HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft EIR (2)
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
SCH # 2005031017
September 26, 2005
Lead Agency:
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589
Contact:
Emery Papp, Senior Planner
Planning Department
Consultant to the City:
P&D Consultants
800 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 270
Pasadena, CA 91101
CITY OF TEMECULA i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 Executive Summary................................................................................................1-1
2.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................2-1
3.0 Project Description..................................................................................................3-1
4.0 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................4-1
4.1 Aesthetics....................................................................................................4-3
4.2 Air Quality..................................................................................................4-17
4.3 Hydrology and Groundwater .....................................................................4-31
4.4 Land Use and Planning.............................................................................4-37
4.5 Noise.........................................................................................................4-43
4.6 Transportation...........................................................................................4-67
5.0 Alternatives to the Project.......................................................................................5-1
6.0 Cumulative and Long-Term Effects.........................................................................6-1
7.0 Preparers of the EIR ...............................................................................................7-1
8.0 References..............................................................................................................8-1
Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Initial Study
Appendix B: Air Quality Worksheets
Appendix C: Noise Study
Appendix D: Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix E: Burrowing Owl Survey Report
Appendix F: Letter from Project Architect Regarding Project Configuration
Appendix G: Water Supply Assessment prepared by Rancho California Water District
Table of Contents
List of Tables
1-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................1-9
1-2. Notice of Preparation Letters......................................................................................1-35
4-1. Air Pollution Sources, Effects, and Standards ..........................................................4-19
4-2. Number of Days State Ambient Air Quality Standards Exceeded: Lake Elsinore
Station...............................................................................................................................4-20
4-3. PM10 Measurements: Perris Valley Station..............................................................4-20
4-4. SCAQMD Thresholds for Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution..4-23
4-5. Daily Construction Emissions (in pounds per day).................................................4-24
4-6. Operational Phase Regional Emissions (in pounds per day)................................4-25
4-7. State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards .....................................4-46
4-8. City of Temecula Noise Standards.............................................................................4-48
4-9. Summary of Noise Measurements.............................................................................4-50
4-10. Existing Traffic Noise Levels.........................................................................................4-50
4-11. Estimate Combined Noise Level During Each Construction Phase....................4-54
4-12. Analysis of Estimate Construction Noise Levels......................................................4-55
4-13. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year without Project............................4-57
4-14. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels with Project Phase I................................................4-57
4-15. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels with Project Phases I through V ..........................4-58
4-16. Level of Service Thresholds for Signalized Intersections ......................................4-69
4-17. Level of Service Thresholds for Unsignalized Intersections .................................4-70
4-18. Existing (2004 and 2005) Daily Traffic Volumes.....................................................4-73
4-19. Intersection Operations – Existing Conditions and Phase I .................................4-77
4-20. Existing Conditions and Phase I Roadway Link Analysis.......................................4-79
4-21. Phase I Trip Generation................................................................................................4-81
4-22. Project at Build-out Trip Generation..........................................................................4-87
4-23. Project at Build-out Intersection Operations ...........................................................4-89
4-24a. Project at Build-out Roadway Analysis (Original Traffic Study)...........................4-91
4-24b. Project at Build-out Roadway Analysis (Traffic Study Addendum).....................4-92
5-1. Intersection Operations – Access from Dartolo Road Alternative.....................5-12
5-2. Segment Operations – Access from Dartolo Road Alternative ..........................5-13
5-3. Alternative 5 Project Phase I Intersection Operations
(Access to De Portola Road).......................................................................................5-16
5-4. Project Alternative Project Phase I Segment Operations
(Access to De Portola Road).......................................................................................5-17
5-5. Alternative 5 Total Project Intersection Operations
(Access to De Portola Road and Dartolo Road).....................................................5-18
5-6. Alternative 5 Total Project Segment Operations
(Access to De Portola Road and Dartolo Road).....................................................5-19
5-7. Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives Relative to Impacts of the Project......5-23
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ii CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Table of Contents
List of Figures
3-1. Regional Location Map...................................................................................................3-2
3-2. Site Plan..............................................................................................................................3-5
4-1. Photo Locations................................................................................................................4-6
4-2a. Location A – View from Hillside without Project.....................................................4-8
4-2b. Location A – View from Hillside with Project ...........................................................4-9
4-3a. Location B – View from Pio Pico Road without Project.......................................4-10
4-3b. Location B – View from Pio Pico Road with Project .............................................4-11
4-4. Common Noise Sources and A-Weighted Noise Levels ......................................4-45
4-5. Common CNEL Noise Exposure Levels at Various Locations .............................4-45
4-6. Noise Measurement Locations ...................................................................................4-49
4-7. Site Plan............................................................................................................................4-52
4-8. Helicopter Flight Noise Contours...............................................................................4-60
4-9. Existing Roadway Conditions......................................................................................4-71
4-10a. Existing Traffic Volumes................................................................................................4-74
4-10b. Existing Traffic Volumes................................................................................................4-75
4-11a. Regional Trip Distribution ............................................................................................4-82
4-11b. Regional Trip Distribution ............................................................................................4-83
4-12a. Background Traffic Volumes without Project..........................................................4-84
4-12b. Cumulative Project Traffic Flows................................................................................4-85
5-1. Alternative Site..................................................................................................................5-8
CITY OF TEMECULA iii ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Table of Contents
This page is intentionally left blank.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT iv CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
1.0 Executive Summary
The Project
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan,
Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map to allow the development of a proposed
regional hospital to serve the City of Temecula and surrounding area. The project site encompasses
35.31 acres. Project applications are as follows:
A General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which
currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to 2 stories. The Professional
Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the property will remain
unchanged.
A Zone Change application to change the zoning district applicable to the property from
Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula
Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 would allow a
maximum building height of 115 feet for 30% of the roof area of the hospital.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 320-bed hospital facility and helipad; City
zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses.
A Development Plan application for the construction of a 408,160-square-foot hospital, a
helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000-square-
foot cancer center, and an 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area
proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31-acre site
A Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) to consolidate 8 lots into a single parcel.
Project Location
The project site is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California on the north side of
Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road.
Currently the project site is undeveloped. Until recently, three single-family homes were on the
property facing De Portola Road, but they are in the process of being demolished. Surrounding
land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South);
single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and
educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and commercial uses to the
east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate
15 is approximately 2 miles to the west.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Executive Summary
Project Objectives
City Objectives
The City’s objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to:
Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services
Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s
economic and employment base
Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of
the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access
routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions
Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula
Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular
traffic on surrounding residential uses
Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient,
state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City
Objectives of the Applicant
The objectives of Universal Health Services, the project applicant, for the proposed project are to:
Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities
Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care,
rehabilitation, and medical offices
Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art
facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors
Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and
patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures
Project Characteristics
The project site consists of 35.31 acres of largely vacant land covered with non-native grasses and
weeds. Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain, with a high point at the western
third of the property. The high point represents a boundary between two watersheds, with the
western one-third draining to the west and the balance sloping and draining to the east. A flood
control channel parallels the eastern site boundary, containing dense riparian vegetation consisting
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-2
Executive Summary
of willows and cottonwoods.
The proposed 566,160-square-foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility consists of:
An approximately 408,160-square-foot, 2-tower hospital complex to contain approximately
320 beds. One tower will be 6 stories/106 feet high, and the second 5 stories/83 feet high.
The hospital will offer full in-patient and out-patient services, as well as emergency services.
The facility will not contain a trauma unit.
Two medical office buildings, one 4 stories/73 feet high and the second 3 stories/60 feet
high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be
available for lease to all types of medical service providers.
A 10,000-square-foot cancer center housed in a one-story building.
An 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one-story building. The center will be
available only to patients and on-site staff.
A 60-foot by 60-foot helipad is proposed near the northeast corner of the hospital. The project
applicant indicates that on average, one helicopter flight per month will occur at the hospital. The
permit to be obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will
permit up to 6 landings per month because the helipad is defined as an Emergency Medical
Services Landing Site. An Emergency Medical Services Landing Site is defined as a site used for the
landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Services helicopters that is located at or as near as
practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and is used, over any twelve month
period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the
helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that
response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.1 Helicopter flights associated with the
hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During
each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient,
take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading.
A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of
the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading
dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area.
A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail will
connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Lighting will be placed throughout the site for security. Light fixtures will be pole-mounted, 25 feet
high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses.
Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16% building area, 30% parking area, and 33%
landscape area.
1 California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Executive Summary
Parking and Access
Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will be
reserved for handicapped parking. The site will be fully compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), including pathways from the handicapped parking to hospital facilities. All of
the buildings, except for the fitness center, will include passenger loading zones.
The project includes the following three access points:
1. Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and
signalized location
2. Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast corner of the project site, with turning
movements restricted to in and out right turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site
onto De Portola Road will not be permitted.
3. Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west
Primary project access will be from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary
access point at De Portola Road will be unsignalized. Internal circulation throughout the site will
also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department.
Construction
Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA consists of site grading,
demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 3-story, 60,000-square-foot medical office building
(medical office building #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces to serve the
building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months.
Phase IB consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately
162,650 square feet and a 6-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as
parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14
months.
Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320-bed configuration with the addition
of the 5-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet.
Phase III will add a 4-story 80,000 square foot medical office building (medical office building #1)
and the hospital connector.
Phase IV consists of construction of a one-story, 10,000-square-foot cancer center and associated
parking spaces.
Phase V will be the construction of the 8,000-square-foot fitness center and the jogging trail.
Processing History
Prior to preparation of this EIR, the City of Temecula previously circulated an Initial Study (SCH #
2005031017) for this project with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-4
Executive Summary
comment period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was March 8, 2005 through April
6, 2005. At a public hearing held on April 20, 2005, the City heard public input and testimony and
determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and
groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and transportation impacts should be prepared for this
project. Comments received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration have been addressed through analysis of project alternatives in this Focused
EIR. The scope of the project has not changed.
Required Actions
While the overall project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning Department, the
building requirements for the hospital buildings are under the sole control of the State of California,
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. As a result, to the extent required by law all
references in the EIR with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to apply only to
the non-hospital facilities.
The project is anticipated to require the following public actions and approvals.
Agency Action
City of Temecula City Council
Approval of General Plan Amendment to eliminate the
Z2 overlay shown in the General Plan, an amendment
to the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning from
Planned Development Overlay (PDO) 8 and
Professional Office to PDO-9, and the incorporation of
PDO-9 into the Temecula Municipal Code with will
allow building height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof
areas for hospitals
Approval of a Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit to provide for the development of the project
site with the proposed uses, structures, parking,
landscaping, and other components, and to establish
development standards and conditions of use for the
project
Approval of other actions related to the implementation
of the above actions and mitigation of environmental
effects
Medical Office Building and fitness center building and
occupancy permits
Adoption of the Focused EIR
Hospital building and occupancy permits
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-5 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Executive Summary
Agency Action
California Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development
City of Temecula Fire Department
City of Temecula Police Department
City of Temecula Public Works
City of Temecula Departments and
Divisions overseeing construction
related development
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
California Department of Fish and
Game
California Department of
Transportation, Aeronautics Division
Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Rancho California Water District
Riverside County Flood Control
Riverside County Health Department
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Review and approval of fire flow, fire lanes, and fire
suppression systems
Review of security plans and systems
Approval of Mitigation Plan
Approval of street improvement plans, sewer plans,
grading plan, and water and drainage system plans
Approval of Water Quality Management Plan
Review and approval of building, electrical, plumbing,
mechanical, and sign plans and permits
Review and approval of encroachment permits
Review and approval of street trees
Approval of Burrowing Owl report/surveys
Approval of special use helipad (Heliport Site Approval
Permit)
Review of helipad
Cultural report approval and pre-excavation agreement
Possible review and approval of stormwater permits
Possible review and approval water service permits
Possible review and approval of permits
Possible review and approval of permits
Possible review and approval of permits
Environmental Impacts
The City of Temecula has prepared this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze the potentially
significant environmental impacts associated with the construction and long-term operation of the
proposed regional hospital facility. In addition, the EIR identifies mitigation measures required to
avoid or substantially reduce identified significant impacts. A summary of the environmental
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-6
Executive Summary
impacts, mitigation measures, and level of impact remaining after mitigation is presented in Table
ES-1 beginning on page 1-9 of this Executive Summary.
The analysis contained in the EIR uses the words “significant” and “less than significant” in the
discussion of impacts. These words specifically define the degree of impact in relation to thresholds
used to determine significance of impact identified in each environmental impact section of this EIR.
As required by CEQA, mitigation measures have been included in this EIR to avoid or substantially
reduce the level of significant impact. Certain significant impacts, even with the inclusion of
mitigation measures, cannot be reduced to a level below significance. Such impacts are identified
as “unavoidable significant impacts.”
Unavoidable Significant Impacts
The EIR identifies the following unavoidable significant impacts:
Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts
Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter
flights
Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts
Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations (SOC) if the Lead Agency determines these impacts are significant and
the Lead Agency approves the project. Therefore, if the City of Temecula approves the proposed
project, the designated approving authority, the City Council, after certification of the Final EIR,
must adopt an SOC for these unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed project.
Potentially Significant Impacts that Can Be Mitigated
This EIR identifies the following areas of potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less
than significant level:
Aesthetics – Light and Glare
Noise – Operational Impacts (Mechanical Yard, Emergency Generators, Mechanical
Equipment Room, Rooftop Equipment)
Transportation – Project Impacts
Impacts Considered but Found to Be Less than Significant
The following project impacts were found to result in a less than significant impact, based on the
analysis contained in this the EIR:
Aesthetics – Scenic Highways and Visual Character or Quality
Air Quality – Construction Odors and Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise (Construction, Ground Borne Vibration, Traffic-related Noise, Sirens, Loading Dock
Activities, Parking Lot Activities, Trash Pickups, Landscaping/Maintenance, and Future
Exterior/Interior Noise Environment.)
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-7 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Executive Summary
ENV
TE
IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
MECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-8
The Initial Study (see Appendix A) prepared for the project determined that the project will result in
either a less than significant impact or no impact with regard to the following areas of
environmental concern:
Agriculture Resources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards/Fire Safety
Mineral Resources
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Summary of Environmental Impacts
Table 1-1 summarizes the environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the
regional hospital, the mitigation measures required to avoid or minimize impact, and the level of
impact following mitigation.
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
Un
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
Le
a
d
A
g
e
n
c
y
m
u
s
t
i
s
s
u
e
"
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
O
v
er
r
i
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s "
u
n
d
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
5
0
9
3
a
n
d
1
5
12
6
[
b
]
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
C
E
Q
A
G
u idelines i f th e agency
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
t
h
e
s
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
a
r
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
ic
a
n
t
a
n
d
a
p
pr
ov
e
s t
h
e
p
r
oj
ec
t
.
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
–
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
,
L
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
a
n
d
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
I
m pa
c
t
s
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
:
C
o ns
t
r
uc
t
i
o
n
a
c
ti
v
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
p
r
od
uc
e
da
i
l
y
e
m
i
s
s
i
on
s
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
S
C
A
Q
M
D
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
f
o
r
N
O
x a
n
d
R
O
G
. T
h
e
NO
x e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
il
y
a
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
ex
h
a
u
s
t
f
r
o
m
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
RO
G
e
m
i
s
s
i
on
s
a
r
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o n
o
f
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
.
T
h
e
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
of
t
h
e
s
e
p
o
l
l
u
t
an
t
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
ed
t
o
pr
o
d
u
c
e
a
s
i
g
n if
i
c
a
n
t
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
be
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
th
e
s
e
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
e
x
c
e
e
d
SC
A
Q
M
D a
i
r
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
si
gn
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
.
Lo
ng
-
t
e
r m:
A
i
r
p
o
l
l ut
an
t
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
a
s
so
c
i
a
t ed
wi
t
h
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s w
i
l
l
be
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
d
u
e
to
t
h
e
c
o
n
s um
pt
i
o n
o
f
e
l
e
c
t
r
i ci
t
y
a
n
d
n
a
t
u
r
a l
ga
s
a
n
d
b
y
th
e
o
p
e
r
at
i
o n
o
f
o
n
-
r
oa
d
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
On
c
e
t
h
e
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
es
ar
e
i
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
e
s
t
i
m
a
te
d
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
C
O
an
d
R
O
G
w
i
l
l
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
h
as
e
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
ds
e
s t a bl
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
S
C
A
Q
M
D
.
E
v
e
n
wi
t
h
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
t
r
i
p
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
en
e
r
g
y
e
f
f
i
c
i
e n cy
,
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
t
o
b
e lo
w
a
l
e
v
e
l
of
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
.
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
:
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
t
r
i
p
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
pr
o p o s ed
pr
oj
ec
t
,
o
t
h
e
r
k
n
o
w n
p
r
oj
ec
t
s
,
a
n d
am
b
i
e
n
t
g
r
o
w
t
h
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
o
n
a
r
e
a
Pr
e
-
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
AQ
-
1
.
Th
e
a
p pl
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
h al
l
c
o or
di
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
T r an
s
i
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
(
R
T
A )
f
o
r
a
f
i
n
a
l
l
o
ca
t
i
o
n
,
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
a
n
d
t
y
p
e o
f
st
a
g
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
(
o r
t
u
r
n
-
o
u
t
)
a
p
p r o p ri
at
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
W
r
i
t
t
e
n
au
t
h
or
i
z
a
t
i
o n
a
n
d
fi
n
a
l
a
p
p
r
ov
e
d
de
s
i
g
n
p
l an
s
s
h
a
l
l
be
s u bm
i
t
t
e
d
to
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
T e me
c
u
l
a
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
AQ
-
2
.
T
h
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t/
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
e
sh
al
l
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
a
n
d
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
Tr
a
n
s
p or
t
a
ti
o
n
D
e
m
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
me
n
t
(
T
DM
)
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
f
o
r
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
t
r
i
p
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
tr
u
c
t
i
on
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
da
i
l
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
t
h
e
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
T
D
M
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
b
u
t
n
o t
be
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
to
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g:
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
i
n
g
c
a
r
a
n
d
va
n
p
o
ol
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
o
f fe
r
i
n
g
f
l
e
x
h
o
ur
s
a
n
d/
o
r
f
l
e
x
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
es
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
on
-
g
oi
n
g
o
p
e
r
at
i
o n
o
f
t
h
e
fa
ci
l
i
t
y
.
W
r
i
t
t
e
n
p
r
o
o
f
of
s
u
c
h
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
h
a
l l b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
i
s su
a
n
c
e
of
a
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
a
c ti
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
th
e
i
s
su
an
c
e
o
f
a
Ce
r
t
if
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
o
f
f
i
c
e
s
.
AQ
-
3
.
Th
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
o
r
po
r
at
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
f
o r
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
f
a
c
i li
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
of
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
of
f
i
c
e
b
u
i
l
di
n
g
s
,
a
s d
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
y S
t
a
t
e
of
C
a
l
i
fo
r
n
i
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
on
s
.
AQ
-
4
.
Th
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
s
u
bm
i
t
a
f
i na
l
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
p
l
a
n
f
o r
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
n
a
t
i
ve
d
r
ou
gh
t
-
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
v
e ge
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
m
a
t
u
r
e
t
r
ee
s
(
1
5
g
a
l
l
o
n
,
2
4
-
i
n
c
h
b
o
x
a
n
d
3
6
-
i
n
c
h
b
o
x
)
.
I
f
mo
re
t
h
a
n
1
0
0
d
a
y
s
e
l
a
p
se
s
f
r
o
m t
h
e
t
i
m
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
i
s
c
o
mp
le
t
e
an
d
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
c
o
n
s tr
u
c
t
i
on
,
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
of
T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a
m
ay
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
l
a
nd
s
c
a
p in
g
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
of
d
u
s
t
a
n
d
t
o
pr
e
v
e
n
t
d
u
s
t
a
n
d
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
,
w
i
th
s
u
ch
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n g
t
o
b
e
Significant and unavoi d ab le.
EN
V I R O N ME
N
T AL
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
CI TY O F TEM E CUL A
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
1 -9
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s .
Th
es
e
t
r
i
p
s
w
i
l
l
a
ll
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u te
t
o
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
l
o
a
d
s
l
o
c
a
l
l
y
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
i
n t
h
e
Ba
s
i
n
a
s
a
w
h
ol
e
.
Cu
m
u
la
t
i
v
e i
m
p
a
c
t
s
w
i
l
l
be
pa
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
r
e
d
u
c
ed
b
y
i
m
p
l
e
m
en
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
ac
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
of
e
m
i
s
s
i
on
s
l
e
v
e
l
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
th
e
A
Q
M
P
a
n
d
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
w
i
th
i
n
th
e
T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
g
i
v
e
n
th
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
op
o s ed
p
r
oj
ec
t
i
t
s
e lf
w
i ll
r
e su
l
t
i
n
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
i
n
e
x ce
s
s
of
S
C
A
Q MD
t
h
r
e
s
h
o l ds
,
th
e
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
s
w
e
l
l
.
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
rm
i
t
t
e
e
’
s
e
x
p
e
ns
e
.
AQ
-
5
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
g
r
ad
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
c
o
n
s tr
u
c
t
i
on
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
th
e
a
p
pl
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
v
e
r
i
f
y
i
n
wr
i
t
i
n
g
(
t
o
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a rt
m
e
nt
)
t
h
at
a
l
l
e
a
r
t
h
-
m
o vi
n
g
a
n
d
la
r
g
e
e
q
u
i
pm
e
n
t
a
r
e
p
r
o
p
e
r ly
t
u
n
e
d
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
em
is
s
i
o
n
s
. I
n
a
d
di
t
i
o
n
,
a
l te
r n at
i
v
e
c
l
e
a
n
-
f
u
e
l
e
d
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
be
us
e
d
w
h
e
r
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
.
C
o
n
s tr
uc
t
i
o
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
be
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
an
d
d
e
p
l
o
y
e
d c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
lo
w
e
s
t
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
f
a
ct
o
r
s
a
n
d
hi
g
h
e
s
t
e
n
e
r
g
y
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
r
e as
o
n
a
b
l
y
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
AQ
-
6
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f a
gr
a
d
i
n
g
p
e rm
i
t
,
a
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
p r o g ra
m
sh
a
l
l
be
s
u b m it
t
e
d
t
o t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Te
m
e
c
u
l
a
P
u
b l ic
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a rt
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
a
p
p
r ov
a
l
.
Sa
i
d
p r o g ra
m
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
o
nt
r
o
l
o
f
wi
n
d
-
b
l
o
w
n
d
u
s
t
on
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
o
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
Th
e
Ci
t
y
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
rk
s
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
t
h
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
mo
di
f
y
t
h
i
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
ba
s
e
d
up
o
n
t
h
e
c
i
r
c
u
m
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
pr
e
s
e
n
t
t
h
e
m
s
e
l
v
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
on
.
AQ
-
7
.
T
h
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
e
sh
a
ll
p
r
e
p ar
e
an
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
a
co
mp
re
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
F
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
D
u
s
t
Co
nt
r
o l
Pl
a
n
t
o t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
T e me
c
u
l
a
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
c
o
m
p li
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
S
C
A
Q
M
D R
u
l
e
4
0
2
–
Nu
i
s
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
R
u
l
e
4
0
3
–
F
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
D
u
s
t
.
T h e
F
u
g
i
t
i
ve
D
u
s
t
Co
n
t
r
o l
P
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
p
p
l
ic
a
b
l
e
b
e
s
t
a
v
a
i
la
bl
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
i
n
c
l
ud
e
d
i
n
T
a
bl
e
1
a
n
d
Ta
b
l e
2
o
f
Ru
le
4
03
d
u
r
i
n
g
gr
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
uc
t
i
o
n
su
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
e
x
a
m
pl
e
s
li
s
t
e
d
be
l
o
w
:
So
i
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
s
a
f
e
d
u
s
t
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
s
h
al
l
b
e
p e ri
o
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
ap
pl
i
e
d
t
o
p
o rt
i
o
n
s
o
f
th
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
in
a
c
t
i
v
e
f
o
r
o
v er
f
o
u
r
da
y
s
.
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
v
e
g
r ou
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
2
1
da
y
s
af
t
e
r
a
c
ti
v
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
v
e
c
e
a
s
e
d
.
Ap
p
l
y
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
f
i
v
e
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
d
a
y
s
o
f
gr
a
d
i
n
g
c
o
m
p le
t
i
o
n
.
EN
V I R O N ME
N
T AL
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
CI TY O F TEM E CUL A
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
1-
10
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
Wa
t
e
r
a
l
l
r
o
a
d
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
v
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
t
r
af
f
i
c
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
t
w
i
c
e
pe
r
d
a
i
l
y
,
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
c
e
i
n
th
e
m
o
r
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
c
e
in
t
h
e
a
f
te
r
n
oo
n
.
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
v
e
h
i
cl
e
s
p
e
e
d
s
t
o
1
5
m
i
l
e
s
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
.
Ap
p
l
y
w
a
t
e
r
o
r
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
r
s
t
o
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
8
0
pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
of
o
p
e
n
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
p
i
l
e
s
o
n
a
da
i
l
y
b
a
s
i
s
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e o
f
w
i
n
d
dr
i
v
e
n
fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
d
u
s
t
or
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
e
m
p or
a
r
y
c
o
v
e
r
i ng
s
.
Co
v
e
r
h
a
u
l
v
e hi
c
l
e
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
e
x
i
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
Di
r
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
uc
t
i
o
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
o
v
e
r
e
s
ta
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
h
a
u
l
r
o
u
t
e
s
.
Th
e
F
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
Du
s
t
C
o
n
t ro
l
Pl
a
n
sh
a
l
l
b
e
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
ov
e
d
by
t
h
e
SC
A
Q
M
D
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s .
C
o
m
p li
an
c
e
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
F
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
D
u
s
t
Co
n
t
r
o l
P
l an
sh
a
l
l
b
e
su
b
j
e
c t
t
o
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
s
i
t
e
m
o ni
t
o
r
i
ng
b
y
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
AQ
-
8
.
Du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
of
t
h
e
pr
oj
e
c
t
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
tr
u
c ti
o
n
,
t
h
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m it
t
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
p
o
s
t
si
g
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
te
l
i
m
i
t
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
-
r
el
a
t
e
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
a
ll
g
e
n
e
r
a l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
1
5
m
i
l
e
s
p
e
r
ho
u
r
o
r
l
e
ss
.
AQ
-
9
.
Th
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
es
t
a
bl
i
s
h
c
o ns
t
r
uc
t
i
o
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
s
u
p
p
l
y
s
t
a
g
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
lo
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
l
e
as
t
5
0
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
ne
a
r
e
s
t
p
r
o
p
e
r ty
l
i
n
e
o
f
a
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
p
a
r
c
e
l
.
AQ
-
1
0
.
Th
e
a
p
pl
i
c
a
n
t
/pe
r
m i tt
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
op
e
r
l
y
m
a in
t
a
i
n
a
l
l
w
a
s
t e-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
en
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
c
o
m p ly
w
i
th
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
p
r
oj
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
o
d
or
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
a
n d
s
u
bs
e
q
ue
n
t
u
s
e
.
AQ
-
1
1
.
Al
l
t
r
u
c
k
s
e
x
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
i
m
p o rt
i
n
g
f
i
l
l
t
o
/f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r o j ec
t
s
i
t
e
sh
a
l
l
u
s e
t
a
r
p au
l
i
n
s
t
o f
u
ll
y
c
o
ve
r
t
h
e
l
o
a
d
i
n
c
o mp
l
i
a
n ce
w
i
t
h
St
a
t
e
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
C
o
d
e
2
3
1
1
4
.
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
d
i
n
t
r
uc
ks
o
f
f
s
i
te
CIT
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E CU
L
A
EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT
1 -11
GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
(t
o
a
n
d
/
o
r
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
)
s
h
a
l
l
co
m
p ly
w
i
th
S
t
a
t
e
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
C
o
d
e
23
1
1
4
,
w
i
t
h
s
p ec
i
a
l
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o n
t
o
S
ec
t
i
o
n
s
23
1
1
4
(
b
)
(
2
)
(
F ),
(
b
)
(F
)
,
(e
)
(
2
)
a
n
d
(
e
)
(
4
)
a
s
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
.
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r te
d
o
n -s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
be
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
l
y
w
a
t
e
r
e
d
or
s
e
c
u
re
d
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
d
u
s
t
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
L
o
w
e
r
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
r
u
c
k
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
w
h
e
e
l
s
,
sh
a
l
l
be
s
p ra
y
e d
w
i
t
h
w
a
t
e
r
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
b
e p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
m
a
na
g
e
d
s
o
as
t
o
pr
e
v
e
n
t
r
u
n
o
f
f
,
to
r
e
du
c
e
/
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
s
o
i
l
f
r
om
t
h
e
t
r
u
c
k
s
be
f
o
r
e
t
h
e
y
l
e
av
e
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
uc
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
.
AQ
-
1
2
.
Du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
of
t
h
e
pr
oj
e
c
t
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
tr
u
c ti
o
n
,
t
h
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m it
t
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
e
n su
r
e
th
e
sw
e
e
p
i
n
g
o
f
a
d
j
a
c
e nt
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
an
d
r
o
a
d
s
t
o
pr
e
v
e
n
t
t
h
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
a
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
on
of
d
i
r
t
i
n
th
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
.
S
w
e
e
p
i
n
g
of
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
st
r
e
et
s
a
n
d
r
o
a
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
be
do
n
e
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
b
u
t
n
o t
le
s
s
t
h
an
on
c
e
p
e
r
d
a
y
,
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
ea
c
h
d
a
y
o
f
g
r
ad
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
.
AQ
-
1
3
.
Du
r
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
of
h
i
g
h
w
i
n
d
s
(
i
.e .,
w
i
n
d
s
p
e
e
d
s
u
ff
i
c
i
e
n
t
t
o
ca
u
s
e
fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
d
u s t t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
ad
j
a
ce
n
t
p
r
op
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
w
i
n
d
sp
e
e
d
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
2
0
m
i
l
e
s
pe
r
h
o
u
r
,
av
e
r
a ge
d
o
v
e
r
a
n
h
o
u
r
)
,
t
h
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m it
t
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
c
u
r
t
a
i
l
a
l
l
cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
,
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
,
e
a
r
t
h
mo
v
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s a
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
,
t
o
t
h
e
d
e
g
r
e
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
pr
e
v
e
n
t
f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
d
u
s
t
cr
e
a
t
e
d
b
y
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
o
p
e
r at
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
b
e
i
n
g
a
nu
i
s
a
n
c
e
o
r
h
a
z
a
r
d
,
e
i
t
h
e
r
of
f
-
s
i
te
or
o
n
-
s it
e
,
o
r
a
s
de
t
e
r m i ne
d
b
y
th
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
a
t
h
i
s
s
o
l
e
di
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
.
AQ
-
1
4
.
Th
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t/
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
h
al
l
us
e
z
e ro
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
e
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
Co
m
p ou
n
d
s
(
V
O
C
)
c
o
n
t en
t
a
r
c
h
i
t
ec
t
u
r
a
l
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
a
n
d
re
p
a
i
n
t
i
n
g of
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
to
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
ex
t
e
n
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
.
T
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
w
i
l
l
r
e
d
u
c
e
V
O
C
(
R
O
G
)
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
by
9
5
pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
v
e
r
c
o nv
e
n
t
i
o
n
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
c
o at
i
n
gs
.
T
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
l
i
s
t
s
of
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
s
o
f
z
e
r
o
V
O
C
co
n
t
e
n
t
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
:
h
t
t
p
:/
/
w
w
w
.
a
q
m
d
.
g
o
v /p
r d as
/
b
r
o
ch
u
r
e
s
/
S
u
p
er
-
Co
m
p li
a
n
t
_
A
I
M.
p
d
f
EN
V I R O N ME
N
T AL
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
CI TY O F TEM E CUL A
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
1-
12
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
h
t
t
p
:/
/
w
w
w
.
d
e
l
t
a
-
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
.or
g
/
p
u bl
i
c
a
t
i
o
n s /p
ai
n
t
s
.
p
d f
AQ
-
1
5
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
w
a
t
e
re
d
d
o
wn
n
o
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
3
t
i
m
e
s
(
n
o
t
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
o
rn
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
v
e
n
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
d
o
w n )
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
a
n d/
o
r
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
u
s
t
.
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
AQ
-
1
6
.
Al
l
r
e
f
u
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
m
p
l
e
te
l
y
e
n
c
l
o
s
e
d a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
co
v
e
r
e
d
r
o
o
f
su
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
a
p
pr
ov
al
of
t
h
e
P
l an
n
i
n
g
D
i
r
ec
t
o
r
.
Re
f
u
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
s
h
a
l
l
be
ma
i
n
ta
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
n
e
n
c
l
o
s
e
d s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
an
d
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
at
a
l
l
t
i
m
e
s
,
e
x ce
p
t
du
r
i
n
g
p
i ck
-
u
p
ti
m
e
s
f
o
r
o f f-
s
i
t
e
re
m
o
va
l
.
AQ
-
1
7
.
Th
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
h
al
l
pr
ov
i
d e
a
cl
e
a
r
p
a
t
h
o
f
tr
av
e
l
f
o r
pe
d
e
s
t ri
a
n
s
,
i
n cl
u
d
i
n
g
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
si
g
n
s
t
o /f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
u
b
l ic
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
(D
e
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
wa
y
7
9
So
u
t h ) t
o
p
r
om
ot
e
al
t
e
r
n at
i
v
e
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
on
.
No
i
s
e
–
H
e
l
i
c
o
p
t
e
r
F
l
i
g
h
t
s
Th
e
6
5
d
B
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
N
o
i
s e
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
c
y
Le
v
e
l
(C
N
E
L
)
c
o
nt
o
u
r
a
s
s
o
ci
a
t
ed
w
i
t
h
he
l
i
c
o
p
t
e
r
fl
i
g
h
t
s
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
e
n
t
i
r
e
l
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
an
d
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
f
l
o
o
d
c
o
n
t
r
o l
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
,
a
n
d
do
e
s n
o
t
e
x
te
n
d
t
o
an
y
n
e
i
g
hb
o
r
i
n
g
n
o
i
s
e
-
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
r
s
.
T
h
e
a
m
bi
e
n
t
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
ve
l
a
t
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
h
o
m
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
h
e
l
i
po
r
t
i
s a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
5
7
d
B
CN
E
L
.
H
e
li
c
o
p
t
e
r
f
l
i
g
h
t
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
te
d
t
o
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
s
e
a
m
b
i
e
n
t
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
b
y
3
d
B
o
r
mo
re
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
n
y
s
i
n
g le
he
l
i
c
o
p
t
e
r
f
l
i
g
h
t
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
Th
e
h
e
l
i
p
a
d
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
o
b
e
o
b
ta
i
n
e
d
w
i
l
l
p
e
r
m it
up
t
o
6
f
l
i
g
h
t
s
p
e r
m
o
nt
h
.
I
n
a
w
o
rs
t
-
c
a
s
e
co
n
d
i
t
i
o n,
t
h
i
s
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
a
c
t
i
v
i
ty
c
o
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
.
N-
2
He
l
i
c
o
p
t
e
r
f
l
i
g
h
t
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
e
m
e
r
g e n c y -o n l y
ci
r
c
u
m
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
c
r
i
t
i
c al
pa
t
i
e
n
t
t r a n s p o r t . T h e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m it
t
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
a
p pl
y
f
o r
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
H
e
li
p
a
d
P
e
r
m
i
t
fo
r
a
n
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
S
i
t
e
,
a
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
o
r
in
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n ia
C
o
d
e
of
Re
g
u
la
t
i
o
n
s,
T
i tl
e
21
,
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
35
2
7
,
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
H e li
p
o
r
t
D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
i
s
p
e
r
m it
a
l
l
o
w
s
,
ov
er
a
n
y
1
2
-
mo
nt
h
p
e ri
o
d
,
f
o
r
n
o m
o
re
t
h
a
n
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
f 6
l
a
n
d in
g
s
p
e r
mo
n
t
h
w
i
t
h
a
p
a
t
i
e
n
t
or
pa
t
i
e
n
t
s
on
t
h
e
h
e
l
i
c
o
p
t
e
r
,
ex
c
e
p
t
t
o
al
l
o
w
f
o
r
ad
e
q ua
t
e
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
p
o
n se
t
o
a
m
a
s
s
c
a
s
u
a
l
t
y
e
v
e
n
t
,
ev
e
n
i
f
t
h
a
t
r
e sp
o
n
s
e
c
a
u
s
e
s
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
d
b
e
y
o nd
t
h
e
s
e
li
m
i
t
s
.
N-
3
He
l
i
c
o
p
t
e
r
p
i
l
o
t
s
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g t
o
ca
l
l
s
f
o
r
p
a
t
i
e
n
t
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
in
f
o
r
m
e
d
o
f
a
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
a
n
d
d
e
pa
r
t
u
r
e
h
e
a
d
i
n g
o
f
1
3
5
°
so
ut
h
e
a
s t.
