Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16-28 CC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 16-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE RECIRCULATED SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT ON THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-026) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE ' AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment, on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project'). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a ' duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. Resos 16-28 1 D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, Resos 16-28 2 KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and ' permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1 ) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts, (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 Resos 16-28 3 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment, PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571 , Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201 , PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental Resos 16-28 4 Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di testify either in support or opposition to this matter. DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141 , a Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. GG. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public Resos 16-28 5 hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. HH. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission heard, was presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during the hearing. II. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- 05 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and adopted Resolution No. 15-06 recommending that the City Council certify a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report with a Statement of Overriding Considerations for noise impacts, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. JJ. On July 27, 2015, prior to the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing scheduled for the project, staff received a letter from legal counsel representing the Los Ranchitos Homeowners' Association concerning the noise analysis, alternatives analysis, project description, and feasible mitigation measures contained within the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project. At the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing the City Council continued the application off calendar to provide time to revise the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to address the comment letter through a Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. KK. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, reconsidered the Application and the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on May 4, 2016, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. LL. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA13-0141 and adopt a Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report with a Statement of Overriding Considerations for noise impacts, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. MM. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1 . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental ' effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, Resos 16-28 6 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency-, or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. NN. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 00. Environmental impacts identified in the Final Recirculated SEIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV of Exhibit A to this Resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. PP. Environmental impacts identified in the Final Recirculated SEIR that are found to be less than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V of Exhibit A to this Resolution. QQ. Environmental impacts identified in the Final Recirculated SEIR as potentially significant but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A to this Resolution. RR. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution. SS. A discussion of the project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. TT. Public Resources Code section 21081 .6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. UU. On May 24, 2016, the City Council considered the Final Recirculated SEIR for the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time Resos 16-26 7 interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. W. Prior to taking action the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, as well as oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring additional environmental review or re-circulation of the Recirculated SEIR under CEQA because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, nor was any substantial increase in the severity of any previously disclosed environmental impacts identified. WW. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the written and oral comments on the Draft Recirculated SEIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final Recirculated SEIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues. ' B. Determine that the Final Recirculated SEIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. C. Certify that the Final Recirculated SEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. D. Declare that the Final Recirculated SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Recirculated SEIR, the responses to comments on the SEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the Recirculated SEIR under CEQA. Section 3. Certification of the Final SEIR. The City Council hereby certifies the Final SEIR, adopts the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution Resos 16-28 8 (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final Recirculated SEIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit A, by itself, would justify proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final Recirculated SEIR or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings. Section 4. Conditions of Approval. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Development Plan (PA13-0141) each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B. Section 5. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. Section 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 24th day of May, 2016. /) Micha S. Nag ar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Clerk [SEAL] Resos 16-28 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16-28 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Rahn, Naggar NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards Randi Johl, City Clerk Resos 16-28 10 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1. Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code§ 21000,et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000,et seq.(the"Guidelines")provide that no public agency shall approve or cavy out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report("EIR")has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Specific economic,social,or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA,the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project(the"project"I.as more fully described in the Final Recirculated Supplemental EIR(SEIR).These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings,comments on the Draft SEIR,comments on the Recirculated Draft SEIR the written responses thereto,and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. II. ProiectObiectives. As originally established in the 2006 EIR,and set forth in the Draft SEIR and Recirculated Draft SEIR,objectives that the City of Temecula seeks to achieve with this project(the"Project Objectives") are as follows: • Provide for superior,easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; • Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices,cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; • Support development of biomedical,research,and office facilities to diversify Temecula's 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; • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light,visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. 1 In addition,objectives that the Applicant seeks to achieve with this project are as follows: • 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;and • Provide medical offices,a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. 111. Effecb Determined to be Less Than Sienifrcant/No Impact in the Initial Study The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in November 2013,to determine potential significant effects of the project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type.The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A)Agricultural and Forest Resources;(B)Air Quality;(C)Biological Resources;(D)Greenhouse Gas Emissions;(E) Cultural Resources;(F)Geology and Soils;(G)Hydrology and Water Quality;(H)Land Use and Planning;(1)Mineral Resources; (J)Population and Housing;(K) Public Services;(L)Recreation;(M) Transportation and Traffic;and(N)Utilities and Service Systems. In addition,aesthetic issues regarding ' scenic vistas,scenic resources within a state scenic highway,and visual character were determined not to be significant. The project would not result in significant impacts related to routine transport of hazardous materials, hazardous emissions, location of a hazardous materials site, public airports, emergency response plans,or wildland fire hazards. The project would also not result in significant impacts related to groundborne vibration and groundbome noise,or noise impacts related to a public airport. Impacts related to the following issue areas were found to be potentially significant and were studied in the SEIR: (A)Aesthetics(light and glare);(B) Hazards and Hazardous Materials(safety in vicinity to private airstrip);and(C)Noise. A. On December 2,2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082,the City published a Notice of Preparation(NOP)of a Draft SEIR and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations,and