RES-10358 Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report for Children's Hospital of Orange County Master Plan ProjectRESOLUTION NO. 10358
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY
OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 1805-08), STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008081118, INCLUDING
ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT,
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,
AND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF
ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN PROJECT.
APPLICANT: CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF ORANGE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the City Council has authority per City of Orange Local CEQA
Guidelines to certify Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Environmental Review No.
1805-08), State Clearinghouse Number(SCH#) 200808 1 1 1 8, referred herein as the Final EIR
SCH#200808ll 18); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a project in accardance with requirements
of the Municipal Code of the City of Orange, known as the Children's Hospital of Orange
County (CHOC) Master Plan project which consists of Zone Change No. 1252-08, Major
Site Plan Review No. 0504-07, Conditional Use Permit No. 2726-08, Design Review
Committee No. 4209-07, Tentative Parcel Map No. 0024-08 (TPM 2008-162), and
Development Agreement No. 5390, all of which are collectively referred to herein as the
Project; and
WHEREAS, an initial study was prepared for the Project and the City determined
that an EIR was required to address its potential significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Project have been analyzed through
Final EIR (SCH#2008081118), which is comprised of the Draft EIR for the Project, dated
December 10, 2008, including technical appendices contained in Volume 1 and 2 dated
December 10, 2008, verbatim copies of the comments and recommendations received on the
Draft EIR for the Project, the list of persons, organizations and public agencies that
commented on the Draft EIR for the Project, the responses of the City to significant
environmental points raised in the review and consultation process for the Draft EIR for the
Project, and revisions to the Draft EIR for the Project pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and the
State CEQA Guidelines, a full, true and correct copy of which is on file with the City Clerk
of the City of Orange; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR for the Project was circulated for public review and
comment for at least 45 days as required by CEQA, with the comment period beginning
December 19, 2008 and ending February 2, 2009; and
WHEREAS, responses to the comments received on the Draft EIR for the Project
incorporated into the Final EIR (SCH# 200808 1 1 1 8) have been prepared to the satisfaction
of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed Final EIR(SCH#200808 1 1 1 8);
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing on
March 2, 2009 for the purpose of considering Final EIR (SCH# 2008081118) and the Project;
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission considered
all factors relating to the Project, including potential environmental impacts addressed in the
Final EIR(SCH# 2008081118) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC 06-09,
recommending that the City Council certify and adopt the Final EIR (SCH# 20080811118)
for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed Final EIR (SCH# 2008081118); and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing on March 24,
2009 for the purpose of considering Final EIR(SCH# 2008081118) and the Project; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the Project, including potential environmental impacts addressed in the Final EIR
SCH# 2008081118) for the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council certifies and
adopts the Final EIR (SCH# 2008081118) for the Project, based on the following findings
and declarations:
1. That the Final EIR (SCH# 2008081118) prepared for the Project has been
co npleted in compliance with CEQA, the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and
State CEQA Guidelines; and
2. That the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered the information
contained in Final EIR(SCH# 2008081118)prior to acting upon the Project; and
3. That the Final EIR (SCH# 2008081118) reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the City of Orange; and
2
4. That based on the information contained in Final EIR (SCH# 2008081 ll8), the
City Council finds that there has been an adequate assessment of the potentially
significant environmental impacts of the Project and its required discretionary
permits; and
5. That the City Council adopt the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, attached hereto as Attachment A, and incorporated by this
reference, which documents and supports the conclusion that even with the
implementation of all feasible mitigation measures recommended in Final EIR
SCH# 2008081118), it is infeasible to reduce the Project's impacts on air quality,
noise, and traffic and transportation to a level of insignificance, and which further
sets forth the overriding benefits of the Project, which outweigh the unavoidable
environmental impacts of the Project; and
6. That the City Council of the City of Orange find that the Project's benefits
outweigh the adverse impacts; and
7. That the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
MMRP), attached hereto as Attachment B, and incorporated by this reference,
as the mitigation monitoring program for the Project; and
8. That based on all of the forgoing, that the City Council certifies and adopts Final
EIR(SCH# 200808 1 1 1 8), for the Project.
ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 2009
aroly . ave he, Mayor, Ci o range
ATTEST:
iVIar;E. u y, City Cl , City o nge
3
I, MARY E. MURPHY, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of
the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of March, 2009, by the
following vote:
AYES: COiJNCILMEMBERS: Smith, Murphy, Cavecche, Dumitru
NOES: COLTNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COLTNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN (RECUSED): COLJNCILMEMBERS: Bilodeau
Mary E y, City Clerk, C Orange
4
RESOLUTION N0. 10358
ATTACHMENT A
FINDING OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2008081118)
Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Consideration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Pa e
I.INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1
A. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations....................1
B. Record of Proceedings.................................................................................3
C. Custodian and Location of Records.............................................................4
II. PROJECT SLTIVIMARY...........................................................................................4
A. Project Location...........................................................................................4
B. Project Description.......................................................................................4
C. Discretionary Actions..................................................................................5
D. Use of EIR....................................................................................................6
E. Statement of Objectives...............................................................................6
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION......................7
IV. GENERAL FINDINGS...........................................................................................8
V. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ..................................................................................10
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS..................................................................10
A. Aesthetics.........................:.........................................................................10
B. Air Quality.................................................................................................12
C. Biological Resources .................................................................................23
D. Geology and Soils......................................................................................24
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................27
F. Hydrology and Water Quality..............................:.....................................30
G. Land Use and Planning..............................................................................36
H. Noise..........................................................................................................40
I.Population and Housing.............................................................................47
J.Public Services...........................................................................................48
K. Transportation and Traffic.........................................................................51
L. Utilities and Service Systems.....................................................................61
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES .....................................................69
A. Alternatives Analyzed by Final EIR..........................................................70
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALI,'
AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT..........................................................................75
IX. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS...........................77
Y
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Section Pa e
X. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES..................:......................................................78
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS....................................79
XII. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................83
ii
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 2100, et
seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code Regulations §§ 15000,
et seq.) promulgated thereunder, require that the environmental impacts of a project be
examined before a project is approved. Specifically, regarding findings, Guidelines
Section 15091 provides:
a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental
effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings
for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
l.Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental affect as identified in the final EIR.
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.
3.Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly
trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the final EIR.
b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by
substantial evidence in the record.
c) The finding in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency
making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with
identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection
a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation
measures and project alternatives.
d) When making the findings required in subsection (a)(1), the
agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes
which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval Yo
avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures
must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other
measures.
1
e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the
documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon
which its decision is based.
A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute
for the findings required by this section.
The "changes or alterations" referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) above, that are required
in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental
effects of the project, may include a wide variety of ineasures or actions as set forth in
Guidelines Section 15370, including:
a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
parts of an action.
b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
action and its implementation.
c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
impacted environment.
d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
Regarding a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Guidelines Section 15093 provides:
a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as
applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks then determining
whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be
considered"acceptable."
b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the
occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not
avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific
reasons to support its action based on the fmal EIR and/or other information in the
record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by
substantial evidence in the record.
2
c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the
statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be
mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for,
and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report No.
1805-08 for the Children's Hospital of Orange County (CHOC) Master Plan, State
Clearinghouse No. 2008081118 (Final EIR), as well as all other information in the record
of proceedings on this matter,the following Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Orange (City) in its capacity
as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for current
and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible
agencies for the implementation of the CHOC Master Plan Project.
B. Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed
project consists of the following documents arid other evidence, at a minimum:
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in
conjunction with the proposed project;
The Final EIR for the proposed project;
The Draft EIR and Technical Appendices for the proposed project;
All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the
public review comment period on the Draft EIR;
All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public
during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR;
All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for
the proposed project at which such testimony was taken;
The Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program(MMRP);
The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to
Comments in the Final EIR;
Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state
and local laws and regulations;
Any documents expressly cited in these Findings; and
3
Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).
C. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the
City's actions related to the Project are located at the City of Orange, 300 East Chapman
Avenue, Orange, CA 92866. The City is the custodian of the administrative record for
the Project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are
and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the
City of Orange, Community Development Department, 300 East Chapman Avenue,
Orange, CA 92866. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources
Code § 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines § 15091(e).
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Location
The project site for the proposed project is located in the City of Orange in north-central
Orange County. The approximately 12.0-acre project site is generally located to the
north of State Route 22 (SR-22), east of Main Street, and south and west of Pepper Street
and St. Joseph Hospital. The project site is bisected by La Veta Avenue which runs in an
east-west direction. Regional access to the project site is provided via SR-22, the Santa
Ana Freeway (Interstate 5 or I-5), and the Orange Freeway (State Route 57 or SR-57).
B. Project Description
The proposed project provides for the multi-phased upgrade of the CHOC Hospital
campus which would allow for the continued use of the existing Hospital and supporting
facilities during the implementation of the CHOC Master Plan through the year 2020.
The development program for the proposed project would be accomplished in three
phases (2012, 2015, and 2020) and result in demolition activities, new construction, and
the remodeling of buildings on the project site. All of the external physical changes to
the existing conditions on the project site would occur during Phase 1 (by Year 2012) of
the proposed project.
The demolition activities would remove the Orange Medical Building (1201 La Veta
Avenue), the adjacent two-level parking structure, the northern portion of the CHOC
pedestrian bridge, and the entry plaza to the hospital. The new construction would result
in the development of the CHOC South Tower (which is an expansion of the CHOC
North Tower), access improvements, landscaping, and other site improvements. To
accommodate the new building, portions of the existing CHOC North Tower would be
remodeled. The following provides the overall development phasing of the CHOC South
Tower.
4
At the completion of Phase 1, combining the existing and the newly constructed beds,
which would include six beds added to the CHOC North Tower in 2009 and the
addition of 88 beds in the new CHOC South Tower, the overall number of beds
would tota1326.
In Phase 2, approximately 54,283 gross square feet of floor area in the CHOC South
Tower, which was constructed at shell space in Phase 1, would be finished out. At
the completion of Phase 2, combining the existing and newly constructed beds, which
would include the removal of 34 beds from the CHOC North Tower and the addition
of 60 beds in the new CHOC South Tower, the overall number of beds would total
352.
In Phase 3, approximately 38,819 gross square feet of floor area, which is the
remainder of the CHOC South Tower constructed as shall space in Phase 1, would be
finished out. Combining the existing and the newly constructed beds, which would
include the addition of 52 beds in the CHOC South Tower, the overall number of
beds would tota1404.
During Phase 1 of the proposed project, approximately 40 percent (85,600 square feet) of
the CHOC Commerce Tower (505 S. Main Street) would be converted from general
office to medical office space. In addition, the proposed project includes the
development of a medical office building consisting of approximately 175,000 square
feet and associated parking on the southwestern portion of the project site. The general
building location, maximum squaxe feet, m imum number of building stories, and
parking requirements for this building are the only elements of this portion of the
proposed project that have been defined at this time.
C. Discretionary Actions
Project implementation for the proposed project, based on applications currently pending
before the City, includes the following discretionary actions by the City:
1) Certification of the Final EIR.
2) Approval of the Zone Change.
3) Approval of the Tentative and Final Parcel Map and all permits necessary to
implement them, including demolition and grading permits.
4) Approval of a development agreement.
5) Approval of the overall final site design through the Major Site Plan Review
process.
6) Design review board approval of the landscape concept plan and architecture.
7) Approval of Conditional Use Permit.
8) Approval of encroachment permits in the public right-of-way.
5
In addition, the following county, local agency, state or federal permits or entitlements
will be requested under this Final EIR for the CHOC Master Plan Project:
1) Building permits (Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development).
2) Licensing of hospital beds (California State Department of Health Services).
3) Any other permits or approvals that may be necessary to implement the
project or approved mitigation measures or conditions of approval.
D. Use of EIR
The Final EIR serves as the Final EIR for the proposed project. The Final EIR has been
prepared by the City to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The
EIR was prepared as a Project EIR, as defined in Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines,
for the project compon.ents that are specific to the portion of the CHOC Master Plan that
would result in the development of the CHOC South Tower, the interior remodel of
portions of the CHOC North Tower and portions of the CHOC Commerce Tower, and
the implementation of the landscape concept plan.
For the remainder of the CHOC Master Plan, consisting of the medical office building
and parking facilities on the southwestern portion of the project site, the EIR serves as a
Program EIR as defined by Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. The program level
analysis is based on general building location, m imum square feet, maximum number
of building stories, and parking requirements. The evaluation of the medical office
building at a program level of analysis allows the EIR to be utilized to determine the
extent of any additional environmental documentation that would be prepared with
subsequent activities related to this aspect of the proposed project.
E. Statement of Objectives
As described in Section 3.0 of the Final EIR, CHOC's mission is "To nurture, advance
and protect the health and well being of children." CHOC's strategic goals to implement
its mission guide the physical planning and development of the proposed project on the
project site. In support of these strategic goals, the Project Applicant's objectives for the
proposed project consist of the following:
1. Establish a physical design that allows for the development of a hospital that
provides "state of the art" facilities and services dedicated exclusively to the care
of children.
2. Provide for the development and redevelopment of facilities at the CHOC
Hospital campus that address CHOC's mission and strategic goals, including the
provision of the following services:
1Vledical and surgical services for an estimated 11,000 children per year from
Orange County and the surrounding communities that require hospitalization;
6
State of the art" diagnostic imaging services for children, including
Computerized Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging capabilities;
Pediatric emergency services for over 60,000 children per year;
Medical laboratory services for children;
Cutting edge"research in pediatric disease; and
Training for pediatric residents and fellows.
3. Provide for the continued utilization of existing facilities while a phased upgrade
of the existing CHOC Hospital and supporting facilities occur.
4. Enhance the visual aesthetics of the project frontages along Main Street, La Veta
Avenue, Pepper Street, and Providence Street with landscaping, lighting, and
signage.
5. Provide a high quality physical environment for patients, visitors, and staff
including adequate and safe circulation patterns and parking.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project and based on that Initial
Study, the City determined that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment and that an EIR should be prepared to analyze the potential impacts
associated with the approval and implementation of the proposed project.
In accordance with the Guidelines §15082, the City distributed the Notice of Preparation
NOP) and Initial Study for a 30-day public review period. The public review period was
initiated on September 2, 2008, held for 30 days as required by CEQA, and closed on
October 2, 2008. The NOP and Initial Study, the distribution list, any written comments
received, and responses to those comments are contained in Appendix A-1 of the EIR.
Two public scoping meetings, one for agencies and the other for the general public, were
held on September 18, 2008 by the City staff to discuss the environmental review process
for the proposed project, the characteristics of the proposed project, and the
environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR based on the conclusion of the
NOP and Initial Study distributed by the City. As required by the City's locally adopted
CEQA Guidelines, notification of the scoping meetings, including the timeframes of the
NOP, were directly mailed on August 28, 2008 to properly owners and tenants within a
300-foot radius of the project boundary. On this same date, notification was also
published in the Orange City News, and the project site was posted in various locations.
The Notice of Public Scoping Meeting indicated the date, location, and times of the
meetings, described the proposed project, and indicated the locations where the NOP and
Initial Study were available for public review. The NOP and Initial Study were also
7
posted on the City's web site. The Notice of Public Scoping Meeting, the notice in the
newspaper, and the sign-in list from the public scoping meetings are contained in
Appendix A-1, of the EIR.
The Draft EIR for the proposed project was then prepared and circulated for review and
comment by the public, agencies and organizations for a 45-day public review period that
began on December 19, 2008 and concluded on February 2, 2009. A Notice of
Completion of the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse and the Draft EIR was
circulated to State agencies for review through the State Clearinghouse, Office of
Planning and Research (SCH No. 2008081118). A Notice of Availability and Notice of
Completion (NOA/NOC) of the Draft EIR for review was mailed to property owners,
tenants, and occupants in the vicinity of the project site. The NOA/NOC was also filed
with the County Clerk and posted on the project site. During the public review period,
five comment letters on the Draft EIR were received.
On February 19, 2009, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR and revisions to the
Draft EIR were published and made available on the City's website.
Draft EIR Public Hearings/Meetin
The Planning Commission and the City Council each held public hearings on the EIR.
The City Council has taken into consideration all of the public comments from these
multiple hearings (as well as written comments and the evidence in the administrative
record) in making these Findings.
