HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-43 - Final Environmental Impact Report 142RESOLUTION NO. 92 -43
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND
ADEQUATE THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 142 FOR THE HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER
PLAN PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 142 provided
environmental impact assessment for the proposed Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project; and
WHEREAS, the DEIR was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and Council Policy K -3;
and
WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated to the public for comment and review;
WHEREAS, written comments were received from the public during and after
the review period; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach
conducted a public hearing to receive public testimony with respect to the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to through
Response to Comments and staff reports submitted to the Planning Commission and City
Council; and
WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were fully and adequately
responded to in the manner set forth in California Administrative Code Section 15088 (b);
and
WHEREAS, as a result of the additional information provided in the
Response to Comments, a supplemental EIR was prepared and circulated for public
comment; and
. WHEREAS, the SEIR was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and Council Policy K -3;
and
WHEREAS, written comments were received from the public during and after
the review period; and
WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to through
Response to Comments and staff reports submitted to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were fully and adequately
responded to in the manner set forth in California Administrative Code Section 15088 (b);
and
• WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed all
environmental documents comprising the EIR and has found that the EIR considers all
environmental impacts of the proposed Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project completely and
adequately and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the certified final EIR in making its decision on the proposed Hoag Hospital
Master Plan Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council by this Resolution adopts the Statement of Facts
and Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Sections 15091 and 15093 of the
State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, Section 21002.1 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the State CEQA
Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following Findings prior
to the approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed, identifying one or more
significant effects of the project, along with Statements of Facts supporting each Finding:
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects
thereof as identified in the EIR.
FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the Finding.
• Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
EIR; and
2
WHEREAS, Section 15092 provides that the City shall not decide to approve
or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless it has
(A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the
environment where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091, and
(B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment
• found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding
concerns as described in Section 15093; and
WHEREAS, Section 15093 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the
City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and
WHEREAS, Section 15903 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires, where
the decision of the City Council allows, the occurrence of significant effects which are
identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, the City must state in writing the reasons to
support its action based on the EIR or other information in the record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach that:
1. The City Council makes the Findings contained in the Statement of
Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR, together with the
Finding that each fact in support of the Finding is true and based upon substantial evidence
in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto as Exhibit
1 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
2. The City Council finds that the Facts set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations are true and supported by substantial evidence in the record,
including the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as
Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant
• environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential environmental
impacts not addressed in the Final EIR.
4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set
forth in the Statement of Facts.
3
5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain
significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant
effects that can be feasibly avoided or mitigated have been avoided or mitigated by the
imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures
as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR and enforced by the mitigation
• monitoring program.
6. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures and project
alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific
economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the
Final EIR.
7. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impact of the
project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that has not been reduced to a level of
insignificance has been substantially reduced in impact by the imposition of Conditions on
the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures. The City Council finds that
the remaining unavoidable significant impact is clearly outweighed by the economic, social
and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
8. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable
alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, even
when those alternatives might impede the attainment of other project objectives and might
be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to
incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives
were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the
project.
9. The City Council finds that the project should be approved as modified
by the design alternative described in the Statement of Facts and Findings, and that any
alternative to this action should not be approved for the project based on the information
• contained in the Final EIR, the data contained in the Statement of Facts and for the reasons
stated in the public record and those contained in the Statement of Overriding Consider-
ations.
10. The City Council finds that a good faith effort has been made to seek
4
out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR as
indicated in the public record on the project, including the Final EIR.
11. The City Council finds that during the public hearing process on the
Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project, the Environmental Impact Report evaluated a range
of alternatives. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning
• Commission in its decision on the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
certify the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 142 for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan
Project as complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the
proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines. Said Final Environmental Impact Report is
comprised of the following elements:
1. Draft EIR and Technical Appendices
2. Responses to Comments
3. Supplemental EIR and Technical Appendices
4. SEIR Responses to Comments
5. Planning Commission Staff Reports
6. Planning Commission Minutes
7. Planning Commission Resolutions, Findings and Conditions for
Recommended Approval
8. City Council Staff Reports
9. City Council Minutes
10. City Council Ordinances, Resolution and Findings and Conditions for
Approval
11. Comments and Responses received prior to final action and not
contained in 1 through 10 above.
All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning
Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California 92659 -1768, (714) 644 -3225.
ADOPTED THIS 11th day of May , 1992.
ATTEST:
i
/ % / / a _e
CITY CLERK / U
Attachments: Exhibits 1 & 2
4 Olt
--
PL1-... \ED \EIR \EIR142.RS1
�J
1W4I,10;34W
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 142
HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN
I. BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines)
promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has
been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects
of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for
each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmen-
tal effect as identified in the Final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdic-
tion of another public agency and not the agency making the finding.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and
should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR
(Section 15091 of the Guidelines)."
The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project should be approved.
A description of the project to be approved is provided below. Because the proposed
actions constitute a project under CEQA, and the Initial Study determined that the project
could have significant effects on the environment, the City of Newport Beach has prepared
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR indicates that there will be significant
impacts as a direct result of the project in the area of land use and construction related air
quality and noise, and that significant effects to air quality and noise will occur on a
cumulative basis as a result of the project in conjunction with other past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future projects. The Findings and Facts set forth below explain the
City's reasons for determining that the project should be approved as proposed.
U. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1. Meet the anticipated health care needs of Hoag's growing (i.e.,
population) as well as expanding (i.e., geographically) service area.
• 2. Provide the necessary flexibility in physical campus development to
accommodate unanticipated medical service needs (i.e., new medical
technologies that require unique or specialized building layout and
structure).
3. Keep pace with new trends in the delivery of health care (i.e., increase
in outpatient procedures /services, preventative health maintenance
services, and educational and community services).
