 .P✓97oJ 74963 a ���� :�74163 �► ♦� ►- 7 / a I sf11�! f, 7w `$w q , / �i0 / `l: 8'M 8-98�` `/�4'IA 8-98 `'� ( 6 ♦ 0 �!'` e,i}5'(iQ,- - - _� F 1� .. \ i - •♦ J�1 40 I� .w W > 15-MAY-2007 06:39 OC 341-4 OC 341-2 ec �A I IvIV �HUww UIV fFu AP ------------------------------ IS APPROXIM 9i8_ NLY_-THE -COMPANY --------------------------------------------------------WILL-EXPECTTO - BE REIMBURSED FOR COST' OF REPAIRS TO ITS FACILITIES IF DAMAGED, 100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA GAS CO. _ 1919 SO. STATE COLLEGE BLVD. P.O. BOX 3334 0 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92803 Pub 1 1 shed Doto • SCALE: 100: 1, Not at De -fa( I I t Map Sca I e