Significant and unavoi d ab le.
CIT
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E CU
L
A
EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT
1 -13
GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
Al
s
o
,
t
h
e
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
f
l
i
g
h
t
p
a
t
h
m
i
g
h
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
f
o
r
an
y
g
i
v
e
n
f
l
i
g
h
t
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
u
p
o
n
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
co
n
d
i
t
i
o ns
a
n
d
w
i
n
d
sp
e
e
d/
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
a
h
e
l
i
c
o
p
t
e
r
de
p
e
n
d
s
o
n
a
nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
fa
c
t
o
r
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
e
.
g
.
,
h
o
v
e
r
i
n
g
,
c
l
i
m
b
i ng
,
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
i
n g,
et
c
.
),
a
i
r
s
p
e e d , p
o
we
r
s
e
t
t
i
n
g , a
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
, a
n
d
gr
o
u
n
d
c
o nd
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ba
s
e
d
o
n
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
da
t
a
,
th
e
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
du
r
i
n
g
a
h
o
v
e
r
a
t
t
h
e
h
e
l
i
p
a
d
r
a
n
g
e
f
r
o
m
7
6
t
o
82
d
B
(
A
)
a
t
a
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
5
0
0
f
e
e
t
,
d
e
p
e
n
d in
g
on
t
h
e
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t io
n
o
f
t
h
e
h
e
l
i co
p
t
e
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e t
o
th
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
.
At
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
s
ne
a
r
e
s
t
t
h
e
h
e
l
i
p
a
d
(
a
b
o
u
t
6
10
f
e
e
t
)
,
t
h
e
av
e
r
a
g
e
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
b ou
t
7
4
t
o
8
0
dB
(
A
)
.
A
s
s
u
m
i ng
t
h
a
t
s
t
a
n
da
r
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
2
0
dB
o
f
n
o
i
s
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
c
l
o
s
e
d ,
t
h
e
i
n
te
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
ve
l
i
s
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
b
o
u
t
5
4
to
60
d
B
(
A
)
.
T
h us
,
i
n
th
e
w
o
r
s
t
-
c
a
s
e
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
o
f
6
l
a
n
d
i
n
g
s
pe
r
mo
n
t
h
,
n
e
a
r
b
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
c
o
u
l
d
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
sh
o
r
t
-
te
r
m
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
ri
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
t
h
a
t
co
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
s id
e
r
e
d
a
n
n
o
y
i
ng
.
(
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
do
e
s
no
t
h
a
v
e
a
n
y
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
on
s
a
p pl
i
c
a
b
le
t
o
po
i
nt
-
so
u
r
c
e
n
o
i
s
e
e
v
e
n
t
s
.
)
As
s
u m i ng
o
n
e
f
l
i
g
h
t
o
n
a
“
w
or
st
-
c
a
s e”
d
a
y
, a
n
d
th
a
t
t
h
e
f
l
i
g
h
t
ho
ve
r
s
f
o
r
o n e
m
i
n
u
t
e
p
r io
r
t
o
la
n
d
i
n
g
o
r
c
l
i
m bi
n
g
,
t
h
e
s
o
u
n
d
e
x
po
s
u
r
e
le
v
e
l
fo
r
t
h
i
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
9
4 t
o
1
0
0
d
B
(
A
).
T
h e
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
a
n
n
o ya
n
c
e
l
e
v
e
l
a
t t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
r
a
n
g
e
s
f
r
o
m
3
t
o
4
(
o
n
a
s
c
a
l
e
f
r
o
m
0
t
o
1
0
)
.
I
f
t
h
i
s
c
o
n
d
it
i
o n
o
c
cu
r
r
e
d
u
p
t
o 6
ti
m
e
s
p
e r
m
o
n
t
h
,
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o f s
h
o
r t-
t
e
r
m
,
pe
r
i od
i
c
i
m
pa
ct
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
by
t
h
o
s e
p
e
r
s on
s
l
i
v
i
n
g
cl
o
s
e
s
t
t
o
t
h
e
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
.
EN
V I R O N ME
N
T AL
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
CI TY O F TEM E CUL A
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
1-
14
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
Ev
e
n
w
i
t
h
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
ur
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
u ce
he
l
i
c
o
p
t
e
r
f
l
i
g
h
t
n
o
i
s
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
,
t
h
e
s e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
ca
n
n
o
t
b
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
t
o
b
e
l
o
w
a
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
un
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
ex
a
c
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
f
l
i
g
h
t
s
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
d
u
e
t
o
th
e
un
k
n
o
w
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
e
m
e
r
ge
n
c
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
oc
c
u
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
n
y
g
i
v
e
n
m
o
n
t
h
.
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
–
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
t
r
i
p
s
f
r
om
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
n
d
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
r
e
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
t
o
c
r ea
t
e
o
r
a
d
d
t
o
tr
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
o
n
H
i
g
h
w
ay
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
,
es
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
I
-
1
5
ra
m
p
s
,
a
n
d
a
t
se
l
e
ct
e
d
ro
a
d
w
a
y
se
g
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
tw
e
n
t
y
-
o
n
e
(
2
1
)
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
w
i
th
i
n
t
h
i
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
o
t
a
l
of
16
0
,
5
0
0
A
D
T
w
i
t
h
5
,
5
6
0
t
r
i
p s
i
n
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
a
n
d
6
,
1
3
0
t
r
i
p
s
i
n
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
(2
,
2
0
9
i
n
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
1
,
4
8
9
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d ).
S
o
m
e
ve
h
i
c
l
e
t
r
i
p
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
f
i
n ed
t
o
t
h
e
a
r
e
a ,
wh
i
l
e
o
t
h
e
r
s
wo
u
l
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
ou
t
s
i
d e
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
ec
t
ar
e
a
t
o
s
u rr
o
u
n di
n
g
c
o
u
n
t
i
e
s a
n
d
u
r
b
a
n
c
e nt
e
r
s
an
d
a
f
f
e
c
t
t
h
e
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
n
s
po
r
t
a ti
o
n
s
y
s
t em
.
Ad
v
e
r
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o n
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
wo
u
l
d
o
c
c
u r
i
f
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
t
r
i
p
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n m
e
as
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
p
r o g ra
m
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
.
Th
e
p
r
o p o se
d p
r
oj
ec
t
w
i ll
n
o
t
r
e su
lt
i
n
a
n
y
cu
m
u
l
a
ti
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
i
n
t
e
r
s
ec
t
i
o
n
s
,
bu
t
th
e
fo
l
l
ow
i
n
g
r
o
a
d
wa
y
l
i
n
k
s
w
i
l
l
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
op
e
r
a te
ov
e
r
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
:
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
o
f
Pe
c
h
a
n
g
a
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
In
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
C
i
t
y
of
T
e
m
e
c
u
la
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s,
e
a ch
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
s
s
e
s
s
e
d
i
t
s
f
a
ir
s
h
a
r
e
f
o
r
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
P
a
y
m
en
t
of
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
es
w
i
l
l
a
l
l
o
w
th
e
Ci
t
y
t
o
f
u nd
si
g
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o n,
ro
a
d
w
ay
w
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
an
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
c
ce
p
t
a
b
l
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
a
t
l
o
c
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
i
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
en
t
a
r
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
t
o be
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
t
o l
e
ss
t
h
an
s
i
g
n if
i
c
a
n
t
le
v
e
l
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
pa
ym
e
n
t
of
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
f
e
e
s
a
n
d
c
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
a
n
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
-
l
e
v
e
l
r
o
a
d
w
ay
i
m
pr
ov
e
m
en
t
s
.
Significant and Unav oidab l e
CIT
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E CU
L
A
EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT
1 -15
GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
o
f
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ro
a
d
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d :
D
e
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
Ro
a
d t
o
Da
r
t ol
o
R
o a d
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d :
D
a
r
t
o
l
o
Ro
a
d
t
o
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
m pa
c
t
s
to
t
h
e
s e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
li
n
k
s
a
t
pr
oj
ec
t
b
u
i
l d-
ou
t
w
i ll
b
e
s
i
g
n if
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
un
a
v
o
i
d ab
le
.
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
m
o
re
,
s
o
me
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
ns
n
e
a
r
I
-
1
5
w
i
l
l
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
LO
S
E
a
n
d
F
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
in
t
o
t
h
e
f
u
t
u re
.
C
u
m
u
la
t
i
v
e
i
m pa
c
t
s
, a
s
n
o t e d
in
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
E
I
R
,
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
un
a
v
o
i
d ab
le
.
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a ct
s
t
h
a
t
C
a
n
B
e
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
o
r
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Se
c
t
i
o
n
1
5
1
2
6
.
6
(
c
)
o
f
t
h
e
St
a
t
e
C
E
Q
A
G
u id
e
l
i
n
e
s
Ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
–
L
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
G
l
a
r
e
Th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
n
e
w
so
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
l
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
g
l
a
r
e
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
a
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
a
n
d
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
of
f
i
c
e
s
(
u
p
to
6
st
o
r
i
e
s
i
n
h
e
i
g
ht
)
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
i
s r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
pr
oj
ec
t
a
p
pl
i
c
an
t
t
o
l
o ca
te
a
ll
g
r
o
u
n
d -m
o
u
nt
e
d
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
a
s
f
a
r
a
w
a
y
a
s
p
o
s
s
i
bl
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
.
A
l
l
f
r
e
e
-
s
t
a
n
di
n
g
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
w
i
l
l b
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
te
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
e
t
b
ac
k
s
se
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
D
e
v
e
l
op
m
e
n t
C
o
d
e
a
n
d
De
s
i
g
n
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
Th
e
h
o
s
p
i
t
al
t
o
w
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
po
te
n
t
i
a
l
t
o e
m it
g
l
a
r
e
f
r
om
t
h
e
u
p
pe
r
f
l
o
o r s .
A-
1
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
ce
o
f
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
ng
p
e
rm
i
t
,
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
s
h
a
l
l
v
e
r
i
f
y
t
h
a
t
a
ph
o
t
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
pl
a
n
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
h
i
c
h
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
l
i
g
h
t
l
e
v
e
l
s
f
o r
t
h e
e
n
ti
r
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
o
n
t
o
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
b
o un
d
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
f
u
gi
t
i
v
e
l
i
g
h t,
i
n
c
l
u
d in
g
m
e
a
n
s
t
o
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
.
C
o
rr
e
s
p
o n di
n
g
c
r
i
t er
i
a
fo
r
h
e
l
i
c
o pt
e
r
/
h
e
l
i
p
o
r
t
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
am
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
li
g
h
t
u
s
e
a
n
d
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s s
h
al
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
a
n
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
m
e
a
n
s
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
li
g
h
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
A-
2
.
Al
l
wi
n
d
o
w
s
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
se
co
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
s
p
i
t al
a
n
d
/
o
r
me
d
i
c
a
l
o
f
f
i
c
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
sh
a
l
l
c
o
n s is
t
o
f
g
l az
e
d
w
i nd
ow
s
a
n
d
/
or
ti
n
t
i
n
g
(
n
o
n
-
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
g
l
a
s
s
/
wi
n
d
ow
s
)
t
o
re
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
of
gl
a
r
e
e
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
u
p
p
e
r
f
l
o
o
r
s
.
Less than signi f icant.
EN
V I R O N ME
N
T AL
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
CI TY O F TEM E CUL A
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
1-
16
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
No
i
s
e
–
O
p
e
r
at
i
o
n
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
Me
c
h a n ic
a
l
Y
a rd
:
T
h
e
h
o
s
p
i
t al
’
s
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
ya
r
d
i
s
t
o b
e
l
o ca
t
e
d
on
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
s
i
d
e
of
t
h e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
b
e tw
e
e
n
t
h
e
h
e
l
i
p
a
d
t
o
th
e
n
o
r
t
h
an
d
t
h
e
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
d
o
c
k
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
.
Th
e
d
u
t
y
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
s
o
f
3
c
o
o
l
i
n
g
t
o
w
e
r
s
a
n
d
2
tr
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
r
s
.
It
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
m
b
in
e
d
no
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
f
o
r
a
l
l
t
h
e
e
q
u
i
pm
e
n
t
i
s
7
4
d
B
(
A
)
a
t
50
f
e
e
t
.
T
h
e
c
l
o
s
e
s
t
o cc
u
p
i
e
d
n
o
i
s
e
-
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v e
lo
c
a
t
i
on
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
ho
m
e
a
p
p
r
ox
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
7
1
0
fe
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t h.
Th
e
w
o
r
s
t
-
c
a
s
e
n
o
i
s
e
-
s
e
n
s
it
i
v e
l
o
c
a
t
i
on
i
s
th
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
r
op
e
r
t
y
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m at
e
l
y
7
1
0
f
e
e
t
t
o
th
e
n
o
r
t
h
.
A
t
th
i
s
d
i
st
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
no
i
s
e
le
v
e
l
i
s
5
1
d
B
(
A ).
O
v
e
r
a
2
4
-
h
o
u
r
pe
r
i
o
d
,
t
h
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
No
i
s
e
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
cy
L
e
v
e
l
(
C
N
E
L
)
wi
l
l
b
e
a
b
o
u
t
58
d
B
.
T
h
i
s l
e
ve
l
c
o
m
p
l
i
e
s
wi
t
h
th
e
C
i
t
y
’
s s
t
a
n
da
r
d
o
f
6
5
d
B .
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
N
E
L
at
th
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
b
y
4
d
B
.
At
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
o
f
f
i
c
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
(
a
di
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
b
o
u
t
1
6
0
f
e
e
t
)
,
t
h
e
C
N
E
L
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
d
u
t
y
e
q
u
i
pm
e
n
t
i
s
e
s
t
i
ma
t
e
d
to
b
e
7
1
d
B
.
Th
i
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
st
a
n
da
r
d
of
7
0
d
B
.
Em
e
r
g
e nc
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
:
O
n
a
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
ce
te
s
t
d
a
y
,
t
h
e
t
w
o
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
lo
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
y
a
r
d
w
o
u
l
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
no
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
4
1
d
B
C
N
E
L
of
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
4
1
d
B
CN
E
L
a
t
t
h
e
w
o rs
t
-
c
a
s
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
7
5
0
fe
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t h.
H
o
w
e
ve
r
,
i
f
t
h
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
o rs
ru
n
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
ov
e
r
a
2
4
-
h
o
u
r
p
e
r
i
o
d
,
th
e
CN
E
L
w
i
l
l
b
e
at
l
e
a
s
t
7
0
d
B
.
T
h
i
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
s
t
h
e
N-
1
On
c
e
t
h
e
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
ge
n
e
r
a to
r
s ) i
s
f
u
l
l
y
o p er
at
i
o
n
a l
u
po
n
c
o
m
p le
t
i
o
n
o
f
pr
oj
e c t
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
,
t
h e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m
it
t
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
c
o
n
t in
u
o
u
s
,
24
-
h
o
u
r
n
o
i
s
e
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
pe
r
i
o
d
of
o
n
e
w
e
e
k
.
S
u
c
h
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
h
al
l
b
e
c
o
n
du
c
t
e d
b
y
a
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
en
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
If
t
h
e
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
ve
l
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
l
a
n
d
us
e
/
n
o
i
s e
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
il
i
t
y
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
le
v
e
l
s
s
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a
G
e
ne
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
Ci
t
y
-
a
do
p
t
e
d c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
b
e
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
a
t
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
,
t
h
e
ap
pl
i
c
a
n
t
/
pe
r
m it
t
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
i
m pl
e
m
en
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
a
c
h
i
ev
e
t
h
e
th
r
e sh
o
l
ds
or
o
t
h
e
r
a
d
op
te
d
c
r
it
e
r
i
a
.
S
u
c
h
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
m
a
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
,
b
u t
n
o t
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t o ,
n
o is
e
a
t
t
e
n
u at
i
o n
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
,
eq
u
i
p
m
en
t
b
a
ff
l
i
n
g
,
o
r
o
t he
r
a
p
p
r
oa
c
h
e
s
d
e
e
m
e
d
a
p
p
r
op
r
i
a
t
e
b
y
a
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
O
n
c
e
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
,
t
h
e
ac
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
e
n
g
i
n
ee
r
s
h
a
l
l
f
i
l
e
a
r
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t in
g
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
ce
.
N-
4
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
h
o sp
i
t
a
l
l
o ad
i
n
g
d
o ck
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
l
i
m
i te
d
t
o
fo
u
r
p
e
r
d
a
y,
be
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
h
o
u
r
s
of
7
:
0
0
A
.
M
.
a
n
d
6
:
0
0
P
.
M
.
N-
5
Me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
al
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d f
o r
a
l
l
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
an
d
of
f
i
c
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
t
o
en
s
u
r
e
c
o
m
p li
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
no
i
s
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d s
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s he
d
i
n
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
ra
l
P
l
a
n
.
N-
6
Al
l
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
uc
t
i on
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
h al
l
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
ho
ur
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
ns
s
e
t
f
o
rt
h
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f T
e m ec
u
l
a
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
.
N-
7
Al
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
on
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s h al
l
b
e
t
u ne
d
an
d
m
u
f
f
l
e
d
t o
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
n
o
is
e
.
N-
8
Du
r
i
n
g
d
e
m
o
l
i
ti
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
n
s t r uc
t
i
o
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
io
n
s
,
th
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m it
t
e
e
s
h
a
l
l
st
a
g
e
a
l
l
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
a ry
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
op
e
r
a ti
on
s
a
s fa
r
a
s
p
o s s ib
l
e
a
n
d
p
r
ac
t
i
c
a
l
fr
om
s
u
r
r o u nd
in
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
r
op
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
Less than signi f icant.
CIT
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E CU
L
A
EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT
1 -17
GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
Ci
t
y
’
s
6
5
d
B
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
.
A
t
th
e
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
ne
a
r
e
s
t
o
f
f
i
c
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
to
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
(
a
b
o
u
t
18
5
fe
e
t
)
,
t
h
e
C
N
E
L
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
b
o
u
t
5
3
d
B
o
n
a
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
t
e
s
t
d
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
o
m
p
l
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
s
t
a
n
da
r
d o
f
7
0
d
B
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
i
f
t
h
e
ge
n
e
r
a
t
o
rs
r
u
n
c
o
nt
i
n
u
o
us
l y f
o
r
2
4
h
o
u
r
s
, t
h
e
CN
E
L
w
i
l
l
b
e
at
l
e
a
s
t
8
2
d
B
,
w
h
i
c
h
e
x
c
e
e
ds
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s s
t
a
n
da
r
d .
M e ch
an
i
c
a
l E
q
u
i
p
m
e n t
R o o m :
T
h
e
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
r
o
o
m
i
s
t
o
b
e
l
o c a te
d
in
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
h
o
s
p it
a
l
bu
i
l
di
n
g
,
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
y
a
r
d
.
B
a
se
d
o
n
th
e
f
a
c
t
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
ce
n
t
r
a
l
p
l
a
n
t
wi
l
l
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
v
a
ri
o
u
s
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
pu
m
p s,
c
h
i
l
l
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
bo
i
l
e
r
s
i
t
i
s
a
n
ti
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
i
t
c
o
u
l
d
p
r
od
u
c
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
t
ne
a
r
b
y
n
o
i
s
e
-
s
e
n
s
i
t iv
e
re
c
e
i
v
e
r
s
u
n
l
e
s
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
on
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d i
n
t
o
th
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
.
Ro
o
f
t
o p
E
q
u
i
pm
e
n t:
R
o of
t o p
m
ec
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
u
c
h
a
s
a
i
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
re
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
u
n
i
t
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
i
n
l
e
t
a
n
d
ex
h
a
u
s
t
s
y
st
e
m s
a
r
e
a
l
s
o
p o te
n
t
i
a
l
n
o is
e
so
ur
c
e
s
.
H
o w e ve
r
,
s
t
r
u
c
t
ur
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
a
r
e
e
a
s
i
l
y
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
n
e
w
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
i
t
i
s
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
th
at
s
u
c
h
m
e
as
u r es
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
o
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
r
o
o f to
p
m
e
c
h
a
n
ic
a
l
e
q
u
i
pm
e
n
t
n
o
i
s
e
.
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
ll
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
:
T-
1
.
Si
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
e
ma
i
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
op
p
o
s
i
t
e
C
o u n tr
y
G
l
e
n
W
a
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
ow
i
n
g
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r at
i
o
n
:
Less than signi f icant.
EN
V I R O N ME
N
T AL
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
CI TY O F TEM E CUL A
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
1-
18
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
Ph
a
s
e
I
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
ns
wi
l
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
E
o
r
F
a
t
P
h
a
s
e
I
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
ec
t
d
u
e
t
o
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
re
l
a
t
e
d
o
r c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a ct
s
:
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
1
5
so
ut
h
b
o u nd
r
a
m
p
s
–
b
o th
pe
a
k
h
o
ur
s
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
1
5
no
rt
h
b
o
u nd
r
a
m
p
s
–
b
o
th
p
e
a
k
h
o
ur
s
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
L
a
P
a
z
S
t
r
e
e
t
–
P.
M
.
p
e
a
k
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
–
P
.
M
.
p
e
a
k
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
R
e
d
h
a
w
k
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
/
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
–
b
o
t
h
pe
a
k
h
o
u
r
s
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ro
a
d
w
a
y
l
i
n
k
s
wi
l
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
LO
S
E
or
F
a
t
P
h
a
s
e
I
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
d
u
e
t
o
pr
o
j
e
c
t
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d o
r
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
:
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
:
w
e
s
t
o
f
Pe
c
h
a
n
g
a
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
:
w
e
s
t
o
f
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ro
a
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
t
B
u
i
l
d
-
o
u
t
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
ns
wi
l
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
E
o
r
F
a
t
p
r
oj
ec
t
b
u
i
l
d-
o
u t
d u e
t
o
pr
oj
ec
t
-
re
l
a
t
e
d
o
r c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a ct
s
:
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
1
5
so
ut
h
b
o u nd
r
a
m
p
s
–
b
o th
pe
a
k
h
o
ur
s
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
1
5
no
rt
h
b
o
u nd
r
a
m
p
s
–
b
o
th
p
e
a
k
h
o
ur
s
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
L
a
P
a
z
S
t
r
e
e
t
–
We
s
t bo
u
n
d
:
1
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
3
t h r o u g h l a n e s
1
le
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
Ea
s
t
b
o un
d:
2
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
2
t h r o u g h l a n e s
1
sh
a
r
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
la
n
e
No
r
t
h
b
ou
n
d :
1
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
1
sh
a
r
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
la
n
e
So
u
t
h
b
ou
n
d :
2
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
1
sh
a
r
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
la
n
e
(2
0
fe
e
t
wi
d
e
)
T-
2
.
T
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m
i
tt
e
e
w
i
l
l
p
a
y
Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
C
o un
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p or
t
a
ti
o
n
U
n
i
f
o
r
m
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o n F
e
e
s
(
T
U M F)
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
cu
m
u
l
a
ti
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
th
e
H
i gh
w
ay
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
t
I
-
1
5
.
T-
3
.
T
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
ee
w
i
l
l
c
o
n
t
r
i bu
t
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
to
w
a r d t
h
e
pr
ov
i
s
i
o n
o
f
t
h
e
fo
l
l
ow
in
g
r
o ad
w ay
i
m
pr
ov
e
m en
t
s
t
o
ad
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
p
r
oj
e
c
t
’
s
c
o nt
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
wa
r
d
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a ct
s
:
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o ut
h
/
I
-
1
5
S
o ut
h
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
:
A
d
d
i
t
i
on
a
l
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
ft
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o ut
h
/
I
-
1
5
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
:
A
d
d
i
t
i
on
a
l
ea
s
t
b
o un
d
t
h
r
o ug
h
l
a ne
,
p
l
u
s c
o
nv
e
r
t
w
e
s
t
bo
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
l
a
ne
t
o
fr
e
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o ut
h
/
L
a
Pa
z
R
o
a
d
:
W i de
n
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
m
o ve
m
e
n
t
to
d
u al
le
f
t
t
u
r
n l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
o
n
e
s
h
a
r
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
l
a
n
e
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o ut
h
/
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
:
A
dd
i
t
i
on
a
l
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
le
f
t
-
t
ur
n
l
a
n
e
,
p
l
us
e
a
s
t b o un
d
a
n
d
n
o
r
t
h
b ou
n
d
f
r
e
e
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
s
CIT
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E CU
L
A
EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT
1 -19
GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
P.
M
.
p
e
a
k
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
–
P
.
M
.
p
e
a
k
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
G
l
e
n
W
a
y
–
L
O
S
F
a
t
A
.
M
.
a
n
d
P
.
M
.
pe
a
k
h
o
u
r
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d /H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
–
LO
S
F
a
t
A
.
M
. a
n
d
P
.
M
.
pe
ak
h
o
u
r
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
R
e
d
h
a
w
k
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
/
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
–
b
o
t
h
pe
a
k
h
o
u
r
s
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ro
a
d
w
a
y
l
i
n
k
s
wi
l
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
LO
S
E
or
F
a
t
p
r
oj
ec
t
b
u
i
l d-
ou
t
d
u
e
t
o pr
oj
ec
t
-
re
l
a
t
e
d
o
r c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a ct
s
:
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
:
w
e
s
t
o
f
Pe
c
h
a
n
g
a
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
:
w
e
s
t
o
f
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ro
a
d
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d :
D
e
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
Ro
a
d t
o
Da
r
t ol
o
R
o a d
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d :
D
a
r
t
o
l
o
Ro
a
d
t
o
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o ut
h
/
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
C ou
nt
r
y
G
l
e
n
W
a
y
:
Si
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
a
n
d
pr
o
v
i
d e
d
u
a
l
e
a
s
t
b o un
d
l
e
f
t
-
t ur
n
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
du
a
l
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
ft
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
w
i th
a
sh
a
r
e
d
t
h
ro
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
rn
l
a
n
e
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
e
di
ca
t
e
d
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n l
a
n
e
f
o
r
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p pr
o
a
c
h
.
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o ut
h
/
Re
dh
a
w
k
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
/
M
a
rg
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d
:
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
so
u
t
h
b
ou
n
d
a
n d
e
a
s
t
b
o un
d
du
a
l
l
e
f
t
a
n
d
r
i
gh
t
-
t
u
r
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
ov
e
r
la
ps
.
T-
4
.
Im
pr
ov
e
m
en
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
oj
ec
t
si
t
e
s
h
a
ll
i
n
c
l
ud
e
a
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y o
n
t
o
De
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
R
o
a
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
to
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
t
h
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
Wo
rk
s
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r .
Im
p
a
c
t
s
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
b
u
t
F
o
u
n
d
t
o
B
e
L
e
s
s
T
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
1
5
1
2
8
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
CE
Q
A
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
Ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
–
S
c
e
n
i
c
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
V
i
s
u
a
l
Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
o
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
te
i
s
n
o
t
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
o
f
a
s
t
a
t
e
s
c
e
n
i
c
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
,
d
o
e
s
n
o t
in
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
y
s
c
en
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
i
s
n
o
t
k
n
ow
n
f
o
r
it
s
v
i
s
u
a
l
c
h
a
r
ac
t
e
r
,
n
o
r
d
o
e
s t
h
e
s
i
t
e
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
sc
e
n
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
A-
3
.
Th
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
al
l
pl
a
n
t,
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
a
n
d
re
p
l
a
c
e
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
m
a
t
u
r
e
t
r
e
e
s
(2
4
-
i
n
c
h
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
)
a
n
d
s
h
r
u bs
(1
5
-
g
a
l
l
o
n
or
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
)
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
m
e te
r
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
m
a
y
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
l
o
n g
t
h
e
n
o
rt
h
e
r
n
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
a
n
d
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
pa
r
c
e
l
s
.
Less than signi f icant.
EN
V I R O N ME
N
T AL
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
CI TY O F TEM E CUL A
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
1-
20
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
To
so
f
t
e
n
v
i
e
w
s
a
n
d
bl
e
n
d
t
h
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
en
t
wi
t
h
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
di
ng
u
r
b
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
la
n
d
s
c ap
e
p
l
a
n
p
r o po
s
es
n
u
m
e
r
o
u
s
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
tr
e
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
Af
g
h
a
n
P
i
n
e
,
C
o
a
s
t
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
s
,
an
d
S
i
l
k
T
r
e
e
s
al
o
n
g
t
h
e
pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
r
e si
d
e
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
,
wh
i
c
h
w
i
l
l
b
u
f
f
e
r
t
h
e
v
i
s
u
a
l
ap
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
bu
i
l
di
n
g
s
a
n
d
ma
s
k
t
h
e
d
e
v
e lo
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h e
si
t
e
.
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
at
i
o
n
o
f
th
e
s
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
f
e
a
t
u
r
es
wi
l
l
h
e
l
p
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
v
i
e
w
s
h
e
d i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
T
h
e
p r op
os
ed
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f t
h
e
ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
t
o
we
r
s
w
i
l
l
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t v
i
e
w
s
f
r
o
m
n
e
a
r
b
y
lo
c
a
t
i
on
s
.
H
o we
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
v
i
e
w
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
pr
i
v
a
t
e
,
a
r
e
n
o
t
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
ed
t
o b
e
o
f
pu
b
l
i
c
be
n
e
f
i
t
,
a
n
d
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d b
y
a
n
y
C
i
t
y
r e gu
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
po
li
c
y
.
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
–
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Od
o
r
s
a
n
d
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
w
i
t
h
A
d
o
p
t
e
d
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
Co
n
s
tr
u
c
t
i
on
o
d
or
s
a
r
e
ty
pi
c
a
l
o
f
u
r
b
a
n
i
z
e d
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
a
n d
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
r
e gu
l
a
t
i
on
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
m
a
c
h
i
n
er
y
t
o
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
e
n
g
i
ne
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
e
m
i
s
s
i
on
s
ar
e
a
l
s
o
of
s
h
or
t
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
r
e
q
u
i
c
k
l
y
di
s
p er
s
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
a
t
m
o
s
p he
re
.
Th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
c
o
n
s is
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
g
o
a
l
s
an
d
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
w
i th
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
.
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
ec
t
i
s
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
L
a
n
d
Us
e
a
n
d
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
/
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
on
El
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
i
t
i
s
as
s
u me
d
t
o b
e c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i th
t
h
e
A
i
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
(
A QM
P
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
’
s
as
s
u mp
t
i
o
n
s
a
r e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
fo
r
No
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
on
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
. L e s s t h a n signi f i c a n t .
CIT
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E CU
L
A
EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT
1 -21
GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
th
e
A
Q
M
P
.
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
it
y
Te
m
e
c
u
l
a
i
s
a
me
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
Fl
o
o d
C
o
nt
r
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
’
s
St
o
rm
W
a te
r
C
l
e
a
n
Wa
t
e
r
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
l
l
d
e
ve
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pr
oj
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
ts
t
o
pr
e
p
a
r
e
a
S
t
o
r
m
W
a
t
e
r
P
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
(
S
WP
P
P )
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
w
a
te
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
i
m
pa
c
t
s
du
r
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
m
e
v
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
oc
cu
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
.
In
a
d
d
i
t
i
on
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
p
e
r
m it
t
e
e
m
u
s
t
pr
e
p
a
r
e
a
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
B
e
s
t
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
(
B
M
P
s
)
,
ou
t
l
i
n
i
n
g
h
o
w
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
w
a
te
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
i
m
pa
c
t
s
du
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o n.
Du
e
t
o
Ra
n
c
h
o
C
a
l
i
f
o
rn
i
a
W
a te
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
’
s
(R
C
W
D
)
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
l
o
c
a
l
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
u
r
ce
s
,
th
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
ty
o
f
l
o
c
a
l
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
an
d
t
h
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
i
m po
r
t
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
st
or
e
i
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
th
e
b
a
s
i
n
,
sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
d
r
o
u
g
h
t
si
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s h
a
v
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
h
a d
n
e
g
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
ef
f
e
c
t
on
t
h
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
to
s
u
p
p
l
y
c
u st
o
m
e
r
s
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
on
a
l
l
y
,
i
f
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
s
a
r
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
as
a
r
e
s
u
l
t o
f
s i ng
l
e
o
r
m
u
l
t
i
p le
d
r
y
, o
r
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
dr
y
y
e
a
r
s
,
R
C
WD
h
a
s
t
h
e
a
b il
i
t
y
t
o
m
e
e
t
de
m
a
n
d
s
b
y a
u gm
e
n
t
i
n
g
i
t
s
s
u
pp
ly
w
i
t
h
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
e
x
t
r
ac
t
i
o
n
s
, a
l
on
g
w
i
t
h
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
RC
WD
a
l
s
o
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
s
th
a
t
t
h
e
u
s
e
of
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
r
e
a se
,
t
h
e
r
e
b
y
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
u
s
e
a
n
d
r
e
l
i
a
n
ce
o
f
d
o
m
e
s
t i c
wa
t
e
r
s
o
ur
c
e
s
,
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
R
C
W
D 's
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
su
pp
l
y
w
a
t
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
s
i
n
g
l
e
o
r
m
u
l
t
i
p le
d
r
y,
o
r
No
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
on
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Less than signi f icant.
EN
V I R O N ME
N
T AL
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
CI TY O F TEM E CUL A
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
1-
22
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
d
r
y
,
y
e ar
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e,
R
C
W
D
h
a
s
co
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
t
h
a
t
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
wa
te
r
s
u
p
p
l
y e
x
i
s
ts
t
o
su
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
Te
m
e
c
u
l
a
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
C
a
l
i
f
o
rn
i
a
W
a
t
e
r
Co
d
e
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
10
9
1
0
.
La
n
d
U
s
e
a
n
d
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
th
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Z
2
o
v
e
r
l
a
y
,
a
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
,
w
o
u
l
d
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
ns
.
A
s
a
d
e
f
a
u
l
t
,
t
h
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
o
f t
h
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
z
o
n
e
w
o
u
l
d
a
p pl
y
.
T
h
e
P
O z
o
n
i
n
g
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
h
a
s
a
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
li
m
i
t
o
f
7
5
f
e
e
t
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
h
a
s
su
b
m
i
t
te
d
a
P
D O
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
z
o
n
e
c
h an
g
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
to
a
l
l
o
w
a
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
1
1
5
f
e
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
to
w
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
es
.
I
f
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
,
n
o
c
o nf
l
i
c
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
po
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
z
o
n
i
n
g
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
.
Th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
fa
c
i li
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
.
P
u
b
l
i
c
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
se
r
v
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
ph
a
s
e
d t
o
c
o
r
r es
p
o
n
d t
o
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
ph
as
i
n
g
.
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
j
o
b
s wi
l
l
b
e
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m in
g
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
an
d
t
h
e
h
o
u
s
i
n g
f
o
r
t
h
e
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
w
o rk
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
be
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
n
e
w
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
G
e
ne
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
ll
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
of
a
p
l
a
n
ne
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
m
i
t
to
p
r
o
v
id
e
fo
r
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
w
i
t
h t
h
e
u
s
e
s
,
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
,
pa
r
k in
g
,
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
No
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
on
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e d . L e s s t h a n signi f i c a n t
CIT
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E CU
L
A
EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT
1 -23
GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
of
t
h
e
p
r
op
os
ed
d
e
v
e
l
o pm
e n t,
an
d
t
o
pr
o
v
i
d e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
da
r
d
s
f
o r t
h
e
pr
oj
ec
t
.
Th
e
C
i
t
y
h
a
s
s
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
at
a
k
e
y
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
is
t
o
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a te
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
o
f
a
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
be
a
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o na
l
l
y
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,
s
t
a
t
e
-
o
f
-
t
h
e
-
a
r
t
f
a
c
i
l
i
ty
t
h
a
t
pr
o
v
i
d es
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
t
o
th
e
Ci
t
y
.
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
,
C
i
t
y
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
a
n
y
s
u
c
h
ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
s
c
o
m
p
at
i
b
le
w
i
t
h
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
u
s es
i
n
te
r
m
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
ze
a
n
d
c
o
n
f
i
g
ur
a
t
i
o
n
of
bu
i
l
di
n
g
s
,
u
s
e
o
f
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a n d
la
n
d
sc
a
p
i
n
g,
th
e
lo
c
a
t
i
on
o
f
a
c
ce
s
s
r
o
u
t
e
s
,
n
o
i
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
,
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
a
c
t
s
,
a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o ns
.
If
a
p
p
r
ov
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
t
h
e
p
r
op
o
s
e
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
P
D
O
-
9
z
o
n
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
–
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
th
e
s
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
l
a
n
d u
s
e
r e gu
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
–
w
il
l
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
er
ed
a
p
p
r
op
r
i a te
la
n
d
u
s
e
p
o
l
i
c
y a
n
d
z
o
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
I
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
e
l
e
c
t
s
t
o
o t he
r
w
i
s
e
l
i
m
i
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
he
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
/
o
r
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
ad
d
i
t
i
on
a
l
d
e
v
e lo
p
m
e
n
t
co
n
d it
i
o
n
s ,
th
e
Co
u
n
c
i
l
’
s
a
c
t
i
on
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
i
t
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
su
c
h
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
a
p
p
r
op
r
i
a
t
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
i
t
s
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
di
n
g
s
in
l
i
g
h
t
o
f
t
h
e
st
a
t
e
d p
r
oj
e
c
t
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
.