persons that may be interested in the project.The NOP requested comments within 30 days of the notice.On December 11,2013, in accordance with CEQA Section 15082(cx 1)of the Guidelines,the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft SEIR.No comments were received on areas other than those already found to be potentially significant in the Initial Study. IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Sienificant Without Mitigation in the SEIR The Recirculated SEIR found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas.The less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below,based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Recirculated SEIR. 2 A. Aesthetics Potential Impact: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(ax 1),the City finds that"changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment." No standard conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The total number of anticipated helistop operations is,on average. approximately eight times per month, which can occur at any time of the day or night. Helicopter landing lights during the approach to the interim helistop will be directed forward toward the helistop touchdown and liftoff(TLOF) lighting that identifies the location of the helistop. During use of the permanent helistop,the landing light will be focused on the top of the hospital tower. The helicopter's landing lights would focus forward at an angle toward the helistop, not downward upon non-hospital uses,and would not spillover onto adjacent uses. The height of the permanent helistop location would further reduce lighting on non-hospital ground uses. The distance from the interim helistop site to the nearest residential property line is approximately 225 feet,and the distance from the permanent helistop to the nearest residential unit is approximately 305 feet. Because of the distance,and the focused lighting within the urban environment,the use of standard helicopter lights during periodic helicopter flights would not result in significant impacts. ' In addition.the lighting used to facilitate the safe transport of patients between the helistop locations and the hospital would be intermittent and would be activated after the helicopter has landed and turned off before its departure. The lighting would be directed to the specific areas where safe pass-through is needed and would be oriented to avoid off-site light spillover onto adjacent properties,consistent with City lighting standards. Lighting not regulated by the FAA or Caltrans Aeronautics will comply with City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Municipal Code,and Ordinance 655. For the interim helistop, spill-over would also be reduced through landscaping, shielding of light fixtures,and intermittent use. Lighting on the permanent helistop would be directed toward the interior of the roof top to avoid casting shadows on adjacent properties. Lighting would also be consistent with the existing hospital lighting and lighting from surrounding uses, not affecting viewers' nighttime vision. The project would also not introduce substantial glare to the project area because the project would construct the interim and permanent helistops and storage buildings with typical building materials, which would not create substantial daytime glare. Any daytime glare from the helicopter would be intermittent, as the helicopter would only be temporarily parked on the helistop between patient loading and unloading approximately eight times per month. Because of the limited and temporary source of potential glare from implementation of the project, impacts related to glare are less than significant. Potential Impact: The project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to lighting and glare. Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(ax 1).the City finds that"changes or ' alterations have been required in. or incorporated into,the project which mitigate or avoid the significant 3 ' effects on the environment."and determines that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No standard conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The project will have a limited contribution to existing nighttime lighting, and with compliance to City lighting requirements, would not result in significant impacts related to nighttime lighting and glare. As with the proposed project, the cumulative projects would be required to be consistent with the City's Design Guidelines, Municipal Code,and Ordinance 655, which includes requirements to minimize illumination levels onto adjacent property lines,direct lighting down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels, and the use of low pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures. As a result, implementation of the lighting and glare generated from the City-compliant lighting at the already developed hospital site that would include the new interim and permanent helistop and storage building when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to lighting and glare. Cumulative impacts are less than significant. B. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potential Impact: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(ax I), the City finds that"changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project which mitigate or avoid the significant ' effects on the environment." No standard conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Proposed flight paths will route incoming flights from the east and departing flights would leave the helistop heading west,and have been designed to avoid the existing five-story building, trees, light poles, and utility lines. The proposed flight paths also consider the predominant wind direction and avoid low altitude Flying over residential areas. The proposed storage building is 22 feet high(lower than the main hospital building), and located outside of the two proposed flight paths for the interim helistop, and would not interfere with incoming or departing flights. Implementation of these flight paths that are consistent with FAA and Caltrans design requirements,the airport land use plan,and operating under approvals from these agencies would reduce safety hazards to both persons in the helicopter and people residing or working in the project area. As a result, impacts related to substantial safety risks for people residing or working in the project area would be less than significant. Potential Impact: The project would not result in cumulatively considerable impact related to the safety of people residing or working in the project area. Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1),the City finds that"changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment,"and determines that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No standard conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required or recommended. ' Facts in Support of Finding: Hazard related impacts typically occur in a local or site-specific context versus a cumulative context combined with other development projects,although it is possible for 4 combined effects of hazards to occur by adjacent cumulative development that involves hazardous risks. Several projects are in the vicinity of the project area: however, none would involve helicopter landing or other aviation-related uses. Furthermore, except for development of the hospital, none would involve building heights that would extend into the planned flight path,such that a hazardous event on the project site or related to the helicopter travel would result in cumulative impacts. A limited increase in air traffic in the project vicinity would be generated from the project, which would adhere to all safety regulations. The existing regulations related to the heliport design and flight path,and the required FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics,and ALUC review and approvals, reduce the potential for hazardous conditions and provide safety measures such that a cumulatively adverse condition would not occur from implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore and as noted above, the proposed project site is not within 2 miles of a private or public airport and would not result in any other changes in existing air patterns. Flight paths to and from the project site would be regulated by the FAA and must meet FAR Part 77 obstruction clearance standards. These design considerations and the limited number of helicopter flights that would occur by the proposed project would ensure that the project's contribution to hazards impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.Therefore,the effect of the heliport project in combination with the cumulative development in the project vicinity would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to the safety of people residing or working in the project area. Hence, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. C. Noise ' Potential Impact: The project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(ax I),the City finds that "changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment." No standard conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from the project are completely contained on the hospital campus. Permanent average noise increase(CNEL) resulting from the proposed helistop project would not result in a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula General Plan. No residential areas would experience a significant permanent noise(CNEL) impact from the proposed helistop facilities as defined by Title 21 of the State Aeronautics Act. No residential areas or other sensitive uses would experience a significant permanent(CNEL) noise impact as defined by Section 5.1.2 of the Riverside County ALUCP. Further,operation of the proposed storage building would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level in the SEIR Potential Impact: The Recirculated SEIR identified the potential for the project to cause significant environmental impacts in the area of temporary construction noise. ' Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(ax 1), the City finds that"changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project which mitigate or avoid the significant 5 ' effects on the environment" This impact is Less Than Significant after the implementation of project design features, standard conditions of approval,or mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding: Construction of the proposed helistop locations and storage building would use the same types of equipment that have been(and would continue to be) used to construct the hospital facilities. Development of the relocated interim helistop and new storage building would not increase temporary construction activity noise levels beyond those generated by construction of the other hospital facilities,which were previously analyzed in the approved 2008 Final SEIR. Other hospital facilities,such as the roadways, parking lots,and future building sites are located closer to sensitive receptors than the proposed storage building. Hence,the maximum noise from construction on the project was previously evaluated,and there would be no substantial increase in construction noise impacts as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Finally,the construction related mitigation measures from the previously approved 2008 Final SEIR and 2011 Addendum to the 2008 Final SEIR were incorporated by reference into the Recirculated SEIR,and would be implemented to mitigate construction related noise impacts to noise to a less than significant level. VI. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitiestion As a result of the environmental analysis of the project, the City has determined that either(I) even with the identification of project design features,compliance with existing laws,codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures,potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant,or(2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to ' mitigate the potentially significant impact. The City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(aN 3)and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)that"Specific economic,legal,social, technological,or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." In the environmental areas of noise there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable,as discussed below. A. Noise Potential Impact: The project may expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies. Finding:The City makes the above finding in accordance with CEQA Section 21091(ax3)and CEQA Guidelines 15091(ax3)and determines that this potentially significant impact is Significant and Unavoidable. Facts in Support of Finding: The project would result in temporary and periodic exceedances of the City's Noise Ordinance(Section 9.20.040)as helicopters arrive and depart the proposed helistops.The City's Noise Ordinance states that noise cannot be generated that would result in the exterior sound level on single-family residential land uses to exceeding 65 dB Lmax, and 65-70 dB Lmax for multi-family residential.The duration of the maximum single-event noise listed in Table 3.3-9 of the Recirculated SEIR would be limited occurring approximately eight times per month(four departure operations and four arrival operations)as the helicopter is approaching and departing the helistop. In prevailing wind ' conditions(for a majority of flights to and from the hospital),the noise generated by helicopter flights to 6 ' and from the interim helistop would exceed the City's exterior noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites listed in Table 3.3-9, and would result in a maximum noise level of 93.4 dB Lmax at Site 6A,the equestrian trail. In Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter overflight noise would exceed the City's exterior noise standard at all of the receptor sites and result in a maximum noise level of 100.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail.Table 3.3-10 of the Recirculated SEIR shows the single-event noise levels (Lmax)that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the permanent helistop that would be located on the roof of the future hospital tower, which would be developed in Phase IV of the hospital development. As shown, in prevailing wind conditions,noise from helicopter operations to and from the permanent helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites and would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax at Site 7,the Madera Vista apartments. In Santa Ana wind conditions,the exterior short-term noise standard would also be exceeded at 9 of the 10 receptor sites and result in a maximum noise level of 87.8 dB Lmax at Site 7,the Madera Vista apartments. Although medical helicopter noise is exempt from the City's Municipal Code standards(per Code Section 9.20.030),and flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances and cannot be restricted due to noise(per California's Public Utilities Code(PUC)Section 21662.4.(a)),noise from medical helicopters would substantially exceed the City's maximum exterior sound levels for single-and multi- family residential uses(as identified Tables 3.3-9 and 3.3-10 of the Recirculated Draft SEIR). As a result, implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to the exceedance of noise standards. ' Potential Impact:The project may cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels. Finding:The City makes the above finding in accordance with CEQA Section 2108l(a)(3)and CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3)and determines that this potentially significant impact is Significant and Unavoidable. Facts is Support of Finding: Pursuant to the allowable noise levels in the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 9.20.040),the project would result in substantial temporary and periodic increases in noise levels at sensitive receptors as helicopters arrive and depart the proposed helistops. Limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to California's PUC Section 21662.4.(a),which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night,or restrict flights due to noise. As a result,the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. However,changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to reduce the helicopter noise related safety hazards at the equestrian trail and to require pilots to use and be trained on the approved flight paths,maintain a log of helicopter activity to ensure compliance with the flight paths, make contact information for registering noise complaints publicly available,and establish a community working group that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues.The mitigation measure below is required in order to reduce this impact to the extent practicable. However, it would not reduce the limited but substantial noise levels ' generated from helicopter overflight from both the interim and permanent helistops to less than significant levels.Therefore, impacts related to exposure of persons to noise in excess of the allowable noise levels 7 ' regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels, and cumulatively considerable single-event noise impacts from helicopter overflights are significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure NOI-l: Prior to issuance of a City permit allowing helicopter operations at the interim helistop, the Temecula Valley Hospital shall prepare and implement a Heliport Operations Plan which requires the following measures: • Prior to helicopter operations,Temecula Valley Hospital shall develop and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital site.The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design, preparation, and installation of the sign,as well as all related costs. • All helicopter operations at the interim and permanent helistop locations shall use the approved flight paths, unless safety precautions require a diversion from any of the flight paths. • Temecula Valley Hospital service contracts with air medical companies shall require that all pilots be routinely trained to ensure that optimum arrival and departure flight paths procedures are followed for each helicopter type that serves Temecula Valley Hospital. Pilots would be instructed in the use of the approved approach and departure flight paths. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall maintain a log of helicopter activity which shall include a ' detailed record of the type of reason for the trip, and date and time of arrival and departure. If a diversion from prescribed flight paths occurs,the reason for diversion shall be recorded in the log. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall make contact information for registering noise complaints publicly available. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall establish a community working group that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues. Potential Impact: The project would result in cumulatively considerable single-event noise impacts from helicopter operations due to the level of the single-event noise that would result from helicopter overflight and because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. Finding: The City makes the above finding in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3)and CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3) and determines that this potentially significant impact is Significant and Unavoidable. Facts in Support of Finding: None of the cumulative projects listed that are near the project site would involve helistop locations or any other aviation-related uses. Nearby cumulative projects involve commercial,office, and residential development that would not result in substantial noise generation. Furthermore, there are no proposed uses that would generate noise, such that it would combine with noise from helicopter flights to result in a significant cumulative impact. The closest cumulative projects are ' adjacent to the project site and consist of a medical office building, a surgery center, and a professional 8 office building.These uses are complementary and consistent with the hospital uses,and would not generate noise that would combine with the helicopter noise from the project. However,although the above mitigation measure would reduce the project's helicopter noise related safety hazard to the equestrian trail and would require pilots to use and be trained on the approved flight paths, maintain a log of helicopter activity to ensure compliance with the flight paths, make contact information for registering noise complaints publicly available,and establish a community working group that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues, limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to PUC Section 21662.4. (a),which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flights due to noise.The City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. Therefore, it is anticipated that off-site sensitive receptors would experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels that would be above the allowable noise levels of the City's Zoning Ordinance during helicopter operations. Impacts related to substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels in excess of the Noise Ordinance standard from helicopter overflights would be significant and unavoidable. Given the significance of the single-event noise impacts,and in an effort to provide a conservative approach as mandated by CEQA, noise impacts from helicopter operations are deemed to be cumulatively considerable. VII. Project Alternatives A. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated In the SEIR CEQA requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)).According to the CEQA Gumlines,alternatives should be those that would attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the project(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6).The"range of alternatives" is governed by the"rule of reason,"which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). CEQA requires that feasibility of alternatives be considered. Among the factors that can be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR is failure to meet most of the basic Project Objectives, infeasibility,or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)) CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1)further states that among the factors that may be taken into account in determining feasibility are: site suitability;economic viability;availability of infrastructure;general plan consistency;other plans and regulatory limitations;jurisdictional boundaries:and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire,control or otherwise have access to an alternative site. Furthermore,an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative,and that would not achieve the basic project objectives.The following alternatives were initially considered but were eliminated from further consideration in the Recirculated SEIR because they do not meet the majority of the project objectives,do not avoid or substantially lessen the project's significant impacts,and/or were otherwise determined to be infeasible. 9 Medical Office Building Sites. As more particularly described in the Recirculated SEIR, Phase 11 of the construction of the hospital campus, which is to occur next,includes development of Medical Office Building(MOB) I and a 325-space parking facility;therefore, the location for MOB I and its parking facility is not available for helistop use. Additionally,the MOB I site is visible from the existing hospital parking lot and from Temecula Parkway, which would make security fencing and lighting more visible in the MOB I location than from the proposed interim helistop location. Furthermore,a helistop at the MOB I location would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur from the proposed project. Because of the volume of helicopter noise,there is no on-site location that would reduce the significant noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations to less than significant levels.Thus, use of the MOB 1 location for the interim helistop was eliminated from further consideration. Upon completion of Phase 11,MOB 2 and a 300 space parking facility would be developed adjacent to the MOB 1 site,rendering the MOB 2 site unavailable for use after Phase 11. The MOB 2 site also has additional constraints making it an infeasible alternative. Specifically,the flight path required would result in low-altitude helicopters flying over Temecula Parkway and obstruction clearance constraints with the MOB I building. Additionally, power lines along the northern side of Temecula Parkway would require red obstruction lights and additional red obstruction light poles would need to be installed on hospital property,creating additional aesthetic and hazard impacts. Furthermore,a helistop at the MOB 2 location would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would ' occur by the proposed project. Due to the volume of helicopter noise,there is no onsite location that would reduce the significant noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations to less than significant levels.Thus,the use of the MOB 2 location for use as the interim helistop was eliminated from further consideration. Future Building Sites as Interim Helistop Site Alternative. As more particularly described in the Recirculated SEIR,the future building and infrastructure locations that are part of the approved hospital campus facilities are not available for the interim helistop location. In addition, none of these locations would avoid or substantially lessen the significant noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations,and were eliminated from further consideration. Phase 11 requires installation of a water-quality infrastructure system at the southeast comer of the site that includes an infiltration storm chamber system to receive drainage from a majority of the site. The detention basin and storm chamber area cannot be located under a structure,and therefore the southeast comer of the site is unavailable for use either as buildings or the interim helistop facility. Additionally, the flight path for a helistop in the southeast comer of the hospital site would result in low-altitude helicopters flying over Temecula Parkway, and would have obstruction clearance constraints related to the trees in the adjacent drainage that would require approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies to trim,and thus impacts related to hazards would occur. In addition,the existing power lines along the northern side of Temecula Parkway would require additional red obstruction lighting to be installed, which would result in aesthetic impacts. A helistop in this site is also likely to result in low- altitude flights over residential areas both to the south of Temecula Parkway(the Country Glen residential ' area) and to the east of the drainage(the Madera Vista apartments),which would result in noise impacts to residential areas. The southeast corner of the site would also be more visible and would not reduce 10 significant noise impacts. Therefore,the use of this location was eliminated from further consideration. Use of the future building site that is located on the western portion of the project site for the helistop would result in a flight path that would have low-altitude helicopters flying over Temecula Parkway and Dona Lynora Road, which are both adjacent to the western portion of the project site and could result in hazards due to drivers distracted by helicopter operations. Also,helicopter activity from this location would pose airspace obstruction-clearance conflicts with the power lines: and therefore would be required to include red obstruction lights or additional red obstruction lighted poles would need to be installed on the hospital property. adjacent to Temecula Parkway. This would result in hazards and aesthetics impacts. In addition, low-altitude helicopters would travel over residential areas,office uses and likely the equestrian trial, resulting in significant and unavoidable noise impacts. A helistop at the future building site in the western portion of the project site would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur by the proposed project,as all on-site helistop locations would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to noise. This site would be more visible than proposed interim helistop, which would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project. Thus,the use of this location for the helistop was eliminated from further consideration. The future building site located in the eastern portion of the hospital site to the south of the City-approved helistop and to the east of the existing hospital building is closer to sensitive receptors than both the proposed interim and City-approved helistop sites. As a result, use of this site for the helistop could result in greater impacts to sensitive receptors than the proposed project and would not reduce the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur by the proposed project. In addition,this future building site would have obstruction clearance conflicts related to the trees in the adjacent drainage,which would penetrate the transitional surface of a flight path from this location and would result in greater hazards impacts than the proposed project.Thus,the use of the future building site in the eastern portion of the project site for the interim helistop would result in greater noise and hazards related impacts, and significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur from the proposed project would not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, developing a helistop in this portion of the project site was eliminated from further consideration. The future building site to the north of the City-approved helistop site and south of De Portola Road is surrounded by sensitive receptors that include the equestrian trail, the Los Ranchitos residential area,and other single family residential uses along De Portola Road. Noise from helicopter operations from a helistop in this location would directly impact these sensitive uses to a greater degree than the proposed project;thus, it would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur from the proposed project. In addition, the interim helistop would be visible to travelers along De Portola Road, and impacts related to aesthetics would also occur.Thus, impacts to sensitive receptors from the helistop and helicopter operations to and from this location would be greater than the proposed project, and the use of this location for the helistop was eliminated from further consideration. B. Alternatives Considered in the SEIR The alternatives addressed in the Recirculated SEIR were identified in consideration of one or more of the following factors: 1. The extent to which the alternative could avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the proposed project: 11 2. The extent to which the alternative could accomplish basic objectives of the proposed project; 3. The feasibility of the alternative; 4. The requirement of the CEQA Guidelines to consider a"no project"alternative;and to identify an"environmentally superior"alternative in addition to the no project alternative(Section 15126.6(e)). The Recirculated SEIR analyzed five project alternatives.These alternatives are rejected for the various reasons stated below. 