A -1
4. Centralize and separate inpatient and outpatient services, as well as
provide an overall organized approach to physical campus growth that
is conducive to the types of medical services offered and user friendly
for the patient in need of the medical service.
5. Establish Hoag Hospital as a regional hospital providing state- of -the-
art medical technologies, which in turn will eliminate the need for area
residents to travel long distances for the most advanced medical
services.
• 6. Enable Hoag Hospital to remain economically viable in a rapidly
changing and increasingly competitive health care industry.
7. Respond to economic changes in health care delivery by providing
quality medical services via the least expensive means possible.
B. DISCRETIONARY APPLICATIONS TO BE APPROVED AS PART OF
THE PROJECT
1. Amendment No. 744
Request to establish Planned Community District Regulations and
adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for Hoag Hospital.
2. Development Agreement No. 5
Request to approve a Development Agreement for the Hoag Hospital
Master Plan.
2. Traffic Study No. 81
Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of
Phase I of the development authorized in the Hoag Hospital Planned
Community.
3. Variance No. 1180
Request to exceed the Base FAR of 0.5 up to the maximum FAR of
0.65 consistent with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use
Element and Chapter 20.07.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
III. FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
A. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT
Earth Resources
* The potential for liquefaction, settlement, subsidence, ground rupture,
seismically induced slope failure and slope instability is considered low
• due to the fact that the site is underlain by dense to vary dense soils.
Water
* Requirements of the project will not substantially reduce public water
supplies or expose the public to water related hazards.
A -2
Natural Resources
There are no mineral resources on -site, i.e., sand, gravel, etc.,
therefore, project development will not impact mineral resources.
Energy
The proposed project will not use substantial amounts of fuel or
energy, or require the development of new sources of energy. The
• methane gas currently being pumped from wells, west and southwest
of the project site, has an energy producing potential. Utilization of
this energy source by the Hospital complex could reduce the volume
of gas or electricity currently being purchased for use by the Hospital.
Hoag Hospital intends to contain this gas as a part of Lower Campus
development; however, the exact method of containment and future
use of the gas is not known at this time.
Public Amenities
The project will result in the dedication and grading of a 0.8 acre
linear and consolidated view park which results in a beneficial impact.
The project contribution to improvements on West Coast Highway
results in a beneficial infrastructure impact.
Subsequent to the approval of this Agreement by the Coastal Commis-
sion and the expiration of any statute of limitation for filing a legal
challenge to this Agreement, the Master Plan, or the E1R, Hoag shall
deposit Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) in an
account, and at a financial institution, acceptable to City. The account
shall be in the name of the City provided, however, Hoag shall have
the right to access the funds in the event, but only to the extent that,
Hoag constructs or installs the improvements described in (i) or (ii).
Funds in the account shall be applied to the following projects (in
order of priority upon notice to proceed served by City on Hoag):
(i) The construction of a sidewalk and installation of landscaping
in the CalTrans right -of -way along the west side of Newport
Boulevard southerly of Hospital Road;
(ii) The construction of facilities necessary to bring reclaimed water
to West Newport and /or the Property;
Any funds remaining in the account after completion of the projects
described in (i) and (ii) shall be used by the City to fund, in whole or
in part, a public improvement in the vicinity of the property.
B. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MMGATED TO A LEVEL OF
• INSIGNIFICANCE
Earth Resources
Significant effect:
The project will result in 170,000 cubic yards of cut and 31,000
cubic yards of fill on the lower campus. Cut and fill volumes
for Upper Campus have not been determined.
A -3
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an
• acceptable level with respect to grading cut and fill by virtue of
the standards City policies and mitigation measures listed
below:
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 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 com-
pletion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investi-
gation 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 grad-
ing and construction activities and strictly monitor the
slopes in accordance with the documentation.
Significant Effect:
One active fault (the Newport - Inglewood) and several poten-
tially active faults are located within close proximity that could
potentially impact the project site. Also, the verification of the
presence of Balco fault and the un -named fault on -site has not
been determined. The proposed project may experience
impacts from ground shaking.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have
into, the project which avoid
cant environmental effect as
Facts in Support of Finding:
been required in, or incorporated
or substantially lessen the signifi-
identified in the Final EIR.
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
• of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
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
W2
residents. This report shall determine if there are any
faults on site 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 de-
signed and constructed to the seismic standards applica-
ble to hospital related structures and as specified in the
then current City adopted version of the Uniform Build-
ing Code.
Significant Effect
Expandable and corrosive soils may be encountered on the
project site.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
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 fol-
lowed.
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. The 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 determi-
nation, a soils and construction material compatibility
evaluation shall also be undertaken, concluding with the
appropriate mitigation measures and design criteria.
A -5
Corrosion resistant construction materials are commonly
available and shall be used where the evalua-
tion /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 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.
Hvdrology/Water Ouality
Significant Effect:
During construction on both Upper and Lower Campuses,
grading and site preparation will expose soils and create the
potential for short term erosion.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
This significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the additional mitigation measures
listed below:
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 Engi-
neer.
• 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.
Significant Effect:
New construction on both the upper and lower campuses will
impact water quality by replacing the presently undeveloped
W
condition (primarily Lower Campus) with buildings and
pavements resulting in increased urban pollutants in site run
off.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
• Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
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 ap-
proved 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 accor-
dance with the requirements specified in the plan.
Significant Effect:
Existing drainage facilities are expected to be adequate to
handle Master Plan drainage; however, this should be verified
when site plans are available.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
• 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
A -7
runoff velocities. A copy of this report shall be forward-
ed to the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Santa Ana Region.