. No
i
s
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
on
:
C
o
n
s
t
r
uc
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
,
as
pe
r
c
e
i
v
e
d
a
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
on
s
n
e
ar
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
w
i
l
l
fl
u
c
t
u at
e
d
e
pe
nd
i
n
g
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
t
y
pe
,
nu
m
b
e
r
,
a
n
d
du
r
a
t
i
o n
o
f
u
s
e
o
f
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
p
i
ec
e
s
of
c
o
n
s
tr
u
c
t
i
on
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
as
w
e
l
l
a
s
th
e
No
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
on
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
. L e s s t h a n signi f i c a n t .
EN
V I R O N ME
N
T AL
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
CI TY O F TEM E CUL A
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
1-
24
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
di
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
on
a
c ti
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
S
h
or
t-
te
r
m
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
va
r
y
i
n
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
r
e
de
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
up
o
n
t
h
e
t
y
pe
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
on
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
t
h
e
a
s so
c
i
a
t
e
d e
q
u
i
pm
e
n
t
u
s
e
d f
o r
t
h
a
t
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
h
as
i
n
g
.
S
h
or
t
-
t
e
r
m
im
pa
c
t
s
f
o r t
h
e
p
r
op
o s ed
p
r
oj
ec
t
w
i ll
o
c
c
u r
th
r
o
u
g
h
o ut
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
p
h
a
s
e
s
o
f
c
o
n
s tr
u
c
ti
o
n
an
d
w
i
l
l
l
a
st
f
r
o
m
2
m
o
n
t
h
s
fo
r
s
i
t
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
t
o
12
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
n
s tr
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
A
t
t
i
me
s
,
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
n
o is
e
m
a
y
c
a
u
s
e
a
n
n
o
y
a
n
c
e
a
t
no
i
s
e
-
s
e
n
s it
i
v
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
on
s
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
No
i
s
e
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
cy
L
e
v
e
l
(
C
N
E
L
)
du
e
t
o c
o
n
s
tr
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
es
i
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d t
o
ex
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
6
5
d
B
t
h
r
e sh
o
l
d
a
n
d
i
n
cr
e
a
s
e
th
e
a
m
b
i
e
n
t
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
b
y m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
3
d
B
a
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
l
o
c
a te
d
n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
oj
e
c
t
.
At
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
t
o t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
,
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
i
s a
l
s
o e
x
pe
c
t
e
d t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
CN
E
L
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
6
5
d
B
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
im
p
a
c
t
o
f
c
o ns
t
r
u
c
t
i
on
n
o
i
s
e
i
s
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
l
e
ss
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
i
t
w
i
l
l
oc
c
u
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
h
o
u
r
s
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
.
Gr
o
u
n
d -b or
n
e V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o n
o
r
N o is
e:
Th
e
pr
i
m
a
r
y
v
i
b
r
a
t
o
r
y
s
o
u
r
c
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
l
a
r
g
e
bu
l
l
d
o
z
e
r
s
.
T
y
p
i
c
a
l
b
u ll
d
o
z
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
a
n
a
pp
r
ox
i
m
a
t
e
v
i
br
a
t
i
o
n
l
e
v
e
l
of
8
7
Vd
B
a
t
a
d
i
st
a
n
c
e
o
f
2
5
f
e
e
t
.
A
t
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
th
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
(a
b
o
u
t
3
0
5
f
e
e
t
)
t
h
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
v
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
l
e
ve
l
wi
l
l
b
e
6
5
V
d
B
.
T
h
i
s i
s
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
a
t
wh
i
c
h
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g d
a
m
a
g
e
o
c
c
u rs
a
n
d
b
e
l
o w t
h
e
im
p
a
c
t
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
o
f
7
5
V
d
B
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
CIT
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E CU
L
A
EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT
1 -25
GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
N
o
i
s
e
:
Th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
oj
e
c
t
wi
l
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
-
g
e
n
e
ra
t
e
d
C
N
E
L
b
y
a
t
mo
s
t
0
.5
d
B
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
l
e
ss
t
h
an
t
h
e
3
d
B
th
r
e sh
o
l
d
o
f
si
gn
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
.
A
l
s
o
,
p
r
oj
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
wi
l
l
n
o
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
C
N
E
L
f
r
o
m
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
o
f
si
gn
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
o
f
si
gn
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
a
t
an
y
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
me
d
i
c
a
l
,
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
s
c
h
o
ol
,
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
,
o
r
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
o
f
f
i
c
e
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
n t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
a
r
e
a
.
Si
r
e
n
s
:
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
ce
s
i
r
e
n
n
o
is
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
to
b
e
a
s
h
i
g
h
a
s
1
0
5
d
B
(
A
)
a
t
2
5
fe
e
t
.
A
l
t
h
ou
g
h
t
h
e
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
ma
y
c
a
u
s
e
s
o
m
e
an
n
o
y
a
n
c
e
a
t
ne
a
r
b
y
n
o
i
s
e-
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
,
no
i
s
e
f
r
o
m
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
v
e
h
i cl
e
s
w
i
l
l
o
n
l
y
oc
c
u
r
sp
or
a
d
i
c
a
l
ly
a
n d
f
o
r
s
h
or
t
p
e ri
o
d
s
of
t
i
m
e
du
r
i
n
g
a
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
.
Lo
a
d
i
n
g
D
o
c
k
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
:
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
ho
s
p it
a
l w
i
l
l
h
av
e
3
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
do
c
k
s
f
o r
t
r
u
c
k
de
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
.
T
h
e
s e
d
o
c
k
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d t
o
be
lo
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
s
i
d
e
of
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
so
u
t
h
of
t
h
e
h
e
l
i
p
a
d
.
O
n
c
e
op
e
r
a
t
i
o na
l
,
t
h
e
ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
w
i
l
l
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
a
p
p
r
ox
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
3
t
o
4
tr
u
c
k
de
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
h
o
u
r
s
of
7
:
0
0
A.
M
.
t
o
6
:
0
0
P
.
M
.
No
n
i
gh
t
t im
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
oc
c
u
r
.
T
h
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
10
-
m
i
n
u
t
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
n
o
i
s
e
le
v
e
l
a
t
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
c
l
os
e
s t
t
o l
o ad
i
n g
do
c
k
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
5
0
d
B
(
A
)
.
T
h
i
s
le
v
e
l
i
s
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
d
a
y
t
im
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
n
o
i
s e
so
u
r
c
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
Wi
t
h
4
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
o
v
e
r
a
2
4
-
ho
u
r
p
e
r
i
o
d
,
t h is
e
q
u
a
t
e
s
t
o a
C
N
E
L
o
f
4
2
d
B
.
Th
i
s
l
e
v
e
l
i
s b
e lo
w
t
h
e
d
a
y
t i m e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
no
i
s
e
so
ur
c
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
rd
s
o
f
6
5
dB
.
Me
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
t
h
a
t
t
h e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
N
E
L
a
t
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
i
s
ab
o
u
t
5
7
d
B
,
so
l
o a d in
g
d
o
c
k
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
n
o is
e
l
e
v
e
l
b
y
3
d
B
o
r
m
o
r
e
.
EN
V I R O N ME
N
T AL
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
CI TY O F TEM E CUL A
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
1-
26
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
Th
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
i
s
d
e
si
g
n
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
(
P
O
)
u
s
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
P
O
zo
n
e
a
r
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
o
n
l
y
b
y
c
o nd
i
t
i
o na
l
u
s
e
pe
r
m
i
t
,
a
n
d
a
r
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
e
i
t
h
e
r
o
n
e
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
o
n t
h
e
s
a
m
e
p
a rc
e
l
a
s
a
c
o
mm
e
r
c
i
a
l
o
r
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
u
s
e
f
o
r
u
s
e
of
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
o
r
o
f
t
h
e
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
o
r
f
o r
a
s
e
n
i
o
r
o
r
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
le
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
F
u
t
u
r
e d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
es
e
pa
r
c
e
l
s
a
r
e
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
to
b
e a
s
p
r
o
f
e
ss
i
on
a
l
of
f
i
c
e
u
s
e
s
.
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
m
o
r
e
,
t
h
er
e
w
i
l
l
o
n
l
y
b
e
3
to
4
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
t
r uc
k
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
, a
n
d
t
h
e
d
u
r
a
t
io
n
of
t
h
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
es
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
h
or
t
.
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
A
c ti
v
i
t
i
e
s
:
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
es
a
t
th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
ho
s
p it
a
l w
i
l
l
v
a ry
,
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
oc
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
d
a y
a
s
p
a
ti
e
n
t
s
a
n d
vi
s
i
t
o
r
s a
r
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
l
e
a
v
e
,
w i t h p
o
te
n
t
i
a
l
p
e
ak
s
i
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
h
e
n
s
t
a
f
f
a
r
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
d
e
p
a
r
t
a
t
t
h
e
be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
n
d
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
s
h
i
f
t
s
.
Th
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
da
t
a
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
th
a
t
t
h
e
b
u si
e
s t
h
o
u
r
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
th
e
a
f
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
.
T
h
e
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
1
0
-
m
i
n
u
t
e
av
e
r
a
g
e
n
o
is
e
l
e
v
e
l
(
L
e
q
)
g
e
ne
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
p
a rk
i
n
g
lo
t
a
c
ti
v
i
t
i
e
s
i
s
b
e
l
o
w
b
o th
d
a
y
t
i
m
e
a
n
d
ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
s
t
a
t
i
o na
r
y
n
o
i
s
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
a
n
da
r
d s.
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
n
o is
e
le
v
e
l
b
y
3
d
B
or
m
o
r
e
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
on
,
t
h
i
s t
y
pe
o
f
no
i
s
e
w
o
u
l
d
be
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
a
n
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
oc
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
i
s
s
i
t
e
.
Tr
a
s
h
P
i
c
k
u
p
s :
N
o
i
s
e
a
s
s
o
c
i at
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
r
a
s
h
pi
c
k
u
p
s
i
s
t
e
m
p or
a
r
y
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
oc
c
u
r
o
n
a
co
n
s
t
a
n
t b
a
s
i
s.
A
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
tr
a
s
h
p
i
c
k
u
p
l
a
s
t
s
o
n
l
y
3
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
n
av
e
r
a
g
e
a
n
d
i
s
a
c
o
m
m
o
n
n
o
i
s
e
so
u
r
c
e
t
h
a
t
e
x
is
t
s
t
h
r
o ug
h
o u t t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i ty
.
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
/
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
:
La
n
d
s
c
a
p in
g
a
n
d
CIT
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E CU
L
A
EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT
1 -27
GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE
Ta
b
l
e
1
-1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o nm
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
s
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s ur
e
s
EN
V I R O N ME
N
T AL
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
CI TY O F TEM E CUL A
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
1-
28
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Level of Impa ct after Mitigation
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
ut
i
l
i
z
e
n
o
i
s e-
pr
o
d
u
c
i
n
g
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
u
c
h
a
s
l
a
w
n
m
o
w
e
rs
,
la
w
n
e
d
g
e
r
s
,
l
e
a
f
b
l
o
w
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
s
w
e
e
p
e
r
s
.
Th
e
s
e
ty
p
e
s
o
f
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
o
n
l
y
u
s
e
d
oc
c
a
s
i
on
a
l
l
y
,
an
d
f
o
r
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
i
m
e
p
e ri
o
d s.
S
u
c
h
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
wi
l
l
t
y
p
i
c
a
ll
y
b
e s
h
i
e
l
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
s
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
no
i
s
e
-
s
e
n
s it
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
rs
b
y
t
h
e
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
t
h
e
m se
l
v
e
s
,
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
n
o is
e
le
v
e
l
s
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
E
x
t
e
r
i
or
N
o
i
s
e
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
:
T
h
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
o
f
7
0 d
B
C
N
E
L
f
o r
a
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
si
t
e
i
s
ex
c
e
e
d
e
d
a
t
a
l
l
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
2
5
5
fe
e
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
l
a
n
e
o
f
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
.
H
o
we
v
e
r
,
n
o
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
us
e
a
b
l
e
/
h
a
b
i
t
a
b
l
e
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
in
th
i
s
e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
i
or
N
o
i
s
e
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
:
C
N
E
L
i
s
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
b
e
u
p
t
o
7
1
d
B
at
t
h
e
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
of
f
i
c
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
l
o
s
e
s t
t
o
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
,
an
d
u
p
t
o
6
8
.
5
d
B
a
t
t
h
e
h
o sp
i
t
a
l
b
e
d
to
w
e r
cl
o
s
e
s t
t
o
H
i
g
h wa
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
.
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
re
v
i
e
w
o
f
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
f
a
ç
a
d
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
on
de
t
a
i
l
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
me
d
i
c
a
l
o
f
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
bu
i
l
di
n
g
s
,
i
t
i
s
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
t
h
at
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
w
i
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d e
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
2
1
d
B
of
n
o
i
s
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
t
h
e
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
ls
i
n si
d
e
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
di
n
g
s
wi
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
N
E
L
s
t
an
d
a
r
d o
f
50
d
B
.
A
t
l
o
c
a ti
o
n
s
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
,
t
h
e
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
C
N EL
w
i
l
l
b
e
l
o
w
e r
t
h
a
n
5
0
d
B
.
Executive Summary
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The City has considered alternatives to the proposed regional hospital. Through the comparison of
potential alternatives to the proposed project, the relative advantages of each can be weighed and
analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives addressed be “governed by a
rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a
reasoned choice” (Section 15126.6[a]). The following alternatives are examined in the EIR.
Alternative Considered but Rejected
During the course of EIR preparation and project review, the City considered an alternative that
involved reduced building heights of the hospital bed towers. This building height alternative was
considered because it would meet the existing General Plan height requirement and eliminate the
need to process a General Plan Amendment for the proposed height increase of the proposed
project. In response to this consideration, the project architect provided a letter (contained in
Appendix F of this EIR) describing functional reasons for the proposed tower heights. According to
the project architect, the hospital bed towers respond to several functional needs of the hospital per
the State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and the California
Building Code, Chapter 4A, Division III:
To establish primary relationships between Emergency Departments and Imaging,
Emergency Department and Surgery, and all three departments and patient rooms
To respond to a required “vertical flow” for in-patient care and services
To respond to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development requirements for
relationships between nurse stations and patient rooms
To allow for optimum patient transfer efficiencies
To provide efficiencies in mechanical and electrical systems
To anticipate future medical service needs in the area and build for them now, rather than
later
The City rejected the alternative of lower hospital towers from further consideration in light of
project objectives and the applicant’s need to achieve functional and operational efficiencies in
project design.
Alternative 1: No Project – No Build
CEQA requires evaluation of a no project alternative, which means “…the existing conditions, as
well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were
not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 [e][2]). The existing conditions on the project site are
described in Section 3.0 (Project Description). The No Project Alternative assumes that site
conditions would remain the same as existing conditions and no development would occur in the
near future. Potential impacts associated with Alternative 1, No Project – No Build are described
below.
Alternative 1 would have no impact with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources,
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-29 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Executive Summary
population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since the site
would remain vacant.
This alternative would avoid the significant air quality impacts associated with the project and would
not generate any additional traffic. No new noise sources would be created. Overall impacts
associated with the No Project – No Build Alternative would be less than those resulting from the
proposed project. While this alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the proposed
project, it meets none of the project objectives identified by the applicant and the City.
Alternative 2: No Project – Development Pursuant to Current General
Plan
The No Project Alternative – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan assumes that the
project site ultimately would be developed pursuant to current General Plan land use policies, goals
and policies, and zoning criteria. The site would be developed pursuant to the standards of the
Professional Office (PO) General Plan designation and the applicable zoning of PO and Planned
Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8). This development scenario could yield approximately 769,000
square feet of commercial and office development, based on current zoning regulations and an
assumed floor-area ratio of 0.5.
Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impacts with regard to
agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and
utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project with a maximum
height of 50 feet, and the analysis in this Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not
create significant impacts in these areas.
Impacts of Alternative 2, No Project – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan, could result
in potentially greater air quality and traffic impacts. Impacts related to land use and planning would
be reduced compared to the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with helicopter
operations would be avoided. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the
proposed hospital project. This alternative would not attain the City’s objective to encourage future
development of a regional hospital and related services nor the applicant’s objective to provide
high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities.
Alternative 3: Alternate Site – Corona Family Properties
Where consideration of alternate sites is warranted for a proposed project, CEQA requires that the
analysis first consider if any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially
lessened if the project were located at another site. Only the locations that avoid or substantially
lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasible, reasons for this
conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible,
remote, or speculative.
Alternative sites include vacant sites of approximately 35 acres in the surrounding area, similar to
the project site. The feasible alternative site considered for this project includes land now owned
by Corona Family LTD Partnership located at the northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-30
Executive Summary
Highway 79 South. The site is comprised of three adjacent parcels totaling approximately 39.5
acres (APN 952150003, 9.61 acres; APN 952150001, 9.56 acres; and APN 952150002, 20.34
acres). The two smaller parcels are designated within the General Plan as Community Commercial
and are zoned for Community Commercial use. The larger, 20+ acre parcel is not located within
the City limits, but rather adjacent to the City within the County of Riverside. The project site is
within the City of Temecula General Plan planning area and is designated Vineyards/Agricultural,
with County zoning of A-1-20. All properties would need to be under the applicant’s control for
the project to proceed, and a County General Plan amendment, zone change, and annexation
would be required for the larger parcel.
Alternative 3, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impact with regard to
cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources,
population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this
alternative could lead to a similar project, and all other provisions of the proposed project would be
implemented.
Alternative 3 has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, and land use
compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Also, Alternative 3 would require
annexing a portion of the site into the City of Temecula. Noise impacts of this alternative could be
greater due to slightly longer helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the eastern
boundary of the City, which may require a flight path over more residential neighborhoods.
Biological resource impacts are uncertain, as site-specific surveys would need to be performed to
determine impacts. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the project.
The alternative would attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the
project applicant.
Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road
This alternative was conceived as a means of providing a secondary access from the east of the
project site via Dartolo Road in lieu of the proposed driveway connection to De Portola Road.
Alternative 4 would require the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the project site and the
construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the project site. For
Alternative 4, no access to De Portola Road would be provided, and those vehicles oriented
to/from De Portola Road under the proposed project have instead been assumed to utilize Dartolo
Road as an access point.
Traffic and biological resource impacts of Alternative 4, Access from Dartolo Road, could be greater
than those associated with the proposed project. Queues on Margarita Road would negatively
impact operations at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and would add more delay
to traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a
signalized intersection than are leaving this intersection, which results in longer wait times for
vehicles wishing to go through the intersection; thus, long queues form. If the traffic signal were
removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be
allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor
but would make this location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79
South, as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario. Additionally, the biological impacts of
Alternative 4 would be greater than those of the proposed project, as the Initial Study found that no
biological impacts would result from the project.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1-31 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Executive Summary
This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with
construction and operation of the proposed project. The alternative would, however, attain each of
the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant.
Alternative 5: Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road
Alternative 5 was conceived as a means of providing a third access to the site in conjunction with
the construction of Phase II. The De Portola Road access, as described for the proposed project,
would be provided with Phase I, with access limited to right-turns and inbound left-turns. Outbound
left-turns would be prohibited. Upon construction of Phase II, this alternative would require a third
access via an extension of Dartolo Road, as described above for Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4,
Alternative 5 would involve the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the project site and the
construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the project site.
Alternative 5 would not avoid the significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project.
The extension of Dartolo Road as part of Phase II would not substantially divert traffic from the
proposed primary entrance on Highway 79 South nor the De Portola secondary entrance.
Biological resource impacts associated with Alternative 5 would be greater than those associated
with the proposed project. The Initial Study found that no biological impacts would result from the
project.
This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with
construction and operation of the proposed project. The alternative would, however, attain each of
the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant.
Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only
Alternative 6, Construction of the Hospital Only, would result in a smaller development with no
medical office buildings, cancer center, or fitness rehabilitation center. This alternative is considered
as a means to reduce the overall impact of the proposed project while still providing the community
with a regional hospital.
Alternative 6, similar to the proposed project, would have no significant impact with regard to
agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and
utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a project with a reduced building
footprint and less building area, and the analysis in the Initial Study indicates that the proposed
project will not create significant impacts in these areas..
Alternative 6 would result in reduced impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, and transportation
since there would be a reduction in the total footprint of development. Therefore, the visual
impact, trips generated by the project and short- and long-term air quality impacts would be less
than those associated with the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with mechanical
equipment could be reduced.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-32
Executive Summary
While Alternative 6 meets the City’s objectives to encourage future development of a regional
hospital and related services, and ensure compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding
uses, Alternative 5 fails to meet the City’s objective to support development of biomedical,
research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s economic and employment base. Furthermore,
Alternative 6 does not meet applicant’s objective to provide a regional hospital facility that includes
standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices since it would
result only in construction of the hospital, and would not provide the same levels of rehabilitation or
any of the medical office uses stated in the applicant’s objectives.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally
superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR
must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Based on
the above analysis, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, is identified as the Environmentally
Superior Alternative.
Cumulative Impact
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 define a cumulative impact as an “impact which is created as
a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing
related impacts.” The project will result in significant unavoidable project-level impacts in the
following areas:
Short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts
Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter
flights
Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts
Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 4.0 of this EIR will reduce these impacts
to the extent feasible. However, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, other known
projects, and ambient growth will increase vehicles on area roadways. These trips will all contribute
to increased pollutant loads locally and within the South Coast Air Basin as a whole. Cumulative
impacts will be partially reduced by implementation and achievement of emissions levels identified
in the Air Quality Management Plan and air quality components within the Temecula General Plan.
However, given that the proposed project itself will result in emissions in excess of South Coast Air
Quality Management District thresholds, the cumulative effect will be significant as well. Potential
short- and long-term cumulative air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable despite
mitigation incorporation and measures imposed on other projects.
Furthermore, vehicle trips from the project and related projects are anticipated to create or add to
traffic congestion on Highway 79 South, especially near the I-15 ramps, and at selected roadway
segments and intersections. The cumulative projects analyzed in the EIR generate a total of
160,500 average daily trips, with 5,560 trips in the A.M. peak hour and 6,130 trips in the P.M. peak
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1-33 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Executive Summary
hour (2,209 inbound and 1,489 outbound). Some vehicle trips would be confined to the area,
while others would travel outside the project area to surrounding counties and urban centers and
affect the regional transportation system. Adverse impacts to the circulation network would occur if
roadway improvements and trip reduction measures and programs are not implemented. The
mitigation discussion in Section 4.6, Transportation, identifies some of the regional roadway
improvements that will be pursued to accommodate anticipated future traffic volumes. Also, other
roadway system enhancements will be pursued over the long term to implement the recently
updated General Plan Circulation Element.
In accordance with City of Temecula regulations, each development project will be assessed its fair
share for identified roadway improvements. Payment of the City's traffic impact fees will allow the
City to fund signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation programs and improvements
necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at local intersections.
Increases in traffic generated by new development are generally anticipated to be mitigated to less
than significant levels through payment of fair share fees and citywide and project-level roadway
improvements. The proposed project will not result in any cumulative impacts to intersections, but
the following roadway links will continue to operate over capacity:
Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway
Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road
Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road
Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at project build-out will be significant and unavoidable.
Furthermore, some intersections near I-15 will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into
the future. Cumulative impacts, as noted in the General Plan EIR, will be significant and
unavoidable.
Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved
Through the Notice of Preparation process for the project, the concerns shown in Table 1-2 were
raised. Additionally, at a scoping session, held on April 20, 2005 where the City received public
input and testimony, the City determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential impacts identified
in the attached NOP should be prepared for this project in response to resident and concerns
regarding transportation, aesthetic, and noise impacts of the proposed project, and agency
concerns regarding potential biological impacts associated with the extension of Dartolo Road, as
described in Alternatives 4 and 5 of this EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-34
Executive Summary
Table 1-2
Notice of Preparation Letters
Name Agency Where Issues Are Addressed in EIR
1. Arturo Diaz Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District
Encroachment Permit for Temecula
Creek: Section 4.3 – Hydrology and
Water Quality
2. Carol Gaubatz Native American Heritage
Commission
Archeological Resources: Appendix A
– Initial Study: Cultural Resources
3. Michael McCoy RTA – Riverside Transit Agency Public Transit Amenities: Section 4-2
Air Quality
4. Stephanie Gordin Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians
Conditions of Approval: Appendix A –
Initial Study: Cultural Resources
Mitigation Monitoring Program
In accordance with CEQA Section 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring program will be prepared for
adoption by the Temecula City Council prior to certification of the Final EIR for the project. The
mitigation program will be designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures
contained in the Final EIR.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1-35 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Executive Summary
This page is left intentionally blank.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-36
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
2.0 Introduction
Purposes of the Environmental Impact Report
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines to analyze the potential
environmental impacts associated with the construction and long-term operation of the proposed
Temecula Regional Hospital, also referred herein as “the project.”
According to the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.), an “EIR is an
informational document which will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally
of the significant environmental effects of a project on the environment, identify possible ways to
minimize the significant effects, and describe alternatives to the project” Accordingly, this EIR is an
information document to be used by decision makers, public agencies, and the general public. It is
not a policy document of the City of Temecula. The document provides information regarding the
potential environmental impacts related to the construction and long-term operation of the project.
The EIR will be used by the City of Temecula in assessing impacts of the proposed project. If the
project is approved, feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR will be applied to the
project during project implementation.
Legal Requirements
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
(Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) published by the Public Resources Agency
of the State of California (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and in
accordance with the City of Temecula’s CEQA Guidelines. The City of Temecula is the lead agency
for this EIR, as defined in Section 21067 of CEQA.
This EIR meets the content and analysis requirements of a Project EIR, as defined in Section 15161
of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Project EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific
development project. This type of EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that
would result from the development project. A Project EIR shall examine all phases of the project
including planning, construction, and operation.
Prior to preparing this EIR, the City of Temecula previously circulated an Initial Study (SCH #
2005031017) for this project with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
comment period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was March 8, 2005 through April
6, 2005. At a public hearing held on April 20, 2005, the City heard public input and testimony and
determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and
groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and transportation impacts should be prepared for this
project. Comments received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the proposed Mitigated
Introduction
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 2-2
Negative Declaration have been addressed through analysis of project alternatives in this Focused
EIR. The scope of the project has not changed.
This EIR was prepared by environmental planning consultants under the direction of City staff. All
information, analysis, and conclusions contained in this document reflect the independent review
and judgment of the City.
Scope of the Project
The project analyzed in this EIR is the development of a regional hospital serving the Temecula area.
The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 565,260
square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on
35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into
one (1) parcel.
Scope of the Environmental Analysis
Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared for this project. The
Initial Study concluded that adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan might have
a significant effect on the environment with respect to the following:
Aesthetics
Hydrology and Water Quality
Noise
Transportation
Appendix A contains the Initial Study and NOP for the project. Appendix B contains water supply
assessment. Appendix C contains the noise study. Appendix D contains the Traffic Study.
Appendix E contains a Burrowing Owl Survey Report. Appendix F contains a letter from the project
architect regarding project configuration. Appendix G contains a water supply assessment prepared
for the project by the Rancho California Water District. All other reference documents cited in the
EIR are on file with the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Center Drive,
Temecula, CA 92589.
Background
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR was issued by the City on August 3, 2005 in accordance
with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and
15375. The NOP indicated that an EIR was being prepared and invited comments on the project
from public agencies and the general public. Comment letters were received from the following
agencies (listed in the order received):
Native American Heritage Commission
Riverside Transit Agency
Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District
Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians
Introduction
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Written comments received during the 30-day public review period for the NOP are included in
Appendix A of this EIR.
City staff has worked directly with the applicant, the surrounding property owners and
representatives of the Los Ranchitos and Santiago Estates Home Owners Associations to identify
key issues of concern. In addition, a City Council Subcommittee was formed to meet to discuss the
project. The City Council subcommittee formally met with the applicant and staff on September 27,
2004 and October 11, 2004. Staff met with the Santiago Estates Home Owners Association on
December 6, 2004, and held a community meeting on December 8, 2004. The community
meeting notice was mailed to the surrounding home owners within 600 feet from the project site
and approximately 45 residents and landowners were in attendance. At a public hearing held on
April 20, 2005 to consider the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City heard public input and
testimony and determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential aesthetics, air quality, hydrology
and groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and transportation impacts should be prepared for
this project.
Public Review and Comment
This Draft EIR is available for public inspection at the City of Temecula Planning Department,
located at the 43200 Business Park Drive in Temecula. The Draft EIR is also available to the public
at the Temecula Library, located at 41000 County Center Drive, Temecula. Organizations and
individuals are invited to comment on the Draft EIR. Where possible, respondents are asked to
provide additional information which they feel is not contained in the Draft EIR, or to indicate where
information may be found.
Section 15105(d)(3) and Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
outline procedures whereby a lead agency may request a shortened 30-day public review period.
The City of Temecula intends to apply for a 30-day public review period for this Draft EIR, pursuant
to these provisions. Following the public review period for the Draft EIR, all comments and the
City’s responses to those comments will be incorporated within the Final EIR prior to certification of
the Final EIR by the City.
Contact Person
The primary contact person regarding information presented in this EIR is Emery Papp, Senior
Planner. Mr. Papp may be reached at (951) 694-6400, or via email at
emery.papp@cityoftemecula.org.
Introduction
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 2-4
This page is left intentionally blank.
3.0 Project Description
The Project
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan,
Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed development of a regional
hospital to serve the Temecula area. The project site encompasses 35.31 acres. Project applications
are as follows:
The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the
General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to 2
stories. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the
property will remain unchanged.
The Zone Change application requests that the zoning district applicable to the property be
changed from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-
8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9
would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30% of the roof area of the hospital.
The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application requests permission to construct a 320-bed
hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses.
The Development Plan application proposes the construction of a 408,160-square-foot
hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a
10,000-square-foot cancer center, and an 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center.
Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31-acre site
The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate 8 lots into a single parcel.
Project Location and Surrounding Uses
The project site is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California on the north side of
Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road,
as shown in Figure 3-1. Currently, the project site is undeveloped. Until recently, three single-family
homes were on the property facing De Portola Road, but they are in the process of being
demolished. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south
(across Highway 79 South); single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road);
professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and
offices and commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south
of the project site, and Interstate 15 is approximately 2 miles to the west.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Project Description
Project Objectives
City Objectives
The City’s objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to:
Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services
Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s
economic and employment base
Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of
the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access
routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions
Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula
Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular
traffic on surrounding residential uses
Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient,
state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City
Objectives of the Applicant
The objectives of Universal Health Services, the project applicant, for the proposed project are to:
Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities
Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care,
rehabilitation, and medical offices
Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art
facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors
Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and
patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures
Project Characteristics
Site Characteristics
The project site consists of 35.31 acres of largely vacant land covered with non-native grasses and
weeds. Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain, with a high point at the western
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Project Description
third of the property. The high point represents a boundary between two watersheds, with the
western one-third draining to the west and the balance sloping and draining to the east. A flood
control channel parallels the eastern site boundary, containing dense riparian vegetation consisting
of willows and cottonwoods.
Project Design
The proposed 566,160-square-foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility consists of:
An approximately 408,160-square-foot, 2-tower hospital complex to contain approximately
320 beds. One tower will be 6 stories/106 feet high, and the second 5 stories/83 feet high.
The hospital will offer full in-patient and out-patient services, as well as emergency services.
The facility will not contain a trauma unit.
Two medical office buildings, one 4 stories/73 feet high and the second 3 stories/60 feet
high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be
available for lease to all types of medical service providers.
A 10,000-square-foot cancer center housed in a one-story building.
An 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one-story building. The center will be
available only to patients and on-site staff.
Project components are shown on Figure 3-2.
A 60-foot by 60-foot helipad is proposed near the northeast corner of the hospital. The project
applicant indicates that on average, one helicopter flight per month will occur at the hospital. The
permit to be obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will
permit up to 6 landings per month because the helipad is defined as an Emergency Medical
Services Landing Site. An Emergency Medical Services Landing Site is defined as a site used for the
landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Services helicopters that is located at or as near as
practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and is used, over any twelve month
period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the
helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that
response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.1 Helicopter flights associated with the
hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During
each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient,
take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading.
A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of
the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading
dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area.
A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail will
connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project.
1 California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 3-4
Project Description
This page left blank intentionally.
(Back side of 11x17 figure.)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 3-6
Project Description
Lighting will be placed throughout the site for security. Light fixtures will be pole-mounted, 25 feet
high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses.
Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent building area, 30 percent parking area, and
33 percent landscape area.
Parking and Access
Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will be
reserved for handicapped parking. The site will be fully compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), including pathways from the handicapped parking to hospital facilities. All of
the buildings, except for the fitness center, will include passenger loading zones.
As shown on Figure 3-2, the project includes the following three access points:
1. Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and
signalized location
2. Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast corner of the project site, with turning
movements restricted to in and out right turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site
onto De Portola Road will not be permitted.
3. Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west
Primary project access will be from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary
access point at De Portola Road will be unsignalized. Internal circulation throughout the site will
also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department.
Construction
Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA consists of site grading,
demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 3-story, 60,000-square-foot medical office building
(MOB #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces to serve the building. Phase IA is
anticipated to last approximately 10 months.
Phase IB consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately
162,650 square feet and a 6-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, , as well as
parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14
months.
Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320-bed configuration with the addition
of the 5-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet
Phase III will add a 4-story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #1) and the hospital
connector.
Phase IV consists of construction of a one-story, 10,000-square-foot cancer center and associated
parking spaces.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3-7 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Project Description
Phase V will be the construction of the 8,000-square-foot fitness center and the jogging trail.
Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated occur concurrently and to last approximately 12
months. As shown on Figure 3-2, the total parking spaces provided will be 1,278 which exceeds the
City’s parking standards, which require 663 parking spaces for the proposed project. The greatest
exceedance is associated with parking spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the project, for
which the Development Code requires one space per 3 beds. The parking provided on the site
exceeds the standards contained within the Development Code because the Code requirements do
not adequately account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff parking,
outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This is common within most jurisdictions,
and hospital facilities often exceed minimum parking requirements for this reason.2
In summary, the proposed building heights and parking spaces that will be provided for the hospital
facility are as follows:
Hospital – 1 story/27 feet (644 parking spaces and 42 handicapped spaces hospital and bed
towers)
Bed Tower 1 – 6 stories/106 feet
Bed Tower 2 – 5 stories/83.5 feet
MOB #1 – 4 stories/73 feet (280 parking spaces and 16 handicapped spaces)
MOB #2 – 3 stories/60 feet (233 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces)
Cancer Center – 1 story/27 feet (55 parking spaces and 4 handicapped spaces)
Fitness Center – 1 story/27 feet (66 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces)
Project Actions and Approvals
While the overall project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning Department, the
building requirements for the hospital buildings are under the sole control of the State of California,
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. As a result, to the extent required by law all
references in the EIR with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to apply only to
the non-hospital facilities.
The project is anticipated to require the following public actions and approvals.
Agency Action
City of Temecula City Council
Approval of General Plan Amendment to eliminate the
Z2 overlay shown in the General Plan, an amendment
to the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning from
Planned Development Overlay (PDO) 8 and
Professional Office to PDO-9, and the incorporation of
PDO-9 into the Temecula Municipal Code with will
allow building height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof
areas for hospitals
2 Personal Communication, David Prusha, HKS Inc. – Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 3-8
Project Description
Agency Action
California Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development
City of Temecula Fire Department
City of Temecula Police Department
City of Temecula Public Works
City of Temecula Departments and
Divisions overseeing construction
related development
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
California Department of Fish and
Game
California Department of
Transportation, Aeronautics Division
Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
Approval of a Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit to provide for the development of the project
site with the proposed uses, structures, parking,
landscaping, and other components, and to establish
development standards and conditions of use for the
project
Approval of other actions related to the implementation
of the above actions and mitigation of environmental
effects
Medical Office Building and fitness center building and
occupancy permits
Adoption of the Focused EIR
Hospital building and occupancy permits
Review and approval of fire flow, fire lanes, and fire
suppression systems
Review of security plans and systems
Approval of Mitigation Plan
Approval of street improvement plans, sewer plans,
grading plan, and water and drainage system plans
Approval of Water Quality Management Plan
Review and approval of building, electrical, plumbing,
mechanical, and sign plans and permits
Review and approval of encroachment permits
Review and approval of street trees
Approval of Burrowing Owl report/surveys
Approval of special use helipad (Heliport Site Approval
Permit)
Review of helipad
Cultural report approval and pre-excavation agreement
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3-9 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Project Description
Agency Action
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Rancho California Water District
Riverside County Flood Control
Riverside County Health Department
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Possible review and approval of stormwater permits
Possible review and approval water service permits
Possible review and approval of permits
Possible review and approval of permits
Possible review and approval of permits
Alternatives to the Project
CEQA requires that the EIR address project alternatives that are capable of reducing or eliminating
the significant effects associated with the project. The three project alternatives analyzed in Section
5.0 of this EIR are:
1. No Project: CEQA requires that the No Project alternative be addressed. In this instance, No
Project means development of the site pursuant to the commercial zoning on the site,
which would mean a large commercial center.