1. Alternative One—No Project/Existing Condition Alternative Summary of Alternative: The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative assumes that the existing condition would continue and that the City-approved helistop would not be developed. In addition, none of the required implementation measures,such as installing obstruction lights on the Madera Vista apartment buildings, realignment of the flight path,adding a second egress/ingress flight path, or trimming the trees within the drainage adjacent to the hospital that would require approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies, would be completed.The proposed storage building would also not be developed. Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative as Infeasible: The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed project's less-than-significant impacts because the helistop facility would not be developed and helistop lighting would not be installed. However,this Alternative would result in greater impacts related to hazards,as the landing site does not meet the standards of the FAA's Heliport Design Guide or the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics criteria for a helistop,and pilots need to divert from the existing flight path depending on wind conditions. This alternative would also have similar or potentially greater impacts related to raise than the proposed project.The significant and unavoidable noise impacts would not be reduced under this alternative, and additional or more intense impacts could result that would not occur from the proposed project. Therefore,the No Project(Existing Condition Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. In regard to meeting the project objectives,the No Project(Existing Condition Alternative would only partially meet the project objectives of providing superior,easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula because the helicopter does transport patients as necessary. However, because existing use of the EMS site has not completed full FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics review and approval,and has varied flight patterns due to wind conditions and pilot discretion,the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes, noise impacts, hazards impacts,and other environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project.Therefore,the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative on the basis that hazard impacts would increase, noise impacts would not be avoided or substantially lessened,and the No ' Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council further finds that each of these grounds separately and individually 12 provide sufficient justification for rejection of this Alternative. Accordingly, the Council rejects the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative as infeasible. 2. Alternative Two—No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative Summary of Alternative: The No ProjecdCity-Approved Helistop Alternative assumes that none of the requested project approvals are granted;that the proposed storage building would not be developed, and that the City-approved helistop would be developed.The City-approved helistop would include a 60-foot by 60-foot helistop that would be developed on a 5.5-foot-high berm located near the northeast corner of the hospital,approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line.This alternative would include the City-approved flight path that would travel both to and from the helistop over the recently constructed Madera Vista apartment buildings in a southeasterly direction, and a second flight path (as listed as a condition in the FAA's airspace determination letter)that would travel both to and from the helistop over the Los Ranchitos single-family residential areas north of the project site.This Alternative would also involve the addition of obstruction lights on the top of the two-story Madera Vista apartment buildings, and removal or trimming of trees within the offsite riparian area that is adjacent to the project site as required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The ability to install the off-site lighting on the roof of the apartment buildings is not under the control of the applicant or the City, but these lights would be requested to be installed by the owner of the apartment buildings. If the owner of the apartment buildings refused to install the lights,the applicant would be required to rotate the southeastern flight path clockwise as required by Caltrans Aeronautics, resulting in frequent crosswind conditions for pilots during approaches and departures. Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative as Infeasible: This Alternative may require installation of red obstruction lights on the roof of the Madera Vista apartment buildings, which is not in the control of the applicant or City, and if installed. would result in greater lighting impacts. In lieu of red obstruction lights on the Madera Vista apartment buildings, because new residential uses are within the current City- approved flight path,Caltrans Aeronautics Division would require Temecula Valley Hospital to rotate the single proposed flight path clockwise(approximately 36 degrees)to clear the Madera Vista multi-family residences to the east, resulting in a near crosswind condition for pilots on approach or departure. Regarding noise, for a majority of helicopter operations(prevailing winds at the interim and permanent helistops), the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in greater maximum single- event noise than the proposed project. This Alternative would exceed the exterior short term noise standard at fewer receptor locations than both the proposed interim and permanent helistops under both prevailing and Santa Ana conditions. However, direct overflight of the Los Ranchitos neighborhood and potentially the Madera Vista multi-family residences would not be avoided. The No Project/City- Approved Helistop Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project's less-than- significant impacts related to aesthetics and hazards, and similar or slightly reduced noise impacts that would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. In regard to meeting the project objectives, the No Project'City-Approved Helistop Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project) meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. However, it would not meet the objectives of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes, hazards impacts. 13 aesthetics(lighting),and other environmental conditions,or incorporating buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses to the same extent as the proposed project. Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project/City Approved Helistop Alternative on the basis that there would be greater impacts related to aesthetics and hazards, and the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Altemative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council further finds that each of these grounds separately and individually provide sufficient justification for rejection of this Alternative. The Council therefore rejects the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative as infeasible. 3. Alternative Three—Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative Summar' of Alternative: The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed interim helistop at a different location on the project site, which would be at ground level in the southwestern portion of the project site,approximately 144 feet north of Temecula Parkway and approximately 275 feet from the western boundary of the project site.This alternative would include an east-west flight path that would cross the front of the hospital site as it runs parallel to(and 144 feet north of)Temecula Parkway. It would also travel over existing commercial and institutional uses (i.e.. the Rancho Community Church and Christian Schools).This helistop would include the same design, lighting,and security features as the interim helistop. However, red obstruction lights would be required on(or next to)several Southern Califomia Edison(SCE)power poles along Temecula Parkway to warn pilots of their locations at night. Implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path design approvals pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria(Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,and FAA). This alternative would include development of the proposed one-story, 5,000 square foot storage building. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative as Infeasible: The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed project due to a more visible helistop with security fencing, lighting, and potentially lighting poles. Specifically, this Alternative would be required to install red obstruction lights on several SCE power poles along Temecula Parkway. Should SCE not allow modification of these poles, new poles with red lighting would be required to be installed on hospital property adjacent to the existing light poles to ensure adequate obstruction lighting for this Flight path. One of the existing power poles is located directly south of the site and would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of this proposed flight path, requiring this light pole be lighted at night with red obstruction lights. This alternative would result in additional nighttime lighting, and potentially additional lighting pole structures along the roadway. The hazards impacts by this alternative would be greater and potentially significant due to the Flight path that would run parallel and adjacent to Temecula Parkway. Objects would penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR) Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport on both sides of the flight path,which would adversely impact operational safety. Specifically, an existing power pole would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of the interim alternative's Flight path and the planned and approved ' MOB 2 would penetrate the northern 2:1 transitional surface. Also, should SCE refuse to permit obstruction lights on its existing poles, the site would require additional poles equipped with obstruction 14 lights to be erected on hospital property between the SCE poles and the helistop. This introduces new, closer airspace obstructions. Further,the flight path of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative in prevailing winds not only travels parallel to Temecula Parkway, a major arterial and state highway, but also across the frontage of the existing hospital, and flights would land on the helistop on the ground. Hence,the helicopters would reduce altitude (or increase altitude)as they cross the frontage of the operating hospital site and land on the helistop that is 114 feet away from Temecula Parkway. This helicopter activity would be adjacent to pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle travelers on the roadway and would be large-scale forefront activity,and increased risk of driver and bicyclist distraction along Temecula Parkway during helicopter operations could increase traffic accident potential,or could cause confusion/distraction to patients and visitors entering the facility by personal vehicle. In addition, helicopter landings and take-offs 114 feet away from Temecula Parkway could impact pedestrian safety along the sidewalk that front the hospital and bicyclist safety on Temecula Parkway due to rotorwash(winds generated from the helicopter). While noise would be somewhat less than the proposed project, the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would continue to result in significant unavoidable noise impacts because helicopter noise would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels and would directly impact residential areas. This alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing winds (for a majority of flights)and at 8 of the 10 receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. This is the same number of receptors during prevailing winds and 2 fewer receptors during infrequent Santa Ana winds as compared to the proposed interim location. Receptor Sites '_, 3,6A. 6B, and 8, which are located furthest away from the alternative interim helistop eask'west flight path, would generally experience lower maximum short-term noise levels than from the proposed interim helistop. Conversely. Sites 1 and 5,which are in close proximity to the alternative's east/west flight path, would generally experience greater maximum short-term noise levels under this alternative during prevailing and Santa Ana winds than as compared to the proposed interim helistop location. Therefore, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. The Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives. The Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would be less accessible and less operational efficient because it would be located further away from the emergency department, and ground transport to and from the helipad would traverse more parking lot area than the proposed interim site. This increases the patient transport time as well as the opportunity for conflict with cars, future pedestrian and Medical Office building traffic and therefore decreases accessibility and operational efficiency. Also, the aeronautical agencies' review and approval process required by this alternative, which the interim helistop has already undergone, would further delay its implementation. More importantly, however,Caltrans Division of Aeronautics would not permit the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path due to operational safety concerns. Accordingly, the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula, providing for a regional hospital campus designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the art facility, or ensuring compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards 15 impacts. Therefore,the Alternative Interior Helistop Site Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. Finding: The City Council rejects the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative on the basis that there would be greater impacts related to aesthetics,greater and potentially significant impacts related to hazards, and the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would continue to result in significant unavoidable noise impacts because helicopter noise would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels and would directly impact residential areas. Further,the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative is inconsistent with applicable helipad operational safety regulations and policies. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,as the State of California's heliport permitting authority, would not permit the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a Flight path due to operational safety concerns. Finally, the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council further finds that each of these grounds separately and individually provide sufficient justification for rejection of this Alternative. The Council therefore rejects the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative as infeasible. 4. Alternative Four— Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative Summary of Alternative: The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would ' develop and operate helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location until start of Phase IV of the hospital project,at which time the helistop would be relocated to the proposed interim helistop site. After completion of the future hospital tower, the permanent helistop(on the roof of the new tower) would be operational and the interim helistop site would be removed. This alternative includes northeast/southwest Flight paths,and because helicopters would be arriving and departing from ground level, flights would travel at a lower altitude over the Madera Vista apartment buildings and over the existing hospital parking lot than would occur by use of the permanent helistop that would be on the roof of the future tower.The ground level helistop in this Alternative would include the same design. lighting, and security features as the interim helistop. In addition, red obstruction lighting would be required on the southeast comer of the lower hospital structure,on the roof of the Madera Vista apartment buildings, and potentially on light standards in the hospital parking lot that is adjacent to Temecula Parkway. Implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path design approvals pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria(Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA). Reasons for Rejecting Alternative as Infeasible: This alternative would be required to install red obstruction lights on the southeast comer of the lower hospital structure,on the roof of the Madera Vista apartment buildings, and potentially on light standards in the hospital parking lot that is adjacent to Temecula Parkway. With the additional red obstruction lighting that would be required for the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative that would be visible from Temecula Parkway, this altemative would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project. 16 Further, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative would create greater and potentially significant hazards impacts as compared to the proposed interim site. The planned and approved MOB I and MOB 2 buildings may penetrate the northern transitional surface of the flight path for the ground level helistop at the future tower site, which generates a potential hazard impact. In addition,depending on the timing of development of the planned"future building site" located on the southeast corner of the project site,the future building in this location could penetrate the southern transitional surface, generating an additional potential hazard impact. Further, due to the flight paths from the future tower location, helicopter activity would be a low-altitude event that would cross over pedestrians,bicycles and vehicle travelers in the hospital driveway, parking lot,and Temecula Parkway. This would be a large- scale forefront activity that could cause distractions to drivers in the driveway, parking lot, and along the roadway and lead to vehicle accidents, or could cause confusion/distraction to patients and visitors entering the facility by personal vehicle. In addition, helicopter landings and takeoffs crossing Temecula Parkway at a low altitude could impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety along the sidewalk that fronts hospital due to rotorwash. The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative would experience similar noise as compared to proposed interim site and would not avoid or substantially lessen the project's significant and unavoidable noise impacts. The noise from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a maximum noise level of 94.