Significant Effect
Depending on the planned lower floor levels of pro-
posed buildings, the project may require a construction
dewatering program and a permanent subdrain system.
• Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
13. Prior to the completion of final construction plans, the
project sponsor shall submit a comprehensive geotechni-
cal /hydrologic study to the City of Newport Beach Build-
ing Department, which includes data on groundwater.
This study shall also determine the necessity for a
construction dewatering program and subdrain system.
14. Prior to the completion of final building construction
plans for each phase of Lower Campus development, the
project sponsor shall submit an application to the Re-
gional Water Quality Control Board for an NPDES
permit if a construction dewatering or subdrain program
is determined necessary by the Building Department
based on the design and elevation of the foundation
structures. Also, if dewatering is required by RWQCB,
the project sponsor shall also conduct groundwater sam-
pling and analysis, and submit it to the California Re-
gional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region.
The results of this testing will assist in determining the
specifications for the NPDES permit. The project
sponsor shall strictly comply with all conditions of any
NPDES Permit.
Significant Effect:
The existing and future Master Plan Hospital facilities currently
and in the future will handle infectious, hazardous and radio-
active materials and wastes. Such wastes could contaminate
water quality if not handled properly.
• Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
M
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
15. Project Sponsor shall strictly comply with its Hazardous
Material and Waste Management Program and its Infec-
tious 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.
Biological Resources
Significant Effect:
A total 1.52 acres of wetland communities will be impacted by
the project. This acreage may increase, depending on the final
outcome of current pending changes to the federal wetland
delineation methodology.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
16. The federal wetland regulations and requirements shall
be reviewed by the City and the project sponsor at the
time the proposed work is undertaken, and the project
shall comply with all applicable laws concerning removal
and mitigation of wetlands at that 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
processes 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 communi-
ties (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 sub-
mitted to the following agencies for their review and
approval/ concurrence prior to issuance of grading
and /or building permits for Master Plan development.
• 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'
Under the existing regulations, the Corps and USFWS would be consulted as part of the Section 404 permitting process.
However, if proposed changes to the regulations result in removal of the project site from Corps jurisdiction, these agencies
would not be required to review the wetland mitigation plan.
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 Agree-
is ment, 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 of equal size to
the area of sensitive wetland communities im-
pacted 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 communi-
ties impacted by the project.
• The wetlands created shall not decrease the
habitat values of any area important to mainte-
nance of sensitive plant or wildlife populations.
• The wetland mitigation planning effort will take
into consideration creation of 0.2 acre of salt
grass habitat suitable for use by wandering skip-
per; 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 re-
sponsibilities 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 alterations
to natural landforms;
A list of plant species to be used;
Regardless of other considerations, CDFG will review the wetland mitigation plan for the City of Newport Beach as part of the
Coastal Development Permit Process; CDFG review would also be ptoviced as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement, if
required.
A -10
The method of plant introduction (i.e., seeding,
natural succession, vegetative transplanting, etc.);
and
Details of the short -term and long -term monitor-
ing plans, including financing of the monitoring
plans.
Cultural Resources
• Significant Effect:
No significant archaeological or historical resources are located
on the project site; however, because subsurface resources can
go undetected during surveys, archaeological and historical
monitoring is necessary during grading.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
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 confer-
ence, 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.
Significant Effect:
Based on the geological /paleontological literature and fossil
locality maps, the project lies within a sensitive zone with the
potential to yield significant fossils from Pleistocene and
Miocene deposits.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
• Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
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 pregrading conference, at which
A -11
time procedures acceptable to and approved by the City
for monitoring shall be established, including the tempo-
rary halting or redirecting of work to permit the evalua-
tion, 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.
Land Use
• Significant Effect:
Adoption of Master Plan will require a zoning code change for
both upper and lower campuses.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
24. The proposed project is subject to all applicable require-
ments of the City of Newport Beach General Plan,
Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program (L.CP). 'Those
requirements that are superseded by the PCDP and
District Regulations are not considered applicable. The
following discretionary approvals are required by the
City of Newport Beach: EIR certification, adoption of
the Master Plan, adoption of the Planned Community
Development Plan and District Regulations, approval of
a Development Agreement, approval of a zone change
to Planned Community District, grading permits, and
building permits for some facilities. The California
Coastal Commission has the discretionary responsibility
to issue a Coastal Development Permit for the Lower
Campus and a Local Coastal Program Amendment for
the Lower Campus.
118. For any building subject to the issuance of the building
permit by the Office of the State Architect, Hoag
Hospital shall submit to the State Architect a letter from
the City of Newport Beach indicating that review of the
construction plans has been completed and that the
plans are in compliance with all City requirements.
Transportation /Circulation
• Significant Effect:
The proposed project will generate additional traffic.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
A -12
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
25. Subsequent to completion of Phase I of the project, the
project sponsor shall conduct a Traffic Phasing Ordi-
nance (TPO) analysis for Phase U and III Master Plan
• development. The analysis shall identify potential inter-
section impacts, the proposed project traffic volume
contributions at these impacted intersections, and the
schedule for any intersection improvements identified as
necessary by the study to insure a satisfactory level of
service as defined by the TPO. This report shall be ap-
proved by the City prior to commencement of Phase II
or III construction.
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 1338 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 1338.
27. Subsequent to completion of Phase 1 Master Plan
development, the project sponsor shall conduct a project
trip generation study to be reviewed and approved by
the City Traffic Engineer. This study shall analyze
whether the traffic to be generated by the subsequent
phases of development (Phases II and III) will exceed
1,856 PM peak hour trips when added to the trips
generated by existing (including Phase I) Hoag Hospital
development. This study shall be conducted prior to the
issuance of any grading or building permits for Phase II
or III development.