IV. GENERAL FINDINGS
The City hereby finds as follows:
The City is the "Lead Agency" for the proposed project evaluated in the Final
EIR;
The Draft EIR and Final EIR were prepared in compliance with CEQA and the
Guidelines;
The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and the Final
EIR, and these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City;
A MMRP has been prepared for the proposed project, which the City has adopted
or made a condition of approval of the proposed project. That MMRP is
incorporated herein by reference and is considered part of the record of
proceedings for the proposed proj ect;
The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the
implementation of mitigation. The City will serve as the MMRP Coordinator;
In determining whether the proposed project has a significant impact on the
environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA,
the City has complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2;
The impacts of the proposed project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at
the time of certification of the Final EIR;
The City reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR and Final EIR and the
responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the
responses to such comments add significant new information regarding
environmental impacts to the Draft EIR or Final EIR. The City has based its
actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to
the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts
identified and analyzed in the Final EIR;
The responses to the comments on the Draft EIR, which are contained in the Final
EIR, clarify and amplify the analysis in the Draft EIR;
Having reviewed the information contained in the Draft EIR and Final EIR and
the record of proceedings, as well as the requirements of CEQA and the
Guidelines regarding recirculation of Draft EIRs, and having analyzed the
changes in the Draft EIR which have occurred since the close of its public review
period, the City finds that there is no new significant information in the Final EIR
and finds that recirculation is not required.;
The use of volume to capacity ("V/C") and intersection capacity utilization
ICU") methodologies in the traffic studies for the proposed project was proper,
appropriate, and required by the City's General Plan. The Growth Management
Element of the City's General Plan specifies that levels of service shall be
measured according to the methodology established by the Local Transportation
Authority, which is the Orange County Transportation Authority ("OCTA"),
OCTA has utilized the V/C and ICU methodologies for conducting traffic impact
studies associated with the MPAH. The V/C and ICU methodologies are
accepted by transportation professionals to be an accurate method for assessing
roadway impacts. The City of Orange has determined to follow this group of
experts in mandating the use of the V/C and ICU methodologies for this project,
as well as others in the City.
The City has made no decisions that constitute an irretrievable commitment of
resources toward the proposed project prior to certification of the Final EIR, nor
9
has the City previously committed to a definite course of action with respect to
the proposed project;
Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the Final EIR are and
have been available upon request at all times at the offices of the City, custodian
of record for such documents or other materials; and
Having received, reviewed, and considered all information and documents in the
record, the City hereby conditions the proposed project and finds as stated in these
Findings.
V. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The Final EIR concludes that impacts of the proposed project with respect to the
following resources either will not be significant or will be mitigated to below a level of
significance by existing regulations/standard conditions, project design features, and/or
mitigation measures that will be made conditions of project approval: aesthetics, air
quality, biological resources, geology and. soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing,
public resources, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Certain
impacts related to air quality (consistency with Air Quality Management Plan, local
PM10 emissions during excavation and grading phase of construction activities, regional
NOX and CO emissions from ongoing operations of the proposed project, and
incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emission to global climate change), noise
construction activities in combination with construction-related traffic and demolition
activities), and transportation and traffic (incremental contribution to one study area
intersection in General Plan [2030] with Project Conditions and incremental contribution
to four study area intersections for the Cumulative Conditions using California
Department of Transportation methodology) will remain significant after mitigation.
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS
A. Aesthetics
l. Environmental Impact: Substantiall Degrade the Existing Visual
Character or Qualitv of the Site and Its Surroundin s. As discussed in Section 4.1 of the
EIR, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of
the project site and the surrounding area. No significant impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect
regarding changes to the visual character of the project site and the surrounding area and
no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
1Q
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Aesthetics in Section 4.1, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that although the development of the proposed project would alter the visual quality of
the project site, the proposed development and redevelopment on the project site along
with the implementation of the landscape concept design would not substantially degrade
the existing character of the project site and the surrounding area. The proposed project
is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element goals and
policies. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.1.
2.Environmental Impacts: Create New Sources of Substantial Li ng t and
Glare. As discussed in Section 4.1 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less
than significant impact from the creation of additional sources of light and glare and the
casting of shade and shadows with the implementation of the mitigation required in EIR
No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
regarding the creation of additional sources of light and glare to below a level of
significance. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1), Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Aesthetics in Section 4.1, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the development of the proposed project would create additional sources of light and
glare that would contribute to the nighttime lighting in the project vicinity. The EIR
determined that, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1 (which
requires review and approval of a photometric analysis consistent with the City of Orange
Municipal Code Ordinance 17.12.030 prior to issuance of any building permit), this
impact would be less than significant. The EIR determined that no significant impact due
to shade and shadows cast by the CHOC South Tower and the proposed medical office
building would be anticipated.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1 is incorporated herein by
reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.1.
3.Environmental Impacts: Cumulative Effects. As discussed in Section
4.1 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact
related to aesthetics with the implementation of the mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-
08.
11
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
regarding the creation of additional sources of light and glare to below a level of
significance. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1), Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Aesthetics in Section 4.1, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the development associated with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
related projects would contribute to a cumulative effect related to aesthetics as a result in
the changes to the physical attributes and light and glare in the general area surrounding
the project site. Individually, each of the related projects would be subject to review by
the respective jurisdictions and would be required to comply with the respective
jurisdictions' requirements regarding architectural design, landscaping, and lighting.
Upon completion of the City's review process and the implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM 4.1-1 (which requires review and approval of a photometric analysis
consistent with the City of Orange Municipal Code Ordinance 17.12.030 prior to issuance
of building permits), the potential impacts of the proposed project related to aesthetics
would be less than significant or reduced to a less than significant level. The EIR
deternuned that upon compliance with the regulatory requirements and the mitigation
measure, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to
aesthetics.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1 is incorporated herein.by
reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.1.
B. Air Quality
1. Environmental Impact: Conflict With or Obstruct Implementation of
the Applicable Air Quality Plan. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIR, the proposed
project would have a significant adverse impact regarding conflict with the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
despite the implementation of the mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which lessens the significant environmental effects regarding air quality
emissions during construction activities and ongoing operation of the proposed project.
These changes or alterations, however, will not reduce this impact to below a level of
significance, and that specific economic, social, technological or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IX
of these findings. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the CiYy
12
has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3), Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the proposed project would result in a conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP as a result
of the short-term significant impact to local air quality from PM10 emissions during the
excavation and grading phase of the construction activities and a long-term significant
impact to regional air quality from NOX and CO emissions. The EIR determined that,
with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1, MM 4.2-2, MM 4.2-3, MM 4.2-
4, and MM 4.2-5 (which reduce PM10 emissions during excavation and grading and NOX
and CO emissions during ongoing operations), this impact would remain a significant
unavoidable adverse impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1, MM 4.2-2, MM 4.2-3,
MM 4.2-4, and MM 4.2-5 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth
and shall be a condition of project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
2.Environmental Impact: Violate any Air Quality Standard or Contribute
Substantially to an Existin o r Projected Air Qualitv Violation. As discussed in Section
4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a significant short-term adverse impact
to local air quality created by PM10 emissions during excavation and grading activities
despite the implementation of the mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which lessens the significant environmental effects regarding air quality
emissions during excavation and grading activities. These changes or alterations,
however, will not reduce this impact to below a level of significance, and that specific
economic, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IX of these findings. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that
this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Public Resources
Code § 21081(a)(3), Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the excavation and grading phase of the construction activities for the proposed
project would result in a short-term significant impact to local air quality due to PM10
emissions. The EIR determined that, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM
4.2-1 (which reduces PM10 emissions), this impact would remain a significant
unavoidable adverse impact.
13
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1 is incorporated herein by
reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
3.Environmental Impact: Violate an r Qualitv Standard or Contribute
Substantially to an Existin o r Projected Air Qualitv Violation. As discussed in Section
4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to significant
short-term toxic air contaminants during construction activities. No significant impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to the exposure of sensitive receptors to significant short-term toxic air contaminants
during construction activities and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code §
21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR deternuned
that given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment and the
short-term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long-term
i.e., 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminants emissions and corresponding
individual cancer risk. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to
significant short-term toxic air contaminants during construction activities. No
significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
4.Environmental Impact: Violate any Air Quality Standard or Contribute
Substantiallv to an Existin ogrProjectedAirQualitvViolation. As discussed in Section
4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a short-term less than significant impact
to regional air quality during demolition activities and no mitigation is required.
Findings: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect to
regional air quality during demolition activities and no mitigation is required. Public
Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the demolition phase for the proposed project would result in a short-term less than
significant impact to regional air quality and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
14
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
5. Environmental Impact: Violate an_y Air Qualitv Standard or Contribute
Substantially to an Existin o Projected Air Qualitv Violation. As discussed in Section
4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a short-term less than significant impact
to regional air quality during excavation and grading activities with implementation of
the mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
to regional air quality during grading and excavation activities to below a level of
significance. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1), Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the excavation and grading for the proposed project would have a significant short-
term impact to regional air quality due to NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. The EIR
determined, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-2 and MM 4.2-3
which reduces NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions), this impact would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-2 and MM 4.2-3 are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of .
project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
6. Environmental Impact: Violate any Air Quality Standard or Contribute
Substantially to an Existin or Projected Air Quality Violation. As discussed in Section
4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a short-term less than significant impact
to regional air quality during trenching activities and no mitigation is required.
Findings: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect to
regional air quality during trenching activities and no mitigation is required. Public
Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the trenching phase for the proposed project would result in a short-term less than
significant impact to regional air quality and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
15
7.Environmental Impact: Violate anv Air Quality Standard or Contribute
Substantiallv to an Existin oQrProjectedAirQualitvViolation. As discussed in Section
4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a short-term less than significant impact
to regional air quality during the building construction activities and no mitigation is
required.
Findings: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect to
regional air quality during building construction activities and no mitigation is required.
Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the building construction activities for the proposed project would result in a short-
term less than significant impact to regional air quality and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
8.Environmental Impact: Violate anv Air Ouality Standard or Contribute
Substantially to an Existin o r Proiected Air Qualitv Violation. As discussed in Section
4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a short-term less than significant impact
to regional air quality during the paving activities and no mitigation is required.
Findings: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect to
regional air quality during paving activities and no mitigation is required. Public
Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the paving activities for the proposed project would result in a short-term less than
significant impact to regional air quality and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
9.Environmental Impact: Violate anv Air Qualitv Standard or Contribute
Substantiallv to an Existin ogrProjectedAirQualitvViolation. As discussed in Section
4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact to regional
air quality due to ongoing operations despite the implementation of the mitigation
required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which lessens the significant environmental effects regarding regional
16
air quality due to the ongoing operation of the proposed project. These changes or
alterations, however, will not reduce this impact to below a level of significance, and
specific economic, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations
for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IX of these
findings. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3), Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the ongoing operation of the proposed project would result in a long-term significant
impact to regional air quality due to NOX and CO emissions. The EIR determined that,
with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-4 and MM 4.2-5 (which reduce
NOX and CO emissions),this impact would remain a significant unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-4 and MM 4.2-5 are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of
project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
10. Environmental Impact: Violate anv Air Qualitv Standard or Contribute
Substantiallv to an Existin ogrProjectedAirQualitvViolation. As discussed in Section
4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a long-term less than significant impact
to local air quality from vehicle emissions during ongoing operations and no mitigation is
required.
Findings: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect to local
air quality from vehicle emissions during ongoing operations and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the vehicle emissions from the ongoing operation of the proposed project would
result in a long-term less than significant impact to local air quality and no mitigation is
required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
11. Environmental Impact: Violate any Air Qualitv Standard or Contribute
Substantiallv to an Existin or Projected Air Qualitv Violation. As discussed in Section
4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to
17
long-term health risk from diesel emissions during ongoing operations and no mitigation
is required.
Findings: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to long-term health risk from diesel emissions during ongoing operations and no
mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that no significant long-term health risk is anticipated from project-related diesel
emissions with the ongoing operations of the proposed project. No significant impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
12. Environmental Impact: Violate any Air Qualitv Standard or Contribute
Substantially to an Existin o jected Air Quality Violation. As discussed in Section
4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant long-term impact
to local air quality during ongoing operations and no mitigation is required.
Findings: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect to long-
term local air quality during ongoing operations and no mitigation is required. Public
Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that no long-term significant impact to local air quality would occur during the ongoing
operation of the proposed project no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
13. Environmental Impacts: Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net
Increase of any Criteria Pollutant for which the Project Region is Categorized as Non-
Attainment Under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Qualitv Standard. As
discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would contribute to a less than
significant short-term cumulative impact to regional air quality due to excavation and
grading with implementation of the mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the short-term significant cumulative
18
environmental effects regarding regional air quality to below a level of significance.
Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1), Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the excavation and grading for the proposed project would contribute to a significant
short-term cumulative impact to regional air quality due to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.
The EIR determined that, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-2 and
MM 4.2-3 (which reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions), this impact would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-2 and MM 4.2-3 are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of
project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
14. Environmental Impacts: Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net
Increase of any Criteria Pollutant for which the Project Region is Cate orized as Non-
Attainment Under an A plicable Federal or State Ambient Air Qualitv Standard. As
discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project would contribute to a significant
long-term cumulative adverse impact to regional air quality due to ongoing operations
despite the implementation of the mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which lessens the long-term significant cumulative environmental
effects regarding regional air quality due to the ongoing operation of the proposed
project. These changes or alterations, however, will not reduce this impact to below a
level of significance, and specific economic, social, technological or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IX
of these findings. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City
has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3), Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the ongoing operation of the proposed project would contribute to a long-term
significant impact to regional air quality. The EIR determined that, with implementation
of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-4 and MM 4.2-5 (which reduce NOX and CO emissions),
this impact would remain a significant unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-4 and MM 4.2-5 are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of
project approval.
1
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
15. Environmental Impact: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial
Pollutant Concentrations. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project
would not expose sensitive receptors to significant short-term air contaminants during
construction activities. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to the exposure of sensitive receptors to significant short-term air contaminants during
construction activities and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081,
Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to significant short-term
air contaminants during construction activities. No significant impact would occur and
no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
16. Environmental Impact: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial
Pollutant Concentrations. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project
would have a less than significant impact related to significant long-term health risks due
to project-related diesel emissions during ongoing operations and no mitigation is
required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to significant long-term health risks due to project-related diesel emissions during
ongoing operations and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081,
Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that no significant long-term health risk is anticipated from project-related diesel
emissions with the ongoing operations of the proposed project. No significant impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
17. Environmental Impact: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial
Pollutant Concentrations. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project
20
would have a less than significant long-term impact to local air quality during ongoing
operations and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to local air quality during ongoing operations and no mitigation is required. Public
Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that no long-term significant impact to local air quality would occur during the ongoing
operation of the proposed project and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
18. Environmental Impact: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial
Pollutant Concentrations. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project
would have a less than significant short-term impact from construction-related
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from
construction-related GHG emissions and no mitigation is required. Public Resources
Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the greatest annual construction-related GHG emissions from the proposed project
would occur in 2012 and would create 1,973.08 metric tons of COZe emissions. This
would not exceed the City's proposed threshold of significance of 10,000 metric tons per
year of COZe emissions. Therefore, construction activities for the proposed project would
have a short-term less than significant impact and no mitigation would be required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
19. Environmental Impact: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial
Pollutant Concentrations. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIR, the proposed project
would have a significant adverse impact as the ongoing operation of the proposed project
would create a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions to global
climate change despite the implementation of mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which lessens the significant environmental effects regarding the
21
contribution of GHG emissions to global climate change. These changes or alterations,
however, will not reduce this impact to below a level of significance, and specific
economic, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IX of these findings. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that
this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Public Resources
Code § 21081(a)(3), Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).
Facts in 5upport of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that the proposed project would generate 20,257.46 metric tons of CO2e per year and
would represent 0.0042 percent of California emissions. A cumulative impact related to
global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the
ongoing operations of the proposed project would exceed the City's proposed threshold
of significance of 10,000 metric tons per year of CO2e. A 10,257.46 metric ton reduction
of CO2e emissions would be required to meet the City's proposed threshold. A reduction
of this magnitude would not possible while maintaining the proposed size and
functionality of the proposed project. Therefore, the ongoing operation of the proposed
project would create a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions to
global climate change and would be a significant impact. The EIR determined that, with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-4 and MM 4.2-5 (which reduce NOX and
CO emissions), this impact would remain a significant unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-4 and MM 4.2-5 are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of
project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
20. Environmental Impacts: Create Objectionable Odors Affectin
Substantial Number of People. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIR, the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact during construction activities and the
ongoing operation of the proposed project and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to odors during construction activities and the ongoing operation of the proposed project
and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding Air
Quality in Section 4.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being
utilized, a short-term less than significant impact related to odors would occur during
construction of the proposed project and no mitigation is required. The EIR determined
22
that to the north of La Veta Avenue, the proposed project would not change the location
where the solid waste is stored and due to the placement of the proposed solid waste
storage facilities, no substantial odor impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
In addition, the EIR determined that, to the south of La Veta Avenue, due to the distance
of the nearest sensitive receptors from the proposed medical office building and through
compliance with SCAQMD's Rule 402, no significant impact related to odors would
occur during ongoing operations of the proposed project and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.2; Technical Appendix B.