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 93.7 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions. In comparison, the noise from the interim helistop location ' would be 93.4 dB Lmax, in prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana conditions. Therefore, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a maximum noise level that is 1.4 dB Lmax greater in prevailing wind conditions(for a majority of flights), and 7.1 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana conditions than the proposed interim helistop. Further, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed exterior short tern noise standard at the same number of sensitive receptors for a majority of flights than the proposed interim site(one less receptor under infrequent Santa Ana conditions). A comparison of Table 4-7 (single-event noise levels from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative)and Table 3.3-9(single-event noise levels from the interim helistop)shows that Receptor Sites I, 2,6A,68,6C (the three sites along the equestrian trail), and 9 would experience lower maximum noise levels from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative than by the proposed interim helistop location; however, Sites 3,5 and 7 would experience greater maximum noise levels by the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative in both prevailing and Santa Ana winds,compared to the proposed interim helistop location. Sites 3. 5 and 7 are located adjacent to the densely populated Madera Vista Apartments and Country Glen Community and would impact more receivers than the Sites at the non-residential equestrian trail and lower density residential uses within the Los Ranchitos community. Finally, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative would necessarily be relocated to the proposed interim site during construction of the medical tower, which is estimated to take approximately three years. During this period, it would experience identical noise impacts as the interim site. The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would continue to result in a significant unavoidable 17 impact because helicopter noise from the alternative would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors. Overall,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project related to aesthetics and hazards, and noise impacts would be similar to the proposed project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Altemative would not fully meet the project objectives. The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would require two interim helistop sites, each with new operating plans that could be disruptive to operations of hospital, especially the transfer of emergency patients. Also,the aeronautical agencies' review and approval process required by this alternative, which the interim helistop has already undergone, would further delay its implementation. More importantly, however.Caltrans Division of Aeronautics would not permit the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77. 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a Flight path due to operational safety concerns. Accordingly, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula, providing for a regional hospital campus designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the art facility,or ensuring compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terns of aesthetics and hazards impacts. ' Therefore, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. Finding: The City Council rejects the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative on the basis that there would be greater impacts related to aesthetics,greater and potentially significant impacts related to hazards, and similar noise impacts that would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Further,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative is inconsistent with applicable helipad operational safety regulations and policies. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, as the State of California's heliport permitting authority, would not permit the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77. 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a Flight path due to operational safety concerns. Finally, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council further finds that each of these grounds separately and individually provide sufficient justification for rejection of this Alternative. The Council therefore rejects the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative as infeasible. 5. Alternative Five—Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative Summary of Alternative: The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Altemative would develop the helistop on the roof of the existing five-story hospital building and would have northeast/southwest Flight paths, similar to those identified for the permanent helistop. In addition, this Alternative would implement the same design, lighting, and security features as the permanent helistop, and no additional obstruction or 18 lead-in lighting would be required. The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would include development of the storage building. The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would require helistop and Flight path design approvals pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria(Riverside County ALUC.Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA); and seismic upgrades would be required pursuant to the California Building Code(CBC): including the following: • Gravity Support Modifications: (I) Strengthen roof beams by welding cover plates or tees to the beams; (2)Strengthen beam connections by fillet welding;and(3) Strengthen the full length of approximately eight structural building columns with cover plates.This structural work would impact use of the following hospital areas during construction: a. First Floor: parts of kitchen, main housekeeping, pharmacy, and the only service corridor b. Second Floor: two intensive care unit rooms, patient mentoring room. respiratory services work room,and main corridor c. Third Floor: five patient rooms and corridor d. Fourth Floor: five patient rooms and corridor e. Two patient elevators would need to be modified to go to the roof • Pile Foundation Modifications: Strengthen the pile foundations of the hospital ' structure by adding piles. This structural work would impact the use of the first-floor kitchen, main housekeeping, pharmacy. and the service corridor during construction. • Framing Modifications: Strengthen the building moment frames and braced frames that support the seismic bracing system. This structural work would impact medical surgery patient rooms throughout the tower, the emergency department, pharmacy, and kitchen areas. • A fuel/water separator would need to be installed on the rooftop, the fire suppression system would need substantial upgrades.and the existing rooftop heating, ventilation. and air conditioning(HVAC)system may need to be replaced. Construction of these improvements could take approximately 16 months. Exterior construction areas or near construction equipment(such as cranes), would also be unusable,and would affect hospital operations. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative as Infeasible: The proposed interim helistop site would be required to install lead-in lights that would not be required for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer impacts related to the amount of required lighting than the proposed interim helistop. Overall, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project related to aesthetics and similar impacts related to hazards. In regard to construction noise impacts, because the hospital is a sensitive receptor and construction would occur during its operations,construction noise would be greater under this alternative 19 than the proposed project. Helicopter-generated noise would continue to be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise levels and the existing ambient noise levels. Thus, noise related to operation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, because the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced aesthetics impacts, similar hazard impacts. greater construction noise impacts,and reduced operational noise impacts, it is the environmentally superior alternative. In regard to meeting the project objectives,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital including: extending the elevator to add a rooftop stop, installing equipment by crane over operating hospital areas to the rooftop, and implementing substantial upgrades to the fire suppression and structural systems of the building. The construction activities that would be required to implement these necessary building upgrades would hinder use of the existing hospital facilities because of the noise, vibration,and potential hazards related to rooftop construction. During construction of this alternative, portions of the existing hospital would be unusable. such as the rooms on the top Floor and areas nearby or underneath construction equipment, such as cranes,and would result in operational impacts to the hospital, which would not occur from the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would he extremely disruptive to operations of hospital. In addition, the full review and permitting processes required by this Alternative, which the interim site has already undergone, would further delay the introduction of a permitted helistop facility. Accordingly,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency ' medical services within the City of Temecula and providing for a regional hospital campus, including hospital facility,designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. Overall,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. Finding: The City Council rejects the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Alternative on the basis that it would be extremely disruptive to operations of the hospital, would impair and/or preclude use of important hospital facilities during construction, and does not fully meet the project objectives. On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this alternative are outweighed, independently and separately, by the failure of this alternative to provide the same level of beneficial attributes as the Project. The City Council further finds that each of these grounds separately and individually provide sufficient justification for rejection of this Alternative. In light of these considerations, this alternative is considered infeasible and has been rejected in favor of the proposed project. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. A summary comparison of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives and the proposed project is provided in Table I. Each of the alternatives would result in significant and unavoidable noise impacts because the alternatives would result in noise that would substantially exceed the City's allowable noise limit and the existing ambient noise in the project vicinity. ' The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced aesthetics impacts, similar hazard impacts,and less helicopter noise impacts(particularly at the interim helistop). As a result, 20 the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable and,this alternative would require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital, which would not occur from the proposed project.This alternative would severely disrupt hospital operations, including impairing and/or precluding use of important hospital facilities during construction. Further, the full review and permitting processes required by this Alternative. which the interim site has already undergone, would further delay the introduction of a permitted helistop facility. Overall, this would interfere with the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula and providing for a regional hospital campus, including hospital facility,designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. Therefore,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would not fully meet the objectives of the proposed project. 21 TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT Future Tower No Project/ No Project/City- Location as Impact Proposed Existing Approved Alternative Interim Helistop Existing Hospital Category Project Condition Project Interim Site Site Roof Helistop Site Aesthetics Lessthan Fewer Greater Greater Greater fewer Significant Hazards Lessthan Greater Greater Greater, Potentially Greater Similar Significant Significant Noise Significant and Similar or greater, Similar or fewer, Fewer, but Similar. Significant Greater Unavoidable Significant and but Significant Significant and and Unavoidable construction and Unavoidable and Unavoidable Unavoidable fewer operations, but Significant and Unavoidable Meets the Yes Yes, but not to the Yes, but not to the Would not fully Would not fully Yes, but not to the project same extent as the same extent as the meet project meet project same extent as the objectives proposed project proposed project objectives related objectives related to proposed project, in regards to in regards to to hospital hospital operations as it would be hazards and access routes and operations and and compatibility of disruptive to compatibility with hazards compatibility of development existing hospital adjacent development related to aesthetics operations development related to aesthetics and hazards and hazards 22 D. The Project as Proposed I. Summary of Project The project is described in detail in the Recirculated Final SEIR. 2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the Recirculated Final SEIR and has compared them with those of the proposed project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for reasons set forth above. The City Council further finds that the project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interests of the public and achieve the project goals of providing superior,easily accessible,operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state-of-the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop locations would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses. More specifically, the project as proposed would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses and would respond to requirements of the FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. and addresses various impacts to recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. ' STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project(the"project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social,technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FIR or elsewhere in the administrative record.The reasons for proceeding with this project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, legal, social,technological and other benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable noise impacts generated by helicopter activities. In making this finding,the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project. A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either ' lessen project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible.and furthermore, that 23 ' alternatives to the project are infeasible because they generally have similar impacts,or they do not provide the benefits of the project, or are otherwise infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. B. The proposed project would provide for superior,easily accessible,operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. C. The proposed project would be a critical part of a disaster response plan that would benefit the City of Temecula and the greater region in the event of a disaster. D. The proposed project would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state-of-the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities when ambulance transport is inappropriate or not advantageous to patients. E. The proposed project would facilitate time-sensitive,emergency care that will save lives. Temecula Valley Hospital provides specialty services that are not available all hospitals, including being a STEM) Receiving Center and an accredited Advanced Primary Stroke Center. The project will allow patients to be Flown in to the hospital to receive time- sensitive, life-saving care, particularly for heart attacks and strokes. The project will also provide more rapid transfers out of the hospital for specialty service not available at the hospital particularly for critical pediatric care, bum patients, and trauma patients. F. The proposed project would reduce noise and safety conflicts with adjacent residential development, as compared to the previously approved helistop site by rerouting the (light paths to avoid crossing residential uses and locating the Flight paths over less developed areas as well as aligning flight paths with prevailing or Santa Ana wind conditions,which allows for maximum control over the aircraft. G. As compared to the previously approved helistop site, the proposed project would reduce safety conflicts and biological impacts with the existing tall trees within the adjacent riparian area, which the Federal Aviation Administration would require to be trimmed or removed under the currently approved Flight path and helistop location. H. The proposed project would meet aeronautical agency design safety guidelines for helistops to ensure safe and efficient use of airspace, including Federal Aviation Administration, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,and the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. Thus, the proposed Major Modification would provide a benefit to the community by enhancing access to specialized medical procedures in the region,and would provide a benefit to the local community by reducing effects and improving safety over the existing approved helistop location. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the project outweigh the ' identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the 24 ' project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final Recirculated SEIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. 1 25 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Impact Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initiale Date Remarks Noise Mitigation Measure NOW:Prior to issuance of a City permit allowing Ongoing Temewla Valley City of Temecula Field verification helicopter operations at the interim helistop.the Temecula Valley Hospital Hospital Building Official and sign-off by shall prepare and implement a Heliport Operations Plan which requires the following measures or other City of Temecula • Prior to helicopter operations.Temecula Valley Hospital snail Develop Designee and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital sae.The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital.The sign will include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users.The Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design. preparation. and installation of the sign,as"ll as all related costs. • All helicopter operations at the mtenm and permanent Wistop locations shall use the approved Right pathsunless safety precautions require a diversion from any of the flight paths. • Temecula Valley Hospital service contracts with air medical companies shall require that all pilots be routinely trained to ensure that optimum arrival and departure Right paths procedures are followed for each helicopter type that serves Temecula Valley Hospital.Pilots would be instructed in the use of the approved approach and departure Right paths. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall maintain a log of helicopter activity which shall include a detailed record of the type of reason for the trip, and dale and time of arrival and departure.If a diversion from prescribed flight paths occurs.the reason for diversion shall be recorded in the log. • Temewla Valley Hospital shall make contact information for registering noise complaints publicly available. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall establish a community working group that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues. Aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4. Temecula Valley Hospital Hekstop Project 1 ESA/1306S2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program March 2016