2. No Project – no build: This alternative considers the land remains vacant. The site would
remain as undeveloped open space.
3. Alternate Site – Corona Family Properties: This alternative considers development of the
project at a site that is generally located at the northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road
and Highway 79 South. This alternative will assess whether relocating the project to another
area of the City has the potential to reduce impacts
4. Access from Dartolo Road – As an alternative to providing secondary access via the
planned driveway at De Portola Road, this alternative examines extending Dartolo Road
west toward the project site, over a flood control channel, to link the site directly to
Margarita Road.
5. Access from Dartolo Road and De Portola Road - This alternative enhances the secondary
access using both the planned driveway at De Portola Road and by extending Dartolo Road
west toward the project site, over a flood control channel, to link the site directly to
Margarita Road.
6. Construction of the Hospital Only – This alternative examines the project as the
development of the hospital and hospital towers only. The alternative would not include the
development of the cancer center, fitness rehabilitation center, or the medical office
buildings.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 3-10
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
4.0 Environmental Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
This section discusses each of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project and
identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts determined to be potentially
significant in the EIR analysis. Each environmental issue is discussed in the following manner.
Environmental Setting describes the existing conditions in the environment in the vicinity of the
project, as it exists before the commencement of the project, to provide a baseline for
comparing before the project and after the project environmental conditions.
Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact defines and lists specific criteria used to
determine whether an impact is or is not considered to be significant. The CEQA Guidelines;
local, state, federal or other standards applicable to that impact category; and officially
established thresholds of significance are the major sources used in crafting criteria appropriate
to the specifics of the project, because “…an ironclad definition of significant effect is not
possible because the significance of an activity may vary with setting” (CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15064[b]). Principally “…a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any
of the physical conditions within an area affected by the project, including land, air, water, flora,
fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance…” constitutes a
significant impact (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15382).
Environmental Impact presents evidence, based on available data, about the cause and effect
relationship between the proposed project and the potential changes in the environment. The
exact magnitude, duration, extent, frequency, range, or other parameters of a potential impact
are ascertained to the extent possible to provide facts in support of finding the impact to be or
not to be significant. In determining whether an impact may be significant, all the potential
effects, including direct effects, reasonably foreseeable indirect effects, and considerable
contributions to cumulative effects (see Section 4.0), were considered.
Mitigation Measures identify the means by which a potentially significant adverse impact could
be reduced or avoided. Standard existing regulations, requirements, and procedures that are
applied to all similar projects are taken into account in identifying what additional project-
specific mitigation may be needed to reduce significant project-related impacts. Mitigation, in
addition to measures that the lead agency will implement, can also include measures that are
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15091[a][2]).
Level of Significance after Mitigation indicates what effect will remain after application of
mitigation measures, and whether the remaining adverse effect is or is not considered
significant. When an adverse impact, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, cannot be
mitigated to a level considered less than significant, it is identified as an unavoidable significant
impact of the proposed project. In order to approve a project with significant unavoidable
adverse impacts, the lead agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC).
In adopting an SOC, the lead agency find that it has reviewed the EIR, has balanced the benefits
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-2
of the project against its significant adverse effects, and has concluded that the benefits of the
project outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects, and thus, the
environmental effects may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093[a]).
4.1 Aesthetics
This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, or create new sources of light
and glare and if so, how such light sources may affect uses within the project area and regional
facilities such as the Palomar Observatory. Also, because the project includes a proposed General
Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay, which limits building heights to 2 stories, this section
examines the related effect of allowing taller structures on the site. As indicated in the Initial Study
(Appendix A), the project will result in a less than significant impact on a scenic vista.
The term “aesthetics” usually implies a subjective effect or personal opinion. To the extent possible,
this section attempts to minimize the subjective component of the evaluation of these impacts by
considering information about the project that can be evaluated objectively, such as a structure’s
effects on existing scenic view corridors, visual character, and the impact of artificial light generated
by the project.
Visual character is measured in terms of mass and scale. These terms are defined as follows:1
Mass – Describes three-dimensional forms, the simplest of which are cubes, boxes, cylinders,
pyramids, and cones. Buildings are rarely one of these simple forms, but generally are
composite of varying types of masses.
Scale – Is the measurement of the relationship of one object to another object. The scale of a
building can be described in terms of its relationship to a human being. All of the
components of a building also have a relationship to each other and to the building as a
whole. Generally, the scale of the building components also relates to the scale of the
entire building.
Environmental Setting
The project site fronts on Highway 79 South within a developed area of the City of Temecula. The
site terrain is relatively flat, with a gentle slope toward De Portola Avenue. The elevation at the
center of the site is approximately 1,053 above mean sea level, and the elevation at De Portola
Road is approximately 1,065 feet. North of De Portola Road, the terrain transitions to rolling
hillsides, with the highest elevation above De Portola Road in the project vicinity rising to
approximately 1,223 feet, providing views over the site to south Temecula and the Palomar
Mountains in the background.
Very-low-density residential development (2.5 acre minimum) exists within the rolling hills to the
north. The residential area is elevated above the project site. Commercial development has
occurred across Highway 79 South from the project site and immediately east of the site as well.
To the immediate west is a vacant parcel, adjacent to which is a church complex currently under
construction. All of the remaining vacant land in the immediate project vicinity is zoned and
1 Parker, John. H. A Concise Dictionary of Architectural Terms. Dover Publications. June, 2004.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Aesthetics
designated as Professional Office (PO) or Planned Development Overlay (PDO); no designated
open space is located near the project. The project site is surrounded by urban development and is
considered an in-fill development site.
Neither Highway 79 South nor any other roadway in the project vicinity is designated a Scenic
Highway in the Temecula General Plan or by any state agency. The General Plan does not identify
any view corridors or areas of special visual significance in the project vicinity.
The City of Temecula Municipal Code does not contain any view protection regulations.
Virtually all of the City of Temecula lies within 45 miles of the Mount Palomar Observatory. To
protect Observatory operations, the City has adopted Riverside County’s Outdoor Lighting
Regulations (Ordinance 655), which restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius and
a 45-mile radius of the facility.2
Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact
The proposed project will result in a significant adverse impact related to aesthetics, if it will:
Substantially degrade scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings,
either directly or due to changes in land use and development regulations
Create a new source of substantial light and glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area
Environmental Impact
State Scenic Highway
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a state scenic highway, as designated by the
California Department of Transportation.3 According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the
project site does not include any scenic resources, is not known for its visual character, nor does the
site contain scenic resources. Development of the project will result in a less than significant
impact.
2 County of Riverside. Outdoor Lighting Regulations – Ordinance 655. Effective July 6, 1988. Adopted by the City of
Temecula on February 13, 1990. 3 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/ Date accessed: August 11, 2005.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-4
Aesthetics
Visual Character or Quality
The residential areas north of the project site offer distant views to the south of the Palomar
Mountains, with closer views overlooking the vacant project site and developed areas surrounding
the site (see photograph in Figure 4-2a). At closer locations, the site appears as a vacant property
with introduced landscaping and native vegetation (see photo in Figure 4-3a). The view along
Highway 79 South consists of a developed and developing arterial roadway corridor, with low- and
moderate-rise structures and well-landscaped frontage areas.
The proposed project will include:
A 60,000-square-foot, 3-story medical office building (60 feet high)
An 80,000-square-foot 4-story medical office building (73 feet high)
A 408,160-square-foot hospital structure, including towers of 5 and 6 stories (up to 106 feet
high)
A 10,000-square-foot, single-story cancer center
An 8,000-square-foot, single-story fitness rehabilitation center.
The structures will be located toward the center of the site, surrounded by surface parking lots with
extensive landscaping. Per Development Code regulations, all setback areas will be landscaped as
well.
To identify potential view/aesthetic impacts from locations in the project vicinity, photographs were
taken from locations within the residential neighborhood overlooking the site and adjacent to the
site on Pio Pico Road. Figure 4-1 shows the two locations from where photographs were taken for
this aesthetics analysis. The proposed project was digitally modeled onto the photographs based on
renderings provided by the project architect.
The proposed project will be visible from various residential lots north of the project site, as
illustrated in the photograph in Figure 4-2b. However, the views are considered private, are not
considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by any City regulation or policy. While
the hospital/medical complex will be apparently taller than surrounding development, it will appear
as infill development. As seen in Figure 4-2a, while the project site can seen from residential areas
to the north, particularly in comparison from the existing view, views of Palomar Mountain will not
be blocked by the proposed project. The elevation of De Portola Road and adjacent residences to
the north is greater than the elevation of the pad areas of the project site. Therefore, the building
height will appear slightly lower than the actual height from the residences to the north.
To soften views and blend the development with surrounding urbanization, the preliminary
landscape plan proposes numerous evergreen trees such as Afghan Pine, Coast Live Oaks, and Silk
Trees along the perimeter of the site between the residences and the hospital, which will buffer the
visual appearance of the buildings and mask the development of the site (refer to the photograph in
Figure 4-3b). Incorporation of these project features will help to reduce viewshed impacts. The
proposed height of the hospital towers will continue to obstruct views from nearby locations.
However, because the views are considered private, are not considered to be of public benefit, and
are not protected by any City regulation or policy, impact will be less than significant.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-5 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Aesthetics
This page is left intentionally blank.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-7 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Aesthetics
Existing view of the site looking south from the hillside above De Portola Road
Figure 4-2a
Location A - View from Hillside without Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-8
Aesthetics
Four-story
Medical Office
Building
Six-story hospital tower
One-story hospital
Proposed Temecula Regional Hospital
Figure 4-2 b
Location A - View from Hillside with Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-9 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Aesthetics
Existing view of the site looking south from Pio Pico Road
Figure 4-3a
Location B - View from Pio Pico Road without Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-10
Aesthetics
Four-story
Medical Office
Building Six-story hospital tower
Proposed Temecula Regional Hospital with project landscaping
Figure 4-3b
Location B - View from Pio Pico Road with Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-11 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Aesthetics
Project architecture is to consist of a Spanish-style architecture for all buildings. Building design will
feature the use of earth-toned stucco, terra cotta tile roof, bronze-tinted glass, and Indian red tile at
the base. The two hospital towers will be divided by an octagon-roofed rotunda. The architectural
design of the proposed project is consistent with the visual character and quality of the surrounding
development. The proposed terra cotta tile roofs will minimize the visual impact of the new
buildings by matching the visual character of surrounding roof tops (Figure 4-2b).
Perimeter landscaping will consist of a 25-foot-wide bermed landscape strip along Highway 79
South, consisting of California Pepper trees, Sycamores, and assorted shrubs. As noted above, the
frontage areas along DePortola Road and the remainder of the north property line will consist of
Afghan Pines and Silk Trees, which are evergreens. A 50-foot-wide swath along the western property
line will be planted with assorted street trees, and an informal planting of natural turf and assorted
trees is proposed along the eastern property line. Overall, the site will include approximately 176
trees.
The primary issues of concern with regard to building height and views are the 2 hospital towers
that are 5 and 6 stories, respectively. Currently, through the Z2 overlay designation, the General
Plan limits buildings on the site to a maximum of 2 stories. The project applicant proposes to
amend the General Plan to remove the Z2 overlay, and to change the zone from Professional Office
and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-9). The PDO-9 zone would specifically allow structures up to 115 feet
in height. (The site plan indicates a maximum anticipated hospital tower height of 106 feet. The
PDO-9 zone proposes a 115-foot height limit to account for adjustments as part of the final design
process and to accommodate any needed parapet walls or similar roof-top treatments.) Due to the
proposed change in land use regulations and as proposed by the site plan, the project will result in
development of a 5-story hospital building and a 6-story building, as shown in Figures 4-2b and 4-3b.
The project will result in a more intense use of the site than is allowed by current land use
regulations. The increased building height regulation and any development pursuant to it have the
potential to change the visual character of the site. Given the lower-scale character of development
that currently exists in the area, this degree of change is potentially significant.
As stated in the project description (see Section 3.0 of this EIR), the project requires approval of a
planned development permit to provide for development of the site with the uses, structures,
parking, landscaping, and other components of the proposed development, and to provide
development standards for the project. The primary changes that would occur as a result of the
new proposed Planned Development Overlay (PDO) and the Development Plan would be a
change to the building height limit. The proposed PDO text clarifies the allowances for increased
building height on the site as follows:
The development standards set forth in Section 17.08 for the Professional Office Zone
shall apply to this PDO with the exception of the following. No more than 30% of the
total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot maximum building
height limit. The maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building
within the 30% area may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this Section, roof
area is defined as that portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound
by the inside face of the parapet wall that defines the roof area.
The project applicant has stated that the design of the hospital is primarily based on internal
functional relationships. The various uses and functions inside of the building must be located
adjacent to other critical uses. This includes care rooms, treatment facilities, and equipment, as well
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-12
Aesthetics
as elevators, stairs, and window placement. With the form follows function concept in mind, the
design of the buildings is limited in what can be changed in regard to tower location, layout and
movement (or relocation) of functioning areas.
As noted in a letter from the project architect (included as Appendix F to this EIR), the proposed
design of the hospital is essential to meeting the project objectives. According to the applicant, the
proposed General Plan Amendment and zone change to allow planned heights of the hospital bed
towers respond to the following functional needs of the hospital:
• To establish primary relationships between Emergency Departments and
Imaging, Emergency Department and Surgery, and all three departments and
patient rooms
• To respond to a required “vertical flow” for in-patient care and services
• To respond to Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
requirements for relationships between nurse stations and patient rooms
• To allow for optimum patient transfer efficiencies
• To provide efficiencies in mechanical and electrical systems
• To anticipate future medical service needs in the area and build for them
now, rather than later
The City has stated that a key project objective is to facilitate construction of a regional hospital
facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic
benefits to the City. Further, City objectives include ensuring that any such hospital is compatible
with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and
landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental
conditions (see page 3-3 of this EIR).
The hospital bed towers will be set back and located toward the center of the site. The nearest
tower will be set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned parcel and
approximately 630 feet from De Portola Road. Extensive perimeter landscaping and landscaping
adjacent to the buildings will be provided. As shown in Figures 4-2b and 4-3b, the proposed
architecture blends with the colors and styles used on buildings in the vicinity. These project
features will minimize any potentially significant visual effect and ensure compatibility with
surrounding uses.
If approved by the City Council, the proposed General Plan Amendment and PDO-9 zone
applicable to the site – and the development resulting from these changes to land use regulations –
will be considered appropriate land use policy and zoning for the subject property. If the City
Council elects to otherwise limit building height and/or establish additional development conditions,
the Council’s action indicates its determination that such regulations are appropriate for the site,
considering its visual character, quality, and surroundings in light of the stated project objectives.
Therefore, with either action, impact will be less than significant.
Light and Glare
As noted above, in support of Palomar Observatory operations, the City adopted Riverside
County’s Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655), which restrict nighttime lighting for areas
within a 15-mile radius and a 45-mile radius of the facility. The project site is located within the 45-
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-13 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Aesthetics
mile radius (Zone B) of the Observatory. Within Zone B, the use of most types of outdoor lighting
is prohibited after 11:00 P.M., and outdoor lighting must be shielded and focused on the object to
be illuminated. Decorative lighting is allowed; however, decorative lighting is required to be shut
off by 11:00 P.M. By shutting off decorative lighting at 11:00 P.M., the amount of light and/or glare
will be reduced during late evening hours, thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific
research at the Mount Palomar Observatory. The ordinance also establishes the type of lighting
that may be used in Zones B, such as low-pressure sodium lighting. The ordinance provides
exemptions for holiday decorative lights and nonconforming uses.
The project site is currently vacant with no sources of light or glare. The proposed project will
introduce new sources of light and glare typically associated with a hospital and medical offices (up
to 6 stories in height). The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Temecula
Design Guidelines, Development Code, and Ordinance 655. The Development Code and Design
Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. A minimum of 1-foot
candle illumination is required in all parking, loading, and circulation areas, and a minimum of 2-foot
candle illumination is required for the main entries of each building. Lighting is required to be
directed down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent
parcels. The applicant has proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is
consistent with Ordinance 655. The City is requiring the project applicant to locate all ground-
mounted lighting as far away as possible from the residences. All free-standing lighting in the
parking lot will be consistent with the setbacks set forth in the Development Code and Design
Guidelines.
The hospital towers do have the potential of emit glare from the upper floors. However, as
indicated in the mitigation measure described below, all windows above the second floor will have
glazing and/or tinting to reduce the glare. Glazing and/or tinting will reduce the illumination and/or
glare from the proposed project. Compliance with the City of Temecula Design Guidelines,
Development Code, and Ordinance 655, and implementation of the mitigation measures will
ensure a less than significant impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-14
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measures
A-1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a photometric plan has been
submitted which details the proposed light levels for the entire project site onto adjacent
project boundaries and vertical fugitive light, including means to mitigate. Corresponding
criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use and operations shall also be
prepared and include means to mitigate potential light impacts.
A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall
consist of glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the
amount of glare emitted from the upper floors.
A-3. The applicant/developer shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and replace as necessary mature
trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15-gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the
project site. Such landscaping treatment may include decorative walls. The Planning
Director shall approve the final design of any walls and/or berming and landscaping.
Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line and adjacent to
residential parcels.
Level of Impact after Mitigation
With mitigation, impact will be less than significant.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-15 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Aesthetics
This page is left intentionally blank.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-16
4.2 Air Quality
This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will violate any air
quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, or
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Air quality worksheets are
included in Appendix B of this EIR.
Environmental Setting
Temecula lies within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin is a 6,600-square-mile area
bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto
mountains on the north and east. The Basin includes the non-desert portions of Riverside, Los
Angeles, and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. Within the Basin, the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the regional agency responsible for air quality
monitoring and stationary source control.
The topography and climate of Southern California combine to create an area of high air pollution
potential in the Basin. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the
cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean’s surface and the lowest
layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cup over the cool marine layer, which
prevents pollution from dispersing upward. This inversion allows pollutants to accumulate within
the lower layer. Light winds during the summer further limit ventilation from occurring.
Due to the low average wind speeds in the summer and a persistent daytime temperature inversion,
emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen have an opportunity to combine with sunlight in
a complex series of reactions. These reactions produce a photochemical oxidant commonly known
as “smog.” Since the Basin experiences more days of sunlight than any other major urban area in
the United States, except Phoenix, the smog potential in the region is higher than in most other
major metropolitan areas in the country.
Climate and Meteorology
The climate in and around Temecula, as well as most of Southern California, is controlled largely by
the strength and position of the subtropical high-pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. This high-
pressure cell produces a typical Mediterranean climate with warm summers, mild winters, and
moderate rainfall. This pattern is infrequently interrupted by periods of extremely hot weather
brought in by Santa Ana winds. Almost all precipitation occurs between November and April,
although during these months, it is sunny or partly sunny a majority of the time. Cyclic land and sea
breezes are the primary factors affecting the region’s mild climate. The daytime winds are normally
sea breezes, predominantly from the west, that flow at relatively low velocities. Within the Lake
Elsinore Convergence Zone, located north of Temecula and south of Lake Elsinore, coastal winds
often block air pollutants originating from the rest of the Basin from entering the Temecula Valley.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-17 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Air Quality
Air Pollution Control Effects
Both the federal and state governments have set health-based ambient air quality standards for the
following 6 pollutants:
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Lead (Pb)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Fine particulate matter (PM10)
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
Ozone (O3)
The standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort with a
margin of safety. The California standards are more stringent than federal standards and in the case
of PM10 and sulfur dioxide, far more stringent. Table 4-1 outlines current federal and state ambient
air quality standards.
Despite the existence of many strict controls, the South Coast Air Basin still fails to meet federal air
quality standards for 2 of the 6 criteria pollutants including O3 and PM10. Because lead-based
gasoline has been phased out of California, airborne lead pollution is no longer a problem in the
Basin, nor is sulfur dioxide pollution.
Nearly all pollution control programs developed to date have relied on the development and
application of cleaner technology and add-on emissions control devices to clean up vehicular and
industrial sources, such as catalytic converters for automobiles. Recent efforts include new
programs monitoring high-emitting vehicles and industries (e.g., the Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program and mandatory maintenance procedures on industrial sources), and attempts
to reduce overall vehicle activity (e.g. High Occupancy Vehicle [HOV] lanes).
Past air quality programs have been effective in improving the Basin’s air quality. Although the
magnitude of the problem depends heavily on the weather conditions in a given year, and
improvements can only be compared for the same air monitoring station, ozone levels have
declined by almost half over the past 30 years. However, ozone levels within the Basin remain at or
near the top of all pollution concentrations within urban areas in the United States.
Air Quality Monitoring
The nearest air quality monitoring station to Temecula is located at Lake Elsinore. Table 4-2 shows
monitored air quality for CO, O3, and NOx at the Lake Elsinore station. The data indicates that state
standards are rarely exceeded for CO or NOx, yet frequently exceeded for O3. PM10 measurements
are not taken at the Lake Elsinore station. The nearest air quality monitoring station for PM10 is
located in the Perris Valley. Table 4-3 shows the maximum concentrations of PM10 and the number
of days samples exceeded state standards at the Perris Valley station. However, both of these air
quality monitoring stations are north of the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone and do not accurately
reflect local air quality conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-18
Air Quality
Table 4-1
Air Pollution Sources, Effects, and Standards
Air
Pollutant State Standard
Federal Primary
Standard Sources Primary Effects
Ozone
(O3)
0.09 ppm, 1-hour
average
0.12 ppm, 1-hour
average; 0.08
ppm, 8-hour
average
Atmospheric reaction of
organic gases with nitrogen
oxides in sunlight.
Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases; irritation of eyes;
impairment of cardiopulmonary function;
plant leaf injury.
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
9.0 ppm, 8-hour
average; 20 ppm, 1-
hour average
9.0 ppm, 8-hour
average; 35 ppm,
1-hour average
Incomplete combustion of
fuels and other carbon-
containing substances such
as motor vehicle exhaust;
natural events, such as
decomposition of organic
matter.
Reduced tolerance for exercise;
impairment of mental function;
impairment of fetal development;
death at high levels of exposure;
aggravation of some heart diseases
(angina); reduced visibility.
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOX)
0.25 ppm, 1-hour
average
0.053 ppm, annual
average
Motor vehicle exhaust;
high-temperature stationary
combustion; atmospheric
reactions.
Aggravation of respiratory illness; reduced
visibility; reduced plant growth; formation
of acid rain.
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
0.25 ppm, 1-hour aver-
age; 0.05 ppm, 24-hour
average with ozone > =
0.10 ppm, 1 hour
average or TSP > = 100
µg/m3, 24-hour average
0.03 ppm, annual
average; 0.14
ppm, 24-hour
average
Combustion of sulfur-
containing fossil fuels;
smelting of sulfur-bearing
metal ores; industrial
processes.
Aggravation of respiratory diseases
(asthma, emphysema); reduced lung
function; irritation of eyes; reduced
visibility; plant injury; deterioration of
metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings,
etc.
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
30 µg/m3, annual
geometric mean; > 50
µg/m3, 24-hour average
50µg/m3, annual
arithmetic mean;
150 µg/m3, 24-
hour average
Stationary combustion of
solid fuels; construction
activities; industrial
processes; industrial
processes, atmospheric
chemical reactions.
Reduced lung function; aggravation of the
effects of gaseous pollutants; aggravation
of respiratory and cardio-respiratory
diseases; increased coughing and chest
discomfort; soiling; reduced visibility
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM 2.5)
No Separate State
Standard
65 µg/m3, 24-hour
average; 15 µg/m3
annual arithmetic
mean
Combustion sources such as
automobiles, trucks, and
stationary sources;
atmospheric chemical
reactions.
Increased mortality; reduced lung
function; aggravation of the effects of
gaseous pollutants; aggravation of
respiratory and cardio-respiratory
diseases; increased coughing and chest
discomfort.
Lead 1.5 µg/m3, 30-day
average
1.5 µg/m3,
calendar quarter
Contaminated soil. Increased body burden; impairment of
blood formation and nerve conduction;
behavioral and hearing problems in
children.
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
Sufficient to reduce
visual range to less
than 10 miles at
relative humidity less
than 70%, 8-hour
average (9am - 5pm)
None Visibility impairment on days when
relative humidity is less than 70 percent.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air; ppm = parts per million parts of air, by volume.
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November 2001 (Version 3) update.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-19 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Air Quality
Table 4-2
Number of Days State Ambient Air Quality Standards Exceeded
Lake Elsinore Station
Carbon Monoxide1 Ozone2 Oxides of Nitrogen3
Year
Maximum
8-hour
concentration
(ppm)
*Days
standard
exceeded
Maximum
1-hour
concentration
(ppm)
*Days
standard
exceeded
Maximum
1-hour
concentration
(ppm)
*Days
standard
exceeded
1997 -- -- 0.16 49 0.11 0
1998 -- -- 0.17 52 0.09 0
1999 -- -- 0.14 51 0.11 0
2000 2.0 0 0.13 45 0.08 0
2001 2.0 0 0.151 61 0.09 0
2002 2.0 0 0.139 52 0.07 0
2003 1.3 0 0.154 50 0.08 0
2004 0.9 0 0.130 41 0.06 0
* Number of days state standard was exceeded in calendar year.
ppm=parts per million parts of air, by volume
1 State standard for carbon monoxide: 20 ppm 1-Hour; 9.0 ppm 8-Hour
2 State standard for ozone: 0.09 ppm 1-Hour
3 State standard for nitrogen dioxide: 0.25 ppm 1-Hour
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Data 1990-2004.
Table 4-3
PM10 Measurements
Perris Valley Station
Year
Maximum
Concentration (Fg/m3)
Days (% of) Samples Exceeding
California standard*
1997 139 19 (31.7)
1998 98 14 (26.4)
1999 112 30 (50)
2000 87 13 (22)
2001 86 16 (27)
2002 100 24 (39.3)
2003 142 19 (32.8)
2004 83 15 (25.4)
Fg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air
*State standard for PM10 >50 Fg/m3, 24-hour. Collected every 6 days.
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Data 1990-2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-20
Air Quality
Sensitive Receptors
SCAQMD identifies sensitive receptors as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air
pollution than the general population. Sensitive receptors located in or near the vicinity of known
air emissions sources, including freeways and intersections, are of particular concern. Sensitive
receptors are located in close proximity to the project area and include the following:
Residential developments surrounding the site except for the commercial property located
west-southwest
Nine primary schools, 2 middle schools and 3 high schools within 2 miles of the site
Two parks within 2 miles of the site
There are no hospitals, care facilities, or day-care facilities within 2 miles of the site.
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
Carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots, or areas where carbon monoxide is concentrated, typically occur
near congested intersections, parking garages, and other spaces where a substantial number of
vehicles remain idle. Petroleum-powered vehicles emit carbon monoxide, an unhealthy gas (see
Table 4-1), which disperses based on wind speed, temperature, traffic speeds, local topography, and
other variables. As vehicles idle in traffic congestion or in enclosed spaces, CO can accumulate to
create CO hot spots that can impact sensitive receptors.
Toxic Air Pollutants
Toxic air pollutants, such as asbestos, can be emitted during the demolition of buildings that contain
toxic contaminants, and during the operation of certain industrial processes that utilize toxic
substances. Federal and state governments have implemented a number of programs to control
toxic air emissions. For example, the federal Clean Air Act provides a program for the control of
hazardous air pollutants. In addition, the California legislature enacted programs including the
Tanner Toxics Act (Health and Safety Code Section 25300 et. seq.), the Air Toxics Hot Spot
Assessment Program (Health and Safety Code Section 44300 et. seq.), the Toxics Emissions Near
Schools Program (Public Resources Code Section 21151.8), and the Disposal Site Air Monitoring
Program (Health and Safety Code Section 41800 et. seq.).
SCAQMD has developed and implements rules to control emissions of toxic air pollutants from
specific sources. These include Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants), which
requires certain businesses to obtain a permit to emit toxic air pollutants, and Rule 1403 (Asbestos
Emissions from Renovation/Demolition Activities), which regulates asbestos emissions during
construction activities.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-21 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Air Quality
Related Plans and Programs
Air Quality Management Plan
The 2003 AQMP updates the demonstration of attainment with thefFederal standards for ozone
and PM10, replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard, provides a
basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future, and updates the maintenance plan for the
Federal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard that the Basin has met since 1992.
The 2003 AQMP proposes policies and measures to achieve federal and state standards for
healthful air quality in the Basin. The revision to the Plan also addresses several state and federal
planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of
updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes and new air
quality modeling tools. This Plan is consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the
1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendments to the Ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin. However,
this revision points to an urgent need for additional emissions reductions (beyond those
incorporated in the 1997/99 Plan) to offset increased emissions estimates from mobile sources and
to meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the time frames allowed under the federal
Clean Air Act.
Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact
The project will result in a significant adverse impact on air quality if its long-term operational
emissions, due to combined stationary and vehicular emissions, result in any of the following:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable regional and/or local Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP)
The SCAQMD has established air pollutant emission thresholds to assist lead agencies in
determining whether or not the construction or operation of a project results in significant impacts.
If the lead agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these thresholds, the project is
considered to have a significant impact on air quality. These thresholds are summarized in Table 4-
4.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-22
Table 4-4
SCAQMD Thresholds for Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution
Threshold of Significant Effect
Pollutant Operation Phase Construction Phase
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 55 lbs/day 75 lbs/day, 2.5 tons/quarter
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 55 lbs/day 100 lbs/day, 2.5 tons/quarter
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day, 24.75 tons/quarter
Fine Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day, 6.75 tons/quarter
Sulfur Oxides (SO2) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day, 6.75 tons/quarter
Source: CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District. May, 1993 with updates
through 2001.
Environmental Impact
Air quality impacts associated with the proposed project can be classified as either short-term or
long-term impacts. Short-term impacts result from construction activities, and long-term impacts are
associated with daily activities at the hospital and medical office buildings and the daily vehicle trips
to and from the facilities.
Short-Term Impacts
Development of the proposed project will result in the addition of approximately 566,160 square
feet of hospital building and other medical facilities on the 35.31-acre site. Construction of the
proposed project will generate pollutant emissions from the following activities: demolition, grading
and paving operations; travel by construction workers to the site; delivery and hauling of
construction materials and supplies to and from the project sites; fuel combustion by on-site
construction equipment; the application of architectural coatings and asphalt that release reactive
organic gases (ROG); and dust (PM10) generation from construction vehicle travel. Short-term
impacts vary in duration and are dependent upon the type of construction activity, the associated
equipment used for that activity, and the project phasing. Short-term impacts for the proposed
project will occur throughout each of the five phases of construction and will last from 2 months for
site grading to 12 months for building construction.
Estimated daily construction-related emissions for the proposed project are presented in Table 4-5.
As shown, construction activity will produce daily emissions above the SCAQMD significance
thresholds for NOx and ROG. The NOx emissions are primarily attributable to exhaust from
construction vehicles, and the ROG emissions are primarily from the application of architectural
coatings. The emissions of these pollutants are considered to produce a significant adverse short-
term regional air quality impact because the levels of these emissions are projected to exceed
SCAQMD air pollutant significance thresholds.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-23 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Table 4-5
Daily Construction Emissions (in pounds per day)
Pollutants (lbs/day)
Emissions Source ROG NOx CO PM10 SO2
Demolition Emissions 11.66 91.55 86.18 4.73 0.03
Site Grading Emissions 41.91 282.81 338.51 129.67 0.01
Mitigated Site Grading Emissions 41.91 282.81 338.51 53.80 0.01
Building Construction Emissions 223.91 216.46 317.50 8.17 0
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150
Exceed Thresholds? YES YES NO NO NO
Source: P&D Consultants in August 2005 using the URBEMIS2002 emissions inventory model.
Note: Bolded values denote an exceedance of threshold.
Assumptions: The total construction for the project was assumed to begin January 2006 and terminate in December
2010. The default values in URBEMIS2002 were used to determine timing for each individual phase of
construction (demolition, site grading, building construction).
Construction Odor Impacts
The proposed project has the potential to create objectionable odors during construction. Some
odors may be associated with the operation of diesel engines during site preparation. However,
these odors are typical of urbanized environments and would be subject to construction and air
quality regulations, including proper maintenance of machinery to minimize engine emissions.
These emissions are also of short duration and are quickly dispersed into the atmosphere.
Therefore, the project will not create significant objectionable odor impacts during construction.
Long-Term Impacts
Air pollutant emissions associated with project operations will be generated due to the
consumption of electricity and natural gas (so-called stationary sources) and by the operation of on-
road vehicles (mobile sources). Because it is not possible to isolate geographically where
production of electric power occurs, these emissions are considered to be regional in nature.
Emissions of criteria pollutants associated with the production of energy were calculated using
emission factors from the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Project-related operational
emissions for on-road mobile sources and stationary sources are summarized in Table 4-6.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-24 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Air Quality
Table 4-6
Operational Phase Regional Emissions (in pounds per day)
Pollutants (lbs/day)
Emissions Source ROG NOx CO PM10 SO2
Area Source Emissions 8.39* 3.79 4.43 0.01 0
Vehicular Source Emissions 85.73 94.69 1,139.90 123.28 0.86
Total 94.11 98.48 1,144.33 123.29 0.86
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150
Exceed Thresholds? YES NO YES NO NO
Source: P&D Consultants in August 2005 using the URBEMIS2002 emissions inventory model.
Note: Bolded values denote an exceedance of threshold.
*94% of ROG is from architectural coatings and will be mitigated by measure AQ-14.
As illustrated in Table 4-6, regional emissions from the operation of the proposed project are
estimated to produce air pollutant emissions above the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO
and ROG. As such, regional emissions associated with the operational phase of the project will
result in a significant adverse air quality impact related to ROG and CO.
CO Operational Impacts
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO concentrations called
“hotspots.” These pockets have the potential to exceed the state 1-hour standard of 20.0 parts per
million (ppm) and/or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. As shown in Table 4-2, ambient CO
concentrations at the nearest air monitoring station are less than 2.0 ppm and have been holding
steady for the years studied.
To identify CO hotspots, the SCAQMD methodology recommends performing a CO hotspot
analysis when a project increases the volume to capacity ratio for any intersection with an existing
level of service (LOS) D or worse. Due to the low ambient CO concentrations and because the
project will not create any significant impacts at the studied intersections, a CO hotspot analysis is
not warranted.
Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies
With respect to determining project consistency with SCAQMD and Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) air quality policies, it must be recognized that air quality
planning in the South Coast Air Basin focuses on the attainment of the ambient air quality standards
at the earliest feasible date. The SCAQMD CEQA emissions thresholds for construction and
operational phase emissions are designed to identify those projects that would result in significant
levels of pollutants, as well as promote the attainment of the California ambient air quality standards
and national ambient air quality standards.
General Plans are used to assist in development of the AQMP, which provides the framework for
attainment of the ambient air quality standards and national ambient air quality standards. The
Temecula Hospital project proposes development on the project site with at an intensity greater
than the 2-story building height limit established in the General Plan Land Use Element for this site.
However, the proposed hospital and medical uses involve a total of 566,160 square feet of building
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-25 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Air Quality
area, whereas a commercial development constructed pursuant to current land use regulations
could yield up to 769,059 square feet based on an assumed Floor Area Ratio of 0.5. More to the
point, the proposed uses would generate 65% fewer vehicle trips than the commercial uses on the
site assumed in the General Plan (see discussion of Alternative 2 in Section 5.0 of this EIR). Finally,
Policy 1.8 in the Land Use Element states:
Policy 1.8 Encourage future development of a community hospital and related services, as well
as a community college, major college or university.
Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with goals and policies within the General Plan.
Because the proposed project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use and
Open Space/Conservation Elements, it is assumed to be consistent with the AQMP and the
development’s assumptions are included in the modeling for the AQMP.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures will reduce emissions to less than significant levels for all
pollutants except NOx:
Pre-grading
AQ-1. The applicant/permittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for a final
location, design, and type of staging area (or turn-out) appropriate for the project site.
Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City of
Temecula Planning Department.
AQ-2. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as
during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include but not be
limited to the following: encouraging car and vanpooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex
schedules during the on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall
be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading
permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the operation of the medical offices.