C. Biological Resources
1. Environmental Impact: Conflict with the Citv of Orange Tree
Preservation Ordinance. As discussed in Section 4.3 of the EIR, the proposed project
would not conflict with the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. No significant
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to a conflict with the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Biological Resources in Section 4.3.,which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR
determined that with the development of the proposed project there would be a net
increase of 14 trees on or adjacent to the project site from the existing condition. Based
on the City's practice of requiring a 1:1 replacement ratio and requirements for a tree
removal permit, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the City of
Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. No significant impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.3.
2. Environmental Impact: Cumulative Effect. As discussed in Section 4.3
of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact
related to the removal of existing trees and the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant cumulative effect
related to removal of trees and the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance and no mitigation
is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
23
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Biological Resources in Section 4.3., which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR
determined that the development of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
related projects would result in the removal of existing trees in the City of Orange and the
City of Santa Ana. Individually each of the cumulative projects would be subject to
technical evaluation and review by the respective jurisdictions and would be required to
comply with the respective jurisdictions' requirements related to the preservation of trees.
The development of the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the City's
Tree Preservation Ordinance and no significant impact would occur. The EIR
determined that the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact
related to trees and the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.3.
D. Geology and Soils
1.Environmental Impact: Expose People or Structures to Substantial
Adverse Effects Including the Risk of Loss Iniurv. or Death, Involvin ng Seismic
Ground Shakin. As discussed in Section 4.4 of the EIR, the proposed project would not
expose people and structures to substantial adverse effects due to strong seismic ground
shaking. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from the
exposure of people and structures to substantial adverse effects due to strong seismic
ground shaking and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081,
Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Geology and Soils in Section 4.4, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR
determined that with the construction of the buildings on the project site consistent with
the California Building Code (CHOC South Tower and CHOC North Tower), the City's
building requirements, and the Uniform Building Code (Seismic Zone 4) (medical office
building), the proposed project would not expose people and structures to substantial
adverse effects due to strong seismic ground shaking. No significant impact would occur
and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.4; Technical Appendix C.
2.Environmental Impact: Expose People or Structures to Substantial
Adverse Effects, Includin the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death, Involving Seismic-Related
24
Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction. As discussed in Section 4.4 of tlie EIR, the
proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects
from seismic-related ground failure. No impact would occur and no mitigation is
required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from the
exposure of people and structures to substantial adverse effects from seismic-related
ground failure and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines
15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Geology and Soils in Section 4.4, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR
determined that, since the potential for liquefaction is considered low, the potential for
lateral spreading to occur on the project site is considered to be low. In addition, the
seismically induced settlement would be 0.25 of an inch or less and not considered an
adverse effect. The proposed project would not expose people and structures on the
project site to substantial adverse effects from seismically related ground failure. No
significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.4; Technical Appendix C.
3.Environmental Impact: Be Located on Geologic Unit or Soil That is
Unstable or Would Become Unstable as a Result of the Project, and Potentiallv Result in
On- or Off-Site Landslide Lateral Spreading, Subsidence Liquefaction or Collapse. As
discussed in Section 4.4 of the EIR, with the proposed project, the soil conditions in the
development area for the CHOC South Tower would not result in substantial risks to life
and property due to unstable geology or soils. No impact would occur and no mitigation
is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from soil
conditions in the development area for the CHOC south Tower and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Geology and Soils in Section 4.4., which is incorporated herein by reference. Based on
the soil conditions on the project site and the anticipated load for the CHOC South
Tower, the recommendations provided in Section 6.0 of the Geotechnical Investigation
provided in Technical Appendix C of the EIR were incorporated into the grading plans
and building design. The EIR determined that the soil conditions in the development area
for the CHOC South Tower would not result in substantial risks to life and property due
to unstable geology or soils. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
25
Reference: EIR Section 4.4; Technical Appendix C.
4.Environmental Impact: Be located on Expansive Soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Buildin Cgode (1994 Creating Substantial Risks to Life
and Propertv. As discussed in Section 4.4 of the EIR, with the proposed project, the
development of the CHOC South Tower would not result in the location of a structure on
expansive soils. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from
expansive soils in the development area for the CHOC South tower and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Geology and Soils in Section 4.4., which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR
determined that based on subsurface investigations, the silty sand layer, which would be
at the depths required for the basement of the CHOC South Tower, has low expansion
potential. Therefore, the development of the CHOC South Tower would not result in the
location of a structure on expansive soils. No impact would occur and no mitigation is
required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.4; Technical Appendix C.
5.Environmental Impact: Cumulative Effect. As discussed in Section 4.4
of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact
related to geology and soils and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse cumulative
effect related to geology and soils and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code
21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Geology and Soils in Section 4.4., which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR
determined that the development of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
related projects would not contribute to a cumulative effect from geology and soils.
Individually, each of the cumulative projects would be individually subject to
geotechnical review by the respective jurisdictions and would be required to comply with
the respective jurisdictions' requirements, the California Building Code, the Uniform
Building Code (Seismic Zone 4), and site-specific geotechnical recommendations in
order to adequately address the potential effects related to geology and soils. Upon
compliance with the City's grading and building codes and the Uniform Building Code
Seismic Zone 4), the potential impacts of the proposed project related to geology and
soils would be less than significant. The EIR determined that upon compliance with the
regulatory requirements, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and
26
reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact
related to the exposure of people or structure to adverse effects from geology and soils
and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.4.
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Environmental Impacts: Create a Si nificant Hazard to the Public or
Environment Throu h Reasonable Foreseeable U set and Accident Conditions Involving
the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment. As discussed in Section 4.5 of
the EIR, during the demolition and remodeling activities, the proposed project would
have a less than significant impact from asbestos-containing materials and lead-based
paint that would have the potential to result in a hazard to the public from the release of
materials into the environment with the implementation of mitigation required in EIR No.
1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
during demolition and remodeling activities from asbestos-containing materials and lead-
based paint that would have the potential to result in a hazard to the public from the
release of materials into the environment to below a level of significance. Public
Resources Code § 21081(a)(1), Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hazards and Hazardous Materials in Section 4.5, which is incorporated herein by
reference. The EIR determined that due to their age, some of the buildings on the project
site have the potential to have asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint.
During demolition and remodeling activities for the proposed project, the presence of
asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint would have the potential to result in a
hazard to the public from the release of materials into the environment. The EIR
determined that, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 and MM
4.5-2, these impacts would be less than significant. The EIR determined that during the
construction activities, no significant impact would be anticipated from the disturbance of
soil excavation and grading resulting in the release of hazardous materials into the
environment from previous land uses on the project site and no mitigation is required.
The EIR determined that, with the implementation of the elements of CHOC's Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management Plan, no impact would occur from the ongoing
operation of the proposed project resulting in the creation of a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset or accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment and no nitigation s
required.
27
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 and MM 4.5-2 are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of
project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.5; Technical Appendix D.
2.Environmental Impact: Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle
Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste Within One-Quarter Mile of an Existin
Proposed School. As discussed in Section 4.5 of the EIR, the proposed project would
have a less than significant impact from the potential release of hazardous emissions
within one-quarter mile of an existing school from asbestos-containing materials or lead-
based paint during demolition and remodeling activities with implementation of
mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
during demolition and remodeling activities from asbestos-containing materials and lead-
based paint that would have the potential to result in a hazard to the public from the
release of materials into the environment to below a level of significance. Public
Resources Code § 21081(a)(1), Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hazards and Hazardous Materials in Section 4.5, which is incorporated herein by
reference. T'he EIR determined that due to their age, some of the buildings on the project
site have the potential to have asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint.
During demolition and remodeling activities for the proposed project, the presence of
asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint would have be potential to result in
the release of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing school. The EIR
determined that, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 and MM
4.5-2, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 and MM 4.5-2 are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of
project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.5; Technical Appendix D.
3. Environmental Impact: Impair Implementation of or Phvsicallv
Interfere with an Adopted Emergenc r ponse Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan. As
discussed in Section 4.5, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact
from the impairment of the City's ability to implement their Multi-Hazard Functional
Plan or utilize the emergency evacuation routes identified in the General Plan Safety
Element and no mitigation is required.
2
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to the impairment of the City's ability to implement their Multi-Hazard Functional Plan
or utilize the emergency evacuation routes identified in the General Plan Safety Element
and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hazards and Hazardous Materials in Section 4.5, which is incorporated herein by
reference. The EIR determined that there are no emergency evacuation routes adjacent to
the project site. During the construction activities for the proposed project, no change in
the circulation patterns on the adjacent roadways would occur and the intersections in the
project vicinity and the adjacent roadway segment of La Veta Avenue would continue to
operate at an adequate level of service. The EIR determined that the construction
activities and the ongoing operation of the proposed project would not impair the City's
ability to implement their Multi-Hazard Functional Plan or utilize the emergency
evacuation routes identified in the General Plan Safety Element. No significant impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.5.
4. Environmental Impact: Cumulative Effect. As discussed in Section 4.5,
the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact related to
hazaxds and hazardous materials with the implementation of mitigation required in EIR
No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
during demolition and remodeling activities from asbestos-containing materials and lead-
based paint that would have the potential to result in a hazard to the public from the
release of materials into the environment to below a level of significance. Public
Resources Code § 21081(a)(1), Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hazards and Hazardous Materials in Section 4.5, which is incorporated herein by
reference. The EIR determined that the development of past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future related projects would contribute to short-term and long-term
cumulative effects related to hazards and hazardous materials. Individually each of the
cumulative projects would be subject to technical evaluation and review by the respective
jurisdictions regarding exiting potential hazards, the use, storage, and disposal of
hazardous materials, and the potential to interfere with emergency response plans ox
evacuation routes and would be required to comply with the respective jurisdictions'
requirements and site-specific recommendations in order to adequately address potential
effects related to existing hazards and potential hazards associated with future
29
development. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 and MM 4.5-2,
the potential impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant or reduced to
a less than significant level. In addition, the proposed project would not be anticipated to
result in an impact related to the impairment of the City's ability to implement their
Multi-Hazard Functional Plan or utilize the emexgency routes identified in the General
Plan Safety Element. The EIR determined that with implementation of mitigation, the
proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to hazards.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1 and MM 4.5-2 are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of
project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.5.
F. Hydrology and Water Quality
1.Environmental Impact: Violate Anv Water Quality Standards or Waste
DischargLe Requirements. As discussed in Section 4.6 of the EIR, the proposed project
would have a less than significant impact to water quality during construction activities
and the ongoing operation of the proposed project and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to water quality during construction and the ongoing operation of the proposed project
and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hydrology and Water Quality in Section 4.6, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that to the north of La Veta Avenue, the proposed project includes
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address water quality during the operation of the
proposed project. To the south of La Veta Avenue,the proposed project does not provide
for any changes to the surface drainage for the CHOC Commerce Tower and associated
parking structure and parking lot, the CHOC nine-level employee paxking structure, and
the access roadway. The EIR determined that the medical office building and associated
parking proposed on the southwestern portion of the project site are at a conceptual
design stage and no details regarding the building design and landscape design are
proposed at this time. At the time of detailed planning, design, and development of the
medical office building and associated parking occurs, the CHOC Master Plan WQMP
would be amended or a new WQMP, in compliance with the current codes, would be
submitted for review and approval. Upon compliance with local and state requirements,
during construction activities, no significant short-term impact related to water quality
would occur. The EIR determined the development of the proposed project would not
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements from stormwater
runoff from construction or post-construction activities. No significant impact would
occur and no mitigation is required.
30
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is reqnired.
Reference: EIR Section 4.6; Technical Appendix F.
2. Environmental Impact: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage
Pattern of the Site or Area Includin¢Throu h the Alteration of the Course of a Stream or
River or Substantially Increase the Rate or Amount of Surface Runoff in a Manner
Which Would Result in Floodin On- or Off-Site. As discussed in Section 4.6 of the
EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to the
alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the project site and surrounding area and the
potential to result in on-site or off-site flooding and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to the alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the project site and surrounding area
and the potential to result in on-site or off-site tlooding and no mitigation is required.
Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hydrology and Water Quality in Section 4.6, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the proposed project would result in a slight decrease in the rate
and amount of stormwater runoff due to the decrease in the impervious surfaces and the
use of the water quality devices on the project site which would discharge the runoff into
the ground rather than the existing surface storm drainage system. The EIR determined
that the development of the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the project site and would not alter the existing drainage pattern in the
surrounding area. In addition, the proposed project would not increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff discharge from the project site and, therefore, no on-site or off-site
flooding would occur. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.6; Technical Appendix E.
3. Environmental Impact: Create or Contribute Runoff Water Which
Would Exceed the Capacity of Existin¢ or Planned Storm Water Draina e Svstems or
Provide Substantial Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff. As discussed in Section 4.6
of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to the
creation or contribution of surface runoff which would have the potential to exceed the
capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage system or contribute substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to the creation or contribution of surface runoff which would exceed the capacity of the
existing or planned stormwater drainage system or contribute substantial additional
31
sources of polluted runoff and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081,
Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hydrology and Water Quality in Section 4.6, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the proposed project would result in a decrease in the rate and
amount of surface runoff due to the decrease in the impervious surface and the use of
water control devices which would discharge the stormwater runoff into the ground rather
than the surface storm drainage system. In addition, the structural and non-structural
BMPs provided for the potential project would substantially reduce the potential for
polluted surface runoff from the project site. The EIR determined that the proposed
project would not create or contribute surface runoff which would exceed the capacity of
the existing or planned stormwater drainage system or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is
required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.6; Technical Appendix E.
4.Environmental Impact: Otherwise Substantiall Degrade Water Quality.
As discussed in Section 4.6 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact related to otherwise substantially degrading water quality and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to otherwise substantially degrading water quality and no mitigation is required. Public
Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hydrology and Water Quality in Section 4.6, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the project site is located within an urbanized area that is served
by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The OCSD operates their facilities,
including their wastewater treatment plants that would receive effluent from the proposed
project, under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)pernut issued
by the State Water Resources Control Board. Therefore, the treated wastewater from the
proposed project would not degrade water quality. The structural and non-structural
BMPs provided for the proposed project would substantially reduce the potential for
polluted surface runoff from the project site. Construction impacts would be addressed
through compliance with the State's General Construction Permits and the City's local
codes. The EIR determined that the development of the proposed project would not
substantially degrade water quality. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation
is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
32
Reference: EIR Section 4.6; Technical Appendix F.
5.Environmental Impact: Potentiall mpact Stormwater Runoff from
Post-Construction Activities. As discussed in Section 4.6 of the EIIt, the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact due to stormwater runoff from post-
construction activities and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect due to
stormwater runoff from post-construction activities and no mitigation is required. Public
Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hydrology and Water Quality in Section 4.6, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that to the north of La Veta Avenue, the proposed project includes
BMPs to address water quality during the operation of the proposed project. To prevent
the anticipated potential pollutants from entering the storm drainage system, the proposed
project would provide an integrated water quality management system. The EIR
determined that the proposed project's water quality management system would reduce
water quality impacts from the ongoing operation of the portion of the proposed project
to the north of La Veta Avenue to less than significant and no mitigation is required. To
the south of La Veta Avenue, the proposed project does not provide for any changes to
the surface drainage or treatment of stormwater for the CHOC Commerce Tower and
associated parking structure and parking lot, the CHOC nine-level employee parking
structure project, and access roadway. The medical office building and associated
parking proposed on the southwestern portion of the project site are at a conceptual
design stage and no details regarding the building design and landscape design are
proposed at this time. At the time of detailed planning, design, and development of the
medical office building and associated parking occurs, the CHOC Master Plan WQMP
would be amended or a new WQMP, in compliance with the current codes, would be
submitted for review and approval. Therefore, no potential impact to stormwater runoff
is anticipated to occur from post-construction activities on the portion of the project site
to the south of La Veta Avenue and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.6; Technical Appendix F.