28. The project sponsor shall continue to comply with all
applicable regulations adopted by the Southern Califor-
nia Air Quality Management District that pertain to trip
reductions such as Regulation 15.
29. The project shall comply with the City of Newport Beach
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance ap-
proved by the City Council pursuant to the County's
Congestion Management Plan.
• Significant Effect:
Although no specific impacts have been identified with respect
to public transit, build out of the Master Plan will increase the
demand for public transit.
A -13
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
• of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
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 incor-
porated into the Master Plan project:
Bus turnouts shall be installed if, and as required, by the
City Traffic Engineer 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 OCTD's Design Guidelines for Bus Facili-
ties.
Significant Effect:
Parking rates proposed for Master Plan development were
determined to be adequate based upon existing similar uses.
Finding:
The ability to assure ongoing compliance with a finding of
insignificance is assured through the monitoring of the following
mitigation.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The insignificant effect will be assured at a level of insignifi-
cance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identified in the
Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
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.
Significant Effect:
Although no specific impacts have been identified with respect
to the existing and future Hoag Hospital circulation system, and
• existing and future Upper and Lower campus access intersec-
tions, mitigation will assure insignificant impacts.
Finding:
The ability to assure ongoing compliance with a finding of
insignificance is assured through the monitoring of the following
mitigation.
A -14
Noise
•
Facts in Support of Finding:
The insignificant effect will be assured at a level of insignifi-
cance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identified in the
Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
33. Prior to the issuance of precise grading permits for the
phase of Master Plan development that includes new, or
modifications to existing, internal roadways (other than
service roads), the project sponsor will prepare an inter-
nal circulation plan for submittal to and approval by the
Director of Public Works that identifies all feasible
measures to eliminate internal traffic congestion and
facilitates ingress and egress to the site. All feasible
measures identified in this study shall be incorporated
into the site plan.
34. Depending on actual site build out, intersection improve-
ments may be required at the Hospital Road (Upper
Campus access) Placentia Avenue Intersection and at
the WCH (Lower Campus access) intersection. The
need for these improvements shall be assessed during
subsequent traffic studies to be conducted in association
with Mitigation Measure 25.
Significant Effect:
Project generated traffic may contribute to on -site noise level excee-
dances.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
39. If noise levels in on -site outdoor noise sensitive use
areas exceed 65 CNEL, the project sponsor shall develop
measures that will attenuate the noise to acceptable
levels for proposed hospital facilities. Mitigation
through the design and construction of a noise barrier
(wall, berm, or 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 modifica-
tions shall be implemented to reduce noise to acceptable
levels.
Significant Effect:
Any increase in mechanical equipment use as a result of the proposed
project would exacerbate existing noise level standard exceedances.
A -15
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
• of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
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 Mas-
ter Plan are mitigated in accordance with applicable
standards.
114. Roof top 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 roof top
mechanical equipment shall not exceed 55 dBA at the
property line.
116. The project sponsor shall pay 75% of the cost of plant-
ing thirty 24 inch ficus trees (or the equivalent) in the
berm between the service road and Villa Balboa south-
erly of the tennis courts. Planting shall occur on Villa
Balboa property.
117. Use of the heliport /helipad shall be limited to emergen-
cy 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.
Visual /Aesthetics
• Significant Effect:
The quality of the existing views will be altered somewhat in that
existing views of the Lower Campus site will change from an undev-
eloped mesa top and slope to a developed site.
A -16
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
• of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
43. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the
project sponsor shall ensure that a landscape and
irrigation plan is prepared for each build-
ing /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 construc-
tion schedule. The plan shall be subject to review by the
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approv-
al by the Planning Department and Public Works
Department.
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 uses. The
plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed elec-
trical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating
that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been
met.
45. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project
sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Depart-
ment 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 roof top 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.
• 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.
A -17
•
u
Significant Effect:
Based on development criteria outlined in the PCDP and District
Regulations, Master Plan project development will result in an
insignificant loss of ocean, Newport Bay and Catalina views. In certain
locations, the project will enhance views that are currently obstructed
by the existing slope.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
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 confor-
mance with the EIR view impact analysis and the PCDP
and District Regulations, to ensure that the visual im-
pacts identified in the EIR are consistent with actual
Master Plan development. This analysis shall be submit-
ted to and approved by the City Planning Department.
Public Health and Safety
Significant Effect:
The project site is a potential source of unknown hazardous waste (in
relation to oil production on Lower Campus or hospital activity on
both Upper and Lower Campuses).
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
49. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during
site preparation or construction, the project sponsor shall
ensure that the identified hazardous waste and /or
hazardous materials are handled and disposed in the
manner specified by the State of California Hazardous
Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code
Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the
California Department of Health Services, Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development, and ac-
cording to the requirements of the California Adminis-
trative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22.
Significant Effect:
According to data from the DOG, the Wilshire Oil Well on the Lower
Campus requires re- abandonment.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
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 re- abandoned to the current stan-
dards. 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.
Significant Effect:
The lower Campus portion of the site has experienced methane and
hydrogen sulfide gas seepage for at least the past 20 years. With
project development, the potential exists for increased gas seepage.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
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.
• 52. A soil gas sampling and monitoring program shall be
conducted for the areas to be graded and /or excavated.
Systematic sampling and analysis shall include methane
and hydrogen sulfide gas. Samples shall be taken just
below the surface, at depth intervals within the removal
zone, and at a depth below the depth of actual distur-
bance. (The individual(s) performing this initial study
may be at risk of exposure to significant - and possibly
A -19
•
•
lethal - doses of hydrogen sulfide, and shall be appro-
priately 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 poten-
tial hazards and on proper personal protective equip-
ment. This training shall be at least at the level re-
quired by CFR 2910.120.