AQ-3. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate energy efficiency standards appropriate for
medical facilities and professional office buildings, as defined by State of California
regulations.
AQ-4. The applicant/permittee shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating
native drought-resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch
box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of
construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce the
amount of dust and to prevent dust and erosion, with such temporary landscaping to be
installed at the applicant/permittee’s expense.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-26
Air Quality
AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities,
the applicant/permittee shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth-
moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In
addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction
equipment should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and
highest energy efficiency reasonably possible.
AQ-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City
of Temecula Public Works Department for approval. Said program shall include control of
wind-blown dust on site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Public Works Director
reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances
that present themselves during the project construction.
AQ-7. The applicant/permittee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control
Plan to the City of Temecula, including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 – Nuisance
and Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include applicable best
available control measures included in Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 403 during grading and
construction such as the following examples listed below:
Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally safe dust control
materials shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site inactive
for over four days.
Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have
ceased.
Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion.
Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily, at least once in
the morning and at least once in the afternoon.
Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour.
Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the surface area of
open storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven
fugitive dust or install temporary coverings.
Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site.
Direct construction traffic over established haul routes.
The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to
the commencement of grading and excavation operations. Compliance with The Fugitive
Dust Control Plan shall be subject to periodic site monitoring by the City
Grading and Construction
AQ-8. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee shall post
signs on the site limiting construction-related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per
hour or less.
AQ-9. The applicant/permittee shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas
located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-27 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Air Quality
AQ-10. The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-related enclosures and facilities
and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors
during construction and subsequent use.
AQ-11. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully
cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks
off site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special
attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material
transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust
emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels, shall be sprayed with water,
which shall be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the
trucks before they leave the construction area.
AQ-12. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee shall
ensure the sweeping of adjacent streets and roads to prevent the placement or
accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done
as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the end of each day of grading and/or
construction.
AQ-13. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact
adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an
hour), the applicant/permittee shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation
operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust
created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site
or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion.
AQ-14. The applicant/permittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content
architectural coatings during the construction and repainting of the project to the maximum
extent feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (ROG) emissions by 95 percent over
convention architectural coatings. The following websites provide lists of manufacturers of
zero VOC content coatings:
http:// http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant_AIM.pdf
http://www.delta-institute.org/publications/paints.pdf
AQ-15. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and
evening water down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust.
Operations
AQ-16. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the
approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed
structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal.
AQ-17. The applicant/permittee shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including
directional signs to/from the public streets (De Portola Road and Highway 79 South) to
promote alternative transportation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-28
Air Quality
Level of Impact after Mitigation
As discussed above, the proposed Temecula Hospital project will result in significant air quality
impacts during the project’s construction and operational phases. During the construction phase,
compliance with existing SCAQMD regulations will reduce ROG emissions from the application of
architectural coatings to levels below the SCAQMD daily construction emission thresholds.
Therefore, with mitigation, ROG emissions will be less than significant. However, NOx emissions
from construction vehicle exhaust will continue to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold and
result in a significant, unavoidable short-term air quality impact.
Once the hospital and other on-site facilities are in operation, estimated emissions of CO and ROG
will exceed the operational phase thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Even with measures to
encourage trip reduction and energy efficiency, emissions cannot be mitigated to below a level of
significance. Long-term air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-29 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Air Quality
This page is left blank intentionally.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-30
4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will contribute
runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems,
otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Water supply is addressed in this section of the EIR in
compliance with California Water Code Section 10912 (a)(2) because the proposed project is
greater than 500,000 square feet.
As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the proposed project will result in a less than
significant impact with regard to water quality standards, depleting groundwater supplies or
interfering with groundwater recharge; substantially altering the existing drainage pattern in the area
resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, or increase the amount of surface runoff
that would result in flooding on- or off-site; and exposing people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving flooding or inundation.
Environmental Setting
Storm Water Drainage
The existing storm water drainage system in the City of Temecula, including the project site is
governed by the Riverside County Flood Control District, Zone 7.1
Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain, with a high point at the western third of
the property. The high point represents a boundary between two watersheds, with the western one-
third draining to the west and the balance sloping and draining to the east.
The western watershed drains toward the northeast corner of the adjacent property and into an
earthen drainage channel that conveys water along the northerly property line of the church
development to the west of the site. This runoff will eventually flow to a storm water system that
crosses Highway 79 South at Jedediah Smith Road.
The eastern watershed drains into an earthen flood control channel that parallels the eastern site
boundary and crosses Highway 79 South approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. This
channel is open and contains dense riparian vegetation consisting of willows and cottonwoods.
Storm water from this channel is conveyed across Highway 79 South to an enclosed storm water
system that drains to the Temecula Creek Channel located approximately 1,500 feet to the south of
the property.2
1 Riverside County Flood Control District. “About the District.” http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/districtsite/.
Date Accessed: August 9, 2005.
2 Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC Company). Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center.
November 2004.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-31 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality
The project site lies within the San Diego Basin, known as Region 9 of the State of California Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Basin consists of 11 major drainage basins which
encompass most of San Diego County, parts of southwestern Riverside County, and portions of
southwestern Orange County. These basins are under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board. Temecula is located within the Santa Margarita Hydrologic Unit,3 a
rectangular area of about 750 square miles encompassing portions of Camp Pendleton, as well as
the civilian population centers of Murrieta, Temecula, and portions of Fallbrook in San Diego
County.
The RWQCB adopted a new Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit on July 14,
2004 (Order No. R9-2004-001) for the Santa Margarita River Watershed permittees in Riverside
County. The Santa Margarita River permittees consist of the City of Temecula, City of Murrieta,
County of Riverside, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.4
The MS4 permit requires the City of Temecula to designate temporary and permanent pollution
prevention, source-control, and treatment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) on all new
developments. All new development projects such as the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital
will be subject to the Water Quality Management Plan requirements. Water Quality Management
Plan requirements consist of structural source control and treatment control BMPs to be maintained
by facility owners for as long as the facilities are in operation. The Water Quality Management Plan
requires the designation of responsible parties (i.e. property owners, developers, and business
operators) for installing and implementing the required BMPs, as well as establishing a funding
source for the maintenance of all structural BMPs.
California Water Code Sections 10910-10915
Sections 10910-10915 of the California Water Code identify consultation, noticing, and water
supply assessment and provision requirements for proposed projects meeting specific criteria
identified in Sections 10910 and 10913 of the Code. The City must consult with local and regional
water agencies to assess whether the water demand associated with the project is included in an
agency’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan, and whether existing supplies can meet the
project’s demand for water. Based on the entire record, the City will determine within an EIR
whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years
will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned
future uses.
3 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9).
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb9/programs/basinplan.html. 1994.
4 City of Temecula, Public Works Department. NPDES information.
http://www.cityoftemecula.org/cityhall/pub_works/landDev/npdes.htm Date accessed: August 10, 2005.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-32
Hydrology and Water Quality
Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact
Impacts of the proposed project to hydrology and water quality will be significant and adverse if it
will:
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality
Environmental Impact
Storm Water Drainage and Water Quality
To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all
proposed development projects within the City of Temecula are reviewed by the Riverside County
Flood Control District prior to approval by the City of Temecula. New development projects are
required to provide on-site drainage and to pay area drainage fees per acre of development.
Drainage fee revenues are used to support capacity expansion within the local storm drain system.5
State of California Water Resources Control Board requires all development projects to prepare a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to mitigate water quality impacts during storm events that
occur during construction. Through the MS4 Permit, Temecula is required to ensure that these
projects comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In addition, all commercial
development proposals where the land area represented by the proposed map or permit is 100,000
square feet or more must prepare a Water Quality Management Plan, outlining how the project will
minimize water quality impacts during project operation.6 Compliance with these existing
regulations will ensure a less than significant impact on storm water drainage and water quality.
California Water Code Sections 10910-10915
In compliance with California Water Code Section 10910-10915, all future development projects
pursuant to the proposed General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law are required to
determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry
water years will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the proposed project, in addition to existing and
planned future uses. No major development project will be permitted to proceed unless required
determinations can be made. Compliance with existing regulations will minimize the potential for
impact. Water Code section 10910 applies to the project because the proposed hospital and
medical office building complex meets the criteria established in California Water Code section
10912 (a)(1) in square feet and potential employment.
The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) owns, operates, and maintains the public water
system within which the proposed project will be located. RCWD will be the water purveyor to the
5 Riverside County Flood Control District. “Area Drainage Fees.”
http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/Downloads/Area_Drainage_Plain_Summary.pdf.
6 Riverside County Storm Water Clean Water Protection Program. Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan for
Urban Runoff, Santa Ana River Region and Santa Margarita Region. September 17, 2004.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-33 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Hydrology and Water Quality
project. RCWD has prepared a water supply assessment for the proposed project, which is
included as Appendix G to this EIR. Findings and conclusions of the water supply assessment are
summarized in the following paragraphs.
Rancho California Water District Urban Water Management Plan
The development area of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital was identified in RCWD’s 2000
Urban Water Management Plan, RCWD’s 1997 Water Facilities Master Plan, and RCWD’s recently
adopted 2005 Master Plan Update. The 2005 Water Facilities Master Plan shows an estimated
demand of 129,545 acre-feet per year for 2025. The projected water demand for the Temecula
Regional Hospital is approximately 42 acre-feet per year. This projection includes an allowance of
28 acre-feet for the hospital, 12 acre-feet for the medical office buildings, 1.2 acre-feet for the fitness
center, and 0.8 acre-feet for the proposed cancer center7. This demand has been anticipated and
included in the adopted Urban Water Management Plan and Water Facilities Master Plan for
RCWD.
According to RCWD’s Water Facilities Master Plan and 2000 Urban Water Management Plan,
RCWD has an existing and planned combined well, imported, and recycled water production
capacity of approximately 150,000 acre-feet. The ultimate annual water demand of the RCWD is
estimated to be 129,545 acre-feet, while the existing demand for 2004 was approximately 85,000
acre-feet. Based on the projected water demands for the Temecula Regional Hospital and future
demands projected for the project service area, this project demand is less than the Water Facilities
Master Plan projected demands based on land use for the project location. The Master Plan
projected demands for the project site are based on use of the site as 30 acres of Business
Park/Industrial (1500 gallons per day) and 6 acres of Estate Residential (0.75 acre-feet per acre),
resulting in a total of 55 acre-feet for the project area. Therefore, the 42 acre-feet demand
estimated for the project has been provided for and can be met with existing supply capacities.
To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the Rancho
California Water District intends to meet supply planning issues through a combination of the
following alternatives:
1. Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and artificial
recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned RCWD-owned wells.
2. Annual water purchase of direct imported and replenishment water via Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California and from Vail Lake.
3. Orderly implementation of recycled water system use expansion as proposed to be
available.
4. Conservation measures.
Due to RCWD’s access to local groundwater sources, the availability of local groundwater sources,
and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the basin, short-term drought
situations have historically had negligible effect on the ability to supply customers. Additionally, if
surface water flows are reduced as a result of single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD
7 HKS Inc./CCRD Partners – Project Architects and Engineers.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-34
Hydrology and Water Quality
has the ability to meet demands by augmenting its supply with increased groundwater extractions,
along with implementation of conservation and other measures. RCWD also anticipates that the
use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic water
sources, furthering RCWD's ability to supply water during single or multiple dry, or critically dry,
years. Therefore, RCWD has concluded that sufficient water supply exists to support the Temecula
Regional Hospital development as required by California Water Code section 10910. Impact is less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No impact will result; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Level of Impact after Mitigation
Hydrology and water quality impacts will be less than significant.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-35 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Hydrology and Water Quality
This page is left intentionally blank.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-36
4.4 Land Use and Planning
This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will conflict with
any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
site. As discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix A to this EIR), the proposed project will not result in
physical division of an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan.
To address habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site, a comprehensive biological
resource survey and focused surveys for the Burrowing Owl were conducted, pursuant to the Multi-
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) guidelines. The surveys concluded that no protected
species or habitats and no Burrowing Owls occur on the project site (see Appendix E of this EIR).
Thus, habitat conservation planning issues are not addressed in this EIR.
Environmental Setting
Three principal land use planning and regulatory documents govern the use of land in the City of
Temecula: the Temecula General Plan (primarily the Land Use, Growth Management/Public
Facilities, and Community Design Elements), the City’s Development Code (Title 17, Zoning of the
Municipal Code), and the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. As noted in
the introductory statement above, investigations have been performed pursuant to the MSHCP and
have concluded that MSHCP policies do not apply due to the absence of biological resources on
the site. Thus, this discussion focuses on the General Plan and zoning regulations.
Temecula General Plan
Land Use Element: The General Plan Land Use Element contains citywide policies for growth and
development, as well as specific policies relevant to target areas of the community. The citywide
Land Use Element goals and policies most relevant to the project site are as follows:
Goal 1 A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational,
public and open space land uses.
Policy 1.1 Review all proposed development plans for consistency with community goals,
policies and implementation programs of this General Plan, and consider potential
impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure.
Policy 1.8 Encourage future development of a community hospital and related services, as well
as a community college, major college or university.
Goal 3 A City of diversified development character, where rural and historical areas are
protected and co-exist with newer urban development.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-37 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Land Use and Planning
Policy 3.1 Provide physical and visual buffer areas to create a transition between rural
residential and agricultural areas and commercial, industrial and other higher density
residential development.
Goal 5 A land use pattern that protects and enhances residential neighborhoods.
Policy 5.1 Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of the
size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of
existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic
impacts, and other environmental conditions.
Policy 5.2 Require parcels developed for commercial or industrial uses to incorporate buffers
that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity and vehicular traffic on
surrounding residential uses.
The General Plan Land Use Policy Map designates the site as Professional Office. Also, a specific
plan overlay, Z2, applies to the site which limits building heights to 2 stories.
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element:
Goal 2 Orderly and efficient patterns of growth that enhance quality of life for Temecula
residents.
Policy 2.2 Ensure that phasing of public facilities and services occurs in such a way that new
development is adequately supported as it develops.
Policy 2.5 Encourage new development that helps create and maintain a balance between jobs
and housing opportunities.
Temecula Development Code
The Temecula Development Code (Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning) establishes zoning districts
and regulations applicable to properties in the City and based upon General Plan land use policy.
The Development Code includes zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, environmental review
procedures, and the sign code. Per State law, Development Code regulations and maps must be
consistent with the land uses, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan.
The project site currently has two zoning designations. The three lots that abut De Portola Road are
zoned De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8). The balance of the site is zoned
Professional Office (PO).
Surrounding Land Uses
Under the Professional Office (PO) District medical office buildings are permitted uses and hospitals
are conditionally permitted uses. The maximum height allowed in the PO District is 75 feet and the
maximum lot coverage is 50 percent, with a 25 percent minimum required landscaped open space.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-38
Land Use and Planning
Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across
Highway 79 South); single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional
office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and
commercial uses to the east.
Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact
The potential impacts of the proposed project related to land use are considered significant and
adverse if the project will conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Environmental Impact
Temecula General Plan and Development Code Consistency
The proposed project is not consistent with the existing General Plan designation, as buildings taller
than two stories are proposed. Project applications include a General Plan Amendment to remove
the Z2 Overlay and thus allow for greater building height, a change to the Official Zoning Map from
PDO-8 and PO to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), and a Conditional Use
Permit and Development Plan for the hospital. The PDO-9 zone would allow development of the
site pursuant to the precise plan described in Development Plan application, as ultimately approved
by the City Council.
The proposed project will change the use on the project site from vacant land to a regional hospital,
medical office buildings, a cancer center, a fitness rehabilitation center, a helipad, and related
parking.
General Plan Policies
Land Use Element: The Professional Office General Plan land use designation will continue to
apply to the project site. The uses proposed are all permitted within this designation. Thus, no
conflict with underlying General Plan land use policy will apply. The project will implement General
Plan land use Policy 1.8, which supports development of a hospital. Pursuant to Policies 3.1 and
5.2, the development will be buffered from lower intensity uses to the north with parking lots and
landscaped areas. The residential uses to the north will be buffered from the main hospital
structures by approximately 210 feet of open space including a horse trail and jogging path located
immediately north of the proposed fitness center, as well as 350 feet of open parking area.
Additionally, approximately 228 feet of landscaped area is provided immediately south of the
proposed jogging path, and west of the parking lots north of the hospital. The project is consistent
with overall land use intent for the project site. Impact is less than significant.
Elimination of the Z2 overlay would eliminate building height restrictions. As a default, the
standards of the applicable zone would apply. The PO zoning district has a building height limit of
75 feet. However, the applicant has submitted a PDO application with the zone change application
to allow a maximum height of 115 feet for the tower structures. If approved by the City Council, no
conflict between General Plan policy and zoning regulations would result and impact would be less
than significant.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-39 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Land Use and Planning
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element: The proposed project will be a phased
development that will allow for efficient implementation of public facilities and services within the
project area. Pursuant to Policy 2.2, public facilities and services required to serve the project will
be phased to correspond to the project’s phasing. Pursuant to Policy 2.5, potential jobs will be
created through the development and programming of this regional hospital and the housing for the
hospital workers will be accommodated through new housing developments anticipated in the
City’s General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will be consistent with goals and polices of the
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element listed above. Impact is less than significant.
Development Code
All uses currently permitted in the existing PO zoning district will still be permitted in proposed
PDO-9 zone. Thus, no conflict or impact would result. The primary changes that would occur as a
result of the new proposed PDO and the Development Plan would be a change to the building
height limit (to allow up to 115 feet) and the establishment of development standards applicable
strictly to this site. The PDO document submitted with the application indicates an allowable
maximum building height limit of 115 feet. The PDO text clarifies the allowances for increased
building height as follows:
“The development standards set forth in Section 17.08 for the Professional Office
Zone shall apply to this PDO with the exception of the following. No more than 30%
of the total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot maximum
building height limit. The maximum building height for those portions of the hospital
building within the 30% area may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this
Section, roof area is defined as that portion of the roof above occupied conditioned
spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall that defines the roof area”
The City has stated that a key project objective is to facilitate construction of a regional hospital
facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic
benefits to the City. Further, City objectives include ensuring that any such hospital is compatible
with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and
landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental
conditions (see page 3-3 of this EIR).
If approved by the City Council, the proposed General Plan Amendment and PDO-9 zone
applicable to the site – and the development resulting from these changes to land use regulations –
will be considered appropriate land use policy and zoning for the subject property. If the City
Council elects to otherwise limit building height and/or establish additional development conditions,
the Council’s action indicates its determination that such regulations are appropriate for the site,
considering its surroundings in light of the stated project objectives. Therefore, with either action,
impact will be less than significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-40
Land Use and Planning
Compatibility with Surrounding Uses
Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31-acre site. The
Professional Office designation includes primarily single or multi-tenant offices and may include
supporting uses. Office developments are intended to include low-rise offices situated in a
landscaped garden arrangement and may include mid-rise structures at appropriate locations.
Typical uses include legal, design, engineering, or medical offices, corporate and governmental
offices, and community facilities. Supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial
uses may be permitted to serve the needs of the on-site employees.
Surrounding uses include commercial and professional office development to the east and west
(some currently under construction), and residential development across De Portola Road and
Highway 79 South. The proposed hospital, medical office, and related uses are consistent with
established and planned development uses and patterns along Highway 79 South, south of De
Portola Road. With regard to the residential uses, the site is separated from these uses by,
respectively, a 6-lane roadway to the south and an approximate 88-foot road right-of-way to the
north. Also, the site plan builds in buffers in the form of parking lots and landscaping to ensure
compatibility between the uses on the site and residential uses. The proposed project will result in
beneficial impacts to surrounding uses. The proposed project includes the development of a public
horse trail will follow the border of proposed project from he northeast corner at De Portola Road
leading toward the western edge of the property. Most of the horse trail will be buffered from the
proposed project by improvements such as landscaped areas and a split rail fence. The horse
crossing issue at De Portola Road to the proposed project parcels was discussed at previous public
hearings for the proposed project. This issue is currently a problem and will continue to be a
problem with or without the proposed project. The uses proposed are considered consistent and
compatible with surrounding uses; impact will be less than significant.
With regard to intensity of use, the project will result in a more intense use of the site than is
currently allowed under land use regulations due to the proposed increased height standard. The
project will require approval of a planned development permit to provide for the development of
the site with the uses, structures, parking, landscaping, and other components of the proposed
development, and to provide development standards for the project.
The hospital bed towers will be set back and located toward the center of the site. The nearest
tower will be set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned parcel and
approximately 630 feet from De Portola Road. Extensive perimeter landscaping and landscaping
adjacent to the buildings will be provided. These project features will minimize perceived visual
effects and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Therefore, land use compatibility impacts
with regard to development standards are not considered significant.
Refer to Section 4. 1 (Aesthetics) of this EIR for a discussion of potential aesthetic impacts
associated with the hospital bed towers and overall site development.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-41 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Land Use and Planning
Mitigation Measures
No impact will result; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Level of Impact after Mitigation
Land use and planning impacts will be less than significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-42
4.5 Noise
This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will generate or
expose persons to short-term or operational noise levels in excess of City standards, or create a
substantial permanent or periodic increase in ambient noise within the project area.
Appendix C includes the noise study and detailed noise measurement worksheets compiled by
Wieland Associates that provide the basis for the following analysis.
Environmental Setting
The noise environment in the project area is characterized by typical urban noises, such as traffic
noise, heavy machinery associated with construction activities, and day-to-day outdoor activities.
Noise in the community is the cumulative effect of noise from transportation activities and
stationary sources. Transportation noise refers to noise from automobile use, trucking, airport
operations, and rail operations. Stationary noise refers to noise from sources such as commercial
establishments, machinery, air conditioning systems, compressors, and landscape maintenance
equipment. Regardless of the type of noise, the noise levels are highest near the source and
decrease with distance.
How Sound Is Measured
The following describes the noise descriptors that will be used throughout this section.
Decibels
Sound pressures can be measured in units called microPascals (µPa). However, expressing sound
levels in terms of µPa would be very cumbersome since it would require a wide range of very large
numbers. For this reason, sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of actual
sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called bels. In order to provide a
finer resolution, a bel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB.
Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by
ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70
dB when it passes an observer, 2 cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact,
they would combine to produce 73 dB. This same principle can be applied to other traffic
quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic
will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will
reduce the traffic noise level by 3 dB.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-43 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Noise
ENVTE
IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULAMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-44
A given level of noise may be more or less tolerable depending on the duration of exposure
experienced by an individual. There are numerous measures of noise exposure that consider not
only the A-level variation of noise but also the duration of the disturbance. The State Department of
Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development have
adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). This measure weights the average noise
levels for the evening hours (7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.), increasing them by 5 dB, and weights the late
evening and morning hour noise levels (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) by 10 dB. The daytime noise levels
are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Figure 4-5
indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
The A-weighted sound level of traffic and other long-term noise-producing activities within and
around a community varies considerably with time. Measurements of this varying noise level are
accomplished by recording values of the A-weighted level during representative periods within a
specified portion of the day.
The A-scale approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most
ordinary everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of
a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. A range of
noise levels associated with common in- and outdoor activities is shown in Figure 4-4.
Human hearing is limited not only to the range of audible frequencies, but also in the way it
perceives the sound pressure level in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive
to sounds between 1,000 hertz (Hz) and 5,000 Hz, and perceives both higher and lower frequency
sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. In order to approximate the frequency response
of the human ear, a series of sound pressure level adjustments is usually applied to the sound
measured by a sound level meter. The adjustments, or weighting network, are frequency
dependent.
Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency or pitch of a sound
also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. While the intensity of the sound is a
purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response depends on the characteristics of the
human ear.
A-Weighting
TY
O
F T
E
M
E CU
L
A
EN
V
I R O N ME
N
T
A
L
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
4-
45
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
So
u
r
c
e
:
Wi
e
l
a
n
d
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
In
c
.
,
2
0
0
5
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
Wi
e
l
a
n
d
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
In
c
.
,
2
0
0
5
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
-
4
Co
m
m
o
n
N
o is
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
n
d
A
-
W
e
ig
h
t
e
d
N
o
i
s
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
-
5
Co
m
m
o
n
CN
E
L
No
i
s
e
E
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
a
t
V
a
rious Locations
CI
Noise
Noise Standards
California Code of Regulations
In 1974, the California Commission on Housing and Community Development adopted noise
insulation standards for residential buildings (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations). Title
24 establishes standards for interior room noise attributable to outside noise sources. Title 24 also
specifies that acoustical studies be prepared whenever a residential building or structure is
proposed to be located within exterior CNEL or Ldn contours of 60 dB or greater attributable to an
existing or adopted freeway, expressway, parkway, major street, thoroughfare, rail line, rapid transit
line, or industrial noise source. The acoustical analysis must show that the building has been
designed to limit intruding noise to an interior CNEL or Ldn of 45 dB. Table 4-7 outlines the interior
and exterior noise standards set forth by Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations.
Table 4-7
State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards
Noise Standards1
Land Use Interior2,3 Exterior
Residential – Single-family, multi-family,
duplex, mobile home CNEL 45 dB CNEL 65 dB4
Residential – Transient lodging, hotels,
motels, nursing homes, hospitals CNEL 45 dB CNEL 65 dB4
Private offices, church sanctuaries, libraries,
board rooms, conference rooms, theaters,
auditoriums, concert halls, meeting halls, etc.
Leq(12) 45 dB(A) ---
Schools Leq(12) 45 dB(A) Leq(12) 67 dB(A)5
General offices, reception, clerical, etc. Leq(12) 50 dB(A) ---
Bank, lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing
pool, etc. Leq(12) 55 dB(A) ---
Manufacturing, kitchen, warehousing, etc. Leq(12) 65 dB(A) ---
Parks, playgrounds --- CNEL 65 dB5
Gold courses, outdoor spectator sports,
amusement parks --- CNEL 70 dB5
Source: Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations.
Notes:
1. CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Leq(12): The A-weighted equivalent sound level averaged over a
12-hour period (usually the hours of operations).
2. Indoor standard with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation would be provided per UBC requirements to
provide a habitable environment.
3. Indoor environment excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors.
4. Outdoor environment limited to rear yard of single-family homes, multi-family patios and balconies (with a
depth of 6 feet or more) and common recreation areas.
5. Outdoor environment limited to playground areas, picnic area, and other areas of frequent human use.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-46 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Noise
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Under FHWA regulations (23 CFR 772), noise abatement must be considered for new highway
construction and highway reconstruction projects when the noise levels approach or exceed the
noise abatement criteria. For hospital sites, these criteria indicate that the Leq during the noisiest
one-hour period of the day should not exceed 67 dB(A) at exterior areas or 52 dB(A) within the
interior of a hospital or medical building.
City of Temecula General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan provides noise guidelines for various land
uses. The following is a summary of the guidelines that apply to the land uses in the project vicinity.
Table 4-8 presents the City’s adopted guidelines for all land use types. These guidelines are to be
used in determining land use compatibility in development decisions.
Residential – For all high-density residential land uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is
permitted. For all other residential uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted.
Schools – For all schools, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted.
Public/Institutional (including hospitals) – For all public/institutional land uses (except schools,
which are addressed above), a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB and a maximum interior
CNEL of up to 50 dB are permitted.
Open Space – For open space land uses, including agricultural uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of
up to 70 dB is permitted. An exception is for open space land uses where quiet is a basis for the
land use, in which case a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted.
Commercial and Office – For all commercial and office land uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up
to 70 dB is permitted. For professional offices, there is also a maximum interior noise standard of
50 dB CNEL.
In addition, new development projects are required to comply with interior noise standards set forth
in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-47 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Noise
Table 4-8
City of Temecula Noise Standards
Property Receiving Noise
Maximum Noise Level
(Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior
Hillside
Rural
Very Low
Low
Low Medium
45 65
Medium 45 65 / 70
Residential
High 45 701
Neighborhood
Community
Highway Tourist
Service
-- 70 Commercial and Office
Professional Office 50 70
Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75
Schools 50 65 Public/Institutional All others 50 70
Vineyards/Agriculture -- 70 Open Space Open Space -- 70 /652
Source: City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element.
1 Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for Multiple-Family Housing.
2 Where quiet is a basis required for the land use.
City of Temecula Municipal Code
The City of Temecula does not have a noise ordinance. However, the City has adopted
construction-related noise controls. The City of Temecula Municipal Code (Section 8.32.020)
provides restrictions on the times during which construction activity can take place. For
construction sites within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, it limits construction to
between the hours of 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M.., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M.
on Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays.
Public works projects of any federal, State, or local entity and emergency work by public utilities are
exempt from the provisions of Section 8.32.020. The City Council may, by formal action, exempt
projects from the provisions of Section 8.32.020.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-48
Noise
Existing Noise
Traffic on local streets is the predominant source of noise that currently affects the study area. To
document the existing noise environment, measurements were obtained at 3 locations throughout
the study area, as shown in Figure 4-6.
Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005
Figure 4-6 Noise Measurement Locations
The locations are identified as follows:
#1 - In the rear yard of 31775 De Portola Road
#2 - On the project site, at the offset of the proposed 5-story bed tower
#3 - In the rear yard of 31602 Calle Los Padres (this location is adjacent to Highway 79 South)
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-49 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Noise
At locations #1 and #3, the measurement was obtained over a continuous 24-hour period. A 20-
minute measurement was obtained at location #2. The results of the noise measurements, provided
in Appendix C, are summarized in Table 4-9.
Table 4-9
Summary of Noise Measurements
Location #
Location Description
Measurement
Period
Measured Average
Noise Level, dB(A)
CNEL, dB
1 Rear yard of 31775 De
Portola Road 24 hours 44 - 55 57
2 On project site, at offset of
proposed 5-story bed tower 20 minutes 56 N/A
3
Rear yard of 31602 Calle Los
Padres (adjacent to Highway
79 South)
24 hours 52 - 63 65
Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005
These results were used to model existing traffic noise levels adjacent to various street segments in
the study area based on traffic volumes, speeds, truck mix, site conditions, and distance from the
roadway to the noise receptor. The results of modeling for existing traffic noise levels, provided in
Appendix C, are summarized in Table 4-10. It should be noted that many of the residences in the
study area are buffered from the traffic noise by walls of various heights that reduce the noise levels
identified in Table 4-10 by about 5 to 10 dB.
Table 4-10
Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Distance to CNEL Contour from Near Lane
Centerline in feet
Arterial / Reach
Unmitigated
CNEL @ 50’
60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 80 dB
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
North of Highway 79 South 68.0 dB 215 90 --- --- ---
South of Highway 79 South 67.5 dB 200 83 --- --- ---
PECHANGA PARKWAY
South of Highway 79 South 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- ---
REDHAWK PARKWAY
South of Highway 79 South 69.5 dB 278 120 --- --- ---
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH
West of I-15 Freeway 73.5 dB 490 235 100 --- ---
West of Pechanga Parkway 78.0 dB 860 460 215 90 ---
West of Margarita Road 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 ---
West of Butterfield Stage Road 73.5 dB 490 235 100 --- ---
East of Butterfield Stage Road 72.0 dB 395 185 75 --- ---
Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-50
Noise
Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact
A significant impact will result if implementation of the project will:
Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or Municipal Code, or applicable standards of other agencies. This impact will
occur if: (1) the CNEL exceeds 70 dB at the exterior or 50 dB at the interior of the proposed
hospital or medical buildings; or (2) the project increases the exterior CNEL above the maximum
permitted by the City’s General Plan at existing land uses.
Expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels.
Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project. This impact will occur if the project traffic increases the
CNEL at any existing noise-sensitive receptor by an audible amount of 3 dB or more.
Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project. This condition will occur if construction
activities occur outside the hours permitted by the City’s Municipal Code.
Expose persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of
activities at an airport.
Environmental Impact
The proposed project is not located within an airport influence area, and no public or private airport
is within 2 miles of the project site. Therefore, no environmental impact associated with airport
operations will result. However, the proposed project includes a helipad that would be used for
transporting patients to other locations in the event on-site staff cannot address a specific medical
need; this impact is discussed below.
Site Plan
The proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 4-7. A 60-foot by 60-foot helipad will also be
located on the site near the northeast corner of the hospital. Approaches and takeoffs associated
with the helipad will be oriented to the southeast. A truck loading zone and mechanical yard for
the hospital will be located on the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. The loading
zone and mechanical yard will provide infrastructure to support the hospital, including a cooling
tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-51 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Noise
Construction
In compliance with the City’s Municipal Code noise requirements (Section 8.32.020), construction
activity will occur only between 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 A.M. and
6:30 P.M. on Saturday. No construction activities will be permitted on Sundays or legal holidays.
Construction noise levels, as perceived at locations near the project site, will fluctuate depending
upon the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment,
as well as the distance from construction activities. The exposure of persons to the periodic
increase in noise levels will be short term. Short-term impacts vary in duration and are dependent
upon the type of construction activity, the associated equipment used for that activity, and the
project phasing. Short-term impacts for the proposed project will occur throughout each of the
phases of construction and will last from 2 months for site grading to 12 months for building
construction.
Based on the estimated combined construction noise levels identified in Table 4-11, an analysis was
conducted to estimate the noise levels that will be experienced at the nearest noise-sensitive
receptors. This analysis is summarized in Table 4-12. At times, construction noise may cause
annoyance at noise-sensitive locations in the vicinity. Referring to the table, the CNEL due to the
construction activities is expected to exceed the 65 dB threshold and increase the ambient noise
level by more than 3 dB at the residences to the northwest. At the residences to the south,
construction is expected to increase the CNEL above the City’s 65 dB threshold. However, the
impact of construction noise is considered less than significant because it will occur within the hours
permitted by the City’s Municipal Code.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-53 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Noise
Table 4-11
Estimated Combined Noise Level During Each Construction Phase
Construction Phase &
Equipment
Avg. Equipment
Noise Level @
50’a
Load
Factorb
Avg. Equipment CNEL @
50’ with Load Factorc
Phase 1 - Demolition
1 crusher/processor 88 dBA 0.780 82 dBA
2 dozers 88 dBA 0.590 81 dBA
1 loader 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA
1 tractor/loader/backhoe 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA
Combined 86 dBA
Phase 2 - Site Grading
2 excavators 83 dBA 0.580 76 dBA
1 grader 85 dBA 0.575 78 dBA
2 tractors 83 dBA 0.410 74 dBA
5 trucks 95 dBA 0.490 87 dBA
2 other equipment 83 dBA 0.620 76 dBA
1 loader 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA
2 scrapers 92 dBA 0.660 85 dBA
2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA
2 trenchers 83 dBA 0.695 76 dBA
Combined 91 dBA
Phase 3a – Building Construction
1 concrete saw 90 dBA 0.730 84 dBA
2 cranes 91 dBA 0.430 82 dBA
2 other equipment 83 dBA 0.620 76 dBA
1 forklift 76 dBA 0.475 68 dBA
2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA
Combined 87 dBA
Phase 3b – Paving
1 truck 88 dBA 0.490 80 dBA
3 pavers 94 dBA 0.590 87 dBA
5 paving equipment 92 dBA 0.530 84 dBA
2 rollers 77 dBA 0.430 68 dBA
2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA
1 surfacing equipment 80 dBA 0.490 72 dBA
Combined 90 dBA
Notes:
a. Obtained or estimated from:
Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 31, 1971. and
Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. April 1995.
b. Percentage of time equipment is operating at noisiest mode in most used phase on site.
c. CNEL assumes all equipment operates simultaneously during an 8-hour workday.
Source: Wieland Associates, September 2005.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-54
Noise
Table 4-12
Analysis of Estimated Construction Noise Levels
Noise-Sensitive
Location
Construction
Phase
Estimated
CNEL @
50’, dB
Attenuation
Due to
Distance,
dBa
Estimated
CNEL @
Sensitive
Location,
dBb
Estimated
Construction
Noise +
Ambient, dB
Estimated
Increase due
to
Construction,
dB
Nearest
residences to the
northwest
Demolition
Grading
Construction
Paving
86
91
87
90
-16 (305’)
70
75
71
74
70
75
71
74
13
18
14
17
Nearest
residences to the
south
Demolition
Grading
Construction
Paving
86
91
87
90
-24 (760’)
57
62
58
61
66
67
66
66
1
2
1
1
Nearest offices to
the east
Demolition
Grading
Construction
Paving
86
91
87
90
-25 (880’)
61
66
62
65
71
71
71
71
1
1
1
1
Nearest offices to
the west
Demolition
Grading
Construction
Paving
86
91
87
90
-23 (745’)
63
68
64
67
71
72
71
72
1
2
1
2
Notes:
a. Attenuation is based on a reduction of 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the source. Distance is calculated
from the center of the project site.
b. At nearest residences to the south, 5 dB of attenuation is assumed for the wall adjacent to SR-79. At office properties
to the east and west, an existing CNEL of 70 dB is assumed based on Table 4-10.
Source: Wieland Associates, September 2005.