6. Environmental Impact: Result in a Potential for Dischar e of
Stormwater Pollutants From Areas of Material Stora L Vehicle or Eauinment Fuelin,
Vehicle or Equipment Maintenance (Includin Washingl Waste Handlin, Hazardous
Materials Handin or Storage Delive Area Loading Docks or Other Outdoor Work
Areas. As discussed in Section 4.6 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less
than significant impact related to the discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of
material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance, waste
33
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery area, loading docks, or other
outdoor work areas and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant impact related to the
discharge of stormwater pollutants from axeas of material storage, vehicle or equipment
fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance, waste handling, hazaxdous materials handling
or storage, delivery area, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hydrology and Water Quality in Section 4.6, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the construction activities would not have areas of vehicle or
equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance, including washing, hazardous
materials storage, or loading docks. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the
proposed project, the applicant would file a Notice of Intent with the RWQCB indicating
that the proposed project's construction activities would be in compliance with the
conditions" of the Construction Activities General Permit. During construction
activities, no significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. The EIR
determined that the proposed project does not have vehicle or equipment fueling areas,
maintenance bays, or vehicle or equipment washing areas and these activities would not
occur on the project site. The proposed project would provide an integrated water quality
management system, structural BMPs, and non-structural BMPs to prevent the
anticipated pollutants from entering the storm drainage system. The proposed project's
water quality system would reduce water quality impacts from the on-going operation of
the proposed project's development to the north of La Veta Avenue to a less than
significant level and no mitigation is required. The EIR determined that the proposed
project to the south of La Veta Avenue would not discharge storm water pollutants from
areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or
storage, delivery areas, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas. No significant
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.6; Technical Appendix F.
7.Environmental Impact: Result in the Potential for Dischar of
Stormwater to Affect the Beneficial Uses of the Receiving Waters. As discussed in
Section 4.6 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact
from the potential for the discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the
receiving waters and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from the
potential for the discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving
34
waters and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines §
15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hydrology and Water Quality in Section 4.6, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the proposed project would result in a decrease in the rate and
amount of surface runoff due to the decrease in the impervious surface and the use of
water control devices which would discharge the stormwater runoff into the ground rather
than the surface storm drainage system. In addition, the structural and non-structural
BMPs provided for the potential project would substantially reduce the potential for
polluted surface runoff from the project site. Stormwater runoff from the project site
would not be anticipated to discharge polluted stormwater into the Santa Ana River and
ultimately the Pacific Ocean. The EIR determined that the development of the proposed
project would not result in the potential for the discharge of stormwater to affect the
beneficial uses of the receiving waters that include water contact and non-water contact
recreation, wildlife habitat, and warm water/freshwater habitat. No significant impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.6; Technical Appendix F.
8. Environmental Impact: Create the Potential for Significant Chan egsin
the Flow Velocity or Volume of Stormwater Runoff to Cause Environmental Harm. As
discussed in Section 4.6 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact due to the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or
volume of stormwater runoff and, therefore, cause environmental harm both on-site and
off-site and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effects from
the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff
and, therefore, cause environmental harm both o-site and off-site and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hydrology and Water Quality in Section 4.6, which is ineorporated herein by reference.
The EIR deternuned that there would be a reduction in the runoff rate in the proposed
condition due to the implementation of the City's and County's BMPs. With the
decrease in the volume of stormwater runoff, the stormwater runoff with the proposed
project would not have an impact on the City and County storm drain systems. The EIR
determined that the development of the proposed project would not create the potential
for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff and, therefore
would not cause environmental harm both on-site and'off-site. No impact would occur
and no mitigation is required.
35
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.6; Technical Appendix E.
9.Environmental Impact: Cumulative Effect. As discussed in Section 4.6
of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact
related to hydrology and water quality and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant cumulative effect
related to hydrology and water quality and no mitigation is required. Public Resources
Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Hydrology and Water Quality in Section 4.6, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the development of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future related projects would contribute to cumulative effects on hydrology and water
quality. Individually each of the cumulative projects would be subject to technical
evaluation and review by the respective jurisdictions and would be required to comply
with the respective jurisdictions' requirements related to hydrology and water quality.
The proposed project would have a less than significant project-specific impact and not
incrementally contribute to a potential cumulative impact related to hydrology and water
quality. The EIR determined that the proposed project in conjunction with other past,
present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant
cumulative impact and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.6.
G. Land Use and Planning
1.Environmental Impacts: Conflict with Any A plicable Land Use Plan,
Policy or Regulation of an Agency with Jurisdiction Over the Project Adopted for the
Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect. As discussed in Section 4.7
of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to the
City of Orange General Plan land use designations for the project site, the General Plan
Update pending study area recommendations, and the applicable goals and policies of the
General Plan Elements and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to the City of Orange General Plan land use designations for the project site, the General
Plan iJpdate pending study area recommendations, and the applicable goals and policies
of the General Plan Elements and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code §
21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
36
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Land Use and Planning in Section 4.7, which is incorporated herein by reference. The
EIR determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element Map
designations for the project site. No changes to the Land Use Element Map are required.
The development of the proposed project would not conflict with the existing General
Plan land use designations for the project site and is also consistent with the pending
study area recommendations. The EIR determined that the proposed project would not
conflict with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan Elements. No impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.7.
2.Environmental Impacts: Conflict with Any A plicable Land Use Plan,
Policy or Regulation of an A.gencv with Jurisdiction Over the Proiect Adopted for the
Purpose of Avoiding or Miti an Environmental Effect. As discussed in Section 4.7
of the EIR, with the approval of the Zone Change, the proposed project would have a less
than significant impact related to the zoning district designations for the project site and
no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to the zoning district designations for the project site and no mitigation is required.
Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Land Use and Planning in Section 4.7, which is incorporated herein by reference. The
EIR determined that with the approval of the Zone Change, the proposed project would
not conflict with the zoning district designations for the project site. No impact would
occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section.4.7.
3. Environmental Impact: Conflict with Anv A plicable Land Use Plan,
Policv or Regulation of an A ency with Jurisdiction Over the Proiect Adopted for the
Purpose of Avoidin or Miti ating an Environmental Effect. As discussed in Section 4.7
of the EIR, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to a
conflict with the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance and no mitigation is
required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to a conflict with the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
37
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Land Use and Planning in Section 4.7, which is incorporated herein by reference. The
EIR determined that with the development of the proposed project, there would be a net
increase of 14 trees on or adjacent to the project site from the existing condition. Based
upon the City's practice of requiring a 1:1 replacement ratio and requirements for a tree
removal permit, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the City of
Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. No significant impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.7.
4. Environmental Impact: Conflict with An pplicable Land Use Plan,
Policy, or Regulation of an A ency with Jurisdiction Over the Project Adopted for the
Purpose of Avoidin or Miti .gatin L an Environmental Effect. As discussed in Section 4.7
of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to
potential conflict with the Design Standards for the Amendment to the Southwest Project
Area and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from
potential conflict with the Design Standards for the Amendment to the Southwest Project
Area and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines §
15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Land Use and Planning in Section 4.7, which is incorporated herein by reference. The
EIR determined that the architecture of the proposed CHOC South Tower would be
consistent with the "urban contemporary" theme of the Thematic District. The proposed
project would be considered a"large scale development"by the Design Standards since it
includes a major development site and buildings over three stories in size that are
designed to include or provide a self-contained atmosphere." The proposed project's
design addresses the issues defined in the Design Standards for this category of
development. The EIR determined that the development of the proposed project is not
anticipated to conflict with the Design Standards for the Amendment to the Southwest
Project Area. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.7.
Ss Environmental Impact:_ Conflict with Anv Applicable Land Use Plan,
Policv, or Regulation of an A encv with Jurisdiction Over the Project Adopted for the
Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect. As discussed in Section 4.7
of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to
38
potential conflict with the applicable policies of the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from
potential conflict with the applicable policies of the SCAG RCPG and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Land Use and Planning in Section 4.7, which is incorporated herein by reference. The
EIR determined that the proposed project would provide short-term and long-term
employment opportunities in an urbanized area with existing infrastructure and access to
the local and regional transportation system. The proposed project would be located on a
project site that has no natural resources with the exception of trees. Due to its urbanized
setting, the development and ongoing operation of the proposed project would result in
fewer environmental impacts than if it were developed on vacant or less developed land
in the City. The EIR determined that the development of the proposed project would not
conflict with the applicable policies of the SCAG RCPG. No significant impact would
occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.7.
6. Environmental Impact: Conflict with An pplicable Land Use Plan,
Policy or Regulation of an Agency with Jurisdiction Over the Proiect Adopted for the
Purpose of Avoidin or Mitigatin an Environmental Effect. As discussed in Section 4.7
of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to
conflict with the policies of the Regional transportation Plan (RTP) and no mitigation is
required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from
potential conflict with the policies of the RTP and no mitigation is required. Public
Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Land Use and Planning in Section 4.7, which is incorporated herein by reference. The
EIR determined that the project site has been previously developed and existing uses are
served by regional and local transportation facilities. The proposed project provides for
the use of non-vehicular transportation and access to existing transit facilities is available
in close proximity to the project site. The development of the proposed project would not
conflict with the policies of the RTP. No significant impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
39
Reference: EIR Section 4.7.
7.Environmental Impact: Cumulative Effect. As discussed in Section 4.7
of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact
related to land use and planning and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse cumulative
effect related to land use and planning and no mitigation is required. Public Resources
Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regaxding
Land Use and Planning in Section 4.7, which is incorporated herein by reference. The
EIR determined that individually, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
related projects would be expected to occur in accordance with the adopted plans and
policies of the City of Orange and the City of Santa Ana. The proposed project would
not result in a significant impact related to land use and planning. The EIR determined
that the proposed project in conjunction with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable
future projects would result in a less than significant impact related to land use and
planning and no mitigation is required.
Mitfgation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.7.
H. Noise
1.Environmental Impact: Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise
Levels in Excess of Standards Established in the General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or
Applicable Standards of Other A e ncies. As discussed in Section 4.8 of the EIR, the
proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to noise levels from
off-site construction traffic using the haul routes and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect due to
noise levels from off-site construction traffic using the haul routes and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Findings: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Noise in Section 4.8, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined that
during the construction activities for the proposed project, the noise levels due to off-site
construction traffic from the use of the haul routes would not exceed the City's noise
standards. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.8; Technical Appendix G.
40
2. Environmental Impact: Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise
Levels in Excess of Standards Established in the General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or
Apnlicable Standards of Other A e ncies. A discussed in Section 4.8 of the EIR, the
proposed project would have a less significant adverse impact due to noise levels at
nearby sensitive receptors as a result of the on-site construction activities in combination
with the off-site construction-related traffic despite the implementation of the mitigation
required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into, the
proposed project which lessens the significant environmental effect regarding the
increase in noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors as a result of on-site construction
activities in combination with off-site construction-related traffic. These changes or
alterations, however, will not reduce this impact to below a level of significance, and that
specific economic, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations
for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IX of these
findings. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3), Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).
Facts in Support of Findings: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Noise in Section 4.8, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined that
during the construction activities for the proposed project, the noise levels at nearby
sensitive receptors as a result of the on-site construction activities in combination with
the off-site construction-related traffic would exceed the City's noise standards and
would be considered a significant impact. The EIR determined that, with implementation
of Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-1, this impact would remain a significant unavoidable
adverse impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-1 is incorporated herein by
reference as though fully set forth and shall be conditions of project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.8.
3. Environmental Impact: Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise
Levels in Excess of Standards Established in the General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or
Applicable Standards of Other A e ncies. As discussed in Section 4.8 of the EIR, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact from noise levels due to the
project-related traffic along the study area roadway segments for the Cumulative 2012
with Project Phase 1 Conditions, the Cumulative 2015 with Project Phases 1 and 2
Conditions, the Cumulative 2020 with Project Buildout (Phases 1, 2, and 3) Conditions,
and the Cumulative 2030 with Project Conditions and no mitigation is required.
41
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from
noise levels due to the project-related traffic along the study area roadway segments for
the Cumulative 2012 with Project Phase 1 Conditions, the Cumulative 2015 with Project
Phase 1 and 2 Conditions,the Cumulative 2020 with Project Buildout (Phases 1, 2, and 3)
Conditions, and the Cumulative 2030 with Project Conditions and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Findings: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
I oise in Section 4.8, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined that
for the Cumulative 2012 with Project Phase 1 Conditions, the Cumulative 2015 with
Project Phases 1 and 2 Conditions, the Cumulative 2020 with Project Buildout (Phases 1,
2, and 3) Conditions, and the Cumulative 2030 with Project Conditions, no long-term
significant off-site noise impact from project-related traffic would occur along the study
area roadways segments and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.8; Technical Appendix G.
4.Environmental Impact: Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise
Levels in Excess of Standards Established in the General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or
Avplicable Standards of Other A egncies. As discussed in Section 4.8 of the EIR, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact at the nearby sensitive
receptors from the on-site stationary noise sources during ongoing operations and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect at the
nearby sensitive receptors from the on-site stationary noise sources during ongoing
operations and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines §
15091(a).
Facts in Support of Findings: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Noise in Section 4.8, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined that
the ongoing operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact
from on-site stationary noise sources at any of the nearby sensitive receptors and no
mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.8; Technical Appendix G.
5.Environmental Impact: Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise
Y.evels in Excess of Standards Established in the General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or
Annlicable Standards of Other A e. As discussed in Section 4.8 of the EIR, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact from noise levels in the
42
interior of the building on the project site from the combined traffic-related noise and on-
site stationary noise sources during ongoing operations and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from
noise levels in the interior of the building on the project site from the combined traffic-
related noise and on-site stationary noise sources during ongoing operations and no
mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Findings: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Noise in Section 4.8,which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined that
the ongoing operation of the proposed project would not result in a long-term significant
impact from the combined traffic-related noise and on-site stationary noise sources in the
interior of the buildings on the project site.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.8; Technical Appendix G.
6. Environmental Impact: Exposure of Persons to or Generation of
Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels. As discussed in
Section 4.8 of this EIR, the proposed project would have a short-term significant adverse
impact to the existing on-site CHOC North Tower during the demolition activities due to
on-site groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels despite the implementation
required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Specific economic, social, technological, or other consideration,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IX
of these findings. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City
has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3), Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Noise in Section 4.8, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined that
the closest land use potentially impacted from the vibration during the construction
activities would be the existing CHOC North Tower located on the project site adjacent
to the structure to be demolished. It is anticipated that the vibration levels caused by a
jackhammer operating at the edge of the CHOC North Tower would exceed the threshold
of significance. The demolition phase for the proposed project would result in the
exposure of people on-site to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels and a
short-term significant impact would occur. The EIR determined that there is no feasible
mitigation and this impact would remain a significant unavoidable adverse impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is feasible.
43
Reference: EIR Section 4.8; Technical Appendix G.
7.Environmental Impact: Exposure of Persons to or Generation of
Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels. As discussed in
Section 4.8 of this EIR, the proposed project would have a short-term significant adverse
impact to off-site sensitive receptors during the demolition activities due to groundborne
vibration and groundborne noise levels and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no short-term significant adverse
effect to off-site sensitive receptors during the demolition activities due to groundborne
vibration and groundborne noise levels and no mitigation is required. Public Resources
Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Noise in Section 4.8, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined that
the closest off-site sensitive receptor that could potentially be impacted from the vibration
during the construction activities would be St. Joseph Hospital, located approximately 80
feet east of the demolition area. At this distance, a jackhammer would produce a
vibration level which would be below the threshold of significance. The EIR determined
that the demolition phase for the proposed project would not result in the exposure of
persons at off-site land uses, including St. Joseph Hospital, to excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is
required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.8; Technical Appendix G.
8. Environmental Impact: Exposure of Persons to or Generation of
Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Crroundborne Noise Levels. As discussed in
Section 4.8 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a long-term less than significant
impact as a result of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels from trucks
traveling on Pepper Street and La Veta Avenue and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no long-term significant adverse
effects as a result of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels from trucks
traveling on Pepper Street and La Veta Avenue and no mitigation is required. Public
Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Noise in Section 4.8, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined that
there are no activities that would occur on the project site that would cause vibration.
However, the buildings on the project site may be impacted by vibration caused by trucks
traveling along South Pepper Street, West Providence Avenue, South Main Street, and
West La Veta Avenue. The buildings that have the most potential to be affected by
44
vibration are the CHOC North Tower which is approximately 15 feet from the nearest
lane on South Pepper Street and the CHOC South Tower which is approximately 25 feet
from the nearest travel lane on La Veta Avenue. The EIR determined that the vibration
level would be below the threshold of significance. Therefore, the ongoing operation of
the proposed project would not result in the exposure of persons on the project site to
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No significant impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.8; Technical Appendix G.