54. If the analysis of the initial soil gas samples show
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 shall be conducted during the disturbance of the
soils and during any construction activities that may
result in an increase in the seepage of the gases. The
project sponsor shall maintain a continuous monitor in
the immediate vicinity of the excavation, and a personal
monitor, with an alarm, shall be worn by each worker
with a potential for exposure.
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 petro-
leum, such as benzene and toluene.
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.
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.
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 accept-
able levels shall be installed in the vicinity of the flare.
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 risks it
may pose to human health prior to development. A
stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be developed
A -20
to reduce the risk of the transport of hazardous constitu-
ents 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, imple-
mentation of erosion control measures , the monitoring
• program requirements, and post construction monitoring
of the system
63. Soil samples shall be collected from appropriate loca-
tions at the site and analyzed for BTEX and priority
pollutants; if the soils are found to contain unacceptable
levels of hazardous constituents, appropriate mitigation
will be required, including a complete characterization
of both the vertical and horizontal extent of the contami-
nation, 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.
64. Prior to the issuance of grading or 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 Depart-
ment of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, and the
Southern California Air Quality Management District for
comment. Additionally, any proposed new passive vents
shall be evaluated by these agencies prior to the issuance
of grading or building permits. If the vents are emitting
detectable levels of hydrogen sulfide and /or toxins, the
emitted gasses must be treated prior to discharge in a
manner acceptable to these agencies.
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.
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.
67. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Spon-
sor 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.
A -21
68. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor
shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach ensur-
ing that all structures built on the Lower Campus are
designed for protection from gas accumulation and seep-
age, based on the recommendations of a geotechnical
engineer.
69. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of New-
port 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 perfor-
ated 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 poly-
ethylene sheeting or similar approved system. All
materials 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 surveil-
lance.
• 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).
A -22
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, construc-
tion 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.
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 meth-
ane levels are monitored throughout the project area to
ensure that this 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 within one
year of May, 1992, plans to install a scrubber system to
remove hydrogen sulfide from the influent gas to the
flare. The design and construction of the system should
be in accordance with the Best Available Control Tech-
nologies, and must be in compliance with SCAQMD
(District) Regulation XIII, emission offsets and New
Source Review.
77. As required by the District, the project sponsor shall
develop a sampling and analysis protocol for District ap-
proval 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 an evaluation of the potential risks
associated with the emission of these pollutants (Rule
1401). Included in the plans for the design of the scrub-
ber 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,
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 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 pre-
pare and obtain approval from the SCAQMD to imple-
ment a sampling and analysis protocol for evaluation of
the existing emissions from the flare after scrubbing
(Mitigation Measures 75 & 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.
A -23
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 arrestors.
The project sponsor shall evaluate 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.
82. Before the issuance of building permits, the Project
Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department,
City of Newport Beach, demonstrating compliance with
all applicable District Rules, including Rule 402, Public
Nuisance, and Rule 403, Fugitive Dust.
83. Before the issuance of building permits, the project
sponsor must submit plans to the City of Newport Beach
demonstrating that its Hazardous Materials 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.
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 6.95, 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.
Significant Effect:
Development of the Hospital Master Plan would generate increased
levels of hazardous, infectious and radiological wastes.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
• into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
A -24
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 infec-
tious, radiological disposal facilities to add additional
storage areas as necessary to accommodate the addition-
al waste to be generated by the expanded facilities.
Significant Effect:
Development of the Hospital Master Plan may result in criteria
emissions and air toxins.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
86. The Project Sponsor shall provide evidence to the
Planning Director that measures to ensure implementa-
tion and continued compliance with all applicable
SCAQMD Air Toxic Rules, specifically Rules 1401,
1403, 1405 and 1415, are being carried out.
87. The project sponsor shall submit plans to the City
Building Department verifying that all roadways associat-
ed 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.
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 struc-
tures, 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
A -25
- 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.
Significant Effect:
Existing overhead power lines could result in electromagnetic field
impacts on the residential units located to the west of the upper
campus.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
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 feasi-
ble.
Significant Effect:
Dewatering may be required during project construction.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
14. Prior to the completion of final building construction plans for
each phase of Lower Campus development, the project sponsor
A -26
shall submit an application to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board for an NPDES permit if a construction dewa-
tering or subdrain program is determined necessary by the
Building Department based on the design and elevation of the
foundation structures. Also, if dewatering is required by
RWQCB, the project sponsor shall also conduct groundwater
sampling and analysis, and submit it to the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. The results
of this testing will assist in determining the specifications for the
• NPDES permit. The project sponsor shall strictly comply with
all conditions of any NPDES Permit.
Public Services and Utilities
Significant Effect:
The project is expected to cause a temporary decrease in police and
fire response times due to construction.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
91. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, emergency fire
access to the site shall be approved by the City Public
Works and Fire Departments.
Significant Effect:
The project will require 8 to 24 inch water lines throughout the site.
These lines will be connected to an existing 16 inch City water main.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
• 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 devic-
es for project lavatories and other water -using facilities.
The project sponsor will also comply with any other City
adopted water conservation policies.
A -27
Significant Effect:
The project will require a network of 8 to 12 inch sewer lines on -site.
Lines will be connected to an existing 30 inch gravity sewer.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
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 modifica-
tions or facilities necessitated by the proposed project
development.
Significant Effect:
Development of the Master Plan will increase the need for fire
protection.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
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.
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.
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.
A -28
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 incorpo-
rate efficient heating units and other appliances, such as
water heater, cooldng equipment, refrigerators, furnaces
• and boiler units.
99. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project
sponsor shall incorporate into building designs, where
feasible, passive solar designs and solar heaters.