Ground-borne Vibration or Noise
Ground-borne vibration is measured in terms of the velocity of the vibration oscillations. As with
noise, a logarithmic decibel scale (VdB) is used to quantify vibration intensity. When ground-borne
vibration exceeds 75 to 80 VdB, it is usually perceived as annoying to building occupants. The
degree of annoyance is dependent upon type of land use, individual sensitivity to vibration, and the
frequency of the vibration events. Typically, vibration levels must exceed 100 VdB before building
damage occurs.
The primary vibratory source during the construction of the project will be large bulldozers. Based
on published data1, typical bulldozer activities generate an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB at
a distance of 25 feet. At the distance of the nearest residences to the project site (about 305 feet)
the estimated vibration level will be 65 VdB. This is below the threshold at which building damage
occurs and below the impact criteria of 75 VdB for residential properties. Therefore, the impact is
less than significant. However, if a bulldozer moves within about 100 feet of an existing residence,
1 Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 1995.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-55 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Noise
it is possible that vibration will be perceived by residents, if the home is occupied. The impact will
not be significant, however, because the vibration will not be sufficient to cause building damage.
Ambient Noise Levels
Operational Noise
The proposed project will introduce a number of new noise sources into the study area, including
increased traffic (including emergency vehicles), occasional helicopter flights, loading dock activities,
mechanical equipment, parking lot activities, trash pickups, and landscaping and maintenance
activities. Each of these sources is discussed in greater detail below. The traffic analysis assesses
the impacts of both Phase I traffic and cumulative traffic for Phases I through V. The worst-case
future operational noise levels will occur when the entire project is operational (i.e., Phases I
through V are complete); therefore, the remaining analyses assume the entire project is complete
and operational.
Traffic
An estimate of traffic noise levels associated with various street segments in the study area was
based on traffic volumes, speeds, truck mix, site conditions, and distance from the roadway to the
noise receptor. The results of the analyses are provided in Table 4-13 for the Opening Year
Without Project scenario, in Table 4-14 for the With Project Phase I scenario, and in Table 4-15for
the With Project Phases I through V scenario. Each table identifies the estimated CNEL generated by
traffic. Many of the residences in the study area are buffered from traffic noise by walls of various
heights that are estimated to provide between 5 dB and 10 dB of noise reduction. The data in the
noise-level projection tables indicate that:
The proposed project will increase the traffic-generated CNEL by at most 0.5 dB. This is less
than the 3 dB threshold of significance. Therefore, impact is less than significant.
Project traffic will not increase the CNEL from below the threshold of significance to above
the threshold of significance at any existing medical, residential, school, agricultural, or
commercial/office land use in the study area. Therefore, impact is less significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-56
Noise
Table 4-13
Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year without Project
Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. Arterial / Reach Unmitigated
CNEL @ 50’60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 80 dB
BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD.
North of SR-79 70.0 dB 300 130 50 --- ---
South of SR-79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- ---
PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.)
South of SR-79 72.5 dB 428 200 83 --- ---
REDHAWK PKWY.
South of SR-79 71.5 dB 368 170 69 --- ---
SR-79
West of I-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 ---
West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala 80.0 dB 1,050 600 300 130 50
West of Margarita Rd. 78.5 dB 905 490 235 100 ---
West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 ---
East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 --- ---
Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005
Table 4-14
Traffic Noise Exposure Levels with Project Phase I
Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. Arterial / Reach Unmitigated
CNEL @ 50’60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 80 dB
BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD.
North of SR-79 70.0 dB 300 130 50 --- ---
South of SR-79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- ---
PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.)
South of SR-79 72.5 dB 428 200 83 --- ---
REDHAWK PKWY.
South of SR-79 71.5 dB 368 170 69 --- ---
SR-79
West of I-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 ---
West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala 80.5 dB 1,100 640 320 143 56
West of Margarita Rd. 79.0 dB 950 520 255 110 ---
West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 ---
East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 --- ---
Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-57 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Noise
Table 4-15
Traffic Noise Exposure Levels with Project Phases I through V
Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. Arterial / Reach Unmitigated
CNEL @ 50’60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 80 dB
BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD.
North of SR-79 70.0 dB 300 130 50 --- ---
South of SR-79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- ---
PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.)
South of SR-79 72.5 dB 428 200 83 --- ---
REDHAWK PKWY.
South of SR-79 72.0 dB 395 185 75 --- ---
SR-79
West of I-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 ---
West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala 80.5 dB 1,100 640 320 143 56
West of Margarita Rd. 79.0 dB 950 520 255 110 ---
West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 ---
East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 --- ---
Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005
Sirens
Another potential noise source related to hospital traffic is emergency vehicles and their sirens.
Based on previously conducted measurements of ambulance sirens, maximum noise levels are
estimated to be as high as 105 dB(A) at 25 feet. Although these levels may cause some annoyance
at nearby noise-sensitive receptors, noise from emergency vehicles is considered to have a less than
significant impact because it will only occur sporadically and for short periods of time, and because
sirens are necessary for safety during an emergency.
Helicopter Flights
The project applicant indicates that on average, one helicopter flight per month will occur at the
hospital. The permit to be obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use
Helipad will permit up to 6 landings per month because the helipad is defined as an Emergency
Medical Services Landing Site. An Emergency Medical Services Landing Site is defined as a site
used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Services helicopters that is located at or
as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and is used, over any
twelve month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or
patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event,
even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.2 Helicopter flights associated
with the hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care.
During each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the
patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading (i.e., back the same way it came). In
order to analyze the potential noise impacts of helicopter flights, the Helicopter Noise Model
version 2.2, developed by the Federal Aviation Administration, was utilized. The exact model of
helicopter to be used at the hospital has not been confirmed, but the Bell 222 has been identified as
2 California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-58
Noise
a model that could potentially be used. Specific information regarding the flight profile was
unavailable. Therefore, the following assumptions were made in order to conduct the analysis:
The helicopter was assumed to be a Bell 222.
The helicopter takeoff and approach profiles were assumed to be the default profiles
provided by Helicopter Noise Model version 2.2 for a Bell 222 helicopter.
The helicopter heading for both takeoff and approach was assumed to be exactly southeast
on a heading of 135° for at least several thousand feet from the helipad.
To identify the worst-case noise levels, the analysis assumed that typically, an entire flight
would occur during the nighttime hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.
Figure 4-8 shows the results of the analysis and identifies the 60, 65 and 70 dB CNEL contours. As
shown, the 65 dB CNEL contour is located entirely within the project site and neighboring flood
control channel, and does not extend to any of the neighboring noise-sensitive receivers. The
ambient noise level at existing occupied homes in the vicinity of the proposed heliport is
approximately 57 dB CNEL. The 60 dB contour does not extend as far as these homes, so
helicopter flights are not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels by 3 dB or more. Based
on the assumptions stated above, the analysis indicates that impacts associated with any single
helicopter flight using the flight path stated will not be significant.
As stated above, the helipad permit to be obtained will permit up to 6 flights per month. In a worst-
case condition, this level of activity could occur. Also, the preferred flight path might change for
any given flight depending upon weather conditions and wind speed/direction. The key concern
associated with this scenario would be the maximum noise level.
The noise level generated by a helicopter depends on a number of factors, including the activity
(e.g., hovering, climbing, approaching, etc.), airspeed, power setting, altitude, and ground
conditions. Based on published data, the highest average noise levels that will occur during a hover
at the helipad range from 76 to 82 dB(A) at a distance of 500 feet, depending on the orientation of
the helicopter relative to the receptor. At the distance of the homes nearest the helipad (about 610
feet), the average noise level will be about 74 to 80 dB(A).3 Assuming that standard building
construction provides 20 dB of noise reduction with windows closed, the interior noise level is
expected to be about 54 to 60 dB(A). Thus, in the worst-case scenario of 6 landings per month,
nearby residents could experience short-term exterior and interior noise levels that could be
considered annoying. (The City does not have any regulations applicable to point-source noise
events.)
3 Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses, Bell 222 Twin Jet Helicopter. February
1984.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-59 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Noise
Source: Wieland Associates, Inc. September 2005.
Figure 4-8 Helicopter Flight Noise Contours
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-60
Noise
A study was conducted to gauge community reactions to helicopter noise based not only on the
level of noise but on the number of helicopter events per day.4 This study identifies the following
formula for predicting the annoyance of helicopter noise:
A = Bo+BL*L+BN*log(N)
where,
A = annoyance (rated on a scale from 0 = “not at all annoyed” to 10 = “extremely annoyed”),
BO = -16.5,
BL = 0.20,
L = sound exposure level (SEL),
BN = 1.64, and
N = number of events.
Assuming one flight on a “worst-case” day, and that the flight hovers for one minute prior to landing
or climbing, the sound exposure level (SEL) for this activity would be 94 to 100 dB(A). Using this
formula, the estimated annoyance level at the nearest residences ranges from 3 to 4 (on a scale
from 0 to 10). If this condition occurred up to 6 times per month, the level of short-term, periodic
impact could be considered significant by those persons living closest to the hospital.
Loading Dock Activities
The proposed hospital will have 3 loading docks for truck deliveries. These docks are proposed to
be located on the east side of the project site, south of the helipad. Once operational, the hospital
will receive approximately 3 to 4 truck deliveries per day during the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
No nighttime deliveries will occur.
In order to analyze the potential noise impacts associated with the loading docks, data obtained as
part of a previous study5 for a food processing and storage facility was utilized. The previous study
reported that the highest noise levels measured at the loading docks were associated with large
refrigerated trucks idling as they were unloaded; the measurements indicated a noise level of
approximately 75 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. Assuming the worst-case 10-minute average noise
level at the proposed loading docks will be the same, and allowing for the noise reduction provided
by the distance from the loading docks to the nearest occupied home (approximately 845 feet), the
estimated 10-minute average noise level at the home due to loading dock activities is approximately
50 dB(A). With 4 deliveries over a 24-hour period, this equates to a CNEL of 42 dB. This level is
below the daytime stationary noise source standards of 65 dB. Measurements indicate that the
existing CNEL at the home is about 57 dB, so loading dock activities will not increase the noise level
by 3 dB or more. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
4 Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study.
April 15, 1987.
5 Noise Measurements of Existing Truck Facility and Assessment of Noise Impacts for Proposed New Facility in the City of
Vernon. Wieland Associates, Inc. October 15, 2003.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-61 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Noise
At the office property to the east (a distance of about 285 feet), the CNEL is expected to be about
51 dB. This is below the City’s standard of 70 dB, and will not increase the existing CNEL by 3 dB
or more; therefore, the impact is less than significant.
The residential parcel is designated for Professional Office (PO) use within the General Plan. This
land use designation and the underlying PO and PDO-8 zones are intended primarily for single-
tenant and multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Typical permitted uses include
legal, design, engineering or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and community
facilities. Limited supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial may be permitted
to serve the needs of the on-site employees. Residential uses within the PO zone are allowed only
by conditional use permit, and are limited to either one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a
commercial or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business or for a senior or affordable
housing project. Future development and use of these parcels are anticipated to be as professional
office uses. Furthermore, because there will only be 3 to 4 delivery trucks per day, because the
duration of the deliveries will be short, impact is less than significant.
Mechanical Equipment
Four primary sources of mechanical equipment noise are associated with the hospital: (1) the duty
equipment located in the mechanical yard, (2) the emergency generators located in the mechanical
yard, (3) the mechanical equipment room, and (4) rooftop mechanical equipment. Each of these
noise sources is addressed below.
Mechanical Yard Duty Equipment – The mechanical yard is to be located on the east side of the
project site, between the helipad to the north and the loading docks to the south. The duty
equipment consists of 3 cooling towers and 2 transformers. Based on noise data for the cooling
towers provided by the manufacturer, and on prediction algorithms for transformer noise (the
transformers are assumed to be 1,000 kVA each based on discussions with the project’s consulting
engineers), it is estimated that the combined noise level for all the equipment is 74 dB(A) at 50 feet.
The worst-case noise-sensitive location is the residential property approximately 710 feet to the
north. At this distance the estimated noise level is 51 dB(A). Over a 24-hour period, the CNEL will
be about 58 dB. This level complies with the City’s standard of 65 dB. However, the equipment
will increase the existing CNEL at the residence by 4 dB. Therefore, the impact is significant, and
mitigation is required.
At the nearest office property to the east (a distance of about 160 feet), the CNEL generated by the
duty equipment is estimated to be 71 dB. This exceeds the City’s standard of 70 dB; therefore, the
impact is significant, and mitigation is required.
Mechanical Yard Emergency Generators – Also proposed within the mechanical yard are 2
emergency generators. Each of these generators will be tested for approximately 5 minutes each
month but may run for an indefinite period in the event of an emergency. Based on noise data
provided by the generator manufacturer it is estimated that the noise level for each generator is 86
dB(A) at 52 feet. This level does not include the contribution from the engine exhaust stack, which
may increase the noise level by several decibels depending on the quality of the muffler. The worst-
case noise-sensitive location is an existing home approximately 750 feet to the north. At this
distance, the estimated noise level is 63 dB(A), without the contribution of the engine exhaust. On
a maintenance test day, this equates to a CNEL of at least 41 dB, which complies with the City’s
standard. However, if the generators run continuously over a 24-hour period, the CNEL will be at
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-62
Noise
least 70 dB. This exceeds the City’s 65 dB standard. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant
(depending on how long the generators run during a 24-hour period, and during which hours of the
day they run). At the distance of the nearest office property to the east (about 185 feet), the CNEL
will be about 53 dB on a maintenance test day, which complies with the City’s standard of 70 dB.
However, if the generators run continuously for 24 hours, the CNEL will be at least 82 dB, which
exceeds the City’s standard. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant at this location as well.
The Mechanical Equipment Room – The mechanical equipment room is to be located inside the
Phase IB hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard. An analysis of the central plant room
noise levels is not currently possible, as the construction of the room/building is not known and the
details for all the equipment are not available. However, based on the fact that the central plant will
contain various mechanical equipment including pumps, chillers, and boilers it is anticipated that it
could produce significant impacts at nearby noise-sensitive receivers unless mitigation is
incorporated into the design. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant, and mitigation is
required.
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment – Rooftop mechanical equipment such as air conditioning and
refrigeration units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems are potential noise sources.
However, structural designs are easily implemented in new construction, and it is anticipated that
such measures will be included during the final design of the project to minimize rooftop
mechanical equipment noise.
Parking Lot Activities
The predominant noise sources associated with parking lot activities include car doors slamming,
cars starting, cars accelerating away from the parking stalls, and people talking, shouting and
laughing. The estimated noise generated by people talking at a normal conversational level was too
low to be measured over the existing ambient. Parking lot activities at the proposed hospital will
vary, generally occurring throughout the day as patients and visitors arrive and leave, with potential
peaks in activity when staff arrive and depart at the beginning and end of their shifts. To estimate
the 10-minute average noise level that will be generated by these activities, an analysis was
conducted using traffic data contained in the project traffic study. The traffic data indicates that the
busiest hour will be in the afternoon, when 334 vehicles arrive and 595 vehicles leave the hospital
site. The results of the analysis indicate that the unmitigated 10-minute average noise level (Leq)
generated by parking lot activities will be about 44.5 dB(A) at the nearest neighboring properties.
This level is below both the daytime and nighttime stationary noise source standards. Existing
daytime ambient noise levels range from 49 to 55 dB(A), so parking lot activities will not increase
the noise level by 3 dB or more. In addition, this type of noise would be expected from any
development occurring on this site. Therefore, impact is less than significant.
Trash Pickup
Trash pickup is frequently a cause of complaints from residents living adjacent to commercial uses.
Typical noise levels range from 80 to 85 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet from the source during
raising, lowering, and compacting operations. However, this noise is temporary and will not occur
on a constant basis. A typical trash pickup lasts only 3 minutes on average and is a common noise
source that exists throughout the community. Therefore, this project impact will be less than
significant.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-63 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Noise
Landscaping and Maintenance
Landscaping and maintenance activities will utilize noise-producing equipment such as
lawnmowers, lawn edgers, leaf blowers, and sweepers. However, these types of equipment are
only used occasionally, and for limited time periods. Such activities will typically be shielded from
some of the noise-sensitive receivers by the hospital buildings themselves, further reducing noise
levels. Therefore, impact will be less than significant.
Future Noise Environment at the Project Site
Discussion of future noise impacts at the hospital site has been divided into two sections: exterior
and interior noise levels.
Exterior Noise Levels: An analysis was conducted to identify the future traffic noise exposures that
will occur at the project site. Results of the analysis are provided in Appendix C, and are
summarized in previous Table 4-15. The standard of 70 dB CNEL for a hospital site is exceeded at
all exterior locations within 255 feet of the centerline of the nearest lane of Highway 79 South.
However, no exterior useable/habitable spaces are located within this envelope. Therefore, impact
will be less than significant.
Interior Noise Levels: As shown in previous Table 4-15, CNEL is expected to be up to 71 dB at the
medical office building closest to Highway 79 South (approximately 225 feet from the center of the
nearest lane), and up to 68.5 dB at the hospital bed tower closest to Highway 79 South
(approximately 340 feet from the center of the nearest lane). Based on a review of preliminary
façade construction details for the medical office and hospital buildings, it is estimated that the
buildings will provide at least 21 dB of noise reduction. Therefore, the noise levels inside the
buildings will comply with the interior CNEL standard of 50 dB. At locations further from the street,
the estimated CNEL will be lower than 50 dB. Therefore, impact is less than significant.
Summary of Noise Impacts
Using the thresholds described above, the following may be concluded regarding the noise impacts
of the proposed project:
Construction noise impacts will be less than significant due to compliance with Section
8.32.020 of the Municipal Code.
The proposed project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne
noise levels. However, ground-borne vibration may be perceptible during the demolition,
site clearing and grading phase of the construction when activity occurs very near the
property lines. This is not considered to be a significant impact due to the short duration of
the activity.
One helicopter flight per month will not create significant noise impacts. However, up to 6
flights per month may be considered by some residents near the hospital to be a significant
impact and annoyance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-64
Noise
Noise associated with the mechanical yard equipment (including the emergency generators)
may expose persons to noise levels in excess of the noise/land use compatibility standards
established in the City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element. Therefore, impact is
potentially significant.
Traffic noise, parking lot noise, and noise associated with site maintenance will be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
To mitigate the project’s significant noise impacts, the following mitigation measures are required
relative to the design and operation of the project:
N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators) is fully operational upon
completion of project construction, the applicant/permittee shall conduct continuous, 24-
hour noise monitoring for a period of one week. Such monitoring shall be conducted by a
certified acoustical engineer. If the noise levels exceed land use/noise compatibility
threshold levels set forth in the City of Temecula General Plan or other City-adopted criteria
that may be in place at the time, the applicant/permittee shall implement measures to
achieve the thresholds or other adopted criteria. Such measures may include, but not be
limited to, noise attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed
appropriate by a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been implemented,
the acoustical engineer shall file a report with the City documenting compliance.
N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only circumstances for critical patient
transport. The applicant/permittee shall apply for a Special Use Helipad Permit for an
Emergency Medical Services Landing Site, as provided for in the California Code of
Regulations, Title 21, Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. This permit allows,
over any 12-month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a
patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a
mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.
N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed of a preferred
approach and departure heading of 135° southeast.
N-4 Truck deliveries to the hospital loading dock shall be limited to four per day, between the
hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.
N-5 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and office buildings on the site to
ensure compliance with interior noise standards established in the General Plan.
N-6 All demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and other restrictions
set forth in the City of Temecula Municipal Code.
N-7 All construction equipment shall be tuned and muffled to minimize noise.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-65 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Noise
N-8 During demolition and construction operations, the applicant/permittee shall stage all
stationary equipment operations as far as possible and practical from surrounding residential
properties.
Level of Impact after Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measures, the impact of noise generated by activities at the
hospital facility upon surrounding residential locations — with the exception of helicopter noise —
will be less than significant.
Even with mitigation measures to reduce helicopter flight noise impacts, these impacts cannot be
mitigated to below a level of significance because of the uncertainty of the exact number of flights
per month due to the unknown number of emergencies that will occur within any given month.
Helicopter flight noise impacts will be significant and unavoidable.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-66
4.6 Transportation
This section of the EIR examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will result
in increased vehicle trips to the degree that the level of service standard established by the City of
Temecula for designated roads or highways will be exceeded. As indicated in the Initial Study
(Appendix A), the project will not result in increased hazards due to road design features, result in
inadequate emergency access or parking capacity, or conflict with adopted alternative
transportation policies or plans.
The information presented in this section is summarized from the Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula
Medical Center (Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, Engineers, November 4, 2004) and the subsequent
Temecula Medical Center Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum, September 16, 2005, included as
Appendix D of this EIR. As described in Section 3, Project Description, construction of the
proposed project will occur in five phases. All five phases of the proposed project are included in
the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the EIR.
The November 4, 2004 traffic study was supplemented by the Addendum to account for the
following change to the project: prohibiting left-turn movements from the site onto De Portola
Road (that is, limiting movements at this location to right-turn in and out and left-turn in only). Also,
updated traffic counts were obtained at selected locations for focused analysis of the changed
conditions, and the background future traffic growth was adjusted to account for cumulative
projects and time that had passed since preparation of the November 4, 2004 study. The
Addendum also addresses two alternative access scenarios as a Project Alternative; this issue is
presented in Section 5, Alternatives to the Project of this EIR.
The discussion in this section references Highway 79 South as the roadway fronting the project site.
The traffic study uses the term State Route 79, or SR-79. Since completion of the original traffic
study in November of 2004, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has transferred
ownership of the roadway to the City of Temecula, hence the name change to Highway 79 South.
Also, since publication of the original traffic study, Pala Road has been renamed Pechanga Parkway.
Methodology
Ten intersections and 10 roadway links were analyzed during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours for
existing conditions (base conditions in 2004 for the original traffic study and July, 2005 for the
Addendum), pre-project conditions, and post-project conditions (future conditions with the project).
The following intersections and roadway links were selected because they were considered most
likely to be impacted by the project. The intersections and roadway segments indicated in italicized
text below were addressed as part of the traffic study Addendum.
Signalized Intersections
Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps
Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps
Highway 79 South/La Paz Street
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-67 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Transportation
Highway 79 South/Pala Road
Highway 79 South/Avenida De Missiones
Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway
Highway 79 South/Butterfield Stage Road
Margarita Road/De Portola Road
Dartolo Road/Margarita Road
Highway 79 South/ Margarita Road
Unsignalized Intersections
De Portola Road/Project Driveway
Highway 79 South/Country Glen Way
Roadway Links
Highway 79 South: West of I-15 Freeway
Highway 79 South: West of Pechanga Parkway
Highway 79 South: West of Margarita Road
Highway 79 South: West of Butterfield Stage Road
Highway 79 South: East of Butterfield Stage Road
Pechanga Parkway: South of Highway 79 South
Redhawk Parkway: South of Highway 79 South
Butterfield Stage Road: North of Highway 79 South
Butterfield Stage Road: South of Highway 79 South
De Portola Road west of Pio Pico Road
De Portola Road east of Pio Pico Road
Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Dartolo Road
Margarita Road from Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
The study area intersections and roadway links were analyzed in the following scenarios to
determine the impacts to the road network:
Existing traffic
Background Traffic without Phase I Operations
Background Traffic with Phase I Operations
Background Traffic with Phase I with Improvements
Background Traffic with Total Project Operations
Background Traffic with Total Project with Improvements
For the purpose of the original traffic study and to allow for a conservative (worst-case) assessment
of traffic impacts, the first project phase was defined as 170 hospital beds and 80,000 square feet of
medical office space. The second phase represents the entire project. For the Addendum, the
project at build-out was analyzed.
Measures of Operations and Effectiveness Utilized
The measure of effectiveness for intersection and segment operations is level of service (LOS). In
the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of
delay. The LOS analysis results in seconds of delay expressed in terms of letters A through F. Delay
is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-68
Transportation
Signalized Intersections
For signalized intersections, LOS criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle
for a 15-minute analysis period. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up
time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 4-16 summarizes the delay thresholds for
signalized intersections.
Table 4-16
Level of Service Thresholds for Signalized Intersections
Average Control Delay per Vehicle
(Seconds/Vehicle)
Level of Service
(LOS)
0.0 < 10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B
21.1 to 35.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E
> 80.0 F
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
LOS A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e., less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle). This
occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase.
Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
LOS B describes operations with delay in the range 10.1 seconds and 20.0 seconds per vehicle.
This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for
LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
LOS C describes operations with delay in the range 20.1 seconds and 35.0 seconds per vehicle.
These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle
failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although
many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
LOS D describes operations with delay in the range 35.1 seconds and 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At
LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some
combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or higher volume to capacity (V/C)
ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle
failures are more frequent.
Unsignalized Intersections
Unsignalized intersections were analyzed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak-hour conditions.
Average vehicle delay and LOS was determined based upon the 2000 HCM. Table 4-17
summarizes the delay thresholds for unsignalized intersections.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-69 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Transportation
Table 4-17
Level of Service Thresholds for Unsignalized Intersections
Average Control Delay per Vehicle
(Seconds/Vehicle)
Level of Service
(LOS)
0.0 < 10.0 A
10.1 to 15.0 B
15.1 to 25.0 C
25.1 to 35.0 D
35.1 to 50.0 E
> 50.1 F
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
The City of Temecula has established an intersection capacity performance standard of LOS D for
peak-hour intersection operation impacts.
Roadway Link Analysis
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the project area are based
upon the latest traffic data collected by LLG Engineers at the key intersections and factored up from
the peak hour counts using the following formula for each intersection leg:
PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) * 12 = ADT
Environmental Setting
The project site is located in the City of Temecula on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of
De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road.
Existing Street System
The following describes the existing street system in the project area. Street classifications, where
noted, are based on the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element. Figure 4-9 shows
existing roadway conditions.
Highway 79 South is classified as a 6-lane prime arterial in the project area immediately south of
the project site. Curbside parking is generally prohibited along Highway 79 South, and the posted
speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-70
Transportation
La Paz Street is a 2-lane undivided roadway in the project area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph,
and curbside parking is generally permitted. La Paz Street is signalized at Highway 79 South.
Pechanga Parkway is currently a 4-lane undivided roadway in the project area. Curbside parking is
prohibited at the approach to Highway 79 South, but is otherwise permitted. The posted speed
limit on Pechanga Parkway is 50 mph. Pechanga Parkway is signalized at Highway 79 South.
De Portola Road is currently a 2-lane undivided roadway in the project area, providing one lane
of travel per direction. The General Plan Circulation Element designates De Portola Road as a
Modified Secondary Arterial. This classification consists of a 4-lane undivided roadway with a
cross section of 70 feet within 88 feet of right-of-way, which allows for a trail alongside the
roadway.
Avenida de Missiones is a 4-lane undivided roadway in the project area. Avenida de Missiones is
currently unsignalized at its intersection with Highway 79 South. Curbside parking is generally
permitted, and the posted speed limit is 25 mph. Avenida de Missiones is proposed to be
signalized at Highway 79 South as part of the Rancho Community Church project.
Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway is classified as a 4-lane major roadway and is currently built to
that configuration in the project area, with curbside parking generally prohibited. Redhawk
Parkway is also currently a 4-lane divided roadway with curbside parking generally prohibited. The
posted speed limit is 50 mph. Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway is signalized at Highway 79
South.
Butterfield Stage Road is classified as a 4-lane major roadway and currently exists in that
configuration in the project area, with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed
limit is 50 mph. Butterfield Stage Road is signalized at Highway 79 South.
Existing Traffic Conditions
Table 4-18 summarizes the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the major area roadways
and the corresponding level of service. ADT volumes on area roadways throughout the project
area are based upon the traffic data collected by LLG Engineers at the key intersections and
factored up from the peak-hour counts using the following formula for each intersection leg:
PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) * 12 = ADT
Existing peak hour manual intersection counts were conducted during the traditional weekday A.M.
(7:00 – 9:00) and P.M. (4:00 – 6:00) peak hours on March 23, 2004. Supplementary counts were
obtained in July of 2005 for the traffic study Addendum. Figures 4-10a and 4-10b show the
A.M./P.M. peak-hour turning movement volumes at the key intersections.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-72
Transportation
Table 4-18
Existing (2004 and 2005) Daily Traffic Volumes
Street Segment Year Volume
(ADT)
Highway 79 South
West of I-15 freeway 2004 17,700
West of Pechanga Parkway 2004 57,300
West of Margarita Road 2004 38,700
West of Butterfield Stage Road 2004 20,400
East of Butterfield Stage Road 2004 15,200
Pechanga Parkway
South of Highway 79 South 2004 34,000
De Portola Road
West of Pio Pico Road 2005 6,600
East of Pio Pico Road 2005 7,000
Redhawk Parkway
South of Highway 79 South 2004 18,000
Butterfield Stage Road
North of Highway 79 South 2004 12,400
South of Highway 79 South 2004 10,700
Margarita Road
De Portola to Dartolo Road 2005 23,500
Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South 2005 23,500
Note: ADTs estimated from the Approach/Exit volumes during the PM peak hour at the key intersections.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-73 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Transportation
ENV
TE
IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
MECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-76
As Table 4-19 indicates, all study intersections currently operate at or above the City’s LOS D
standard, except for the following:
The current levels of service for study intersections and roadway segments were calculated based
upon traffic counts and current intersection and roadway configurations. Table 4-19 summarizes
the existing levels of service for the study intersections, and Table 4-20 indicates roadway service
levels. (Also shown in the tables are LOS for future conditions at project build-out, which are
discussed later in this section under the heading Environmental Impact.)
Urbanized areas such as Riverside County are required under state law to adopt a Congestion
Management Program (CMP). The Riverside County CMP is updated every 2 years. The goals of
the CMP are to reduce traffic congestion, to improve air quality, and to provide a coordination
mechanism between land development and transportation improvement decisions. The CMP is
administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). In 1997, RCTC
significantly modified the original CMP to meet federal Congestion Management System (CMS)
guidelines. This effort included development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System, in which
real-time traffic count data can be accessed by RCTC to evaluate the condition of the CMS, as well
as meet other monitoring requirements at the state and federal levels. As a result, the submittal of
Traffic Impact Assessments for development proposals to RCTC is no longer required. However,
the City is required to maintain minimum LOS thresholds identified in the General Plan and
continues to require traffic studies on development projects.
Riverside County Congestion Management Program
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a multi-modal, long-range planning document prepared by
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The RTP includes programs and
policies for congestion management, transit, bicycles and pedestrians, roadways, freight, and
financing. The RTP is prepared every 3 years to address a 20-year projection of needs. Each agency
responsible for building and managing transportation facilities, including the City of Temecula, has
implementation responsibilities under the RTP. The RTP relies on local plans and policies governing
circulation and transportation to identify the region’s future multi-modal transportation system.
SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
Related Regional Plans
Current Levels of Service
As Table 4-20 indicates, all study roadway segments intersections currently operate under the LOS
D capacity.
Highway 79 South/I-15 Southbound Ramps (A.M. peak hour)
Highway 79 South/I-15 Northbound Ramps (A.M. and P.M. peak hours)
Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way (A.M. and P.M. peak hours)
Transportation
CIT
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E
C
U
L
A
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
I
M
P
A
C
T
R
E
P
O
R
T
4-
7
7
TE
M
E
C
U
L
A
R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
Ta
b
l
e
4
-
1
9
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
–
E
x
i
s
ti
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
WI
T
H
P
H
A
S
E
I
BA
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
T RA
F
F
I
C
WI
T
H
O
U
T
P
H
A
S
E
I
BA
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
T RAFFIC WITH PHASE I BACKGROUND T RAFFIC WITH PHASE I WITH INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 4
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
CO
N
T
R
O
L
TY
P
E
PE
A
K
HO
U
R
DE
L
A
Y
1 L
O
S
2 DE
L
A
Y
L
O
S
D
E
L
A
Y
L
O
S
D
E
L
A
Y
L
O
S
D
E
L
A
Y
L
O
S
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
-
1
5
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
AM
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
4
2
.
4
D
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
4
8
.
6
D
5
2
.
1
D
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
4
9
.
4
D
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
-
1
5
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
AM
8
6
.
0
F
9
0
.
1
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
2
0
.
5
C
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
9
5
.
9
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
3
0
.
3
C
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
L
a
P
a
z
St
r
e
e
t
AM
1
6
.
8
B
1
6
.
8
B
2
6
.
5
C
2
6
.
8
C
2
6
.
9
C
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
2
2
.
4
C
2
2
.
5
C
7
5
.
8
E
7
6
.
0
E
4
5
.
8
D
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
AM
1
4
.
6
B
1
4
.
9
B
4
0
.
6
D
4
1
.
4
D
2
8
.
2
C
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
4
4
.
5
D
4
7
.
6
D
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
5
1
.
8
D
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
A
v
e
n
i
d
a
De
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
s
AM
3
.
4
A
3
.
6
A
3
.
8
A
3
.
9
A
3
.
9
A
SI
G
N
A
L
3
PM
2
.
4
A
2
.
6
A
4
.
3
A
4
.
5
A
4
.
5
A
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
G
l
e
n
W
a
y
AM
>
1
0
0
6 F
6 8
.
8
B
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
1
0
.
2
B
1
0
.
2
B
OW
S
C
7
PM
>
1
0
0
6 F
6 1
3
.
2
B
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
1
7
.
2
B
1
7
.
2
B
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
AM
D
N
E
D
N
E
1
2
.
2
B
D
N
E
D
N
E
1
2
.
5
B
N
/
A
N
/
A
TW
S
C
PM
D
N
E
D
N
E
1
6
.
3
C
D
N
E
D
N
E
1
6
.
9
C
N
/
A
N
/
A
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
R
e
d
h
a
w
k
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
/
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d
AM
4
2
.
7
6 D
6 44
.
0
D
5
2
.
4
D
6
3
.
8
E
4
6
.
2
D
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
5
2
.
5
6 D
6 5
4
.
6
D
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
5
4
.
9
D
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
I
M
P
A
C
T
R
E
P
O
R
T
C
I
T
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E
C
U
L
A
TE
M
E
C
U
L
A
R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
4-
7
8
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
WI
T
H
P
H
A
S
E
I
BA
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
T RA
F
F
I
C
WI
T
H
O
U
T
P
H
A
S
E
I
BA
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
T RAFFIC WITH PHASE I BACKGROUND T RAFFIC WITH PHASE I WITH INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 4
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
B
u
t
t
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
St
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
AM
1
7
.
2
B
1
7
.
3
B
5
0
.
2
D
5
4
.
5
D
3
9
.
9
D
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
3
4
.
3
C
3
6
.
4
D
3
5
.
8
D
3
9
.
1
D
3
8
.
4
D
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d
/
D
e
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
Ro
a
d
AM
2
3
.
2
6 C
6 22
.
9
C
2
4
.
1
C
2
5
.
3
C
N
/
A
N
/
A
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
2
6
.
8
6 C
6 29
.
7
C
2
9
.
3
C
3
0
.
1
C
N
/
A
N
/
A
De
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
R
o
a
d
/
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
OW
S
C
8 A
M
D
N
E
D
N
E
1
2
.
2
B
DN
E
D
N
E
1
2
.
5
B
12.5 B
P
M
D
N
E
D
N
E
1
6
.
3
C
DN
E
D
N
E
1
6
.
9
C
16.9 C
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d
/
D
a
r
t
o
l
o
Ro
a
d
6
SI
G
N
A
L
A
M
1
8
.
0
B
No
t
an
a
l
y
z
e
d
No
t
an
a
l
y
z
e
d
20
.
0
B
1
7
.
9
B
1
7
.
9
B
P
M
1
2
.
6
B
No
t
an
a
l
y
z
e
d
No
t
an
a
l
y
z
e
d
13
.
3
B
1
2
.
6
B
1
2
.
6
B
NO
T
E
S
:
1.
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
e
l
a
y
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
i
n
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
p
e
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
.
2.
D
N
E
-
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
e
x
i
s
t
.
3.
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
s
i
n
c
e
i
t
i
s
a
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
R
a
n
c
h
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
h
u
r
c
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
4.
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
2
o
f
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
t
u
d
y
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
a
n
d
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
o
s
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
"
AP
I
S
P
L
A
Z
A
" Traffic Study
(R
K
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
G
r
o
u
p
,
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
3
)
.
5.
T
W
S
C
–
T
w
o
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
M
a
j
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
i
n
d
e
l
a
y
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.
6.
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
f
r
o
m
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
al
y
s
i
s
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
o
f
E
I
R
)
7.
O
S
W
C
–
O
n
e
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
M
i
n
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
d
e
l
a
y
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.
8.
O
S
W
C
–
O
n
e
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
M
a
j
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
d
e
l
a
y
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.
N/
A
-
N
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
s
i
n
c
e
n
o
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
.