9. Environmental Impact: A Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient
Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity Above Levels Existing Without the Pronosed
Project. As discussed in Section 4.8 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less
than significant impact due to a substantial permanent.increase in the ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above the noise levels without the proposed project and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect due to a
substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
the noise levels without the proposed project and no mitigation is required. Public
Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Noise in Section 4.8, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined that
the ongoing operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant off-site
noise impact from the project-related traffic along the study area roadway segments. In
addition, the ongoing operation of the proposed project would not result in a long-term
significant impact from on-site stationary noise sources at any nearby sensitive receptors.
Further, the ongoing operation of the proposed project would not result in a long-term
significant impact from the combined traffic-related noise and on-site stationary noise
sources at any of the nearby sensitive receptors or in the interior of the buildings on the
project site. The EIR determined that the ongoing operation of the proposed project
would not result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above the noise levels existing without the proposed project. No
significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.8; Technical Appendix G.
10. Environmental Impact: A Substantial Tempora or Periodic Increase in
Ambient Noise Levels in the Pr ect Vicinitv Above Levels Existin Without the
Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 4.8 of the EIR, the proposed project would
45
have a short-term less than significant impact due to the use of the haul routes on the
roadways in the project vicinity during construction activities and no mitigation is
required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect due to
the use of the haul routes on the roadways in the project vicinity during construction
activities and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines §
15091(a).
Facts in Support of Findings: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Noise in Section 4.8., which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined
that during the construction activities for the proposed project, the noise levels from the
use of the haul routes would not exceed the City's noise standaxds and no significant
impact would occur. The EIR determined that the use of the haul routes on the roadways
in the project vicinity during the construction activities for the proposed project would
not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above the noise levels existing without the proposed project. No
significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.8; Technical Appendix G.
11. Environmental Impact: A Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in
Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity Above Levels Existing Without the
Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 4.8 of the EIR, the proposed project would
have a significant adverse impact due to noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors as a
result of the on-site construction activities in combination with the off-site construction-
related traffic despite the implementation of mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which lessen the significant environmental effect regarding the increase
in noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors as a result of on-site construction activities in
combination with off-site construction-related traffic. These changes or alterations,
however, will not reduce this impact to below a level of significance, and that specific
economic, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IX of these findings. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that
this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Public Resources
Code § 21081(a)(3), Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).
Facts in Support of Findings: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Noise in Section 4.8, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR determined that
during the construction activities for the proposed project, the noise levels at nearby
46
sensitive receptors as a result of the on-site construction activities in combination with
the off-site construction-related traffic would exceed the City's noise standards and
would be considered a significant impact. Therefore, the on-site construction activities in
combination with the off-site construction-related traffic for the proposed project would
result in a substantial or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above the noise levels existing without the proposed project. The EIR determined that,
with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-1, this impact would remain a
significant unavoidable adverse impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.8; Technical Appendix G.
I. Population and Housing
1. Environmental Impact: Induce Substantial Population Growth in the
Project Area. As discussed in Section 4.9 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a
less than significant impact related to inducement of substantial population growth in the
City or the surrounding area and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to inducement of substantial population growth in the City or the surrounding area and no
mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Population and Housing in Section 4.9, which is incorporated herein by reference. The
EIR determined that the construction activities for the proposed project would not result
in employment that would induce substantial population growth in the City or the
surrounding area. Based on the City's projected population of 151,910 in the year 2020,
the 1,454 "worst-case residents" as a result of the proposed project would only represent
0.96 percent of the City's population. This would not be considered a significant increase
in population in the City. Therefore, the ongoing operation of the proposed project would
not directly induce substantial population growth in the City and no significant impact
would occur and no mitigation is required. The EIR determined that the proposed project
would not indirectly induce population growth in the area through the extension of
existing roadways or infrastruciure. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation
is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.9.
2.Environmental Impact: Cumulative Impact. As discussed in Section 4.9
of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact
related to population and no mitigation is required.
47
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant cumulative effect
related to population and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081,
Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Population and Housing in Section 4.9, which is incorporated herein by reference. The
EIR deternuned that the development of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
related projects would contribute to a cumulative effect on population in the City of
Orange and the City of Santa Ana. Individually, each of these cumulative projects would
be subject to environmental review and evaluation by the respective jurisdictions and
would be required to comply with the respective jurisdictions' requirements related to
population growth. The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth
in the City, either directly or indirectly. The EIR determined that the proposed project in
conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not
result in a significant cumulative impact related to population and no mitigation is
required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.9.
J. Public Services
1.Environmental Impacts: Result in Substantial Adverse Phvsical Impacts
Associated With the Provision of or Need for New or Phvsicallv Altered Governmental
Facilities, the Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Impacts, in
Order to Maintain Acceptable Service Ratios, Response Times or Other Performance
Objective Related to Fire Protection. As discussed in Section 4.10 of the EIR, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to the need for new or
expanded fire protection facilities and the provision of fire protection facilities and would
not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for new or
physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities and the provision of fire
protection facilities and would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives and no
mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Public Services in Section 4.10, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR
48
determined that during the construction of the proposed project, the addition of
construction workers and the on-site activities, including the use of construction
equipment, the construction activities, and the short-term storage of materials, have the
potential to increase the number of responses to the project site by the Fire Department.
This would also have the potential to temporarily affect access and, therefore, response
times by the Fire Department to the project site. This would not result in the need for
new or expanded fire protection facilities and no impact would occur. The ongoing
operation of the proposed project would have the potential to result in an increase in call
volume for emergency services to the project site and vicinity and, therefore, have the
potential to result in the need for additional equipment and staffing in order to maintain
the response times and level of service currently provided by the Fire Department.
Compliance with Orange Municipal Code Chapter 15.38 would reduce the proportional
effects of the proposed project related to the provision of adequate fire protection
services. The ongoing operation of the proposed project would result in a long-term less
than significant impact related to the provision of fire protection services. Fire protection
services would continue to be provided from existing fire stations in the City. The EIR
determined that the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. No
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.10.
2. Environmental Impacts: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts
Associated With the Provision of or Need for New or Phvsicallv Altered Governmental
Facilities the Construction of Which Could Cause Si¢nificant Environmental Impacts, m
Order to Maintain Acceptable Service Ratios Response Times or Other Performance
Objective Related to Police Protection. As discussed in Section 4.10 of the EIR, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to the need for new or
expanded police protection facilities and the provision of police protection services and
would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for new
or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to the need for new or expanded police protection facilities and the provision of police
protection services and would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, khe
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintairn
49
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives and no
mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Public Services in Section 4.10, which is incorporated herein by reference. The EIR
determined that during the construction of the proposed project, the addition of
construction workers and the on-site activities have the potential to increase the number
of responses to the project site and on the surrounding roadways by the Police
Department. This would also have the potential to temporarily affect access and,
therefore, response times by the Police Department to the project site and vicinity. This
would not result in the need for new or expanded police protection facilities and no
impact would occur. The ongoing operation of the proposed project would have the
potential to result in an increase in call volume for police protection services to the
project site and on the roadways in the project viciniiy and, therefore, have the potential
to result in the need for additional equipment and staffing in order to maintain the
response times and level of service provided by the Police Department. Compliance with
Orange Municipal Code Chapter 3.13 would reduce the proportional effects of the
proposed project related to the provision of adequate police protection services. The
ongoing operation of the proposed project would result in a long-term less than
significant impact related to the provision of police protection services. Police protection
services would continue to be provided from the existing Police Headquarters in the City.
The EIR determined that the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered police protection
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.10.
3.Environmental Impacts: Cumulative Effects. As discussed in Section
4.10 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative
impact related to fire protection and police protection services.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant cumulative adverse
effect related to fire protection and police protection services. Public Resources Code §
21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR deternuned that the development of past, present, and reasonably foreseeabYe
future related projects would contribute to a cumulative effect on fire protection and
police protection services. Individually, each of the cumulative projects would be
50
individually subject to technical evaluation and review by the respective jurisdictions and
would be required to comply with the respective jurisdictions' requirements related to
public services. The proposed project's potential impacts related to fire protection and
police protection services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
The EIR determined that the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in a less than significant cumulative
impact related to fire protection and police protection services and no mitigation is
required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIIZ Section 4.10.
K. Transportation and Traffic
1. Environmental Impact: Cause an Increase in Traffic which is
Substantial in Relation to the Existin Traffic Load and Capacity of the Street Svstem.
As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, during the demolition phase of the construction
activities for the proposed project, the construction trips traveling to and from the project
site would have a less than significant impact to the study area intersections or West La
Veta Avenue between South Main Street and South Pepper Street and no mitigation is
required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from
construction trips during the demolition phase to the study area intersections or West La
Veta Avenue between South Main Street and South Pepper Street and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that during the demolition phase of the construction activities for the
proposed project, the construction trips traveling to and from the project site would have
a less than significant impact to the study area intersections or West La Veta Avenue
between South Main Street and South Pepper Street and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.1 l; Technical Appendix H.
2. Environmental Impact: Cause an Increase in Traffic which is
Substantial in Relation to the Existin Traffic Load and Capacitv of the Street Svstem.
As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, during the excavation and grading phase of Yhe
construction activities for the proposed project, the construction trips traveling to anc
from the project site would have a less than significant impact to the study area
51
intersections or West La Veta Avenue between South Main Street and South Pepper
Street and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from
construction trips during the excavation and grading phase to the study area intersections
or West La Veta Avenue between South Main Street and South Pepper Street and no
mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that during the excavation and grading phase of the construction
activities for the proposed project, the construction trips traveling to and from the project
site would have a less than significant impact to the study area intersections or West La
Veta Avenue between South Main Street and South Pepper Street and no mitigation is
required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
3.Environmental Impact: Cause an Increase in Traffic which is
Substantial in Relation to the Existin Traffic Load and Capacitv of the Street Svstem.
As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, during the building construction phase of the
construction activities for the proposed project, the construction trips traveling to and
from the proj ect site would have a less than significant impact to the study area
intersection of West La Veta Avenue between South Main Street and South Pepper Street
and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no signif cant adverse effect from
construction trips during the building construction phase to the study area intersections or
West La Veta Avenue between South Main Street and South Pepper Street and no
mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that during the building construction phase of the construction
activities for the proposed project, the construction trips traveling to and from the project
site would have a less than significant impact to the study area intersection of West La
Veta Avenue between South Main Street and South Pepper Street and no mitigation is
required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
52
4.Environmental Impact: Cause an Increase in Traffic which is
Substantial in Relation to the Existin Traffic Load and Capacitv of the Street Svstem.
As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact to the study area intersections for the Cumulative (2012) plus Project
Phase 1 Conditions and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect to the
study area intersections for the Cumulative (2012) plus Project Phase 1 Conditions and
no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the study area intersections would continue to operate at an
acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) with the addition of traffic from Phase 1 of the
proposed project. The EIR determined that no significant impact would occur to the
study area intersections for the Cumulative (2012) plus Project Phase 1 Conditions and
no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
5. Environmental Impact: Cause an Increase in Traffic which is
Substantial in Relation to the Existin Traffic Load and Capacitv of the Street Svstem.
As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact to the study area intersections for the Cumulative (2012) plus Project
Phases 1 and 2 Conditions and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect to the
study area intersections for the Cumulative (2012)plus Project Phases 1 and 2 Conditions
and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the study area intersections would continue to operate at an
acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) with the addition of traffic from Phases 1 and 2 of the
proposed project. The EIR determined that no significant impact would occur to the study
area intersections for the Cumulative (2012) plus Project Phases 1 and 2 Conditions and
no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
53
6.Environmental Impact: Cause an Increase in Traffic which is
Substantial in Relation to the Existin Traffic Load and Capacitv of the Street Svstem.
As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact to the study area intersections for the Cumulative (2020) plus Project
Buildout (Phases 1, 2, and 3) Conditions and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect to the
study area intersections for the Cumulative (2020)plus Project Buildout(Phases 1, 2, and
3) Conditions and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines
15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the study area intersections would continue to operate at an
acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) with the addition of traffic from buildout of the
proposed project (Phases 1, 2, and 3). The EIR determined that no significant
transportation impact would occur for the Cumulative (2020) plus Project Buildout
Phases 1, 2, and 3) Conditions and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
7.Environmental Impact: Cause an Increase in Traffic which is
Substantial in Relation to the Existing Traffic Load and Capacitv of the Street Svstem.
As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a significant
adverse impact at the intersection of South Main Street/West La Veta Avenue for the
General Plan(2030)with Project Condition.
Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IX of these
findings. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3), Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).
Facts in 5upport of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that if an intersection is operating at LOS E or F (greater than 0.90
v/c) and a project increases the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio equal to or greater than
0.010 volume-to-capacity (v/c), then the project causes a significant impact. The change
in ICU at the intersection of South Main StreetJWest La Veta Avenue would be 0.01 v/c
at LOS E during the P.M. peak hour. The proposed project would contribute to a
significant impact at this intersection in the General Plan (2030) with Project Conditions.
Since this intersection would be constructed to its ultimate configuration in the General
54
Plan (2030) Conditions and no additional improvements would be feasible due to right-
of-way constraints, there is no feasible mitigation. This impact would be a significant
unavoidable cumulative adverse impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is feasible.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
8. Environmental Impact: Cause an Increase in Traffic which is Substantial in
Relation to the Existin Traffic Load and Capacitv of the Street Svstem. As discussed in
Section 4.11 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact at
four study area intersections (North Main Street/Edgewood Lane (I-5 northbound off-
ramp/HOV on-ramp), North Main Street/West Santa Clara Avenue (I-5 northbound on-
ramp), North Main Street/West Buffalo Avenue (I-5 southbound on-ramp), and SR-22
eastbound ramps/West Town and Country Road).
Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IX of these
findings. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3), Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the following four study area intersections are forecast to
operate at an unsatisfactory LOS (LOS D or worse) during the A.M. and P.vt. peak hour
without the proposed project: North Main Street/Edgewood Lane during the Cumulative
2012, 2015, and 2020) Conditions and the General Plan (2030) Conditions; North Main
Street/West Santa Clara Avenue during the Cumulative (2012, 2015, and 2020)
Conditions and the General Plan (2030) Conditions; North Main StreetBuffalo Avenue
during the Cumulative (2020) Conditions and the General Plan (2030) Conditions; and
SR-22 eastbound ramps/West Town and Country Road during the Cumulative (2020)
Conditions. The proposed project would contribute trips to these four study area
intersections that are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS D or worse) for
the Cumulative Conditions utilizing the Caltrans methodology. The EIR determined that
the proposed project would result in an incremental contribution to a significant
cumulative impact at these four intersections. This would be a significant unavoidable
adverse cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is feasible.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
55
9.Environmental Impact: Cause an Increase in Traffic which is
Substantial in Relation to the Existin Traffic Load and Capacitv of the Street Svstem.
As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact to the circulation system as a result of the vehicle queuing for the
driveways on South Pepper Street and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect to the
circulation system as a result of the vehicle queuing for the driveways on South Pepper
Street and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines §
15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that based on the results of the queuing analysis, the location and
configuration of the driveways along the west side of South Pepper Street would not
cause a significant impact to the circulation system as a result of the vehicles generated
by the proposed project queuing and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
10. Environmental Impact: Cause an Increase in Traffic which is
Substantial in Relation to the Existin Traffic Load and Capacity of the Street Svstem.
As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact related to the vehicle queuing in the southbound left-turn pocket at the
intersection of South Main Street/CHOC Court with the implementation of the mitigation
required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
related to the vehicle queuing in the southbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of
South Main Street/CHOC Court to below a level of significance. Public Resources Code
21081(a)(1), Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that based on the results of the queuing analysis, the maximum
vehicle queuing length for the southbound left-turn lane at the intersection of South Main
Street/CHOC Court would be 343 feet in the a.m. peak hour and 139 feet in the p.m. peak
hour. Therefore, the maximum vehicle queue at the intersection would extend beyond
the existing length of the southbound left-turn pocket that is 100 feet with a 40-foot
transition. This would be considered a significant impact. The EIR determined that, with
the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-1 (extend southbound left-turra
lane),this impact would be less than significant.