Construction Activities
Significant Effect:
Implementation of the project will generate approximately 139,000
cubic yards of excess material, which will need to be exported from the
site.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure:
100. The project sponsor shall ensure that all cut material is
disposed of at either an environmentally cleared devel-
opment site or a certified landfill. Also, all material
exported off site shall be disposed of at an environmen-
tally certified development cleared landfill with adequate
capacity.
Significant Effect:
Traffic delays may be experienced on Superior Avenue, Newport
Boulevard and West Coast Highway in the vicinity of the proposed
project. The delays will result from construction related vehicles
entering and exiting the project site, as well as motorists slowing to
observe construction activities.
Finding:
• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level
of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi-
fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures:
A -29
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 move-
ment in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen,
signage, etc.). This plan shall consider scheduling
operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours,
extending the construction period and reducing the
• number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously.
The plan will be reviewed and approved by the City
Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit.
102. The project sponsor shall ensure that all haul routes for
import or export materials shall be approved by the City
Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform with
Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Such routes shall be included in the above construction
traffic plan.
103. The project sponsor shall provide advance written notice
of temporary traffic disruptions to affected areas,
businesses 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.
C. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
Listed below are the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided
if the project is implemented. These effects have been reduced to the extent
feasible through the requirements and mitigation measures described below.
The remaining unavoidable significant effects have been determined to be
acceptable when balanced against the economic, social, or other factors set
forth in the attached Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B).
Land Use
Significant Effect:
The project will result in a significant and unavoidable land use
• impact on residential units located directly adjacent to the
western buildings of the upper campus. Although project
setback limits are more stringent than City code, the placement
of Hospital buildings closer to residential units located to the
west of the upper campus is a significant impact when consid-
ered in combination with other impacts such as shade and
shadow and noise impacts at this location.
A -30
Findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
• The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue
of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and
the following mitigation measures:
23. The project sponsor shall construct, if feasible and by
mutual agreement, and maintain a fence along the
common property line west of the Upper Campus. The
proposed design of the fence shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineering Department.
120. Within one year from the date of final approval of the
Planned Community District Regulations and Develop-
ment 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 doc area.
The design process for the Critical Care Surgery Addi-
tion 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 New-
port Beach Municipal Code.
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.
Transportation and Circulation
Significant Effect:
Increased development on the Upper Campus will increase use
of the service roads on both the Upper and Lower Campuses,
A -31
and in turn contribute to noise and land use impacts to adjacent
residential land uses.
Findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
• Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue
of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and
the following mitigation measures:
31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any of the pro-
posed Master Plan facilities, the project sponsor shall
implement a pilot 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 emer-
gency 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 that time to reduce service road impacts
to the adjacent residential units.
Air Ouality
Significant Effect:
The project will result in motor vehicle and stationary source
pollutant emissions.
Findings:
• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
A -32
Other changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies, and not solely the City of
Newport Beach. Such changes have been adopted by other
agencies or can and should be adopted by such agencies.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue
. of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and
the following mitigation measures:
35. As each phase of the Master Plan is constructed, the
project sponsor shall provide each new employee a
packet outlining the available ridesharing services and
programs and the number of the Transportation Coor-
dinator. All new employees shall be included in the
yearly update of the trip reduction plan for Hoag
Hospital, as required by Regulation XV.
36. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits for
each phase of development, the project sponsor shall
provide evidence for verification by the Planning Depart-
ment 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 that phase. If the new emissions, when
added to existing project emissions could result in
impacts not previously considered or significantly change
the land use impact, appropriate CEQA documentation
shall be prepared prior to issuance of any permits for
that phase of development. Each subsequent air quality
analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the
SCAQMD.
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 Depart-
ment that energy efficient lighting has been incorporated
into the project design.
38. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits for
each phase of Master Plan development, the project
sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorpo-
rate 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:
1) A minimum of five percent of the provided parking
at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These
parking places shall be located near the employee en-
trance or at other preferential locations.
2) A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employers
shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided
at such time as demand warrants.
A -33
3) A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be
provided.
4) Information of transportation alternatives shall be
provided to all employees.
5) A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated
in the parking area.
• 6) The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate
provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles.
7) Bus stop improvements shall be required for devel-
opments located along arterials where public transit
exists or is anticipated to exist within five years.
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.
121. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each individual
phase of development (i.e., I, II or III) the project
sponsor shall conduct a CO hot spot analysis for the
subject phase of development. This analysis shall utilize
the EMFAC7EP emission factor program for the build
out year of the subject phase of development, and the
CALINE4 CO hot spot model or the model recommend-
ed 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 build out CO
analysis.
Although the incremental increase in adverse air quality effects
as a direct result of the project is considered minor, it is viewed
as a cumulative significant impact within the context of on -going
regional growth. This unavoidable significant effect is consid-
ered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Other public agencies with jurisdiction to effect regional
solutions to cumulative impacts identified in the Final EIR
include the surrounding local cities, the County of Orange, the
Southern California Association of Governments, the California
Air Resources Board and the Southern California Air Quality
Management District.
Significant Effect:
Build out of the Master Plan represents an insignificant (2.2
dBA) contribution to noise levels in the surrounding project
vicinity.
A -34
Findings:
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Other changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies, and not solely the City of
Newport Beach. Such changes have been adopted by other
agencies or can and should be adopted by such agencies.
• Facts in Support of Finding:
Although the incremental increase in adverse noise effects as a
direct result of the project is considered minor, it is viewed as
a cumulative significant impact within the context of on -going
regional growth. This unavoidable significant effect is consid-
ered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Other public agencies with jurisdiction to effect regional
solutions to cumulative impacts identified in the Final EIR
include the surrounding local cities, the County of Orange and
the State Department of Transportation.