Ph
a
s
e
I
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
f
o
r
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d
/
D
a
r
t
o
l
o
R
o
a
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
ti
o
n
w
e
r
e
n
o
t
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
u
d
y
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
.
Transportation
CI TY
O
F T
E
M
E CU
L
A
EN
V
I R O N ME
N
T
A
L
I M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
4-
79
TE
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
Ta
b
l
e
4
-20
Ex
i
s ti
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s a
n d
P
h
as
e
I
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
i
n
k
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
BA
C
K GR
O
U
N
D T
R
A
F
F
I
C
WI
T
H
O
U
T
P
H
A
S
E
I
BAC K GROUN D TRAFFIC WITH PHASE I
RO
A
D
W
A
Y
L
I
N
K
Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
C
o
u
n ty
Ma
xi
m
u
m
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
V
o
l
u
m
e
LO
S
"
D
"
Te
m
e
c
u
l
a
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
V
o
l
u
m
e
LO
S
"
D
"
V O L U M E
T H R E S H O L D
V O L U M E
T H R E S H O L D
V O L U M E T H R E S H O L D
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
ut
h
We
s
t
o
f
I
-
1
5
F
w
y
30
,
7
0
0
17
,
7
0
0
UN
D
E
R
28
,
1
5
2
UN
D
E
R
28,356 UNDER
We
s
t
o
f
P
e
c
h
a
n
ga
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
73
,
8
0
0
57
,
3
0
0
UN
D
E
R
94
,
7
0
4
OV
E
R
98,064 OVER
We
s
t
o
f
M
a
r
g
a
r
it
a
R
o
a
d
55
,
2
0
0
38
,
7
0
0
UN
D
E
R
66
,
9
6
0
OV
E
R
69,816 OVER
We
s
t
o
f
B
u
tt
er
f
i el
d
S
t
a
g
e
Ro
a
d
5 5 ,2 0 0
2 0 ,4 0 0
U N D E R
3 5 ,3 7 6
U N D E R
3 7 ,1 1 6 U N D E R
Ea
s
t
o
f
Bu
t
t
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
S
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
55
,
2
0
0
15
,
2
0
0
UN
D
E
R
23
,
7
2
4
UN
D
E
R
24,108 UNDER
Pe
c
h
a
n
g
a P
a
r
k
wa
y
So
u
t
h
o
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
66
,
6
0
0
34
,
0
0
0
UN
D
E
R
53
,
3
2
8
UN
D
E
R
54,084 UNDER
Re
d
h
a
w
k
P
a rk
wa
y
So
u
t
h
o
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
30
,
7
0
0
18
,
0
0
0
UN
D
E
R
27
,
3
4
8
UN
D
E
R
28,320 UNDER
B u t t e rf
i
e ld
S
t
ag
e
R
o
a
d
No
r
t
h
o
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
43
,
2
0
0
12
,
4
0
0
UN
D
E
R
18
,
9
8
4
UN
D
E
R
19,584 UNDER
So
u
t
h
o
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
30
,
7
0
0
10
,
7
0
0
UN
D
E
R
20
,
5
0
8
UN
D
E
R
21,264 UNDER
No
t
e
:
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
D
e
P
o
r
t
o
a
l
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d
i
s
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
su
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
Ta
b
l
e
4
-2
4
b .
Transportation
Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact
The Temecula General Plan Circulation Element and the Riverside County CMP recognize LOS D as
the minimum acceptable standard at signalized intersections. Caltrans typically uses the
performance standard of LOS E for freeway ramps. Thus, operation of the proposed project will
have a significant impact on the roadway network if it:
Causes an intersection to operate at LOS E or F (peak-hour ICU greater than 0.90), or
Causes a freeway ramp to operate at LOS F (peak-hour V/C greater than 1.00).
Environmental Impact
The analysis presented in this subsection proceeds as follows:
Site Access Describes access assumptions in all scenario analysis
Phase I Trip Generation Details trip generation assumptions for Phase I traffic analysis
Trip Distribution and Assignment Describes how trips are put onto the local road network
Future Traffic from Cumulative
Projects and Regional Growth
Defines future background conditions absent the project
Background Traffic without Project
Phase I
Identifies future LOS without Project Phase I traffic
Project Phase I with Background
Traffic and No Improvements
Identifies future LOS with Phase I traffic, assuming no improvements
The tables used and referenced throughout this section to summarize these scenarios also include
right-hand columns that show LOS conditions with improvements. These scenarios are discussed
below in the Mitigation Measures section.
Site Access
Primary access to the site will be from 2 proposed driveways on Highway 79 South. The western
Highway 79 South driveway, to be located directly opposite Country Glen Way, is proposed to be
signalized, and the east driveway will function as a right-turn in/right-turn out driveway. Secondary
access will be via a single driveway to De Portola Road, with turning movement restrictions as
described above.
Reciprocal access to the property to the west is also proposed.
Phase I Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the proposed project were calculated using Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) rates (7th Ed.) for the medical office buildings and the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates (April 2002) for the
hospital portion of the project. The SANDAG rate for hospitals was used instead of the ITE rate
(about 12 ADT per bed) in order to provide a more conservative analysis. Table 4-21 shows the trip
generation rates used. Based on these rates, Phase I of the project is estimated to generate a total of
6,290 ADT, with 350 inbound/124 outbound trips during the A.M. peak hour, and 214 inbound/415
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-80
Transportation
outbound trips during the P.M. peak hour. Trip generation associated with the project at build-out is
discussed in the section titled Project at Build-out below.
Table 4-21
Phase I Trip Generation
Daily
Trip Ends
AM
Peak-Hour Trips
PM
Peak-Hour Trips
Volume Volume Land Use Size
Rate ADT % of
ADT
In/Out
Split In Out
% of
ADT
In/Out
Split In Out
Hospital 170 Beds 20.0/Beda 3,400 8% 70:30 190 82 10% 40:60 136 204
Medical Office 80,000 sf 36.13/ksfb 2,890 7% 79:21 160 42 10% 27:73 78 211
Totals - 6,290 - - 350 124 - - 214 415
a. Source: SANDAG ‘Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates’, April 2002.
b. ITE Trip Generation Rates (7th Ed.).
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The project Phase I traffic was distributed to the street system based on project access, the
characteristics of the roadway system, the proximity to I-15, the locations of surrounding residential
communities, the location of other hospitals, and existing traffic counts along Highway 79 South.
Other factors considered in determining trip assignment were the location of the medical office
buildings and parking space placement. Figures 4-11a and 4-11b present the estimated project
traffic distribution in the site environs.
As shown in Figure 4-11b, the majority of project trips, 70%, were assigned to the Highway 79
South driveways, with 28% assigned to the De Portola Road driveway and the remaining 2%
assigned to the reciprocal access to the west and Country Glen Way.
Future Traffic from Cumulative Projects and Regional Growth
To assess opening year and build-out traffic conditions, two approaches were used. In the
November, 2004 traffic study, a 4% growth factor was added to existing traffic volumes, and then a
17 cumulative projects were added. At the critical I-15/Highway 79 South intersection, background
traffic assumptions, per the direction of City staff, were obtained from the Apis Plaza Traffic Impact
Analysis (RK Engineering, December, 2002). These assumptions are detailed in the traffic study
contained in Appendix D of this EIR. Figure 4-12a shows the background traffic volumes without
the project. In the traffic study Addendum dated September, 2005 which focuses on De Portola
Road and the driveway access to this roadway, a similar approach was utilized. Figure 4-12b shows
these existing plus general growth traffic volumes.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-81 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Transportation
Background Traffic without Project Phase I
Intersections
Previous Table 4-19 summarizes future intersection operations based on projected traffic volumes
absent the proposed project and absent any improvements. Table 4-19 indicates that the majority
of the study intersections will operate at LOS E or F with the addition of cumulative traffic from
surrounding developments and ambient growth. Specifically, the following intersections will
experience deficient operating conditions, per the City’s criteria, absent project traffic:
Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps – both peak hours
Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps – both peak hours
Highway 79 South/La Paz Street – P.M. peak
Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway – P.M. peak
Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita – P.M. peak
Roadway Links
Previous Table 4-20 shows that the majority of the roadway links in the project area will continue to
operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the following two roadway links:
Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway
Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road
Background traffic volumes for Phase I absent the project were not calculated for Margarita Road
between DePortola Road and Highway 79 South.
Project Phase I with Background Traffic and No Improvements
Intersections
Previous Table 4-19 summarizes future intersection operations based on projected traffic volumes
with Phase I project traffic added to cumulative background traffic. In addition to the intersections
cited immediately above that are expected to experience LOS E and F conditions absent the
project, project traffic will cause the following additional intersection location to decline to LOS E or
F:
Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road – A.M. peak
Absent mitigation, this impact is significant. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of
impact.
Also, Phase I project traffic will contribute to future deficient operating conditions at:
Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps – both peak hours
Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps – both peak hours
Highway 79 South/La Paz Street – P.M. peak
Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway – P.M. peak
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-86
Transportation
Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita – P.M. peak
Roadway Links
Previous Table 4-20 shows that the addition of the majority of Phase I project traffic to background
traffic will not result in any additional roadway segments operating over capacity. Phase I project
traffic will contribute to cumulative impacts along the two roadway segments identified above:
Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway
Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road
Cumulative Phase I traffic impacts on these two roadway segments are significant. Mitigation
measures are required to reduce the level of impact.
Phase I roadway link impacts were not calculated for Margarita Road between DePortola Road and
Highway 79 South.
Project at Build-out
Trip Generation Summary
Trip generation estimates for the project at build-out used the same assumptions described above
for Phase I. Table 4-22 shows that at build-out, the project is expected to generate a total of 11,458
ADT, with 637 inbound/228 outbound trips during the A.M. peak hour and 334 inbound/595
outbound trips during the P.M. peak hour.
Table 4-22
Project at Build-out Trip Generation
Daily
Trip Ends
AM
Peak Hour Trips
PM
Peak Hour Trips
Volume Volume Land Use Size
Rate ADT % of
ADT
In/Out
Split In Out
% of
ADT
In/Out
Split In Out
Hospital 320 Beds 20.0/Beda 6,400 8% 70:30 358 154 10% 40:60 256 384
Medical Office 140,000 sf 36.13/ksfb 5,058 7% 79:21 279 74 10% 27:73 78 211
Totals - 11,458 - - 637 228 - - 334 595
a. Source: SANDAG ‘Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates’, April 2002.
b. ITE Trip Generation Rates (7th Ed.).
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-87 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Transportation
ENV
TE
IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
MECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-88
Impact will be significant at these roadway links. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the
level of impact.
Trip Distribution/Assignment
Total project traffic was distributed and assigned to the street system based on the same distribution
(see Figures 4-11a and 4-11b) and access assumptions as the Project Phase I traffic.
Project at Build-out Conditions
Table 4-23 shows that at build-out, project traffic, combined with cumulative background traffic, will
result in the majority of the study intersections operating at LOS E or F. Traffic associated with long-
term operation of the Temecula Regional Hospital will create new deficiencies at the following 7
locations:
Highway 79 South/I-15 Southbound Ramps – LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour
Highway 79 South/I-15 Northbound Ramps – LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour
Highway 79 South/La Paz Street – LOS E at P.M. peak hour
Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway – LOS F at P.M. peak hour
Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way – LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak
hour
Margarita Road/Highway 79 South – LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour
Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road – LOS E at A.M. and LOS F at P.M.
peak hour
Impact will be significant at these intersections. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the
level of impact.
Roadway Analysis
Tables 4-24a and 4-24b present information regarding roadway segment impacts in the project
study area at build-out. Both tables are included because two approaches were used describe the
impacts. Table 4-24a is from the November 4, 2004 Traffic Impact Study and uses an over/under
threshold approach to describe the level of impact, while Table 4-24b from the Traffic Impact Study
Addendum shows the resultant LOS for the project at build-out.
Table 4-24a shows that except for the 2 roadway segments identified below, all roadway links in the
project study area will operate at LOS D or better with the addition of project traffic:
Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway
Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road
Table 4-24b shows that the 2 roadway segments identified below will operate at LOS E or F upon
build-out of the proposed project:
Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road
Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
Transportation
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
I
M
P
A
C
T
R
E
P
O
R
T
C
I
T
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E
C
U
L
A
TE
M
E
C
U
L
A
R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
4-
8
9
Ta
b
l
e
4
-
2
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
t
B
u
i
l
d
-
o
u
t
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
BA
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
TR
A
F
F
I
C
WI
T
H
O
U
T
T
O
T
A
L
PR
O
J
E
C
T
BA
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
T RA
F
F
I
C
WI
T
H
T
O
T
A
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
BACKGROUND T RAFFIC WITH TOTAL PROJECT WTH INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 6
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
CO
N
T
R
O
L
TY
P
E
PE
A
K
HO
U
R
DE
L
A
Y
L
O
S
D
E
L
A
Y
L
O
S
D
E
L
A
Y
L
O
S
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
-
1
5
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
A
M
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
5
1
.
6
D
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
5
3
.
6
D
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
-
1
5
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
A
M
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
3
7
.
8
D
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
3
6
.
9
D
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
L
a
P
a
z
S
t
r
e
et
A
M
2
6
.
8
C
2
7
.
5
C
2
6
.
7
C
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
7
6
.
0
E
7
4
.
5
E
4
6
.
3
D
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
a
r
k
wa
y
A
M
4
1
.
4
D
4
0
.
9
D
2
8
.
8
C
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
5
4
.
8
D
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
A
v
e
n
i
d
a
D
e
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
s
A
M
3
.
8
A
4
.
3
A
4
.
3
A
SI
G
N
A
L
3
PM
4
.
3
A
6
.
0
A
6
.
0
A
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
G
l
e
n
W
a
y
7
AM
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
2
9
.
8
C
OS
W
C
5
PM
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
4
8
.
7
D
De
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
R
o
a
d
/
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
A
M
D
N
E
D
N
E
1
4
.
1
B
1
4
.
1
B
OW
S
C
5
PM
D
N
E
D
N
E
2
1
.
5
C
2
1
.
5
C
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
R
e
d
h
a
w
k
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
/
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d
S
I
G
N
A
L
A
M
6
3
.
8
E
6
4
.
0
E
4
6
.
6
D
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
I
M
P
A
C
T
R
E
P
O
R
T
C
I
T
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E
C
U
L
A
TE
M
E
C
U
L
A
R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
4-
9
0
BA
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
TR
A
F
F
I
C
WI
T
H
O
U
T
T
O
T
A
L
PR
O
J
E
C
T
BA
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
T RA
F
F
I
C
WI
T
H
T
O
T
A
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
BACKGROUND T RAFFIC WITH TOTAL PROJECT WTH INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 6
PM
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
>
1
0
0
.
0
F
5
4
.
7
D
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
B
u
t
t
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
S
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
A
M
5
0
.
2
D
5
4
.
3
D
4
0
.
8
D
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
3
5
.
8
D
4
0
.
0
D
4
0
.
1
D
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d
/
D
e
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
R
o
a
d
7
AM
2
3
.
7
C
2
5
.
0
C
2
3
.
2
C
SI
G
N
A
L
PM
4
3
.
6
D
4
5
.
3
D
1
3
.
5
B
De
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
R
o
a
d
/
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
7
OW
S
C
5 A
M
D
N
E
D
N
E
9.
7
A
9
.
7
A
P
M
DN
E
DN
E
13
.
8
B
1
3
.
8
B
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d
/
D
a
r
t
o
l
o
R
o
a
d
7
SI
G
N
A
L
A
M
20
.
0
B
2
3
.
2
C
2
3
.
2
C
P
M
13
.
3
B
1
3
.
5
B
1
3
.
5
B
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R
o
a
d
/
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
7
SI
G
N
A
L
A
M
>1
0
0
F
>
1
0
0
F
5
3
.
8
D
P
M
>1
0
0
F
>
1
0
0
F
5
4
.
5
D
NO
T
E
S
:
1.
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
e
l
a
y
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
i
n
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
p
e
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
.
2.
D
N
E
-
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
e
x
i
s
t
.
3.
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
s
i
n
c
e
i
t
i
s
a
c
o
nd
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
R
a
n
c
h
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
h
u
r
c
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
4.
T
W
S
C
–
T
w
o
-
w
a
y
s
t
o
p
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
5.
O
W
S
C
–
O
n
e
-
w
a
y
s
t
o
p
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
6.
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
2
i
n
t
h
e
t
r
af
f
i
c
s
t
u
d
y
(
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
)
a
n
d
a
r
e
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
o
s
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
"
APIS PLAZA " Traffic Study
(R
K
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
G
r
o
u
p
,
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
3
)
.
7.
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
f
r
o
m
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
al
y
s
i
s
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
o
f
E
I
R
)
Transportation
EN
V
I R O N ME
N
T
A
L
I
M PA
CT
RE
PO
RT
CI
TY
O
F T
E
M
E CU
L
A
ME
CU
L
A
R
E
GI
O N A L HO
S P I T A L
4-
91
Ta
b
l
e
4
-24
a
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
t
B
u
i
l
d
-
o
u
t
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
An
a
l ys
i
s
(O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
St
u
d
y
)
BA
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
WI
T
H
T
O
T
A
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
RO
A
D
WA
Y
L
I
N
K
Ri
v
e
r
s id
e
C
o
u
n ty
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
V
o
l
u me
LO
S
D
T em
e
c
u
l
a
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
V
o
l
u me
LO
S
D
V O L U M E
T H R E S H O L D
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
W e st
o
f
I
-
1
5
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
30
,
7
0
0
28
,
5
7
2
UN
D
E
R
W e st
o
f
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
73
,
8
0
0
97
,
4
5
2
OVE R
W e st
o
f
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
R o a d
5 5 ,2 0 0
7 2 ,1 8 0
OVE R
W e st
o
f
B
u
t
t
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
S
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
55
,
2
0
0
38
,
5
4
4
UN
D
E
R
Ea
s
t
of
B
u
t
t
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
S
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
55
,
2
0
0
24
,
4
3
2
UN
D
E
R
Pe
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
a
r
k wa
y
So
u
t
h
of
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
66
,
6
0
0
54
,
7
0
8
UN
D
E
R
Re
d
h
a
w
k
P
a
r
k wa
y
So
u
t
h
of
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
30
,
7
0
0
29
,
1
3
6
UN
D
E
R
Bu
t
t
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
S
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
No
r
t
h
of
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u t h
4 3 ,2 0 0
2 0 ,1 0 0
U N D E R
So
u
t
h
of
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
7
9
S
o
u
t
h
30
,
7
0
0
21
,
8
7
6
UN
D
E
R
TE
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-92
Summary of Traffic Impacts
The project will result in the following significant traffic impacts requiring mitigation:
Phase I
Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to project-related or cumulative impacts:
Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps – both peak hours
Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps – both peak hours
Highway 79 South/La Paz Street – P.M. peak
Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway – P.M. peak
Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita – both peak hours
Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to project-related or cumulative impacts:
Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway
Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road
Table 4-24b
Project at Build-out Roadway Analysis
(Traffic Study Addendum)
Existing
Existing +
Cumulative
Projects
Existing +
Cumulative Projects
+ Project Street Segment Existing Capacity
(LOS E) a
ADTb LOSc ADT LOS ADT LOS
De Portola Road
West of Pio Pico Road 14,000 6,600 C 7,500 C 9,220 D
East of Pio Pico Road 14,000 7,000 C 7,900 C 9,620 D
Margarita Road
De Portola Road to Dartolo Road 36,000 23,500 B 31,500 D 33,400 E
Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South 36,000 23,500 B 31,600 D 33,500 E
NOTES:
a. City of Temecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum LOS threshold (Appendix D).
b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
c. Level of Service.
Transportation
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-93 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Project at Build-out
Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to project-related or cumulative impacts:
Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps – both peak hours
Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps – both peak hours
Highway 79 South/La Paz Street – P.M. peak
Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway – P.M. peak
Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way – LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak
hour
Margarita Road/Highway 79 South – LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour
Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita – both peak hours
Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to project-related or cumulative impacts:
Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway
Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road
Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road
Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
Mitigation Measures
To mitigate the proposed project’s portion of the cumulative impacts at intersection locations and
along roadway segments where impacts are expected to be significant, the project applicant will be
required to contribute a fair share toward planned future improvements at these locations. The
Traffic Study in Appendix D details the project’s share of total peak-hour traffic for both Phase I and
build-out.
The City has identified roadway improvements needed to meet LOS standards at the study area
intersections due to the addition of both project and background traffic. The project
applicant/permittee will be required to contribute fair-share payments for the following
improvements:
T-1. Signalize the main project site access from Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way
with the following configuration:
Westbound: 1 right-turn lane
3 t h r o u g h l a n e s
1 left-turn lane
Eastbound: 2 left-turn lanes
2 t h r o u g h l a n e s
1 shared through/right lane
Northbound: 1 left-turn lane
1 shared through/right lane
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-94
Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes
1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide)
T-2. The project applicant/permittee will pay Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to the Highway 79 South
intersection at I-15.
T-3. The project applicant/permittee will contribute a fair share toward the provision of the
following roadway improvements to address the project’s contribution toward cumulative
impacts:
Intersection Required Improvements
Highway 79 South/I-15 Southbound Ramps Additional southbound left-turn lane
Highway 79 South/I-15 Northbound Ramps Additional eastbound through lane, plus convert westbound right lane to
free right turn
Highway 79 South/La Paz Road Widen southbound movement to dual left turn lanes and one shared
through/right lane
Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway Additional northbound left-turn lane, plus eastbound and northbound free
right-turn lanes
Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen
Way
Signalize and provide dual eastbound left-turn lanes and dual southbound
left-turn lanes with a shared through/right-turn lane. Provide a dedicated
right-turn lane for westbound approach.
Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita
Road
Provide southbound and eastbound dual left and right-turn traffic signal
overlaps.
T-4. Improvements on the project site shall include a driveway onto De Portola Road developed
to the specifications of the Public Works Director.
Level of Impact after Mitigation
Phase I with Improvements
For Phase I development, the key study area intersections and roadway links were reanalyzed with
lane configuration improvements outlined above.
Intersections
Previous Table 4-19 summarizes Phase I traffic conditions with improvements at the key
intersections in the project area. With the improvements, all key intersections are calculated to
operate at LOS D or better during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. With mitigation, Phase I
intersection impacts will be less than significant.
Transportation
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4-95 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Roadway Links
Previous Table 4-20 shows that with the exception of the following roadway links, all links will
continue to operate under capacity:
Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway
Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road
Cumulative roadway link Phase I impacts will be significant and unavoidable.
Project Build-out with Improvements
For the project at build-out, the key study area intersections and roadway links were reanalyzed
with lane configuration improvements outlined above.
Intersections
Previous Table 4-23 summarizes project build-out traffic conditions with improvements at the key
intersections in the project area. With the improvements, all key intersections are calculated to
operate at LOS D or better during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. With mitigation, project
build-out intersection impacts will be less than significant.
Roadway Links
Previous Tables 4-24a and 4-24b show that with the exception of the following roadway links, all
links will continue to operate at LOS D or better:
Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway
Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road
Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road
Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
Cumulative roadway link impacts at project build-out will be significant and unavoidable.
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-96
This page is left intentionally blank.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
5.0 Alternatives to the Project
The following discussion considers alternatives to the proposed project and examines the potential
environmental impacts associated with each alternative. Through comparison of these alternatives
to the project, the relative advantage of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines
require that a range of alternatives be addressed, “governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR
set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice” (Section 15126.6[f]).
The CEQA Guidelines also state that the discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives
capable of either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the proposed project or
reducing them to a less than significant level while achieving most of the major project objectives.
The analysis presented in the prior sections of this EIR indicates that development of the Temecula
Regional Hospital will result in significant, unavoidable impacts for the following:
Short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts
Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter
flights
Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts
All other impacts will be less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level.
The following project alternatives are examined:
Alternative 1: No Project – No Build
Alternative 2: No Project – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan
Alternative 3: Alternative Site – Corona Family Properties
Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road
Alternative 5: Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road
Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only
The degree of specificity used in the alternatives analysis parallels the approach used for the project,
which is project level. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(d) states, “The EIR shall include
sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and
comparison with the proposed project … If an alternative would cause one or more significant
environmental effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the
significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of
the proposed project (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles [1981] 124 Cal.App.3d I).”
This section also explores variations of the proposed project considered during preparation of the
EIR but rejected as potential alternatives.
Alternatives to the Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-2
Project Objectives
Development of the project is proposed to achieve the following project objectives, as outlined in
Section 3, Project Description of this EIR:
City Objectives: The City’s objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to:
Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services
Support development of biomedical, research and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s
economic and employment base
Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of
the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access
routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions
Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula
Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular
traffic on surrounding residential uses
Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient,
state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City
Objectives of the Applicant: The objectives of Universal Health Services, the project applicant, for
the proposed project are to:
Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities
Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care,
rehabilitation, and medical offices
Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art
facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors
Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and
patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures
Alternative Considered but Rejected
During the course of EIR preparation and project review, the City considered an alternative that
involved reduced building heights of the hospital bed towers. This building height alternative was
considered because it would meet the existing General Plan height requirement and eliminate the
need to process a General Plan Amendment for the proposed height increase of the proposed
project. In response to this consideration, the project architect provided a letter (contained in
Appendix F of this EIR) describing functional reasons for the proposed tower heights. According to
Alternatives to the Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
the project architect, the hospital bed towers respond to several functional needs of the hospital
that are required per the State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
and the California Building Code, Chapter 4A, Division III:
To establish primary relationships between Emergency Departments and Imaging,
Emergency Department and Surgery, and all three departments and patient rooms
To respond to a required “vertical flow” for in-patient care and services
To respond to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development requirements for
relationships between nurse stations and patient rooms
To allow for optimum patient transfer efficiencies
To provide efficiencies in mechanical and electrical systems
To anticipate future medical service needs in the area and build for them now, rather than
later
The City rejected the alternative of lower hospital towers from further consideration in light of
project objectives and the applicant’s need to achieve functional and operational efficiencies in
project design.
Alternative 1: No Project – No Build
CEQA requires evaluation of a no project alternative, which means “…the existing conditions, as
well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were
not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 [e][2]). The existing conditions on the project site are
described in Section 3.0 (Project Description). The No Project Alternative assumes that site
conditions would remain the same as existing conditions and no development would occur in the
near future. Potential impacts associated with Alternative 1, No Project – No Build are described
below.
Alternative 1 would have no impact with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources,
population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since the site
would remain vacant.
Aesthetics
The No Project Alternative would maintain the undeveloped, open character of the site. There
would be no change in views of the project site from residential locations, and no new sources of
light would be added to the area. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in adverse aesthetic
impacts.
Air Quality
No significant air quality impacts associated with vehicle emissions and electric power and natural
gas use would be generated on the project site since vacant land does not generate vehicle trips
and does not result in use of electricity and natural gas. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in
adverse air quality impacts.
Alternatives to the Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-4
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 1 would not result in development, increased impervious surfaces, or any modification
to the site. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in adverse impacts regarding hydrology and
water quality.
Noise
Alternative 1 would not result in any construction on the project site, additional traffic on local
roads, or changes in land uses on the site. No helipad would be constructed. Therefore, this
alternative would not result in adverse short-term or long-term noise impacts.
Transportation
Alternative 1 would not generate any additional vehicle travel to or from the site and would not
alter existing circulation patterns. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in adverse traffic and
circulation impacts.
Conclusion
This alternative would avoid the significant air quality impacts associated with the project and would
not generate any additional traffic. No new noise sources would be created. Overall impacts
associated with the No Project Alternative would be less than those resulting from the proposed
project. While this alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project, it meets
none of the project objectives identified by the applicant and the City.
Alternative 2: No Project - Development Pursuant to
Current General Plan
The No Project Alternative – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan assumes that the
project site ultimately would be developed pursuant to current General Plan land use policies, goals
and policies, and zoning criteria. The site would be developed pursuant to the standards of the
Professional Office (PO) General Plan designation and the applicable zoning of PO and Planned
Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8). This development scenario could yield approximately 769,000
square feet of commercial and office development, based on current zoning regulations and an
assumed floor-area ratio of 0.5.
Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impacts with regard to
agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and
utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project with a maximum
height of 50 feet, and the analysis in this Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not
create significant impacts in these areas.
Alternatives to the Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5-5 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Aesthetics
As with the project, Alternative 2 could result in development on the entire project site. The
maximum height limit of 50 feet would reduce the overall scale of development. There would be
no need to amend the General Plan to accommodate increased building height. Lower buildings
would conform to surrounding development patterns. This alternative would result in a less than
significant impact on the visual character of the site and surrounding uses. Future development
would result in increased nighttime lighting impacts due to streetlights, automobile headlights, and
security and outdoor lighting. The General Plan includes policies and programs to minimize
nighttime lighting to protect Palomar Observatory operations and to minimize impact on
surrounding uses. The City has adopted Riverside County’s Outdoor Lighting Regulations
(Ordinance 655) that also minimize impacts to the Palomar Observatory. These policies and
ordinance would be implemented on the project level and would be required for Alternative 2.
Thus, this alternative would have aesthetic impacts similar to those of the proposed project.
Air Quality
Alternative 2 will not avoid the significant and unavoidable adverse operational air quality impacts
associated with the project. This alternative, as described below under Transportation, could
potentially generate more than 50% more vehicle trips than the proposed hospital project. An
increase in vehicle trips would cause a correspondingly increased air quality impact by increasing
criteria pollutants in the proposed project area. Like the project, this increased volume would
generate levels of carbon monoxide (CO) and reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions in excess of
South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds. Impact would be significant. With this
alternative, due to the scope of construction, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from construction
vehicle exhaust would be expected to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold; this would
represent an unavoidable, significant construction-related air quality impact.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in increased urban pollutants released
into downstream areas due to stormwater runoff. Under Alternative 2, construction of commercial
and office uses would require a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RQWCB),
which outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
permit to reduce stormwater pollution. Furthermore, all new commercial and office development
projects encompassing 100,000 square feet or more of floor area would be subject to the Water
Quality Management Plan requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project.
Noise
New development would generate additional traffic that would increase noise levels along the
roadway network. As described below under Transportation, Alternative 2 could potentially
generate more than 50% more trips than the proposed hospital project. Since decibels are
logarithmic units, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic would potentially
increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB. Therefore, these added trips would increase roadway traffic
noise. Also, depending upon site design characteristics and the type of commercial and
professional office land uses developed, additional on-site noise sources could result. Thus,
Alternatives to the Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-6
Alternative 2 could have potentially greater roadway and on-site noise impacts than the proposed
project.
Because Alternative 2 would not include a helipad, the potentially significant noise impact
associated with this noise source would be avoided.
Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 2, the site would be developed consistent with existing General Plan land use
policy and zoning for the site. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation would
continue to apply to the project site. The Professional Office designation allows primarily single- or
multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Office developments are intended to include
low-rise offices situated in a landscaped garden arrangement and may include mid-rise structures at
appropriate locations. Surrounding uses include commercial and professional office development
to the east and west (some currently under construction), and residential development across De
Portola Road and Highway 79 South. Compatibility with surrounding uses would be achieved,
similar to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would result in reduced impacts to land use and
planning because no General Plan Amendment or Zone Change would be required.
Transportation
Assuming that under Alternative 2, approximately 769,000 square feet of commercial and office
development would occur on the site, and assuming an average weekday trip generation rate of
42.92 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of development (ITE Trip Generation use code 820),
Alternative 2 could generate up to approximately 33,000 daily trips, compared to 11,458 associated
with the proposed hospital development. This represents a substantially greater number of vehicle
trips that could potentially create a reduction in service levels at key intersections. Given the
magnitude of difference in trip generation between Alternative 2 and the project, impacts of
Alternative 2 are considered greater than those associated with the project.
Conclusion
Impacts of Alternative 2, No Project Alternative – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan
could result in potentially greater air quality and traffic impacts. Impacts related to land use and
planning would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with
helicopter operations would be avoided. All other impacts would be comparable to those
associated with the proposed hospital project. This alternative would not attain the City’s objective
to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, nor the applicant’s
objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding
communities.
Alternative 3: Alternate Site – Corona Family Properties
Where consideration of alternate sites is warranted for a proposed project, CEQA requires that the
analysis first consider if any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially
lessened if the project were located at another site. Only the locations that avoid or substantially
lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasible, reasons for this
Alternatives to the Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5-7 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible,
remote, or speculative.
Alternative sites include vacant sites of approximately 35 acres in the surrounding area, similar to
the project site. The feasible alternative site considered for this project includes land now owned
by Corona Family LTD Partnership located at the northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and
Highway 79 South, as shown in Figure 5-1. The site is comprised of three adjacent parcels totaling
approximately 39.5 acres (APN 952150003, 9.61 acres; APN 952150001, 9.56 acres; and APN
952150002, 20.34 acres). The two smaller parcels are designated within the General Plan as
Community Commercial and are zoned for Community Commercial use. The larger, 20+ acre
parcel is not located within the City limits, but rather adjacent to the City within the County of
Riverside. The project site is within the City of Temecula General Plan planning area and is
designated Vineyards/Agricultural, with County zoning of A-1-20. All properties would need to be
under the applicant’s control for the project to proceed, and a County General Plan amendment,
zone change, and annexation would be required for the larger parcel. The potential impacts of this
alternative site are described below.
Alternative 3, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impact with regard to
cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources,
population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this
alternative could lead to a similar project, and all other provisions of the proposed project would be
implemented.
Aesthetics
This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on
County of Riverside aerial photographs. Surrounding development in Temecula primarily consists of
single-family subdivisions, with the County parcel developed as a corn maze in the agricultural zone.
There is some commercial development south of Highway 79 South across from this alternate site,
on properties within the jurisdiction of Riverside County. As with the proposed project, Alternative
3 would result in development of the entire site with the uses proposed, and with hospital bed
towers of 5 and 6 stories. Given the low-intensity development on surrounding properties in the
City and the more rural character on County lands, the project at this location could result in a
development inconsistent in scale and character with the surrounding built and rural environments.
The development could be considered intrusive at this location.
Future development would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and programs to
minimize nighttime lighting to protect Palomar Observatory operations and the City’s Outdoor
Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655).
Neither Highway 79 South nor any other roadway in the project vicinity is designated a Scenic
Highway in the Temecula General Plan or by any State agency. The General Plan does not identify
any view corridors or areas of special visual significance in the project vicinity. However, given the
visual setting of this alternative site, the proposed project at this location could be considered to
have aesthetic impacts.
Alternatives to the Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5-9 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Agricultural Resources
The project site is within the City of Temecula General Plan planning area and is designated
Vineyards/Agricultural, with County zoning of A-1-20. The parcels are identified in the City’s
General Plan as Farmland of Local Importance. Development of this site would convert land
designated and zoned as farmland and parcels identified as Farmland of Local Importance to a non-
agricultural use. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on
agricultural resources.
Air Quality
The proposed project will result in NOx, CO, and ROG emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds.
Alternative 3 involves the same level of development and thus would not avoid significant and
unavoidable adverse operational air quality impacts. Under this alternative, ROG emissions would
remain at 224 lbs/day, and NOx emissions would remain at 216 lbs/day (due largely to the
application of architectural coatings). Construction vehicle exhaust would continue to exceed the
SCAQMD emissions threshold; like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have an unavoidable
significant adverse construction impact related to air quality.
Like the proposed project, at operation, Alternative 3 would result in pollutant emissions in excess
of the SCAQMD emissions thresholds for ROG, with a total of 94 lbs/day and a total of 1,144
lbs/day of CO emissions during operations. Therefore, like the proposed project, Alternative 3
would have an unavoidable, significant operational air quality impact.
Biological Resources
Any development planned at this alternate site would require a biological assessment for the
purposes of providing a preliminary evaluation of the overall biological constraints on the site. As
required by the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), a Burrowing Owl survey would
be necessary to verify the presence/absence of Burrowing Owls and to determine if mitigation is
required per the California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and
Mitigation Guidelines. Until a biological assessment and focused surveys of the alternative site are
completed for Burrowing Owls and other species, the impact of this alternative cannot be
compared to the proposed project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar to the proposed project, development of the site under Alternative 3 would result in an
increase in urban pollutants released into downstream areas due to stormwater runoff. Under
Alternative 3, construction of commercial uses would require a permit from the RQWCB, which
outlines BMPs in the MS4 permit to reduce stormwater pollution. With compliance of the existing
regulations, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed
project.
Land Use and Planning
Under this Alternative, as with the proposed project, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application
would be required for the 320-bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require
CUPs for such uses in the Community Commercial zone. A height variance would also be required
Alternatives to the Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-10
to allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for the hospital towers. Additionally, use of the 20+
acre parcel (APN 952150002) for a hospital would require a General Plan Amendment and zone
change, as well as annexation to the City of Temecula, which would require Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval.
This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on
County of Riverside aerial photographs. Surrounding development in Temecula primarily consists of
single-family subdivisions. There is some commercial development south of Highway 79 South
across from this alternate site in the County and other agricultural parcels to the east of the site. As
described above in Aesthetics, the use at this location could be considered out of character given
the urban/rural interface, existing agricultural uses in the County, and the low-scale nature of
surrounding residential development.