56
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-1 is incorporated herein by
reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
11. Environmental Impact: Exceed Either Individuallv or Cumulativelv, a
Level of Service Standard Established by the Countv Con estion Mana ement Agencv
for Desi nated Roads or Hi ng ways. As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the
proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to the exceedance
of a level of service standard for Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections
or roadways and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from
exceedance of a level of service standard for Congestion Management Program (CMP)
intersections or roadways and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081,
Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that within the project study area, the study area intersections
analyzed axe not identified as Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections or
roadways. The closest CMP facility is Katella Avenue, located north of the project site
outside of the study area. The EIR determined that the proposed project would not result
in traffic that would exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
established by the Congestion Management Program for CMP intersections or roadways.
No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
12. Environmental Impact: Substantiall Increase Hazards Due to a DesiQn
Feature or Incompatible Uses. As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the proposed
project would result in a less than significant impact related to an increase in hazards due
to a design feature or incompatible uses on or adjacent to the project site and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect from an
increase in hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses on or adjacent to the
project site and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines §
15091(a),
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the proposed project would not significantly increase hazards
57
due to a design feature or incompatible uses provided on or adjacent to the project site.
No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
13. Environmental Impacts: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a
Desi n Feature or Incompatible Uses. As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the
proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to the circulation system as
a result of the vehicle queuing for the driveways on South Pepper Street and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect to the
circulation system as a result of the vehicle queuing for the driveways on South Pepper
Street and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines §
15091(a).
Facts in 5upport of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that based on the results of the queuing analysis, the location and
configuration of the driveways along the west side of South Pepper Street would not'
cause a significant impact to the circulation system as a result of the vehicles generated
by the proposed project queuing and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
14. Environmental Impact: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Desi n
Feature or Incompatible Uses. As discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the proposed
project would result in a less than significant impact related to the vehicle queuing in the
southbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of South Main Street/CHOC Court with
the implementation of the mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
related to the vehicle queuing in the southbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of
South Main StreebCHOC Court to below a level of significance. Public Resources Code
21081(a)(1), Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).
Facts in 5upport of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference,
The EIR determined that based on the results of the queuing analysis, the maximum
vehicle queuing length for the southbound left-turn lane at the intersection of South Main
58
Street/CHOC Court would be 343 feet in the a.m. peak hour and 139 feet in the p.m. peak
hour. Therefore, the maximum vehicle queue at the intersection would extend beyond
the existing length of the southbound left-turn pocket that is 100 feet with a 40-foot
transition. This would be considered a significant impact. The EIR determined that, with
the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-1 (extend southbound left-turn
lane),this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-1 is incorporated herein by
reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
15. Environmental Impact: Result in Inadequate Emer Lncv Access. As
discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact related to emergency access due to lane closures and the addition of
construction-related vehicles on the adjacent roadways with the implementation of the
mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
regarding emergency access due to lane closures and the addition of construction-related
vehicles on the adjacent roadways. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1), Guidelines §
15091(a)(1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the construction activities on the portion of the project site to
the north of La Veta Avenue have the potential to result in inadequate emergency access
due to the lane closures and the addition of construction-related vehicles traveling on the
adjacent roadways. This would be considered a significant impact. The EIR determined
that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-2 (requiring a construction
phase emergency access plan),this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-2 is incorporated herein by
reference as though fully set forth and shall be a condition of project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
16. Environmental Impact: Result in Inadequate Emer encv Access. As
discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact related to emergency access on-site or off-site in the immediate
vicinity and no mitigation is required.
59
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to emergency access on-site or off-site in the immediate vicinity and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code §21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR. discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the proposed project includes a new emergency room entrance
and emergency dock along South Pepper Street just north of the Proposed CHOC
Driveway. The new emergency and drop-off area provides adequate drive aisle widths
and distances for vehicles along South Pepper Street. South Pepper Street would not be
altered due to the proposed project and there would be adequate emergency access to the
proposed emergency dock. In addition, the proposed project would not alter the
emergency access and emergency room driveways at St. Joseph Hospital (directly across
South Pepper Street). The operation of the proposed project would not result in
inadequate emergency access on-site or off-site in the immediate vicinity. The EIR
determined that no significant impact would occur during the ongoing operation of the
proposed project and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
17. Environmental Impact: Result in Inadequate Parkin Capacitv. As
discussed in Section 4.11 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact related to parking capacity during construction and ongoing operations
and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to parking capacity during construction and ongoing operations and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR deternuned that based upon the residual supply at each project milestone, the
impact to parking capacity of the project both during construction and at completion is
found to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
18. Environmental Impact: Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or
Pro rams Supportin Alternative Transportation. As discussed in Section 4.11 of the
EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to alternative
60
transportation, including pedestrian facilities,bicycle facilities, and transit service, and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to alternative transportation, including pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and transit
service, and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines §
15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Transportation and Traffic in Section 4.11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that although there would be a slight increase in pedestrian traffic
that would utilize the sidewalks adjacent to the project site, the proposed project would
not conflict with the use of these facilities. Therefore, no significant impact to pedestrian
circulation on-site and in the vicinity of the project site would be anticipated with
development of the proposed project and no mitigation is required. The proposed project
would not alter the existing or planned bicycle circulation within the immediate project
vicinity of the project site. In addition, the proposed project would not affect the existing
bicycle racks or bicycle storage facilities on the project site. No impact would be
anticipated and no mitigation is required. The Orange County Transportation Authority
OCTA) operates five bus routes in the project vicinity. The proposed project would not
change or alter the existing transit service to the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to the transit
service and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11; Technical Appendix H.
L. Utilities and Service Systems
1. Environmental Impact: Exceed Wastewater Treatment Reauirements of
the Applicable Re ional Water Qualitv Control Board. As discussed in Section 4.12 of
the EIR, the proposed project would not cause the Orange County Sanitation District's
wastewater treatment facilities to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. No impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the proposed project would have no significant adverse effect as
the project-generated wastewater would not cause the Orange County Sanitation
District's wastewater treatment facilities to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements
61
of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. No impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.
2.Environmental Impacts: Require or Result in the Construction of New
Water or Wastewater Treatment or Collection Facilities or Expansion of Existin
Facilities, the Construction of Which Could Cause Si nificant Environmental Effects. As
discussed in Section 4.12 of the EIR, the proposed project would not result in a
significant impact related to the adequacy of the water distribution facilities and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to the adequacy of the water distribution facilities and no mitigation is required. Public
Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the existing water service system to the project site would be
adequate to meet the proposed project's domestic water demand. To meet the current
City and industry sizing and material standards, the water mains in Main Street, La Veta
Avenue, and Pepper Street need to be upgraded to 12-inch ductile iron pipe. The Water
Division staff has required as a condition of approval that a 6-inch water main on the
north side of La Veta Avenue, an 8-inch water main on the south side of La Veta Avenue,
and a 10-inch water main on west side of Pepper Street, all consisting of cast iron pipe,
be replaced by mains that are 12-inch ductile iron pipe. The proposed project will, as
component of Phase 1 construction, include the construction of these water mains in La
Veta Avenue and Pepper Street. The proposed project would not result in a significant
impact related to the adequacy of the water distribution facilities and no mitigation is
required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.
3.Environmental Impacts: Require or Result in the Construction of New
Water or Wastewater Treatment or Collection Facilities or Expansion of Existing
Facilities,the Construction of Which Could Cause Si nificant Environmental Effects. As
discussed in Section 4.12 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact related to adequate fire flow to the project site with the implementation
of mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-08.
62
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
related to adequate fire flow to the project site to below a level of significance. Public
Resources Code § 21081(a)(1), Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12., which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the proposed project would provide fire sprinkler systems
within the new buildings and, therefore, the water lines to the project site are anticipated
to have a minimum required fire flow level of 4,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per
square inch for a 2-hour fire incident subject to verification with the corresponding
authorities. The Utility Systems Analysis concluded that the water lines that serve the
project site would have adequate volume to meet the estimated domestic consumption
requirements. However, until verified by the appropriate fire authorities based on their
review of improvement plans, the proposed project would have the potential to result in a
significant impact related to the provision of adequate fire flow to the project site. The
EIR determined that, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.12-1
requiring a water improvement plan),this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigarion Measure 4.12-1 is incorporated herein by
reference as thoroughly set forth and shall be a condition of project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12; Technical Appendix J.
4. Environmental Impacts: Rec uire or Result in the Construction of New
Water or Wastewater Treatment or Collection Facilities or Expansion of Existing
Facilities the Construction of Which Could Cause Sisnificant Environmental Effects. As
discussed in Section 4.12 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact due to construction of new water facilities or the expansion of existing
water conveyance facilities and the construction of those would not cause significant
environmental effects and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect due to
construction of new water facilities or the expansion of existing water conveyance
facilities and the construction of those would not cause significant environmental effects
and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the replacement of water mains in La Veta Avenue and Pepper
Street would occur consistent with the City's requirements including the implementation
of BMPs that would include erosion control measures. The EIR determined that the
proposed project would not result in a significant impact due to the construction of newwaterfacilitiesortheexpansionofexistingwaterconveyancefacilitiesandthe
63
construction of these would not cause significant environmental effects and no mitigation
is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.
5. Environmental Impact: Require or Result in the Construction of New
Water or Wastewater Treatment or Collection Facilities or Expansion of ExistinQ
Facilities the Construction of Which Could Cause Si nificant Environmental Effects. As
discussed in Section 4.12 of the EIR, the proposed project would not result in the
construction of new sewer facilities or the expansion of existing facilities in the vicinity
of the project site, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect as the
project-generated wastewater would not result in the construction of new sewer facilities
or the expansion of existing facilities in the vicinity of the project site, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects. No significant impact would occur
and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the existing sewer system to the project site had sufficient
capacity and would be adequate to convey the wastewater generated by the proposed
project. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in the
construction of new sewer facilities or the expansion of existing facilities in the vicinity
of the project site, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12; Technical Appendix J.
6. Environmental Impact: Require or Result in the Construction of New
Water or Wastewater Treatment or Collection Facilities or Expansion of Existin
Facilities, the Construction of Which Could Cause Si nificant Environmental Effects. As
discussed in Section 4.12 of the EIR, the proposed project would not result in the
construction of wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No significant
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect as the
project-generated wastewater would not result in the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
64
cause significant environmental effects. No significant impact would occur and no
mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the proposed project would generate an increase in wastewater
which represents 0.118 percent of the remaining existing capacity at Reclamation Plant
No. 1 and 0.670 percent of the existing capacity at Reclamation Plant No. 2. The EIR
determined that the development of the proposed project would not result in the
construction of wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No significant
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.
7. Environmental Impact: Require or Result in the Construction of New
Storm Draina e Facilities or Expansion of ExistingLFacilities the Construction of Which
Could Cause Si nificant Environmental Effects. As discussed in Section 4.12 of the EIR,
the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new storm drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation
is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect as the
stormwater runoff from the project site would not require or result in the construction of
new storm drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects. No significant impact would occur and no
mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the proposed project would result in a decrease in the rate and
amount of stormwater runoff due to the decrease in the pervious surfaces and the use of
the water quality devices on the project site which would discharge the runoff into the
ground rather than the existing surface storm drainage system. Since the rate and amount
of the stormwater runoff from the project site would be reduced, no new off-site storm
drainage facilities or the expansion of an exiting facility would be required as a result of
the proposed project. The EIR determined that the development of the proposed project
would not require or result in the construction of new storm drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
65
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.
8.Environmental Impact: Have 5ufficient Water Supplies Available to
Serve the Project From Existing Entitlements and Resources, or Are New or Expanded
Entitlements Needed. As discussed in Section 4.12 of the EIR, the proposed project
would have a less than significant impact related to water supply since the City would
have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed project from their existing
entitlements and resources and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to water supply since the City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
proposed project from their existing entitlements and resources and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the proposed project would result in an increase in water
consumption that represents a nominal increase of 0.36 percent in the City's daily water
usage based on 31 million gallons per day in the 2005/2006 fiscal year. The EIR
determined that the City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
proposed project from their existing entitlements and resources. No significant impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12; Technical Appendix I.
9.Environmental Impact: Result in a Determination bv the Wastewater
Treatment Provider Which Serves or Mav Serve the Project that it has Adequate Capacitv
to Serve the Project's Projected Demand in Addition to the Provider's Existin
Commitments. As discussed in Section 4.12 of the EIR, the proposed project would have
a less than significant impact related to whether the Orange County Sanitation District's
wastewater treatment plants have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project's
projected demand in addition to their existing commitments and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to whether the Orange County Sanitation District's wastewater treatment plants have
adequate capacity to serve the proposed project's projected demand in addition to their
existing commitments and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081,
Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the proposed project would generate an increase in wastewater
generation that represents 0.118 percent of the remaining existing capacity at
6
Reclamation Plant No. 1 and 0.670 percent of the existing capacity at Reclamation Plant
No. 2. Therefore, the OCSD's wastewater treatment plants have adequate capacity to
serve the proposed project's projected demand in addition to their existing commitments.
No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.
10. Environmental Impact: Be Served bv a Landfill with Insufficient
Permitted Capacitv to Accommodate the ProjecYs Solid Waste Disnosal Needs. As
discussed in Section 4.12 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact related to the disposal of construction-related solid waste and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to the disposal of construction-related solid waste and no mitigation is required. Public
Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the construction activities for the proposed project would result
in a temporary increase in the generation of construction waste materials. Consistent
with City requirements, prior to the issuance of the demolition, grading, and building
permits, the Project Applicant will be required to submit a construction waste
management plan that demonstrates that construction-generated waste is reduced by 50
percent consistent with the California lntegrated Waste Management Act. The plan will
be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department. The EIR determined
that no significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.
11. Environmental Impact: Be Served by a Landfill with Insufficient
Permitted Capacity to Accommodate the Project's Solid Waste Disposal Needs. As
discussed in Section 4.12 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact related to the ability to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the solid waste generated by the ongoing use of the proposed
project and no mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to the ability to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the solid waste generated by the ongoing use of the proposed project and no mitigation is
required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines § 15091(a).
67
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the development of the proposed project would result in an
incremental increase in the long-term generation of solid waste on the project site. The
proposed project would generate approximately 1.48 tons per day and use approximately
less than 0.00007 percent of the permitted daily landfill tonnage in Orange County.
Consistent with the State requirements (The Integrated Waste Management Act) and City
policies, the waste hauler under license to the City would provide for the processing of
solid waste at material recovery facilities for the recovery of recyclable materials from
the proposed project. This would further reduce the solid waste generated by the
proposed project that would need to be disposed of at a landfill. The EIR determined that
the proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the solid waste generated by the ongoing use of the proposed project. No
significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.
12. Environmental Impact: Com lv with Federal, State, and Local Statues
and Re ulations Related to Solid Wastes. As discussed in EIR Section 4.12 of the EIR,
the proposed project would have a less than signi icant impact related to compliance with
applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations regarding solid wastes and no
mitigation is required.
Finding: The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect related
to compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations regarding
solid wastes and no mitigation is required. Public Resources Code § 21081, Guidelines §
15091(a).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that solid waste collection in the City is coordinated by the City of
Orange Public Works Department and provided by Waste Management of Orange
County, a commercial solid waste hauler under license from the City. The State mandates
that, through source reduction, recycling, and composting, a 25 percent reduction in solid
waste was to occur by the Year 1995 and 50 percent by the Year 2000. These mandates
are addressed by the City through their license agreement with the waste hauler. The
development of the proposed project would comply with applicable federal, state, and
local statutes and regulation related to solid wastes. No impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.
68
13. Environmental Impact: Cumulative Effect. As discussed in EIR
Section 4.12 of the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant
cumulative impact related to utilities and seroice systems with the implementation of
mitigation required in EIR No. 1805-08.
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effectsregardingtheadequacyofthefireflowfortheprojectsitetobelowalevelof
significance. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1), Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The EIR discusses potential impacts regarding
Utilities and Service Systems in Section 4.12, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The EIR determined that the development of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future related projects would contribute to cumulative effects on utilities and service
systems. Individually each of the cumulative projects would be subject to technical
evaluation and review by the respective jurisdictions and would be required to comply
with the respective jurisdictions' requirements related to utilities and service systems.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-1, the potential impact of the
proposed project related to the adequacy of the fire flow for the project site would be
reduced to a less than significant level. With the incorporation of the mitigation measure,
the proposed project's impacts would not incrementally contribute to potentially
significant impacts to utilities and service systems. The EIR determined that, with the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12-1, the proposed project in conjunction with
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a
significant cumulative impact related to utilities and service systems would occur.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 is incorporated herein by
reference as thoroughly set forth and shall be a condition of project approval.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
Because the proposed project will cause unavoidable significant environmental effects
related to air quality (consistency with Air Quality Management Plan, local PM 10
emissions during excavation and grading phase of construction activities, regional NOX
and CO emissions from ongoing operations of the proposed project, and incremental
contribution of greenhouse gas emission to global climate change), noise (construction
activities in combination with construction-related traffic and demolition activities), and
transportation and traffic (incremental contribution to one study area intersection in
General Plan [2030] with Project Conditions and incremental contribution to four study
area intersections for the Cumulative Conditions using California Department of
Transportation methodology), the City must consider the feasibility of any
environmentally superior alternatives to the proposed project, evaluating whether these
69
alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental
effects while achieving most of the objectives of the proposed project. The EIR
evaluated three alternatives to the proposed project and evaluated the feasibility of each
of the alternatives in light of the project objectives and other considerations. As
described in Section 3.0 of the EIR, the specific objectives of the proposed project consist
of:
1. Establish a physical design that allows for the development of a hospital that
provides "state of the art" facilities and services dedicated exclusively to the care
of children.