Significant Effect:
Population growth in the Hoag Hospital service area may
increase the frequency at which emergency vehicles deliver
patients to the Hoag Hospital Emergency Room.
Findings:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue
of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and
the following mitigation measure:
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 adja-
cent residents. Hoag Hospital will provide the City with
a list of all emergency vehicle companies that deliver
patients to Hoag Hospital.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Although the incremental air pollutant emission increase as a
• direct result of the project is considered minor, it is viewed as
a cumulative significant impact within the context of on -going
regional growth. This unavoidable significant effect is consid-
ered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
A -35
Visual /Aesthetics
Significant Effect:
Master Plan development will result in increased shade and
shadow impacts to residential land uses located to the west of
the upper campus.
Finding:
• Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The impact is insignificant, however, the impact identified in
the EIR contributes to a significant unavoidable land use
impact.
Although the incremental shade and shadow increase as a
direct result of the project is considered minor, it is viewed as
a cumulative significant impact within the context of the overall
hospital project. This unavoidable significant effect is consid-
ered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Construction Activities
Significant Effect:
Air pollutants will be emitted by construction vehicles, and dust
will be generated during grading and site preparation.
Findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Other changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies, and not solely the City of
Newport Beach. Such changes have been adopted by other
agencies or can and should be adopted by such agencies.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue
of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and
the following mitigation measures:
105. The project sponsor shall ensure that all trucks used for
hauling material shall be covered to minimize material
loss during transit.
106. Project sponsor shall ensure that all project related
grading shall be performed in accordance with the City
of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance which contains
procedures and requirements relative to dust control,
erosion and siltation control, noise, and other grading
related activities.
107. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor
shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403
which will require watering during the morning and
evening prior to or after earth moving operations. To
further reduce dust generation, grading should not occur
when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (MPH), and
• soil binders on SCAQMD approved chemical stabilizers
should be spread on construction sites or unpaved areas.
Additional measures to control fugitive dust include
street sweeping of roads used by construction vehicles,
reduction of speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per
hours, suspension of operations during first and second
stage smog alerts, and wheel washing before construction
vehicles leave the site.
108. Prior to issuance of any grading and building permit, the
project sponsor shall submit a Trip Reduction Plan for
construction crew members. This plan shall identify
measures, such as ride- sharing and transit incentives, to
reduce vehicle miles traveled by construction crews. The
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic
Engineer.
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.
This unavoidable significant effect is considered acceptable
when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
Other public agencies with jurisdiction to effect regional
solutions to impacts identified in the Final EIR include the
surrounding local cities, the County of Orange, the Southern
California Association of Governments, the California Air
Resources Board and the Southern California Air Quality
Management District.
Significant Effect:
Construction noise will occur as a result of the development of
the proposed project. Construction noise can reach high levels
and represents a short -term impact on ambient noise levels.
• However, because construction of the project will occur over a
20 year period, this is considered to be a significant unavoidable
adverse project impact.
A -37
Findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi-
cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
• The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue
of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and
the following mitigation measures:
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.
112. The project sponsor shall ensure that construction
activities are conducted in accordance with Newport
Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of con-
struction 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, remodel-
ing, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or
any other related building activity, operate any tool,
equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud
noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal
sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any
Sunday or any holiday.
This unavoidable significant effect is considered acceptable
when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
IV. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Analysis
Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe "a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could
feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits
of the alternatives."
Six alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in Section 6 of the Final EIR.
These alternatives were developed with the intent of finding ways to avoid or reduce
the environmental effects of the proposed project while attaining the basic objectives
• of the project, even if those alternatives might impede the attainment of other project
objectives and might be more costly. The City Council has determined that these
alternatives are infeasible, in that they would not satisfy the basic project objectives
or they would not substantially reduce the environmental effects as compared to the
proposed project, with exception of the no development alternative. A summary of
the alternatives considered, along with an explanation of why each alternative was
rejected is presented below. The Project Objectives are presented in Section II.A.,
above.
A -38
Throughout the public hearings, several alternative plans where presented to both
the Planning Commission and the City Council. While certain specifics of the
alternative plans were different, each was based on the concept of a density shift of
development from the lower to the upper campus. From an environmental basis, all
these alternative presented substantially the same environmental consequences as the
Villa Balboa Alternative described in the EIR. The variety of density shift
alternative plans do vary in the technical feasibility of the proposals.
1. No Project/Development According to Existing Entitlements
• The No Project alternative would allow for construction of additional hospital
facilities in accordance with the 1979 Master Plan. The 1979 Master Plan did
not address development on the lower campus because Hoag Hospital did not
own that site at that time. As a result, development on the lower campus
would be allowed subject to the provisions of the Newport Beach General
Plan and the approval of a Use Permit in each case.
The No Project alternative would result in impacts similar to or greater than
the proposed project, in that general plan level of entitlement would progress
on a case by case basis. Impacts related to the cumulative development could
be greater since comprehensive site and environmental analysis would not
occur. This alternative is not considered environmentally superior.
2. No Development Alternative
This alternative would preserve the remaining undeveloped land on the lower
campus as open space, and no new construction would occur on the upper
campus. This alternative would avoid all of the impacts associated with all of
the building alternatives. The linear and consolidated view park would also
not be constructed.
While considered to be environmentally superior, this alternative is rejected
due to the fact that none of the project objectives would be accomplished
without the further expansion of Hoag Hospital.
3. Decreased Density Alternative
This alternative provides for development according to the Master Plan on the
Upper Campus, and a decreased allowable Floor Area Ratio of 0.5 on the
lower campus. Under this alternative, development of the entire lower
campus would occur. Therefore, the resulting impacts to landform. public
health, cultural resources and hydrology would occur. This alternative could
decrease the visual impacts of the project from the area surrounding the
existing cancer center.