Noise
Noise impacts are closely tied to traffic volumes. Alternative 3 would result in comparable
development, and the total traffic volumes associated with the proposed project would be similar.
This alternative may necessitate slightly longer helicopter trips due to the location of the project site
on the eastern boundary of the City, which may require a flight path over more residential
neighborhoods, as seen on the aerial photographs, than the flight paths associated with the project.
Therefore, this alternative would have a greater noise impact relative to the project. The helicopter
noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable due to the uncertainty of number of flights per
month, the uncertainty of the flight path, and the preponderance of single-family homes in the
surrounding area. Noise impacts associated with this alternative could be potentially greater than
those associated with the project.
Transportation
Under Alternative 3, project trip generation would be the same as that associated with the
proposed project, with 11,458 estimated average daily trips. The level of impact at specific
intersections cannot be ascertained without a detailed traffic study. Given the location adjacent to
Butterfield Stage Road, some trips could be expected to be diverted north along this route to other
I-15 access points, perhaps reducing project trips on Highway 79 South. The applicant would be
required to reduce impacts to the City LOS D standard at impacted intersections. Thus, traffic
impacts could be considered comparable to those associated with the project.
Conclusion
Alternative 3 has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, and land use
compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Also, Alternative 3 would require
annexing a portion of the site into the City of Temecula. Noise impacts of this alternative could be
greater due to slightly longer helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the eastern
boundary of the City, which may require a flight path over more residential neighborhoods.
Biological resource impacts are uncertain, as site-specific surveys would need to be performed to
determine impacts. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the project.
The alternative would attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the
project applicant.
Alternatives to the Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5-11 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road
This alternative was conceived as a means of providing a secondary access from the east of the
project site via Dartolo Road in lieu of the proposed driveway connection to De Portola Road.
Alternative 4 would require the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the project site and the
construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the project site. For
Alternative 4, no access to De Portola Road would be provided, and those vehicles oriented
to/from De Portola Road under the proposed project have instead been assumed to utilize Dartolo
Road as an access point. As with the proposed project, the access points along Highway 79 South
were assigned the majority of the project trips (63 percent), with a slightly lesser percentage of trips
to Dartolo Road (33 percent) and the remaining (4 percent) project traffic assigned through the
reciprocal access to the adjacent development to the west and to Country Glen Way. Utilizing
Dartolo Road as an access point would provide direct access to Margarita Road at a signalized
intersection. According to City staff, there has been some discussion to remove the traffic signal at
the Dartolo Road/Margarita Road intersection. However, currently there are no plans to do so.
This analysis focuses only on the traffic and biological resource impacts associated with this
alternative since otherwise, the project would remain the same as proposed. The discussion is
drawn from the traffic study Addendum contained in Appendix D.
Transportation
Tables 5-1 and 5-2 show the intersection and roadway segment analysis results for Alternative 4.
This analysis is based on the City’s goal for intersections and street segments to operate at LOS D
during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Table 5-1 shows that during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours,
LOS D or better could be achieved at the key intersections affected by site access configuration.
Table 5-2 shows that segments of De Portola Road surrounding the site will also achieve LOS D or
better on a daily peak-hour basis, assuming the ultimate configuration of De Portola road as a 4-lane
Modified Secondary Arterial, as provided for in the General Plan. The Margarita Road street
segments are calculated to operate at LOS E on a daily basis with the addition of cumulative project
and project traffic. Providing access via Dartolo Road as opposed to De Portola Road would result
in about 550 fewer average daily trips (ADT) on De Portola Road. The Dartolo Road access
alternative adds a maximum project ADT of 1,150 to De Portola Road, while the De Portola Road
access restriction adds approximately 1,700 ADT to De Portola Road. The Dartolo Road access
alternative scenario would not add traffic to Pio Pico Road.
The opening of Dartolo Road as a through access from the project site to Margarita Road would
degrade operations at the Dartolo/Margarita intersection, which currently experiences southbound
and northbound traffic queues on Margarita Road of more than 300 feet. These queues commence
at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and extend north past the Dartolo
Road/Margarita Road signalized intersection, adding delay to both intersections. The spacing
between these 2 intersections is approximately 300 feet, and 90-foot left-turn pockets are provided
on Margarita Road. The minimum desired spacing between signalized intersections on a road such
as Margarita Road is approximately 600 feet.
Alternatives to the Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-12
Table 5-1
Intersection Operations – Access from Dartolo Road Alternative
Existing Existing +
Cumulative Projects
Existing +
Cumulative
Projects +
Project
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Delaya LOSb Delay LOS Delay LOS
AM 23.2 C 23.7 C 25.1 C De Portola Road/Margarita Road SIGNAL
PM 26.8 C 43.6 D 45.1 D
Margarita Road/Project Driveway OWSCd AM DNE N/A DNE N/A DNE N/A
PM DNE N/A DNE N/A DNE N/A
AM 18.0 B 20.0 B 26.1 C Margarita Road/Dartolo Road SIGNAL
PM 12.6 B 13.3 B 25.3 C
AM 42.7 D > 100.0 F 53.8 Dc Margarita Road/Highway 79
South SIGNAL
PM 52.5 D > 100.0 F 54.8 Dc
AM > 100.0 F > 100.0 F 27.4 Cc Highway 79 South/Project
Driveway/Country Glen Way OWSC
PM > 100.0 F > 100.0 F 51.6 Dc
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. LOS with planned mitigation.
d. OWSC – One Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major left-turn delay is reported.
DNE – Intersection does not exist
Alternatives to the Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5-13 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Dartolo Road is located too close (only about 300 feet) to Highway 79 South at its signalized
intersection with Margarita Road. Under current conditions, queues on Margarita Road extend past
Dartolo Road. Adding traffic to this intersection would create longer queues that would negatively
impact operation of the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and add more delay to
traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a signalized
intersection than are leaving the intersection, which would result in longer wait times for vehicles
wishing to go through the intersection, thus forming long queues. If the traffic signal were removed
in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be allowed
to/from Dartolo Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but
would make this location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79 South
as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario. In addition, there would be only a small
positive benefit (550 fewer ADT) to De Portola Road if direct site access is not provided via De
Portola Road. De Portola Road can accommodate the additional project generated traffic with the
De Portola access scenario.
Under Alternative 4, providing alternative site access via Dartolo Road rather than De Portola Road
increases queuing on Highway 79 South and would result in increased delays to traffic on Margarita
Road, while a small positive benefit is achieved for De Portola Road. Thus, adverse traffic and
circulation impacts of this Alternative would be greater than those associated with the project.
Biological Resources
Under Alternative 4, a vehicular bridge would need to be constructed across the flood control
channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site. Although the flood control channel
Table 5-2
Segment Operations – Access from Dartolo Road Alternative
Existing Existing +
Cumulative Projects
Existing +
Cumulative Projects
+ Project Street Segment Existing Capacity
(LOS E) a
ADTb LOSc ADT LOS ADT LOS
De Portola Road
West of Pio Pico Road 14,000 6,600 C 7,500 C 8,650 D
East of Pio Pico Road 14,000 7,000 C 7,900 C 9,050 D
Margarita Road
De Portola Road to Dartolo
Road 36,000 23,500 B 31,500 D 34,365 E
Dartolo Road to Highway 79
South 36,000 23,500 B 31,600 D 34,465 E
Footnotes:
a. City of Temecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum LOS threshold (Appendix D).
b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
c. Level of Service
Alternatives to the Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-14
is a man-made structure, it contains riparian vegetation such as willows, cottonwoods, and wetland
vegetation such as cattails and bulrushes. Due to the type of habitat that is present in the flood
control channel, the channel is likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
definitions. Construction of a bridge, with supports outside of the channel, would avoid streambed
alteration, the placement of fill material in the channel, and encroachment into the jurisdictional
areas. Impacts to riparian vegetation would not be completely avoided. Because of the type of
habitat created by the channel and pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), focused surveys would need to be conducted to determine
the presence/absence of the Least Bell’s Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. If either of
these endangered birds is found, bridge construction schedules and activities would have to be
modified to avoid impacts to the birds’ reproductive cycle.1 Both the Least Bell’s Vireo and the
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher are federally and state-listed endangered species and protected
under the MSHCP.
Pursuant to the MSHCP and the California Environmental Quality Act, burrowing owl surveys were
required for the proposed project and would apply to this Alternative as well. Focused surveys
were completed as part of the proposed project analysis. The study documenting the surveys
concluded that no burrowing owls are present at the project site. Refer to Appendix E for the
burrowing owl focused survey report.
The impact to biological resources under this alternative would be greater than the proposed
project because of potential impacts associated with construction of the bridge. A jurisdictional
delineation would be required for the alternative, and consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers would be recommended. Additionally, the potential for impacts to 2 endangered bird
species exists under this alternative, and impacts to riparian vegetation would require additional
mitigation.
Conclusion
Traffic and biological resource impacts of Alternative 4, Access from Dartolo Road, could be greater
than those associated with the proposed project. Queues on Margarita Road would negatively
impact operations at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and would add more delay
to traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a
signalized intersection than are leaving this intersection, which results in longer wait times for
vehicles wishing to go through the intersection; thus, long queues form. If the traffic signal were
removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be
allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor
but would make this location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79
South, as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario. Additionally, the biological impacts of
Alternative 4 would be greater than those of the proposed project, as the Initial Study found that no
biological impacts would result from the project.
This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with
construction and operation of the proposed project. The alternative would, however, attain each of
the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant.
1 AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment. September 14, 2004.
Alternatives to the Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5-15 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Alternative 5: Access from De Portola Road and Dartolo
Road
Alternative 5 was conceived as a means of providing a third access to the site in conjunction with
the construction of Phase II. The De Portola Road access, as described for the proposed project,
would be provided with Phase I, with access limited to right-turns and inbound left-turns. Outbound
left-turns would be prohibited. Upon construction of Phase II, this alternative would require a third
access via an extension of Dartolo Road, as described above for Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4,
Alternative 5 would involve the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the project site and the
construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the project site.
A detailed traffic analysis was conducted for Alternative 5 as part of the traffic study Addendum
(Appendix D). As with the proposed project, the project driveway on Highway 79 South was
assigned the majority of the project trips. Utilizing Dartolo Road as an access point in the later
phases of the project would provide direct access to Margarita Road at a signalized intersection.
According to City staff, there has been some discussion to remove the traffic signal at the Dartolo
Road/Margarita Road intersection. However, currently there are no plans to do so.
This analysis focuses only on the traffic and biological resource impacts associated with this
alternative since otherwise, the project would remain the same as proposed. The discussion is
drawn from the traffic study Addendum contained in Appendix D.
Transportation
Tables 5-3 and 5-4 show the intersection and roadway segment analysis results for Alternative 5.
The analysis uses as a threshold the City’s goal for intersections and street segments to operate at
LOS D during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Table 5-3 shows that LOS D or better would be
achieved at the key intersections during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, with mitigation.
Table 5-4 shows that the De Portola Road street segments are projected to operate at LOS D or
better on a daily basis. However, the Margarita Road street segments are calculated to operate at
LOS E with the addition of cumulative project and project traffic. This impact would be significant.
Alternatives to the Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-16
Table 5-3
Alternative 5
Project Phase I Intersection Operations
(Access to De Portola Road)
Existing + Cumulative Projects
+ Project Phase I Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Delaya LOSb
AM 22.0 C De Portola Road/Margarita Road SIGNAL PM 38.2 D
AM 9.7 A De Portola Road/Project Driveway OWSCc
PM 13.2 B
AM 17.9 B Margarita Road/Dartolo Road SIGNAL PM 12.6 B
AM 53.8 Dd
Margarita Road/Highway 79 South SIGNAL
PM 54.9 Dd
AM 22.5 Cd Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country
Glen SIGNAL
PM 46.6 Dd
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. OWSC – One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major street left-turn in delay is reported.
d. LOS with planned mitigation.
Alternatives to the Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5-17 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Tables 5-5 and 5-6 show the analysis results for the Alternative 5 at build-out, with both the De
Portola Road and Dartolo Road accesses provided. Table 5-6 shows that operations are anticipated
to be LOS D or better at the key intersections during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, with
mitigation.
Table 5-6 shows that the De Portola Road street segments are projected to operate at LOS D or
better on a daily basis. However, the Margarita Road street segments are projected to operate at
LOS E with the addition of cumulative and project traffic. This impact would be significant.
With the extension of Dartolo Road, the same queuing concerns on Margarita Road cited above
for Alternative 5 would occur due to the current traffic signal at Dartolo Road/Margarita Road. This
queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection then are leaving
this intersection, which results in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go through the
intersection; thus, long queues form. If the traffic signal was removed in the future at the Margarita
Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This
would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make this location much
less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79 South.
Table 5-4
Project Alternative
Project Phase I Segment Operations
(Access to De Portola Road)
Existing + Cumulative Projects
+ Project Street Segment Existing Capacity
(LOS E) a
ADTb LOSc
De Portola Road
West of Pio Pico Road 14,000 8,440 D
East of Pio Pico Road 14,000 8,840 D
Margarita Road
De Portola Road to Dartolo
Road 36,000 32,570 E
Dartolo Road to Highway 79
South 36,000 32,670 E
Footnotes:
a. City of Temecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum
LOS threshold (Appendix D).
b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
c. Level of Service
Alternatives to the Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-18
Table 5-5
Alternative 5
Total Project Intersection Operations
(Access to De Portola Road and Dartolo Road)
Existing +
Cumulative Projects +
Total Project
Intersection
Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Delaya LOSb
AM 22.7 C De Portola Road/Margarita Road SIGNAL PM 43.4 D
AM 9.6 A De Portola Road/Project Driveway OWSCc PM 13.4 B
AM 24.0 C Margarita Road/Dartolo Road SIGNAL PM 25.7 C
AM 53.0 Dd
Margarita Road/Highway 79 South SIGNAL
PM 54.6 Dd
AM 35.4 Cd Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country
Glen Way SIGNAL
PM 52.1 Dd
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. OWSC – One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major street left-turn in delay is reported.
d. LOS with mitigation of a traffic signal and other conditioned intersection improvements.
Alternatives to the Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5-19 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Biological Resources
With Alternative 5, a vehicular bridge would need to be constructed across the flood control
channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site. Although the flood control channel
is a man-made structure, it contains riparian vegetation such as willows and cottonwoods, and
wetland vegetation such as cattails and bulrushes. Due to the type of habitat that is present in the
flood control channel, the channel is likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers definitions. Construction of a bridge, with supports outside of the channel, would avoid
streambed alteration, the placement of fill material in the channel, and encroachment into the
jurisdictional areas. Impacts to riparian vegetation would not be completely avoided.
Because of the type of habitat created by the channel and pursuant to the Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), focused surveys would need to be
conducted to determine the presence/absence of the Least Bell’s Vireo and the Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher. If either of these endangered birds is found, bridge construction schedules and
activities would have to be modified to avoid impacts to the birds’ reproductive cycle.2 Both the
Least Bell’s Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher are federally and state-listed endangered
species and protected under the MSHCP.
2 AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment. September 14, 2004.
Table 5-6
Alternative 5
Total Project Segment Operations
(Access to De Portola Road and Dartolo Road)
Existing + Cumulative Projects +
Project Street Segment Existing Capacity
(LOS E) a
ADTb LOSc
De Portola Road
West of Pio Pico Road 14,000 9,220 D
East of Pio Pico Road 14,000 9,620 D
Margarita Road
De Portola Road to Dartolo
Road 36,000 34,400 E
Dartolo Road to Highway 79
South 36,000 33,090 E
Footnotes:
a. City of Temecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum LOS
threshold (Appendix D).
b. Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
c. Level of Service
Alternatives to the Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-20
Pursuant to the MSHCP and the California Environmental Quality Act, burrowing owl surveys were
required for the proposed project and would apply to this Alternative as well. Focused surveys
were completed as part of the proposed project analysis. The study documenting the surveys
concluded that no burrowing owls are present at the project site. Refer to Appendix E for the
burrowing owl focused survey report.
The impact to biological resources under this alternative would be greater than the proposed
project because of potential impacts associated with construction of the bridge. A jurisdictional
delineation would be required for the alternative, and consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers would be recommended. Additionally, the potential for impacts to 2 endangered bird
species exists under this alternative, and impacts to riparian vegetation would require additional
mitigation.
Conclusion
Alternative 5 would not avoid the significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project.
The extension of Dartolo Road as part of Phase II would not substantially divert traffic from the
proposed primary entrance on Highway 79 South nor the De Portola secondary entrance.
Biological resource impacts associated with Alternative 5 would be greater than those associated
with the proposed project. The Initial Study found that no biological impacts would result from the
project.
This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with
construction and operation of the proposed project. The alternative would, however, attain each of
the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant.
Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only
Alternative 6, Construction of the Hospital Only, would result in a smaller development with no
medical office buildings, cancer center, or fitness rehabilitation center. This alternative is considered
as a means to reduce the overall impact of the proposed project while still providing the community
with a regional hospital.
Alternative 6, similar to the proposed project, would have no significant impact with regard to
agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and
utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a project with a reduced building
footprint and less building area, and the analysis in the Initial Study indicates that the proposed
project will not create significant impacts in these areas.
Aesthetics
As with the project, Alternative 6 would result in development of a 408,160-square-foot hospital
structure, including towers of 5 and 6 stories. The overall mass of the development would be
reduced by the development of a smaller portion of the project site, but a similar visual effect would
result relative to the scale of the two hospital towers. As with the project, this Alternative would
Alternatives to the Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5-21 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
involve placement of the towers in the center of the site and ensuring that any such hospital is
c o m p a t i b l e w i t h s u r r o u n d i n g u s e s i n t e r m s o f building materials and landscaping, Extensive
perimeter landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the buildings would be provided. Incorporation
of these project features would minimize aesthetic impacts.
Like the proposed project, Alternative 6 would result in increased nighttime lighting impacts due to
streetlights, automobile headlights, and security and outdoor lighting. The General Plan includes
policies and programs to minimize nighttime lighting to protect Palomar Observatory operations
and to minimize impact on surrounding uses. The City adopted Riverside Outdoor Lighting
Regulations (Ordinance 655) that also minimize impacts to the Palomar Observatory. These
policies and ordinance would be implemented on the project level and be required under
Alternative 6. Thus, this alternative would result in aesthetic impacts similar to those of the
proposed project.
Air Quality
Air quality impacts with this alternative would be reduced since no medical office buildings, cancer
center, or fitness rehabilitation center would be built, and both stationary and mobile source
emissions would be comparably reduced. A decrease in vehicle trips would result in reduced
pollutant emissions and thus reduced air quality impacts. Also, because the scale of construction
would be reduced, construction-related pollutant emissions would be comparably reduced.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar to the proposed project, development of the site under Alternative 6 would result in an
increase in urban pollutants released into downstream areas due to storm runoff. With Alternative
6, construction of commercial uses would require a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, which sets forth Best Management Practices in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) permit to reduce stormwater pollution. Compliance with existing regulations such as the
RWQCB MS4 permit would reduce impact to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed
project.
Land Use and Planning
With this Alternative, as with the proposed project, a General Plan Amendment would be required
to eliminate the Z2 overlay area. Also, the applicant would need a Zone Change to facilitate the
development and the hospital tower heights in particular. The reduced scale of the project could
allow for greater setbacks, which could create increased buffer zones to minimize noise impacts
associated with mechanical equipment, and which could allow for enhanced landscaping around
the hospital.. While land use and planning impacts would be similar, the indirect result could be to
reduce noise impacts.
Noise
Noise impacts are closely tied to traffic volumes. Alternative 6 would result in 2,890 fewer total
daily trips to and from the project site due to the absence of the medical office buildings.
Therefore, this alternative would have a marginally reduced traffic noise impact relative to the
proposed project because fewer trips would be generated.
Alternatives to the Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-22
Outdoor noise sources would be reduced due to fewer on-site uses. The increased setbacks would
provide the opportunity to locate mechanical equipment more toward the interior of the site and
thus avoid potential impact on the nearest residential uses. However, because the helipad would
remain as part of the project, helicopter noise impacts could be significant and unavoidable, like the
proposed project.
Transportation
Alternative 6 would result in 2,890 fewer total daily trips to and from the project site due to the
absence of the medical office buildings. Under Alternative 6, traffic generation and resulting levels
of service (LOS) would be reduced compared to the proposed project.
Conclusion
Alternative 6 would result in reduced impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, and transportation
since there would be a reduction in the total footprint of development. Therefore, the visual
impact, trips generated by the project and short- and long-term air quality impacts would be less
than those associated with the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with mechanical
equipment could be reduced.
While Alternative 6 meets the City’s objectives to encourage future development of a regional
hospital and related services, and ensure compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding
uses, Alternative 5 fails to meet the City’s objective to support development of biomedical,
research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s economic and employment base. Furthermore,
Alternative 6 does not meet applicant’s objective to provide a regional hospital facility that includes
standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices since it would
result only in construction of the hospital, and would not provide the same levels of rehabilitation or
any of the medical office uses stated in the applicant’s objectives.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Table 5-7 summarizes the impacts of each of the Alternatives relative to the project.
Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally
superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR
must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Based on
the above analysis, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, is identified as the Environmentally
Superior Alternative.
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
CI
T
Y
O
F
T
E
M
E
C
U
L
A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5 -2
3
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Ta
b
l
e
5
-
7
Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
t
o
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Im
p
a
c
t
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
:
No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
–
No
B
u
i
l
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
:
No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
–
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Un
d
e
r
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
:
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
S
i
t
e
Co
r
o
n
a
F
a
m
i
l
y
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
4
:
Ac
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
Da
r
t
o
l
o
R
o
a
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
5
:
Ac
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
De
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
Da
r
t
o
l
o
R
o
a
d
Alternative 6: Construction of the Hospital Only
Ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
G
r
e
a
t
e
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
Reduced
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
G
r
e
a
t
e
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
Similar
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
Gr
e
a
t
e
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
Reduced
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
Si
m
i
l
a
r
U
n
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
Gr
e
a
t
e
r
Gr
e
a
t
e
r
Similar
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Similar
Ge
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
S
o
i
l
s
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Similar
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Av
o
i
d
e
d
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Similar
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Av
o
i
d
e
d
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Similar
La
n
d
U
s
e
a
n
d
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
Re
d
u
c
e
d
G
r
e
a
t
e
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
Reduced
Mi
n
e
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
Similar
No
i
s
e
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
Re
d
u
c
e
d
G
r
e
a
t
e
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
Similar
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Similar
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
Similar
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
Similar
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
v
o
i
d
e
d
Gr
e
a
t
e
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
G
r
e
a
t
e
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
Reduced
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
Av
o
i
d
e
d
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Similar
Me
e
t
s
a
l
l
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
o
f
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
?
No
N
o
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Ye
s
No
Alternatives to the Project
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5-24 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Alternative 1, No Project – No Build would avoid all impacts since no development would occur
and the land would remain vacant; however, this alternative meets none of the project objectives.
Alternative 2 would reduce land use and planning impacts but would not achieve the City’s
objective to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, nor the
applicant’s objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and
surrounding communities.
Alternative 3 would achieve each of the project objectives, but aesthetic, land use and planning,
and noise impacts would be greater than those associated with the proposed project. The
biological impacts of Alternative 3 are also uncertain because a biological assessment would need
to be performed.
Alternatives 4 and 5 would meet the all of the project objectives but would result in greater impacts
with regard to biological resources and transportation. Traffic impacts would be greater since
queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact operations at the Highway 79 South/Margarita
Road intersection and would add more delay to traffic on Margarita Road. Impacts to jurisdictional
waterways and riparian vegetation communities would result from the construction of the vehicular
bridge across the flood control channel.
Although Alternative 6 fails to meet many critical project objectives, it is considered the
Environmentally Superior Alternative since it has the potential to reduce more environmental
impacts compared to the rest of the Alternatives considered in this EIR.
6.0 Cumulative and
Long-Term Effects
The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 et seq. require discussion of cumulative impacts, growth-
inducing impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes resulting from a project. The
following addresses each of these issues as they relate to the development and operation of the
proposed regional hospital in Temecula.
Cumulative Effects
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15355) define a cumulative impact as “…an impact which is created
as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects
causing related impacts.” The Guidelines further state that “…an EIR should not discuss impacts
which do not result in part from the evaluated project.”
Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of cumulative impacts of a project
“…when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” Cumulatively considerable,
as defined in Section 15065(c), “…means that the incremental effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
An adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts requires either “…a list of past, present,
and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those
projects outside the control of the lead agency” or “…a summary of projections contained in an
adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which
has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions
contributing to the cumulative impact.” This cumulative impact analysis evaluates impacts based
primarily on 21 related projects identified by the City of Temecula. Discussions with City of
Temecula staff and the authors of the most recent traffic study conducted in the area indicated that
The Apis Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by RK Engineering Group in December 2002 should
be utilized as the source of other development project information in the area. Further information
regarding these projects can be found in Appendix D, Traffic Impact Analysis. The 17 cumulative
projects analyzed in the Apis Plaza study were supplemented with 4 additional projects for which
applications have been submitted between December 2002 and August 2005.
Aesthetics
As summarized in Section 4.1 Aesthetics, the proposed project will not result a significant impact on
the viewshed of residential lots north of De Portola Road. Therefore, the proposed project will not
result in a cumulative viewshed impact.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
6-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Cumulative and Long-Term Effects
The proposed project and cumulative projects will allow for new housing units and commercial,
industrial, and institutional development within the southern portion of Temecula. Cumulatively,
these projects have the potential to increase the amount of artificial light sources throughout the
area, which could interfere with operations at Mount Palomar Observatory. However, all projects
will be required to comply with the outdoor lighting restrictions of Ordinance No. 655 related to
Mount Palomar Observatory. Compliance with this ordinance will reduce the impacts of skyglow
on the Observatory to below a level of significance. Therefore, the proposed project will not result
in cumulative lighting impacts on Mount Palomar Observatory operations.
Air Quality
The goal of the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and other
agencies involved in air quality protection is to reduce the amount of average daily vehicle trips, as
well as the distance traveled by vehicles, within the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin). This goal is
aimed at reducing the primary sources of air pollutant emissions in the Basin: automobiles and
trucks. The SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan encourages local jurisdictions to adopt and
implement land use policies that balance employment opportunities and housing so that residents
do not have to travel far for jobs, entertainment, and other needs.
As discussed in Section 4.6, Transportation of this EIR, vehicle trips associated with the proposed
project, other known projects, and ambient growth will increase vehicles on area roadways. These
trips will all contribute to increased pollutant loads locally and within the Basin as a whole.
Cumulative impacts will be partially reduced by implementation and achievement of emissions
levels identified in the AQMP and air quality components within the Temecula General Plan.
However, given that the proposed project itself will result in emissions in excess of SCAQMD
thresholds, the cumulative effect will be significant as well. Potential short- and long-term
cumulative air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable despite mitigation incorporation
described in Section 4.2, Air Quality and measures imposed on other projects as well.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The project site lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District. Drainage patterns and the quality, velocity, and composition of runoff
will be altered by large-scale grading of areas planned for construction, as well as the creation of
impervious surfaces, including roads, driveways, parking lots, patios, and similar surfaces. Runoff
entering storm water drainage systems is anticipated to contain minor amounts of pollutants typical
of urban use, thereby potentially impacting downstream water quality. Siltation resulting from
exposed ground surfaces from grading, prior to establishment of landscaping, and construction of
structures and hard surfaces also may affect downstream water quality.
Impacts related to runoff and siltation will be controlled on a project-by-project basis by adherence
to requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Typical measures
to implement the NPDES program could include covering all outside storage facilities, vegetated
swales, detention basins with filtration systems, and monitoring programs. The NPDES system has
been put in place to address cumulative, regional impacts. Continued implementation of the
NPDES permitting requirements will reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 6-2
Cumulative and Long-Term Effects
Potential cumulative impacts related to flooding will be minimized through implementation of
design standards required by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and
by adherence to the to the Flood Control District’s Master Drainage Plan. Therefore, cumulative
impacts related to flooding will be less than significant.
Land Use and Planning
The proposed project and cumulative growth will result in changes to existing land uses. Vacant
properties will be developed pursuant to the recently updated Temecula General Plan, leading to
intensification of housing, commercial, and industrial development throughout southern Temecula.
As concluded in Section 4.4, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project will not result in the
introduction of incompatible uses in the area if the General Plan Amendment is approved by the
City Council, the Council has determined to be consistent with the General Plan. All other
proposed projects must either be consistent with the General Plan, which has been formulated to
achieve compatible land use patterns, or deemed to be acceptable by the Planning Commission
and/or City Council in actions to approve projects. Each proposed development project will be
subject to the City’s development review process and, if discretionary actions are needed, may
undergo an environmental review process, as prescribed by CEQA. This review would address
potential land use compatibility issues and planning policy conflicts. Therefore, cumulative land use
and planning impacts are considered less than significant.
Noise
Increased development within the broader project area will increase traffic volumes and associated
roadway noise levels. Significant noise levels already exist along many of the transportation
corridors in the City and project area. As noted in Section 4.5, Noise, the project’s contribution to
cumulative traffic noise will not be significant.
With regard to stationary noise sources, at the individual project level, the City will continue to
ensure that new buildings are constructed according to State acoustical standards. Furthermore,
City implementation of General Plan Land Use and Noise Element policies aimed at avoiding
land/use noise compatibility conflicts will reduce cumulative noise impacts to a less than significant
level.
Transportation
New residential, commercial, industrial, and other development occurring throughout the project
area will increase the number of vehicle trips to, through, and from the surrounding area. Future
traffic volumes and levels of services are discussed in Section 4.6, Transportation.
Vehicle trips from the project and related projects are anticipated to create or add to traffic
congestion on Highway 79 South, especially near the I-15 ramps, and at selected roadway
segments and intersections. The twenty-one (21) cumulative projects generate a total of 160,500
ADT with 5,560 trips in the AM peak hour and 6,130 trips in the PM peak hour (2,209 inbound
and 1,489 outbound). Some vehicle trips would be confined to the area (short trips), while others
would travel outside the project area to surrounding counties and urban centers and affect the
regional transportation system. Adverse impacts to the circulation network would occur if
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
6-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Cumulative and Long-Term Effects
roadway improvements and trip reduction measures and programs are not implemented. The
mitigation discussion in Section 4.6, Transportation identifies some of the regional roadway
improvements that will be pursued to accommodate anticipated future traffic volumes. Also,
other roadway system enhancements will be pursued over the long term to implement the
recently updated General Plan Circulation Element.
In accordance with City of Temecula regulations, each development project will be assessed its fair
share for identified roadway improvements. Payment of the City's traffic impact fees will allow the
City to fund signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation programs and improvements
necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at local intersections.
Increases in traffic generated by new development are generally anticipated to be mitigated to less
than significant levels through payment of fair share fees and citywide and project-level roadway
improvements. As summarized Section 4.6, Transportation, the proposed project will not result in
any cumulative impacts to intersections, but the following roadway links will continue to operate
over capacity:
Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway
Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road
Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road
Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at project build-out will be significant and unavoidable.
Furthermore, some intersections near I-15 will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into
the future. Cumulative impacts, as noted in the General Plan EIR, will be significant and
unavoidable.1
Growth-Inducing Impacts
The CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of “...ways in which the project could foster economic or
population growth... in the surrounding environment”, including the project’s potential to remove
obstacles to population growth. For example, the provision of major infrastructure may encourage
or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.
The project site is located within an area of Temecula that is fully served by urban infrastructure
systems. The proposed hospital/medical office complex represents an infill development that will
provide no excess infrastructure capacity; water, sewer, and storm water systems are in place to
support the level of development proposed. Thus, the project does not have any components or
features that could induce further growth at the site or into previously undeveloped areas.
The project is a regional hospital facility that will provide new jobs, and these new jobs could
potentially induce support development (e.g., additional medical-related businesses) in the
surrounding area. The surrounding community is nearly built out with or entitled for residential
dwellings, and surrounding vacant land is zoned for commercial and professional office use.
Medical-related businesses would be permitted in these existing zones. The proposed project,
1 Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH #2003061041), Page 5.13-23. Certified April
12, 2005.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 6-4
Cumulative and Long-Term Effects
therefore, is not anticipated to induce population or jobs growth beyond that which is already
planned for and anticipated by adopted land use policies.
Temporary construction work related to the project is expected to be accomplished by existing
construction workers in the regional area; a permanent influx of new construction workers to the
area will not be required.
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Construction and day-to-day operations of the proposed project will use nonrenewable resources.
During construction, the use of building materials (e.g., aggregate, sand, cement, steel, glass) and
energy resources (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity) would be largely irreversible and
irretrievable. Energy would be consumed in processing building materials and for transporting these
materials and construction workers to the site.
Institutional structures can be expected to have a life span of approximately 50 years. The
resources consumed during project operation will be in quantities proportional to similar projects in
Southern California. Title 24 (Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code) energy conservation
standards are mandatory and will be applied to the project. Vehicles used by employees and
visitors of the hospital will consume motor fuel; however, these activities are part of normal
operations and are not considered a significant or wasteful use of resources. Water will be
consumed by the project and in operation of the project’s buildings and irrigation. Mandatory
water conservation standards, including ultra-low toilets, low-water shower heads and faucets, and
other features, will be applied to the project. Considering the long life span of the project, the
nonrenewable resources consumed for this project are insignificant compared to the total annual
use of resources regionally. Therefore, no short-term or long-term significant adverse impacts on
nonrenewable resources are expected to result from the project.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
6-5 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Cumulative and Long-Term Effects
This page is left intentionally blank.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 6-6
7.0 Preparers of the EIR
Lead Agency
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589
Emery Papp, Senior Planner
Planning Department
Tel: (909) 694-6400
Fax: (909) 694-6477
Email: emery.papp@cityoftemecula.org
Project Applicant
Universal Health Services, Inc.
Universal Corporate Center
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Vice President: Donald Pyskacek, AIA, ASHE
Tel: (610) 768-3300
Fax: (610) 992-4560
Consultants to the Lead Agency
Environmental Consultant
P&D Consultants.
800 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 270
Pasadena, CA 91101
Principal-in-charge: Laura Stetson, AICP
Project Manager: Jeff Henderson, AICP
Environmental Planner: Peter Choi
Environmental Planner: Debra Leight
Graphics: Paul Levinson
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 7-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Preparers of the EIR
Tel: (626) 304-0102
Fax: (626) 304-0402
Traffic Consultant
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
4542 Ruffner Street
San Diego, CA 92111
Principal: John Boarman
Transportation Planner: Jose R Nunez Jr.
Tel: (858) 300-8800
Fax: (858) 300-8810
Noise Consultant
Wieland Associates, Inc.
23276 South Pointe Drive, Suite 114
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Principal: David Wieland
Senior Associate: Jonathan Higginson
Tel: (949) 829-6722
Fax: (949) 829-6670
Biological Consultant
AMEC Earth & Environmental
3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92507
Principal Investigator: Chet McGaugh
Tel: (909) 369-8060
Fax: (909) 369-8035
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 7-2
Preparers of the EIR
Water Supply Assessment
RBF Consulting
3536 Concours, Suite 220
Ontario, CA 91764
Project Manager: Ron Craig
Tel: (909) 581-0196
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 7-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Preparers of the EIR
This page is intentionally left blank.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 7-4
8.0 References
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment. September 14,
2004.
California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions.
California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/ Date accessed: August 11, 2005.
CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District. May, 1993 with
updates through 2001.
City of Temecula General Plan, adopted April 2005.
City of Temecula, Public Works Department. NPDES information.
http://www.cityoftemecula.org/cityhall/pub_works/landDev/npdes.htm Date accessed: August 10,
2005.
County of Riverside. Outdoor Lighting Regulations – Ordinance 655. Effective July 6, 1988.
Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses, Bell 222 Twin Jet
Helicopter. February 1984.
Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an
Experimental Study. April 15, 1987.
Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 1995.
Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC Company). Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional
Medical Center. November 2004.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. 2003.
Parker, John. H. A Concise Dictionary of Architectural Terms. Dover Publications. June, 2004.
Regulation Compliance Inc. Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study. December 16,
2004.
Riverside County Flood Control District. “About the District.”
http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/districtsite/ Date Accessed: August 9, 2005.
Riverside County Flood Control District. “Area Drainage Fees.”
http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/Downloads/Area_Drainage_Plain_Summary.pdf.
CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 8-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
References
Riverside County Storm Water Clean Water Protection Program. Riverside County Water Quality
Management Plan for Urban Runoff, Santa Ana River Region and Santa Margarita Region.
September 17, 2004.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) “Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation
Rates.” April 2002.
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego
Basin (9). http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb9/programs/basinplan.html. 1994.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Data 1990-2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 8-2