2. Provide for the development and redevelopment of facilities at the CHOC
Hospital campus that address CHOC's mission and strategic goals, including the
provision of the following services:
Medical and surgical services for an estimated 11,000 children per year from
Orange County and the surrounding communities that require hospitalization;
State of the art" diagnostic imaging services for children, including
Computerized Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging capabilities;
Pediatric emergency services for over 60,000 children per year;
Medical laboratory services for children;
Cutting edge"research in pediatric disease; and
Training for pediatric residents and fellows.
3. Provide for the continued utilization of existing facilities while a phased upgrade
of the existing CHOC Hospital and suppor ing facilities occur.
4. Enhance the visual aesthetics of the project frontages along Main Street, La Veta
Avenue, Pepper Street, and Providence Street with landscaping, lighting, and
signage.
5. Provide a high quality physical environment for patients, visitors, and staff
including adequate and safe circulation patterns and parking.
The alternatives presented in the EIR constitute a reasonable range of alternatives
necessary to permit a reasoned choice among the options available to the City and/or the
project proponent. Based on the administrative record for the project, the City makes the
following findings concerning the alternatives to the proposed project.
A. Alternatfve Analyzed by EIR
As discussed in Section 6.0 of the EIR, the following alternatives were evaluated for the
proposed project: (1) Alternative 1 - No Project/No Development; (2) Alternative 2 - No
70
Project/Development Under Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations; and (3)
Alternative 3 - Lower Intensity Alternative. Each of the alternatives to the proposed
project are discussed below. Alternative 3 - Lower Intensity Alternative is the alternative
that is the"environmentally superior alternative"under CEQA.
1. Alternative 1 -No Project/No Development
Description: As discussed in Section 6.2 of the EIR, Alternative 1 - No
Project/No Development assumes that the proposed project resulting in the expansion of
CHOC Hospital with the construction of the CHOC South Tower and the interior
remodeling of a portion of the existing CHOC North Tower, and the remodeling of 40
percent of the CHOC Commerce Tower from general office to medical office space
would not occur. In addition, the construction of the medical office building would not
occur. The Orange Medical Building (1201 La Veta Avenue), the two-level parking
structure, and the entry plaza to the hospital would not be removed from the project site.
The approximately 12.0-acre project site would remain in its current condition.
Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including considerations for the provision of health care for children
in need and employment opportunities for highly trained workers, makes Alternative 1 -
No Project/No Development infeasible (Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3),
Guidelines § 15091(a)(3)).
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed in Section 6.2 of the EIR,Alternative
1 - No Project/No Development assumes that development and redevelopment of the
project site would not occur and the project site would remain in its current condition.
Alternative 1 would not achieve the majority of the project objectives. Alternative 1
would not establish a physical design that allows for the development of a hospital that
provides "state of the art" facilities and services dedicated exclusively to the care of
children, as no new hospital facilities or medical office space would be constructed.
Alternative 1 would not provide for the development and redevelopment of facilities at
the CHOC Hospital campus that address CHOC's mission and strategic goals, as no new
facilities would be constructed to allow CHOC Hospital to accomplish its mission and
strategic goals. Alternative 1 would provide for the continued utilization of existing
facilities. However, Alternative 1 would not provide for the phased upgrade of the
existing CHOC Hospital and supporting facilities. Alternative 1 would not enhance the
visual aesthetics of the project frontages along Main Street, La Veta Avenue, Pepper
Street, and Providence Street with landscaping, lighting, and signage. No improvements
to these street frontages would occur.
As discussed in Section 6.2 of the EIR, Alternative 1 - No Project/No
Development would be environmentally superior to the proposed project due to
avoidance of the majority of the physical environmental impacts as a result of no
construction activities and no ongoing use of the proposed development.
71
2. Alternative 2 - No Project/Development Under Existing General Plan
and Zoning District Designations
Description: As discussed in Section 6.3 of the EIR, Alternative 2 - No Projecd
Development Under Existing General Plan and Zoning District Designations assumes
development of the project site consistent with the existing General Plan and Zoning
designations. The General Plan land use designations for the project site are Public
Facilities on the north side of La Veta Avenue and Commercia12.5-3.0 FAR on the south
side of La Veta Avenue. The existing zoning district designations for the project site
consist of PI (Public Institution), C3 (Commercial), and OP (Office Professional) on the
portion of the project site north of La Veta Avenue, and C2 (General Business) on the
portion of the project site south of La Veta Avenue.
Based on these designations, Alternative 2 assumes that to the north of La Veta
Avenue, the CHOC North Tower, the Orange Medical Building (1201 La Veta), and the
five-level parking structure would remain in their existing condition and the remainder of
the project site would be redeveloped consistent with the existing zoning district
designations. Although the existing C3 (Commercial) zoning district designation is
inconsistent with the Public Facilities General Plan land use designation, Alternative 2
would assume the demolition of the CHOC West Building and the CHOC Research
Building and reconstruction for commercial use consistent with the existing C3
Commercial) zoning district designation on that portion of the project site. Consistent
with the C3 (Commercial) zoning, anticipated uses on this portion of the project site
would be administrative and professional offices, medical offices, multi-family housing
with mixed use development, retail and service uses including pharmacy, copy center,
dry cleaners, hair salon, and restaurants and food services. As applicable, some of these
uses would be permitted by conditional use permit.
In addition, Alternative 2 assumes that to the south of La Veta Avenue, the CHOC
Commerce Center (505 S. Main Street) with associated parking structure and surface lot
and the CHOC nine-level employee parking structure would remain in its existing
condition and the remainder of the project site would be redeveloped consistent with the
existing zoning district designations. This would result in the demolition of the CHOC
Educational Building and the surface parking lot in the southwestern corner of the project
site. New development on the southwestern portion of the project site would consist of
general commercial development. Commercial uses would be those permitted under the
existing C2 (General Commercial) zoning district designation.
Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including considerations for the provision of health care for children
in need and employment opportunities for highly trained workers, makes Alternative 2 -
No Project/ Development Under Existing General Plan and Zoning District Designations
infeasible (Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3), Guidelines § 15091(a)(3)).
72
Facts in Support of Findings: As discussed in Section 6.3 of the EIR,
Alternative 2 - No Project/ Development Under Existing General Plan and Zoning
District Designations assumes development of the project site consistent with the existing
General Plan and Zoning designations. Alternative 2 would not achieve all of the project
objectives. Alternative 2 would not establish a physical design that allows for the
development of a hospital that provides "state of the art" facilities and services dedicated
exclusively to the care of children, as no new hospital facilities that would provide beds
would be constructed. Alternative 2 would not provide for the development and
redevelopment of facilities at the CHOC Hospital campus that address CHOC's mission
and strategic goals, as no new hospital facilities that would provide beds would be
constructed. Alternative 2 would provide for the continued utilization of existing
facilities. However, Alternative 2 would not provide for the phased upgrade of the
existing CHOC Hospital or the upgrade of the supporting facilities, including medical
office space, to the extent that the proposed project would. Alternative 2 would not
enhance the visual aesthetics of the project frontages along portions of Main Street,
portions of La Veta Avenue, Pepper Street, and Providence Street with landscaping,
lighting, and signage.No improvements to these street frontages would occur.
In general, the implementation of Alternative 2 - No Project/Development under
Existing General Plan and Zoning District Designations Alternative would have similar
or increased significant impacts related to the construction and ongoing operation of the
proposed project. Overall, Alternative 2 would have increased significant impacts in
comparison to the significant impacts as a result of the proposed project.
The implementation of Alternative 2 - No Project/Development Under the
Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations would eliminate the impacts of the
proposed project related to the demolition of the Orange Medical Building (1201 La
Veta) and the two-level parking structure. It would also eliminate the project impacts
from the construction and operation of the additional hospital beds and the medical office
building south of La Veta Avenue. Alternative 2 would increase the severity of impacts
overall related to construction and operation due to the intensification of the land uses on
the project site. In addition to the increased areas to be developed, Alternative 2 would
introduce retail commercial uses to the project site.
As discussed in Section 6.3 of the EIR, Alternative 2 - No ProjecdDevelopment
Under the Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations would not be environmentally
superior to the proposed project due to the increased impacts related to air quality, noise,
transportation and traffic, and utilities and sewer systems.
3. Alternative 3 -Lower Intensity Alternative
Description: As discussed in Section 6.4 of the EIR, Alternative 3 - Lower
Intensity Alternative assumes development of the project site with a reduction in the
number of hospital beds (resulting in a total of 326 beds at buildout). This reduced
73
number of hospital beds would be equivalent to the number of beds provided with Phase
1 of the proposed project). With this alternative, the CHOC West and CHOC Research
buildings would remain as is. This alternative would not include the new medical office
building (175,000 square feet), thereby reserving the southwestern portion of the project
site as a potential location for other further CHOC Master Plan uses. In addition,
Alternative 3 would not include the conversion of 40 percent of the CHOC Commerce
Center from general office to medical office space. Alternative 3 would retain the 91,000
squaxe foot Orange Medical Building at 1201 La Veta Avenue, the two-level parking
structure, and the entry plaza.
Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including considerations for the provision of health care for children
and employment opportunities for highly trained workers, makes Alternative 3 - Lower
Intensity Alternative infeasible (Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3), Guidelines §
15091(a)(3)).
Facts in Support of Findings: As discussed in Section 6.4 of the EIR,
Alternative 3 - Lower Intensity Alternative assumes development of the project site with
a reduction in the number of hospital beds (resulting in a total of 326 beds at buildout).
Alternative 3 would not achieve all of the project objectives. Alternative 3 would not
fully establish a physical design that allows for the development of a hospital that
provides "state of the art" facilities and services dedicated exclusively to the care of
children. The additional hospital building would be limited to addressing the addition of
the 88 beds and not the additional support services to be provided with the proposed
project. Alternative 3 would not provide for the development and redevelopment of
facilities at the CHOC Hospital campus that address CHOC's mission and strategic goals.
Alternative 3 would provide for the continued utilization of existing facilities. However,
Alternative 3 would not provide for the phased upgrade of the existing CHOC Hospital
and supporting facilities. Alternative 3 would not enhance the visual aesthetics of the
project frontages along Main Street, La Veta Avenue, Pepper Street, and Providence
Street with landscaping, lighting, and signage. No improvements to these street frontages
would occur.
In general, the implementation of Alternative 3 - Lower Intensity Alternative
would reduce the significant impacts related to the construction and ongoing operation of
the proposed project. Overall, this alternative would have decreased impacts in
comparison to the significant impacts as a result of the proposed project. The
implementation of Alternative 3 would not increase the severity of impacts and would not
have impacts that are not impacts of the proposed project.
As discussed in Section 6.4 of the EIR, Alternative 3 - Lower Intensity
Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project as Alternative 3
would decrease the proposed project's significant impacts to air, noise, public services,
and transportation and traffic.
74
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES DETERNIINED NOT TO BE
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT
All environmental resource areas identified as having a potential impact as a result of the
proposed project in the Initial Study in Appendix A-1, NOP Process, of the EIR were
analyzed in detail in the EIR. Based on the Initial Study and responses to the NOP, the
City determined that the potential impacts to environmental resources categorized as
agricultural resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, and recreation were less than
significant without mitigation and, therefore, would not warrant further consideration in
the EIR. Further the City determined that the following specific environmental effects of
the proposed project were found to be less than significant without mitigation and,
therefore, would not warrant further consideration in the EIR:
1. Aesthetics
Scenic Vistas
Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
2. Biological Resources
Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species
Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community
Wetlands
Wildlife Movement and Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites
Conflict with Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or Other Habitat Conservation Plan
3. Geology and Soils
Hazards from Fault Rupture
Hazards from Landslides
Substantial Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Soils Related Use of Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems
4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazard to Public or Environment through Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of
Hazardous Materials
75
Hazardous Materials Sites Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
Safety Hazard from Public or Public Use Airport
Safety Hazaxd from Private Airstrip
Hazard from Wildland Fires
5. Hydrology and Water Quality
Groundwater Supplies or Groundwater Recharge
Alter Stream or River Resulting in Substantial Erosion or Siltation On- and Off-
site
Housing within 100-year Flood Hazard Area
Structures within 100-year Flood Hazard Area that would Impede or Redirect
Flood Flows
Hazaxds from Failure of a Levee or Dam
Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow
Stormwater Runoff from Construction Activities
Increases in Erosion On-Site and in Surrounding Areas
6. Land Use/Planning
Physically Divide an Established Community
Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation
Plan
7. Noise
Excessive Noise Levels from Public or Public Use Airport
Excessive Noise Levels from Private Airstrip
8. Population and Housing
Displacement of Existing Housing
Displacement of People Requiring Replacement Housing Elsewhere
76
9. Public Services
Schools
Parks
Libraries
10. Transportation and Traffic
Change in Air Traffic Patterns
No substantial evidence has been presented to or identified by the City which would
modify or otherwise alter the City's less than significant determination for these
environmental issues.
IX. FINDING REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT5
Guideline Section 15126.2(d)requires that an EIR:
Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or
population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either
directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.
Direct Growth Inducing Impacts: As discussed in Section 5.3 of the EIR, the
proposed project would not directly induce substantial population growth in the City or
the surrounding area. On a short-term basis, construction jobs would be generated by the
proposed project. The construction activities for the CHOC South Tower,which involves
the most substantial construction activities as a result of the proposed project, would
occur by the year 2012. The first phase of construction, which is demolition, would
generate a maximum of 25 construction jobs on the project site. The second phase of
construction, excavation and grading, would generate a maximum of 50 construction jobs
on the project site. The third phase of construction, building construction, would
generate a maximum of 450 construction jobs on the project site. These jobs would
terminate after construction activities for the proposed project have completed. In
addition, based on experience with previous construction activities, CHOC anticipates
that construction employees would be drawn from the region and that construction
employees would not relocate to the City due to the short-term nature of the employment
opportunities. Therefore, the construction activities for the proposed project would result
in employment that would not directly induce substantial population growth in the City or
the surrounding area.
On a long-term basis, the proposed project would result in new employment
opportunities in the City. These employment opportunities would occur as a result of the
addition of 202 beds and additional medical services to CHOC Hospital and the addition
77
of 175,000 square feet of inedical office space in the medical office building proposed for
the southwestern portion of the project site. CHOC anticipates that the majority of the
employees within the proposed medical office building would be associates of CHOC
Hospital and, therefore, accounted for in the projected increase in employees generated
by CHOC Hospital. The conversion of 85,600 square feet of general office space to
medical office space in the CHOC Commerce Tower would also generate employment.
The proposed project would result in the removal of the Orange Medical Building
consisting of 91,000 square feet) and, therefore, eliminate employment opportunities at
this building.
Currently, CHOC Hospital employs 2,371 personnel. CHOC Hospital projects
that, at buildout of the proposed project in the year 2020, there would be a total 3,825
employees. This represents an increase of 1,454 employees (or 61.3 percent) from the
existing condition. Since the location of an employee's residence is a personal decision
and would be based on unknown factors that cannot be predicted, a worst-case approach
was used to analyze if the proposed project would result in a substantial increase of the
population in the City. This approach assumes that each employee would become a
resident of the City and, therefore, result in the addition of 1,454 people to the population
of the City by the year 2020. Based on the City's projected population of 151,910 in the
year 2020, the 1,454 "worst-case residents" as a result of the proposed project would only
represent 0.96 percent of the City's population. This would not be considered a
significant increase in population in the City. Therefore, the ongoing operation of the
proposed project would not directly induce substantial population growth in the City.