Assuming the Hospital project represents a plan to meet demand for health
care service in the area, a decrease in the allowable development may result
in certain facilities in satellite locations. This could result in increases in
traffic, air, quality and noise impacts due to increases in vehicular trips and
miles travelled. The impacts of this alternative are considered to be
equivalent to the proposed project, while not fully meeting the objectives of
Hoag Hospital.
• 4. Design Alternatives
The design alternatives both have the goal of avoiding the on site wetland
area. One design would allow the planned amount of development on the
upper and lower campuses, but would intensify structures on the lower campus
into mid and /or high rise structures. The other design would shift a portion
of the lower campus development to the upper campus.
WE
The intensification would create unavoidable adverse impacts to public views.
The impacts would be engendered to preserve on site a wetland which can be
mitigated to a level of insignificant impact through replacement in a more
biologically productive area. It is, therefore, not environmentally superior.
The density shift alternative is similar in nature to the Villa Balboa Alterna-
tives and the various density shift alternatives discussed through the course of
the public hearings. Mitigable impacts will be reduced with the lowered
intensity on the lower campus; unmitigable impacts associated with the
• development on the upper campus will be increased as a result of intensified
upper campus development. It is, therefore, not environmentally superior.
5. Villa Balboa Alternatives
The Villa Balboa Alternatives, the Friends of Cat -tail Cove Alternative and
the density shift alternative described above are all similar from an environ-
mental standpoint. Fundamental to the finding that these alternatives are not
environmentally superior is the fact that significant and unavoidable land use
impacts are identified for the upper campus development. These impacts are
existing and future noise, light and glare, shade and shadow, and visu-
al /aesthetics problems along the service access road. Intensification of the
upper campus will increase these impacts. Since impacts associated with
development of the lower campus can be mitigated to a level of insignificance,
these various density shift alternative cannot be considered to be
environmentally superior.
6. Alternative Site Locations
The potential for alternative project locations was examined in order to
reduce or alleviate the potential environmental effects on environmental re-
sources. Two sites were evaluated: San Diego Creek South and Mesa Verde
Loop. This alternative site analysis was conducted to explore the way to
alleviate the projects significant and unavoidable environmental effects.
The Mesa Verde loop site is rejected as a project alternative site since it is
not large enough to accommodate sufficient development to reduce the
project impacts below a level of significance. The San Diego Creek site is of
sufficient size to eliminate the significant impacts associated with the proposed
project. However, the project specific impacts associated with development
on this off -site location and the fact that this site is currently being considered
for a 300 unit residential development removes this site from further
consideration.
In the consideration of the project and the alternatives to the project, the City
Council has incorporated many changes to the development standards in order to
reduce the significant effects of the proposed project. These changes include
increased setbacks on West Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard and the westerly side
of the upper campus; and lowered height limits on the lower campus.
Conclusion
On the basis of the information presented above, the City Council has determined
. that the project as modified will accomplish the project objectives while substantially
reducing the environmental impacts of the project. The Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Exhibit 2) presents the reasons why the City Council has determined
that the proposed project should be approved, even though it will contribute to
significant project related and cumulative effects that cannot be fully mitigated.
PLT:.. \cc \amd \EIR142.fnd
A -40
1*4:1 l300
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency to balance the benefits
of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether
to approve the project. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the unavoidable
risks of the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Project are acceptable and are clearly outweighed
by specific social and other benefits of the project. The benefits of the proposed project
which outweigh the unavoidable environmental risks are the following:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Land Use Plan of
•
the Local Coastal Program.
2. The proposed project will insure no development occurs on the bluff top adjacent to
the Villa Balboa Condominiums and will preserve, and in certain cases improve,
ocean and bay views from adjoining residential properties.
3. The proposed project will contribute more than $1 million dollars towards local and
regional circulation improvements pursuant to the City's Fair Share Traffic
Contribution Ordinance, and additional improvements that may be required pursuant
to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
4. The project will significantly increase Hoag Hospital's ability to provide state- of -the-
art medical and health care services to residents of Newport Beach and others within
their service area.
5. The proposed project will allow Hoag to provide state -of -the -art medical care in a
cost efficient manner by allowing the construction of facilities quickly and without
lengthy and costly delays in the planning process.
6. The proposed project will minimize the suffering of persons in need of medical care,
including persons with serious or life - threatening illnesses, by minimizing travel time
for Newport Beach residents and minimizing the distance patients have to walk
within the medical campus to receive treatment and care.
7. The project proponent will construct, install or assist in the construction or
installation of improvements that will improve the appearance of the area and /or
benefit the public, including:
(a) The dedication and grading of a .52 acre linear view park;
(b) Dedication and grading of a .28 acre consolidated view park;
(c) The installation of a sidewalk and landscaping in the CalTrans right -of -way
along the east side of Newport Boulevard, southerly of Hospital Road;
(d) Installation of perimeter landscaping along the Pacific Coast Highway
Frontage;
(e) A binding commitment that there will be no increase in permitted floor area
or the height of structures on the property for a period of 25 years;
(f) An overall reduction in the amount of methane gas, hydrogen sulfide gas, and
other gases, pursuant to the installation of a comprehensive gas collection,
scrubbing and flaring system;
(g) The conservation of energy through the use of collected gases for energy;
(h) A contribution to the delivery of recycled /reclaimed water to the West
Newport Beach area;
(i) The completion of public improvements in Semeniuk Slough if a project
acceptable to the resource agencies can be identified by the City.
PLT: ... \ED \EIR \EIR142.0 RC