Indirect Growth Inducing Impacts: As discussed in Section 5.3 of the EIR, the
proposed project would not indirectly induce population growth in the area through the
extension of existing roadwAys or infrastructure. The project site is located in an
urbanized area that has existing roadways and infrastructure. The proposed project
would not result in the construction of any public roadways and the utility improvements
that would occur as a result of the proposed project would serve the existing and
proposed buildings on the project site as well as upgrade some of the utilities at the
request of the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not indirectly induce
substantial population growth in the City or the surrounding area.
X. FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Guideline Section 15126.2(c) indicates that:
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of
the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources
makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely.
The Guidelines also indicate that:
78
Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that
such current consumption is justified.
As discussed in Section 5.2 of the EIR, implementation of the proposed project
would require the long-term commitment of natural resources that result in an
irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources such as energy supplies and other
construction-related resources. These energy resource demands would be used for
construction, heating and cooling of the proposed hospital building and medical office
building and the remodeled hospital space and office space, heating of water for use in
these buildings, transportation of people and goods to and from the project site, and
lighting and other associated energy needs.
As fossil fuels currently are the principal source of energy, the implementation of
the proposed project would directly reduce existing supplies of fuels, including
lubricating oil, natural gas, and gasoline. In addition to the fossil fuels consumed during
short-term construction activities, the on-going operation of the proposed project would
consume electricity, natural gas, and vehicular-related fuels and lubricants. This
represents a long-term commitment to consumption of an essentially nonrenewable
resource.
The implementation of the proposed project would require the commitment or
destruction of other nonrenewable andlor slowly renewable resources. These resources
include, but are not limited to: lumber and other forest products; sand and gravel; asphalt;
petrochemical-based construction materials; steel; copper; lead and other metals; and
water. An increased commitment of utilities and service systems, such as solid waste
disposal and wastewater treatment, would also occur.
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081(b) and the Guidelines § 15093, the
City has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against unavoidable adverse
impacts to air quality, noise, and transportation and traffic associated with the proposed
project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to impacts to air
quality, noise, and transportation and traffic. The City also has examined alternatives to
the proposed project, none of which both meet the project objectives and is
environmentally preferable to the proposed project.
The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and
other benefits of the proposed project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts identified above may be considered "acceptable" due to the
following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts of the proposed project. Each of the separate benefits of the proposed project, as
stated herein, is determined to be, unto it and independent of the other project benefits, a
79
basis for overriding all unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in these
Findings.
1.CHOC Serves Children in Need
The CHOC mission is straightforward: to nurture, advance and protect the health
and well-being of children. CHOC is dedicated to working cooperatively, assisting and
enriching existing services as well as developing programs to benefit the families of
Orange County. In fiscal year 2006, over 200,000 children came through CHOC's doors
for inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room visits regardless of their family's ability to
pay. CHOC offers the following premier pediatric services:
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit
Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit
Oncology Unit
Neuroscience Unit
Medical Surgical Unit
Surgical Short Stay Unit
These specific factors support the decision to approve the proposed project
despite the significant unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, noise and
transportation and traffic associated with the proposed project.
Reference: Children's Hospital of Orange County Communiry Benefit Plan.
2.CHOC Provides Quality and Safe Care and Promise of Research
CHOC offers patients the option to participate in clinical trials as part of their
continuum of care, especially when conventional treatment methods have failed or when
they are suffering from diseases or disorders for which no treatment protocols have yet
been established.
These specific factors support the decision to approve the proposed project
despite the significant unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, noise and
transportation and traffic associated with the proposed project.
Reference: Children's Hospital of Orange County Community Benefit Plan.
80
3.CHOC Reaches Out to the Community
As the major pediatric safety-net hospital in Orange County, CHOC has a
steadfast commitment to treat every child seeking medical treatment, regardless of ability
to pay. Last year, CHOC provided more than $142.9 million through 111 benefit services
to children in the community, most of them underinsured or uninsured. CHOC's
commitment goes beyond providing charity care, it is about connecting patients with
suitable insurance programs that can meet their needs long term. Through assisting
patients and their families with enrollment in programs like CalOptima (managed
MediCal program in Orange County) and Healthy Families, CHOC can help them to
establish a successful healthcare home. A significant part of the mission at CHOC is to
serve those who do not always have access to healthcare services due to either financial
and/or transportation barriers. During fiscal year 2006, CHOC improved patient access to
care by bringing clinics and programs services right where patients need them the most.
The CHOC Clinic at Orange, located on the CHOC Hospital campus, promotes
wellness and preventive care in high-risk/disadvantaged populations, with referral to the
most appropriate level of care. The clinic supports well-child and routine medical care,
and provides services for the prevention, treatment and management of chronic diseases:
In fiscal year 2006, the CHOC Clinic at Orange had 34,223 visits. The CHOC Clinic also
serves as a teaching center for the CHOC Residency Program, and interns in their first
year donate a significant number of volunteer hours at this clinic site.
The CHOC Clinic outpatient facilities, at the main CHOC Campus in the City, are
also home to over 24 subspecialty clinics which provide highly sp cialized care for
children with a range of conditions and chronic illness. The specialtie offered include:
Infectious Disease, Spasticity, Spina Bifida. Gastroenterology, Epi epsy, Oncology,
Orthopaedics, RSV clinic, Adolescent Medicine, Hand, Endocrinology, Developmental
Behavior, Sports Medicine, Primary Immune Deficiency, Allergy, Fracture, Metabolic,
Hematology, Muscle Disease, Pulmonology, Cardiology, Physiatry, Residents, and Flu
Vaccine Clinic.
CHOC provides healthcare, education, and information to patients and their
families through educational resources that include: KidsHealth Magazine, Parent
Advice Line, and Pediatric Advisor. Additionally, CHOC provides family-centered care.
CHOC patients and their families have access to several innovative programs and
services that are designated to complement clinical care. Some f these programs
include: CHOC Care Pages, School Reintegration, Social Services, support groups, and
child life specialists.
These specific factors support the decision to approve the proposed project
despite the significant unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, noise, and
transportation and traffic associated with the proposed project.
81
Reference: Children's Hospital of Orange County Community Benefit Plan.
4.Additional Benefits in the Development Agreement
The proposed project includes a development agreement between the City and the
Project Applicant. In approving the development agreement the City council will have
specifically found that the project provides substantial public benefits to the City, which
benefits are detailed in the development agreement and incorporated herein. These
benefits form a basis for overriding the project's unavoidable environmental impacts that
are identified in the Final EIR and support the decision to approve the proposed project
despite the significant unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, noise, and
transportation and traffic associated with the proposed project.
Reference: Development Agreement.
XII. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the City of Orange concludes that the CHOC Master
Plan Project will result in numerous public benefits beyond those required to mitigate
project impacts, each of which individually is sufficient to outweigh the unavoidable
environmental impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the City of Orange has
adopted this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
82
0
dou
a
C
O
a
C7
O
H
z
pp o
i o
O
O
N
a
L7
H
M Q
O O a
Z
a
Z W H
UOxz
h
aE., o
H H
o z
w
oz
o
z
W
z
w
w
0 0
a N
m
o ', bn
y -j U ',,;' a'
s.. b O
y " o "
o
b , o
U E-'
GQ p +-' O
V
N ` b z
a n "-' a O
O o
1 O '; a
W cd b b
I /
O
b O O
3
Hj. ` Q y..i
V '"~ N
I
U " J1
a
y `
a ov • w ° .
cc O >, c
o
E'
0
b o °
E"I cUC Q'' 0 cC C N
V
a
U
j
W
O
O O
Z O v
F I
a
bA " E- O
r V
o , O
a
a , A
OZ 0 - • o Z O
cd ,G,,M"' O 0E"' / s- , 0 ' a, C
b a ° H '' ' O O
a , ¢o wz Hz
Z a oo . 7W awy UWC
a o . o x x x
d o w v WQ, :s wW zU Z o o .b , W W
Z , . a o E- F
UO b . U
A
0 o y 'U i a f Ufx
Q' O W Q.,
o0
zaao b za Ha
E-+ FF- a F- F
UUU o a'.b
V UV
o H a N
000 N : o z wz
aaa > a0 O
w0
U
O
a
y a
0 a O
U o
o
o
o F
tq
A
o
p y
c
C
b U
C f: .., O O .i.r
y" pQ
bo
al
O . '^
U"
c d
cd ^"
Ua. a° A v
y b Cy
y • U v
4-i ""
C ybj .' ,s." G O t.'r.'".+
F=I i O O U bA ,,
G t," .. +
s• c C 'd cd b v
y..,, c{d.. O
I I 4 Q OJ.) U
Cd 'b '' y v !Q 4--i + V] Lr b G G Cd " C ..-'"-
i
4"i '
Cq y 'v O p N "" .
a
cd O y ' v +-+ .'„ 'L
3 a •'U 3 0 o ' -d °
a p.,
U
a4 , ' ¢, '-" .-. o
a y a 'ti cd ,o c . v' c a
p A en•" , ' -o °,' o " . 'd ` a
o
y y,,, y,, °' a --, 'C °'"° '
b • ° a" G ; •y j ,-. tC
O ' O , .."' U r^., O ^' `n ,
C 4-a , O „ ¢.i v]
y
O '" U Q"'
4-+ U i-+
V •.r
C O U 4, ..- .- O p O y.., s.+
f"'" O O O 'd b U r"' ':
t- e G bA c 't7
y , .b " p ' , ' ' • ,G?
A Q E- Q. ' 'd O .J . ¢,o
C, O 4; > +-' V "+ #
J..
V '—'
0 U + , " •ri] N ¢•
I i ""
V 'b 'b 1-i .r"., i.r • b
0 0 Q' v o Q ° o , nH °
a p p., d 'v 'b 'v + a 'a a
E- Q, cd"U A 'C 'd 'C ' .., F A 4 ' ' U '
v
Z "v N
0
o
a
y
a
o a
o
U z
o
0 0
ti F
A
y
C
i.i
a
i i i i i
ao w o°'n w o
s a' r..,
O ' O ' O O bn °' O bn 'n p°,
o ; o ; o o • o :b
b
UC7 UC7 UU UP, ( UaIA
O O b
O U p
G ' cd
O O
e O t"-.'+ O P.'+ bA
O p4. qq pA. pp
U O O 0 O
E C"
c j
b . U C N p
O
E= ` A a i 'n ° Q a i 'n O o O o a o °'
M G G) "C "d G N 'C "C -" bA €r v
V ..' , ., V cON c0 ..+0
O O 0
o • ""
v cn
4r "' r , b y y O
t3" ' Q v
O
0 bA...
c C G N d , ' . b v b
y d. b '
A .
V O cn p }' ' C 0 n
0 s., ' .. + O v s.. N t. v
b 1 0 r-+ 'b i." ^" V]
4- i
C
s"'
bp ,—. N ~ U „ " ' p+.
O ^~' 'Gj ,y
i.a ' ' i-i U G '1
O }y ,,.r"'„
i ,S i-+ .
y..i
C O O
y . . C
CC3
d • "b,• U ' V ~
O
O ' •-f i }' .
i C r i-y
y .".
CL 0 i+ ""i 1 y , ..
I
CCS C ' Cd i+ C U y ( i . Cd •r .
i ' O ,
t.. p v •.
V-
i ~ ,
N O i.+ U . O t^'d
U
U .-+ f v .P.0 A +, s., O
3 Q 'd
1. y .
y a ¢ a • .,.., . ` c '' 7°-+
cd v . 'G 4-i 'b ^'" y O y
U O cn x Q.
v O cd cd O d U •U n .
iC O s- U G ai s.. v
a o a E 'n E 'n . E E . w° a
b
N I M ir --
Z N N N N N ;
d' el' et'
w0
aa
x
a oa
V o
4.
0
o
o
t
A
y
C
F I
i G
b1) bA
O O p t.., s.., O
i N 4-
0 O OL
b c a
U A U U
4° °
C + cd p
O
y -i C7
a c -d
a o °' Q °
b . . o o ° o , .°
d v v t7 ^ o y a 'd >, c.
b ,
YdaO yU Y ° `~ ' >
Q , o
Q" o a `° ' .o ' ' o
c oU • v `,' ° b °' '~ ; `° `
o ... .o ': a o a o , .or... ;
a i o , °: ;, e cs',--
ao Q.:b a i a ° d p 'p i o v
o
A a
O
b4
cd "d O "C U bp y p a
y i-+ •t-'"'' O a",s "
O ' '" c
v . U oo (4 cd O U v
cd ty U
4 'b O c
o U v E- ° ,.- U v E-+ ° ° °.'
N y
O 0p
z o
z
w0
d
en
a a
C7
L ai"'
CC
r
G'i C7
U F
a"" OO
z00
t
v
A
y
ir C
y'„„ + w r-'+
0 y O t-. O "b
aa 3
a o , o , a
UaAH Uaa°, A
O V U b
C', + m y +' o n v
i+
G
t Qr O
I ''""' O O . Q i"' O , .
G U r.+ , +-+G
s,,, U U ,. b • s., r-v. O r"
1 " o c O . " 0 4=+ 23 a o ow° , a ob °'
a a a + , y v b a a r-- + , a , +• c a
b '
p
b y '
y +- • 0
O
w
O
Q. .Q. r • :
V] U O
v 1, c j O ¢, , v cd 0 O U 3 G 4-i
y , "p O a i "'O a i F.., '" c,j „ a . O .t"'-
cvd p •. p . , ^ .O ' p . c '
c-'d 0 '0 V
C v c V N p c '
j N "' U O •. .
f.i . U U td
f. v i O U .. ^' ' N
O V c
c C
O O ai ' p ¢, Y
i- . L: cd " U
4 i • ., U c -i 'C!.
y U "5..' Q. `3 ¢i cd U O r4',"i
i-i y i ,.C" W .5., ,
d c" "
c
o `
n , " .. cn N .,'
4 p.'
C% U 'n ' .t7 }-+ ", N r" •
U "" ~ v ~ Cd 4-I y G
i r Cd U ^' 'Ly i y p'. C
b .-Vi i.[Cr ' .L+"
o s.E- v v ow 3 b a °,' s b s,F-' U .
v ai
Q o o' Q °n a ,..;
o a p., r •, •., y •-,
a
q . a
r,,, E-{ • O 3 ' 'C ['- O a, U
0
z
H
w0
a
a
a
a o0
U o
0
o
U
ir 6J
A
U
i
b
p O G s.. b a
QdAodo ,
P' o
U Q
o
y ' .
M
w O
Qr O U y O
H Q
r-' y cVO '_' y„ y ' Cd .S'i .L7 r" ~
O G v t+ c C cd [ ."+ `+' N cC a) O
v ' V
y
p
O c b O U
b , r; cd
3 ,' a
n . •
o
p , +. ' v v 3 b A p"' U 'C
6 -' O +-~' O U ' N Q ^ +-+ y , s-i p
i
Cd v 4) C , Li U Cd " v + O c}. .si
a
U +
U
4
i,,, •^ '+ ••, T. t,,"
yy ' V ."'—i .s", -t". M ~ bA "'
O .
s". a i
U p"' ^.- , U
ICI G V CC N y r Vj. '
C + " V :
C, V Q' y.
c d bs.,A+ v s.., r-, v „ O 3 y t3 y OO ,_., y
Y
cd s-Q > , an °' b V' a.
c,i °
c . a . a i °' y "" ., o .., s., c a .,.s
a ° y 'b0 o , U , ° ° x
O 3 v A . ,.., . b ' .
0 3 '"`'" o
o o , a , o o
W , o o •° ca, o , s.. o .'• . cb, °+r' .b Q.,'y yc
w U U • °3 0 o
v, . c/] ' "" v '" :
v
a i i--i •'" Cd a, ; V] + ¢" a V' ~Q,,
d O • t. N ¢" cd ai O O . +-+ O O
a'- . a . °, r, ° a 3 3s. o . 3 3 v Ca
y
rl
w
Z
w0
v
en
a
y
O
a
C7
O
U
F
z
o
0 0
H
u
4 H
A
y
C
i
F
V
ab
o
w, o C
a •
b
F, o
o„ an ; a a a a op .s". a . , . .a . y
1 •[/] • .y-
r 4a .'.r .-.w
3 oAa a -d .
a , y
Oo . '
vi v O b4 '
i p p N ,
7 'd y
Q. O A+ s-+ O
O , O V +' •,-, C" ' Q, p
r.. " O +-+ • c,j 'U
r.,, 3 •}, O n
r , . o o o oo 'b a i s
a'bi °},'
v, v ,. r,
a i ' a"i ,s a"i ' C '' 'b a" `
C cn i- vi cd i.i v U P-i
O
z